Posted on 07/27/2005 8:26:28 PM PDT by CHARLITE
If the Supreme Court continues using "evolving standards of decency" to interpret the Eighth Amendment, it may soon declare it cruel and unusual punishment to subject double-talking politicians like Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois to questioning by Tim Russert, host of NBC's "Meet the Press."
Russert put Durbin on the rack last Sunday, torturing the poor man with his own contradictory words.
When Durbin was first elected to the U.S. House, you see, he was pro-life. Now, as a pro-abortion member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is expected by left-wing groups to enforce his party's pro-abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. With the nomination of Judge John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Durbin is showing every sign of living up to those expectations.
Back in 1983, as Russert pointed out, Durbin "believed that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided" and supported "a constitutional limit to ban all abortions." Durbin, Russert said, wrote to a constituent: "The right to an abortion is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution."
Durbin did not contest Russert's characterization of his formerly pro-life, anti-Roe views. "I'll concede that point to you, Tim," he said.
In 1983, it should be noted, Roe was 10 years old, and Rep. Durbin was a 39-year-old Georgetown Law School graduate with many years of legal and political experience. In 1973, when Roe was decided, he served as legal counsel for the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee. From 1978 to '82, he was an associate professor of "Medical Humanities" at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
It ought to be reasonable to assume that as a legislative lawyer and medical school professor, Durbin arrived at his anti-Roe views thoughtfully. He may even have read then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist's devastating rebuttal of Roe's unsustainable claim that the 14th Amendment created a right to abortion.
When the 14th Amendment was ratified, wrote Rehnquist, 36 states had laws restricting abortion that were left undisturbed. "Indeed," Rehnquist said, "the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and 'has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.' There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted."
What changed Durbin's mind about the meaning of the Constitution?
On "Meet the Press," this is how Durbin explained his conversion: "You know, it's a struggle for me. It still is. I'm opposed to abortion. If any woman in my family said she was seeking abortion, I'd go out of my way to try to dissuade them from making that decision. But I was really discouraged when I came to Washington to find that the opponents of abortion were also opponents of family planning. This didn't make sense to me. And I was also discouraged by the fact that they were absolute, no exceptions for rape and incest, the most extraordinary medical situations. And I finally came to the conclusion that we really have to try to honor the Roe v. Wade thinking, that there are certain times in the life of a woman that she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her family and with her conscience, and that the government shouldn't be intruding."
This is not only devoid of constitutional reasoning, it is devoid of all reasoning.
Durbin effectively argues: Because some pro-lifers don't believe in family planning or rape or incest or other exceptions, the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to abortion.
The truth is there is nothing any pro-lifer can say, do or advocate that can change the fact that the Constitution, as written and ratified, does not prohibit states from restricting abortion. Durbin might as well say: Some pro-lifers root for the Dodgers, therefore the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion.
As it is, Durbin told Russert it "would trouble me greatly" if Roberts took the same position today -- that states can restrict abortion -- that Durbin correctly took in 1983 and has since abandoned.
An activist, but fair, interpretation of Durbin's appearance on "Meet the Press" is that Durbin's career as a professional Democrat has groomed him to fight the confirmation of any justice he suspects harbors the same constitutional convictions he himself brought to Washington, D.C., 22 years ago.
It's too bad President Bush and his nominee are taking such a stealth approach to the confirmation process. If Judge Roberts is indeed a strict constructionist, and as brilliant and persuasive as reputed, he might do an even better job than Tim Russert of exposing Durbin's double-talk. In the process, he could change hearts and minds -- not to mention the way we confirm justices to lifelong tenures on our highest court.
Wow. That's good. Let me try my hand at that.
"You know, it's a struggle for me. It still is. I'm opposed to slavery. If anyone in my family said he was seeking a slave, I'd go out of my way to try to dissuade them from making that decision. But I was really discouraged when I came to Washington to find that the opponents of slavery were also opponents of freedom. This didn't make sense to me. And I was also discouraged by the fact that they were absolute, no exceptions for race and skin color, the most extraordinary agricultural situations. And I finally came to the conclusion that we really have to try to honor the (Plessy v. Ferguson?) thinking, that there are certain times in the life of a farmer that he needs to make that decision with his accountant, with his family and with his conscience, and that the government shouldn't be intruding."
Time and again: it is normal for a formerly pro-abort pol (or normal person) to switch to pro-life. When a formerly pro-lifer (like Turban or Gore) switches to pro-death, it smacks of political opportunism within the RAT party.
"we really have to try to honor the (Plessy v. Ferguson?) thinking"
Dred Scott works better.
Of course it's political opportunism. I suspect it's normally opportunism when anyone switches on such a gut level issue, whether Republican or Democrat.
Thanks for the assist.
"You know, it's a struggle for me. It still is. I'm opposed to murdering children. If anyone in my family said she was going to murder her child, I'd go out of my way to try to dissuade them from making that decision. But I was really discouraged when I came to Washington to find that the opponents of murder were also opponents of freedom.
This didn't make sense to me. And I was also discouraged by the fact that they were absolute, no exceptions for early or late term. And I finally came to the conclusion that we really have to try to honor the (Roe vs Wade) thinking, that there are certain times in the life of a mother that she needs to make that decision to murder her child, and that the government shouldn't be intruding."
That works.
Tim Russert? Never heard of him.
The tenth and eleventh words should never be in a headline.
I waS oppoSed to abortionS, but then I came to Wa$hington and $aw the light$. $hazam$! Tho$e friggin$ light$! I wa$ change$ forever$!!!
Great parody, Texas Eagle! Excellently constructed. That's Durbin's logic, alright. You've nailed it!,br>
Very good reply! Thanks so much!
Char :)
You've nailed it as well as Texas Eagle did! WOW to both of you!........and everyone else, too!
Thanks for such appropriate comments. Durbin has been Washingtonized in spades, is what he really was saying to Russert!
Char :)
Mr. Russert is a closet democrat. If you don't believe it just take a look at his questioning of liberals as opposed to Republicans.
Hard ball to repubs and softballs to dems.
He has put his lips of the hildabeasts ass and looks at her like a love struck puppy.
I used to think he was fair but at this point I don't see any difference between him and say cookie roberts.
Never forget when at the conventions they smile and act bubbley when talking to dems and scowl when interviewing Repubs.
Russert often asks tough questions of Dems, but after they weasel out, and evade the question, or answer a question that wasn't asked, Russert moves on. It does no good to ask tough questions if you are not equally tough about getting them answered.
OK, but frankly the same thing happens with us. You think Republicans never spin? The White House never spins? Come on. Of course they do. And Russert rarely insists on hammering away until we have to answer as he wants -- at least, no more often than he does to Democrats.
One thing I liked about O'Reilly when I watched him, was that he would not let anyone, Dem or GOP, weasel out of a question, without at least saying "Senator, I don't think you answered the question!". O'Reilly was the first guy I've ever seen do that.
Agreed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.