Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gelato
"He apparently can't see the forest for the trees."

Just a thought but maybe he sees the forest more clearly.

My thinking goes beyond abortion; what if a super "conservative" SCOTUS was on the bench and they then used the very same methods the left has used to advance that agenda.

Most likely it would be things I agree with, but two wrongs don't make a right and perhaps we'd be better served not throwing constitutional interpretation into the mix. I'd much rather it be viewed a document that limits what the feds can control rather than a document that somehow entitles the feds to control something.

Merely a thought.

83 posted on 10/22/2006 9:58:07 AM PDT by Proud_texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Proud_texan
I'm no advocate for enacting policies out of thin air through the courts, whether it be by liberals or conservatives.

That's why I always cringe when folks say we need "conservative" justices as the solution to judicial tyranny. No. A tyrant is a tyrant, even if he is "good." We need courts that follow the Constitution, understand the intent of the Constitution, and apply the law without prejudice.

When it comes to abortion, the Constitution is clearly on the side of life, liberty, and the security of the unborn. One of its primary purposes is to protect our posterity.

Unlike for liberals, there's nothing a "conservative" justice must invent here on abortion. The Preamble provides the interpretation of the Constitution already.

Scalia misses the forest because he ignores this clear guide.

85 posted on 10/22/2006 10:13:36 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson