[sitetest]

Dear LtdGovt,

"3. You end up supporting my point, that Hunter's requirement - for the justices to affirm the humanity of fetuses - would ultimately lead to judicial activism, namely, the overturning of liberal abortion laws. "

No, I don't.

It certainly must lead to overturning Roe.

It could possibly lead to more than that.

However, under your interpretation of the Constitution, it could not. Even admitting the humanity of unborn children, you believe does not permit the Court construing the Constitution to ban abortion, as a judicial fiat.

So you are assuming that Mr. Hunter's justices will go further than you do based on the same evidence.

It's an assumption on your part that isn't logically required. And when you make like it is logically required, then you're typing out of both sides of your keyboard.

"I think you really weaken your own case against judicial activism, when it you reveal that you only actually suppport activism when you agree with the result."

I never said:

- what my own interpretation of the Constitution might be vis-a-vis whether or not the fact of the humanity of unborn children requires banning abortion;

- whether I think that such a judicial act would be a good idea.

Rather, I said that I think that the case could be made for such a judicial ruling. It is certainly easier to make the case that an appropriate interpretation of the Constitution would BAN abortion rather than BAN laws restricting abortion.

However, if I do believe that the Constitution is best construed to require legal protection of unborn children, then obviously, it wouldn't be judicial activism, in my view, for the Court to rule in such a way. It would be strict constructionism.

Which is kind of the point with Mr. Giuliani. He believes that there is a right to abortion. A constitutional right for a woman to procure the killing of her unborn child. He believes that the Constitution is rightly construed in affirming such a "right."

Thus, for him, "strict constructionism" could easily include upholding Roe.


sitetest

[LtdGovt]

Rather, I said that I think that the case could be made for such a judicial ruling. It is certainly easier to make the case that an appropriate interpretation of the Constitution would BAN abortion rather than BAN laws restricting abortion.

That's a hard position to defend. Look at the death penalty. The Constitution explicitly allows states to deprive people from life, however, they still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. Similarly, the Constituion only protects those who have already been born.

However, if I do believe that the Constitution is best construed to require legal protection of unborn children, then obviously, it wouldn't be judicial activism, in my view, for the Court to rule in such a way. It would be strict constructionism.

Unfortunately, all activists see their work as "interpeting the law" (no offense), even when it isn't. It is my firm belief that it is the duty of the government to provide me with 100 bottles of wine a year. Now would that be strict constructionism? That's a ridiculous comparison, but you catch the drift.

Which is kind of the point with Mr. Giuliani. He believes that there is a right to abortion. A constitutional right for a woman to procure the killing of her unborn child. He believes that the Constitution is rightly construed in affirming such a "right."

He said no such thing, he said 'right'. He did not state that the right is a constitutional right.