Posted on 04/18/2007 8:18:35 PM PDT by AZRepublican
This might not mean anything, BUT it is bugging me. Thomas and Scalia issued concurrent opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart as follows:
"I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it."
Beautiful recite of constitutional principles by Thomas. BUT why didn't Alito and Roberts join?
It may be that Kennedy didn’t want to go that far, and suggested in conference that he would vote the other way if the Conservatives did something so unfair as to base their decisions on something like, say, the Constitution.
I agree that’s a likely conclusion.
Or they are each competing to impress the same chick...
All this says and this happens in many cases, is that these 2 judges agree with the conclusion they just have different reasons for getting there. The judge who writes the majority opinion won’t sign on to another opinion, since he is writing how the majority got to the decission they did.
If I had to guess, that would be mine.
I put Alito and Roberts more in the Rehnquist category, not quite Thomas and Scalia.
Chicks dig SCOTUS license plates!
That is a good question. If you read Kennedy’s dictum he talks about governments legitmate interest to regulate medical procedures which I guess is leaving a door open to use the commerce clause which liberals fall back on when they can;t get their way.
I'm glad somebody else sees this. Alito and Roberts are absolutely not as conservative as Thomas and Scalia. Comparing them to Thomas and Scalia was nothing but a red herring. Both of these pseudo "Catholics" proudly announced that their faith would never affect any of their decisions. This of course means that they have no faith, because if you have faith it will show up in your every thought and deed. Faith isn't something that can be hung on a hat rack for eight hours and then picked up later to be used at will. It just doesn't work that way. You either put your faith into action every day or you eventually lose it, which is why St. James said: "But don't you know, oh vain man, that faith without works is dead?", (James 2: 14-26)
"Christians" like Alito and Roberts who have no problem with being 100% secular during work hours seem rather like charlatans to me. Faith increases your wisdom and sharpens your intellect; it lets in the light as nothing else can. So to ignore it, to turn it off, while you make monumental decisions that affect the lives of 300 million people, you may as well be an unenlightened atheist. Remembering the Constitution word by word and getting straight A's in law school don't mean a thing if you lack the wisdom and light that faith brings to the mind and soul. Which is why, I suppose, the secularists of that same Supreme Court gave us legalized abortion, legalized pornography, homosexual pervert rights, and a host of other evils that plague our society.
Very well said.
The fact that Alito and Roberts arrived at their decisions independent of agreement with Scalia and Thomas’ joint opinion is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. It simply reinforces that coming at these issues from slightly or very different angles still results in the same decision.
YOU may like the Cincinnati Reds because they hit a lot of home runs.
I like the Cincinnati Reds because they have a pretty decent starting rotation this year and decent defense.
You don’t want to sign on to my position, I don’t want to sign on to your position, yet we both still like the Cincinnati Reds.
You ARE a Reds fan, aren’t you?
So now Alito and Roberts are “charlatans”? Thanks for letting us all know.
Probably because Thomas and Scalia have already
heard and opined in the Roe/Wade matter.
If Alito or Roberts joined the Thomas opinion
before ever hearing a case for it before the SC
it would compromise the appearance of their
objectivity.
Pray for all these justices.
Hey, they voted the right way. Leave it alone.
Are you Ayatollah Sistani?
They reached the correct decision based on the Constitution of our country. They did not allow their personal faith or lack of faith to change their duty to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America.
A better subject of discussion would be to ask those on the court that opposed the decision to defend the constitutional logic of their vote.
Shut up.
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.