Really? Ya think?
Do they give out awards for the most stupidly obvious headlines of the year?
Miers may be anti-abortion
Wow. You think so? Maybe? She might? Because, you know, Bush would really want one of those "Yay Abortion! Woohoo!" types on the bench. Maybe someone should tell him . . .
1 comment:
much as i can already hear certain people disagree with me, i can explain how a pro-life judge could honestly refuse to overturn Roe-v-Wade.
very simply, regardless of personal beliefs, the job of a supreme court justice is to deterime the constitutionality of the case. so the question isn't "is abortion wrong?" or "is it the woman's choice?" but rather, after careful examination of the case and the constitution, "is this a constitutionally protected action?"
the founding fathers knew they weren't perfect, that is why they made a mechanism for changing the constitution they had written, and that mechanism has been used several times. morally right or morally wrong is irrelevant to that decision. if it is protected by the constitution (and Roe-v-Wade says it is) and it shouldn't be, it is not up to the judges to change it, but rather the legislature (or pretty much anyone else) to start drafting a new amendment. that amendment would then have to be ratified, etc.
so it is very possible that a pro-life judge uphold Roe-v-Wade, even though it contracticts her personal beliefs.
i will grant, i highly doubt this would be the case for any person appointed by either of the currently dominant parties.
--- The Dancer in the Shadows
Post a Comment