Quote:
Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
As I stated earlier we have essentially no moral choice to choose from either of these two candidates one condones war the other condones abortion, as others have stated which is the lesser of two evils. It was understood that Bush has put this country at war. The question is why is America targeted? Could it be that this country has lost its moral center and that's what angers others? The government made abortion legal it can also make it illegal and thus that is why it has made those laws and should be held accountable for them.
|
This is very interesting to me and I wonder if the majority of pro-life advocates feel this way. I think a small lesson in constitutional law is necessary.
Basically the Supreme Court a LONG time ago decided that the Bill of Rights guaranteed the Right to Privacy. This was decided before Roe v. Wade even came to the Court. When it did, the Court had to follow its own precedent and hold that family matters and reproductive issues (which abortion is considered) were protected under the right to privacy (the Court had held this before.) Under
stare decisis the Court must follow its own precedent unless it is
completely anti-consitutional (like Separate but Equal). Plessy was overturned because the Constitution in no way advocates segregation- in fact it in no way even mention slavery which is why the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) is argued to have been unnecesary.
Its a hard argument to make that the Founders who included a considerable amount of Anti-Federalist (Founders against a large federal gov't with national laws) did not foresee a right to privacy. They didn't want a strong federal government at all.
I say all this to refute the statement that the GOVERNMENT "made abortion legal." In actuality privacy is inherent in the Constitution and the Supreme Court, looking to previous decisions as it must do in ALL cases, simply recognized the Founders' intent.
If someone made it legal, blame the Supreme Court, but its definitely not the GOVERNMENT. The Supreme Court is one of THREE branches of the government and they serve terms for LIFE.
They can retire or die, but NOT be "fired."
So again, I ask, how do you propose we hold them accountable?
That proposition is very interesting to me because if you can explain how you suggest we do that you may have well ansered a question that many presidents ask when they appoint a judge they think to be conservative/liberal to the Supreme Court and he judges the other way.
Consider Justice Berger of yore and today's Justice O'Connor. Jusitce O'Connor was nominated by Reagan, but pretty much decides every case these days as she is the swing vote. Its very predictable how the other 8 judges are going to vote, but she is the most middle of the road judge on the High Court, I'm sure to Reagan's dismay (when he was living). She is the reason the Michigan decision went 5-4.
But again I ask, how do you propose we hold them accountable?