The passing of Chief Justice Renquest puts the court in a position that is very rare, it has two openings. Depending on how Bush handles it it could be a blessing or a curse for the American people, unfortunatly I have a feeling that it is going to be the latter.
The President has two choices at this point. He can either attempt to pick a justice who will be fair and balanced and will follow the Constitution as it was written, or he can be political and nominate a Justice that will bring personal and party politics to the table on issues such as Abortion, Gay Marraige, Stem Cell Research, and many other hot button issues.
Hopefully the members of Congress who are not under the Bush spell will grow a pair and filibuster any attempt to nominate a new conservative hell bent on eliminating our freedoms.
29 comments:
This is true, and the scary thing is that at least we can get rid of Bush in a couple of years, we are stuck with who ever he picks as a Justice.
If Roe v Wade was only instituted 30yrs ago, why would america "be in trouble" if it was overturned now? Was America in trouble prior to the 1970s? Also, how would replacing Renquist (a staunch conservative) with another conservative change anything at all (I'm prolife and less than excited by Roberts BTW)?
And in your view, where is the voice of the people in all this? If the public elects Bush (who said he would put 'strict constructionists' on the court) why is it a bad thing for america if he follows through on those promises. If the people don't get to decide these things, who does?
But that is exactly what Clinton did. He put the two bigest liberals on the court (Ginsberg and Souter).
CSB said...
If Roe v Wade was only instituted 30yrs ago, why would america "be in trouble" if it was overturned now? Was America in trouble prior to the 1970s?
Slavery was around for a very long time before it was abolished, does that mean that if it were to comce back it would be okay. Of course not.
Just because as a country we were to close minded to see that not giving a women a choice about her body in unconstitutional prior to 1970 doesn't mean that it was right. It is utterly wrong for the government to try and tell a women what she can and can't do with her own body. Plus remeber that religion should play NO ROLE in the decision making for laws pertaining to this great country. So can you give me one argument against abortion that does not include God, The Bible, or any other form of religion. There isn't one.
___________________________________
CSB said...
Also, how would replacing Renquist (a staunch conservative) with another conservative change anything at all (I'm prolife and less than excited by Roberts BTW)?
Putting in one ultra conservative to replace Renquest doesn't change much, except that he is the Cheif Justice, but you are right that Renquest was a staunch conservative. However my point is that now Bush will be nomination both a Chief Justice, and an Associate Justice, who happens to be a swing vote. If he fills both of these seats with staunch conservatives that is when we will have a problem. Of course today he nominated Roberts as Chief Justice which tells me that he realizes that his reputation is to shot right now to try anything stupid.
___________________________________
CSB said...
And in your view, where is the voice of the people in all this? If the public elects Bush (who said he would put 'strict constructionists' on the court) why is it a bad thing for america if he follows through on those promises.
The voice of the people also elected Congress who will decide whether the nominee will follow the Constitution. I simply hope that they have enough guts to stand up against the Bush Machine and ask hard hitting questions to ensure we get the best candidate. Isn't that what we should want, or do you think that one man should make the decision (at least as long as he goes along with the conservative base.)
This should not be a partisan issue, this is an issue that will effect all Americans for generations to come and we need someone who is not thinking politics or religion but is only thinking about the Constitutionality of their decisions. I really don't think that person is Roberts, but it could be a lot worse to.
If a majority of the people in the US think abortion should be more restricted than it is currently (and we can debate whether or not the polls actually show this but grant me the premise), what is the procedure to inact such restrictions into law? Or do you beleive that there should be no procedure? Do you think that even if an overwhelming majority opposed abortion (grant me the premise) there should be no possibility of addiing restrictions?
Ok, so your opinion on abortion was established by who in the constitution? Who says that abortion should be a fundamental right? How did you come to that conclusion and why is your conclusion normative to the rest of us?
I am not even arguing for or against abortion here I am asking about process. We have two groups in our country, one that beleives an unborn baby is a person and one that does not beleive an unborn baby is a person. They are each fighting for legislative backing based on thier view.
I want to know how the pro-life side could get the legislative backing (assuming that they won the popular debate).
Both sides think they have a fundamental right behind them (the right to 'do what I want with my body' or the right to 'live without a doctor stabbing you to death'). But these "fundamental rights" as defined by thier proponents are mutually exclusive, so who wins the debate?
Slave holders claimed that people with dark skin were not persons, they beleived that they had a fundamental right to 'do what they wanted with thier own property'. These were two fundamental rights that opposed each other. As a nation (after a nasty civil war) we decided that slaves were persons and we implemented the 14th amendement to make that law throughout the nation.
You see there has to be a process. You can't say 'I will not force you to have an abortion but I reserve my right to have one' any more than a slave owner could say 'I will not force you to own a slave but I reserve my right to own one'. Such an answer avoids the point. The question is "Is the object of discussion (a slave or an unborn baby) a person? When we as a nation answer that question we should gear our laws around that. If the answer is no, then Roe v Wade should be law (by all means). But if the answer is yes, we should protect those infants just as we protect all persons that are not able to protect themselves.
In this particular case any "process" would take away the constitutional right of a woman to decide for herself what to do with her body. The "process" it the Supreme Court, only they have the power to okay or not okay a ban on abortion. At this point they have not okayed a ban. They have found it to be unconstitutional. The Congress can argue all day long as to whether they think that their should be one but only the Supreme Court can allow it as the are the ultimate decision maker on matters of the law.
As for you statement that half of the people believe that the baby is a life unto itself and the other half do not I ask you this:
If the half that are against abortion do not have abortions but those who are okay with abortions are allowed to how is the person who is not for abortions effected in any way?
On the other hand if you take away the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion if the need arises you have taking away a right from her to choose for her body.
Now with this said it is important to remeber that according to the Constitution "your rights end where my nose begins" to put it is a simple term. This being said you have the right to disagree with abortion, protest at abortion clinques and otherwise show you disapproval of the procedure, but you do not have the right to stop someone else from doing it as it does not effect anyone but themselves.
Even if you are to say that the unborn is a life and a person unto itself it is not independent of the mother and therefore the mother must be able to decide. Period. This has been argued for years and years and everytime it has been decided that it is unconstitutional to ban abortion.
Also there is the safety issue, not only the safety of the mother who could die unless she has an abortion, or the mental safety of the women who is raped and does not want to have the child of her rapist.
But also the safety of the women who in the event of a ban on abortion would seek out "alley abortions" in unsafe and unsanitary conditions in these same instances.
In closing John Kerry put it best when he said two things.
1) "I believe adimitally in what I believe, but I do not have the right to push that belief onto others." (the wording is a little off, sorry.)
2) In regards to requiring teens to get parental consent..."I am not going to tell a sixteen year old girl who was raped by her father that she has to get permission from her family to get an abortion."
american patriot, you must not have read my comment all the way through because I directly addressed the comments that have just posted.
The question comes down to "is the unborn child a person"? If it is, then law should protect him/her (a woman's right to chose ends when it affects another person). If it isn't a person, you are right Christians, the government and everyone else should probably stand back (although on a side, we do restrict what people do with thier bodies all the time - ie illicit drug use, prostitution, and suicide).
Where does the Constitution answer this question of whether or not this unborn baby is a person? If the constitution is silent, why does the left get to decide, shouldnt it be left to a vote?
Let the people decide?
CSB,
The decision in this case must be made by the mother as I stated earlier because even if you want to atribute life to the unborn (which I do not) then you still must take into consideration two things.
First, the unborn does not have any ability to make decisions on it's own and therefore the decisions must be made by the person who is the closest relation, in this case obviosly the mother. Much like in the event of a person who has become brain dead, the closest relitive must make the decision to, or not to, pull the plug.
Second, what about the safety of the mother both physical and mental as I stated in my last post? Do these not matter at all. Is the possible life of an unborn person more important than that of a living breathing person?
So even if we decide as a nation that the unborn is a person the mother can legally kill it?
By this same reasoning, do you beleive infantacide should be legal? You stated "does not have any ability to make decisions on it's own and therefore the decisions must be made by the person who is the closest relation?" A newborn baby is certainly not fit to make decisions on thier own. And why do your reasons listed above exclude infanticide?
Is the ability to communicate is requisite for civil rights? Do closest relatives always have the right to kill the incapacitated?
Regarding the health of the mother, the decision still is predicated on whether the baby is a person or not. If it is not a person, then the mother's health (of course) should definately be considered and the decision should be entirely that of the mother. If the baby is a person, then the questions should all be put into that framework (ie should we kill this person to help the health of that person).
CSB,
First of all I would like to say in regards to the mother's health I am speaking of instances in which the mother's life is at risk. So the question is whether the possible life (because even if you believe the unborn is a life it could easily die during birth) worth more that the life of the mother.
Secondly, in regards to you statment of infantcide. The difference is that that is definitally a life, whereas the life of an unborn may or may not be a life and more importantly it is still part of the mother in all ways. Therefore it is still part of the mothers body and her decision must be accepted.
As for the public deciding whetther it is a life or not the public is currently split about fifty fifty on that matter with half (especially your religios who are using that has the argument) believing that it is a life and fighting against abortion, and half saying it is not and fighting for the right of a women to choose.
However all of this is really quite unimportant when you consider that when there was an equal say from both sides of the political spectrum on the Supreme Court (stating in this case that the conservative swing vote went liberal on this particular vote.) they have decided many times that it is unconstitutional, whether it is popular or not. To put a conservative on the court knowing full well that they will vote it down, and making that part of the reason for nominating them, is wrong.
I am sure that with the overwhelming majority of Christians that there are in this country that the Religous Right could potentially pass a vote to establish a governmental religion. However that would be completly unconstitutional. Sometimes popular vote is not the best way to decide something simply because people are not always informed enough to make the decisions on their own and when it is a matter of this importance you cannot leave it to the whims of the public and ad campaigns. That is why we have a court that is supposed to be non political to decide these cases. Think about it, during the time of slavery if you had held a vote on the matter slavery would still be around, same with segregation, womens right to vote, and many other important constitutional rights. During the time that we are doing it a lot of things seem right, but when we look back we see that they were in fact wrong. It is the job of the Supreme Court to decide in the moment what is right by the Constitution, not the people.
APL: "The difference is that that is definitely a life, whereas the life of an unborn may or may not be a life and more importantly it is still part of the mother in all ways. Therefore it is still part of the mothers body and her decision must be accepted."
You state this like it is a fundamental truth (probably because it is to you) but to many people it is not true. To many people it is definitely a life.
So you take this as axiomatic and form your understanding of the constitution around the axiom. But my question is "what if the things that you consider axiomatic are not axiomatic to the rest of our country?".
You state the country is split 50/50 on this issue. Even if this is true, then 50% of the country disagrees with something you view as fundamental and axiomatic. Do you really think that un-elected judges (as they did with Roe v Wade) should bypass the democratic process on this issue?
Try thinking about it from my point of view. I think it is axiomatic that the unborn is a living person.
The only differences between a baby that is born and unborn are: Location, dependence, size and mental awareness. None of these differences, in any other situation affect how "human" someone is. Take these examples:
Location: A unborn baby is only 11 inches or less away from a baby just after birth. Does someone's location effect how human they are?
Dependance: A unborn baby is dependant on her mother. Are Airline passangers (who are dependant completely on a pilot) less human than people on the ground?
Size: The unborn baby is very small but is Hillary Clinton less human that Shaquille Oneill?
Mental Awareness: The unborn baby is developming mental awarness. But is a sleeping person less human than an awake person?
An unborn baby needs to be protected by her mother just like a born baby does. The unborn baby can be a strain on the mother's finances, health (mental and physical) and so can the born baby. But if treated right, the unborn baby will grow and thrive - just like the born baby. I could go on with the similarities.
Don’t you think if there is any question, the safe thing to do would be to let live? If you are wrong, we have something like a holocaust on our hands (and that is why Pro-lifers are so exited). If I am wrong, some small percentage of women get inconvenienced and have to wait less than a year to give their baby up for adoption. Which would you prefer we do as a nation?
Again I go back to the fact that it really doesn't matter if you believe that the unborn has a life of it's own or not. The mother still has control over her body and the unborn, at that point, is part of her body.
You state that they are unelected judges making the decision. When if you look at it logically they are, in a way, elected. While technically they are nominated they are nominated by a person who is elected by the people and is supposed to do what the people want, in this case put a fair minded person in the position. My fear is that Bush is not going to do that.
The Constitution clearly states that it is to be done this way, and the reason is also clear. Our fore fathers wanted to ensure that the courts were not swayed by the political tides of the time and therefore that the Constitional rights of the land were upheld.
As I stated earlier, if Roe vs. Wade were overturned by a fair minded panel of Supreme Court Justices because they truly felt that it was an un-Constitutional then while I would disagree with them in interpretation I would agree with them in principal (meaning I would agree that they made the decision based on the correct reasons, even if my interpretation of the Constitution is seperate.)
However, if Bush puts two hard right Judges who are being swayed which way to vote by the Christian Right and they overturn it in that way then I will be absolutly outraged. Somewhat because I believe that they would be putting an un-Constitional ban on abortion, but more importantly because the checks and balance system would be distrupted and more importantly a part of government which has been untouched by political whims for hundreds of years would have been corrupted.
If that happens all we can do is hold on and hope for a fast change.
So judges are not fair that are swayed by the Christian Right but judges like Ginsburg and Souter that are so heavily influenced by the far left (abortion on the demand is far left these days) are fair?
Who gets to decide which judges are fair? According to the constitution isnt that the President and the Senate? If our President nominates and our Senate confirms, who are you to say the judge is not fair?
CSB said...
If our President nominates and our Senate confirms, who are you to say the judge is not fair?
I have the right to make the judgement because I am an American citizen. The same has you have the right to make the judgement.
also said...So judges are not fair that are swayed by the Christian Right but judges like Ginsburg and Souter that are so heavily influenced by the far left (abortion on the demand is far left these days) are fair?
Actually if you look at voting records they are moderatly liberal at best. And since when is "abortion on demand" anything. I do not know one person who backs this kind of idiocy. Yes liberal back the womens right to make a decision that does not effect anyone except for her, but not needless abortions. We just beleive that no one can better judge the necessity of the abortion than the women herself.
What right does a group of men, who have never and will never experience the feelings they are having, have to decide what she should do. They don't.
And I don't know what votes you have been looking at but their are no hard left judges, and if there were I would disagree with them just as adimitly.
The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interperet the Constitution, nothing more. They are not their to decipher politics, or be activists for either side of the party or any religion, and if they do they should not be there. And I can make that choice because it is a right given to me by the Constitution of The United States of America (ie The first Amendment.)
If you question had more to do with what qualifications I have to say such a thing.
First of all I have worked in politics and government for around 5 years now. Secondly I am a political studies and constitutional law student. Third I am one of the founders of a civil liberties defense group known as the American Patriot Legion. And most important I am an avid studier of what I consider the best document ever written, The Constitution.
APL,
Actually, my question as to "who you are to question" was more about process. I respect your right to question in the sence that you are an american citizen and have the right to speak freely regarding decisions you consider poor. My point was "who are you to question" in a legal sense; in that we have a process for judicial placement in this country that should be followed. If it is followed and judges are appointed then the questioning can only be of an academic form and not accusitory in nature to the unconstitutionality of the presidential appointment.
This is of course not completly true as the American people have the right to say that a president is not living up to his call of duty which is to do the best thing in the PUBLIC interest. Not his right wing fanatic friends interest. They have this other wonderful process for when a President does not do this, it's called impeachment, and it's about time that we started thinking about it for Bush.
Other issues outstanding, why would it be appropriate to impeach a president for his nomination of a judicial candidate that you do not like. Isnt that his perogative as president?
First of all you cannot put other issues aside here because my basis for saying that we should look at impeachment in the culmination of all of the mishaps of the Bush administration over the last four years+.
Socondly, if it were just me saying that it were a bad choice and the rest of the country agree with it you would be right. However, it is not just me, but the majority of the public that wants a fair and balanced justice, not a partisan one. At this point it is not the Presidents "peragotive". Have you ever heard the words "For the People, By the People." The job of the President is not do unilaterally make any decisions regarding the course of this great nation, but instead to do the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. If he is not do that then he should be impeached, period.
But we have a representative government. So the constitution that says "by the people etc" also provides for leaders to be elected by those people to make choices. Lincoln didn't take a poll when he issued the emmancipation proclamation, FDR didn't poll the people before declaring war on Japan and Germany. These were executive decisions made within the framework afforded by the constitution. Bush doesn't have to poll the people on who he puts in place any more than Clinton did (although most polls show public support for Roberts).
At this point I am still forming my judgement of Roberts. He does not have much of a background so it is kind of hard. That is why my original post stated that I hope that Congress ask him some hard hitting questions. I did not say he should definitally not put him in the position, I just think the public deserves to know what he stands for. And if he refuses to answer or if he shows that he is not in the best interest of the nation then he should ot be confirmed.
But don't miss the point. Bush doesn't have to appoint someone you like. He, by the power afforded by the constitution, has the executive authority to make this decision without polling anyone. Presidents often have to make unpopular decisions (and should be able to do so without threat of impeachment).
Making an unpopular decision is one thing, making an unconstitutional one is another thing all together. I am not saying that he shoudl have to appoint someone who everyone will like. I am saying however that it is his obligation to appoint someone who will uphold the Constitution to the fuilest extent without any political or religious incentives.
I really do not understand what the problem with that is. Or what the problem with me expecting my elected officials in Congress to ask hard hitting questoins is. Would you prefer that a man with no real experience to speak of be put into the position without any serious questioning?
Here is my problem. You don't like nominee X. You say his/her nomination is 'unconstitutional'. If the President nominates him/her and the Senate approves, how is that nomination 'unconstutional'. Isn't that the process afforded by the constitution?
Bush doesn't have to poll the country on his nomination. He could appoint someone that 90% of the country hated. But the constitution says nothing about the president taking a poll or making popular decisions. He could do this while being fully within his constitutional rights as president. The Senate, of course, would have to approvep; but assuming they did, impeachment would be completely non sequitor to the action.
Apperantly you are not reading what I am writing. If you were you would see that I have said many times that if the President nominates someone who is going to judge in an unbiased way then I am all for it. I have also said that if the Senate aproves I will most likely be okay with it as long has they have asked the hard hitting questions.
I am not saying that they should not accept anyone he sends, I am not even saying that Roberts is definitally a bad choice (at least not here, an original post I will be making shortly will sum up my beliefs on that) I am simply saying that the Congress should ask questions that will determine where he really stands and to ensure that he is going to follow the letter of the law, not the Bible, politics, or any other outside source. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to follow the law and the Constitution, nothing else.
If the President knowingly puts someone in that position who is going to follow an political agenda, left or right, instead of the Constitution in order to please his major campaign contributors then this is wrong and he needs to face the music. I stated that Bush may need to face impeachment for a multitude of reasons, this just being icing on the cake if he does it.
The Senate is supposed to make sure that the nomination is of someone who will follow the guidlines provided by our forefathers, I am simply hoping they actually do that. Although from what I have heard of the confirmation hearings so far that is not going to be the case. It's a shame.
As a side note this will be my last comment on this post as I will be creating a new post dealing with the confirmation process.
Who decides if someone is biased? Or advancing a political agenda?
anybody who understands the Constitution and has a brain.
Legally, how would you decide that (who has a brain and has studied the constitution)? There are plenty of intellegent, educated people that feel that Thomas beleives the constitution.
Post a Comment