Even if politics must define the Supreme Court -- and the truth is, law defines it far more -- then today's name-calling by both the far left and the far right misses the mark. This Court is, in fact, a Goldwater and a Reagan Republican Court.
The Goldwater Republicans, embodied by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, believed in individual rights, separation of church and state, and federalism. No wonder, then, that they believe that no single religious viewpoint should determine whether a woman could obtain an abortion.
Meanwhile, the Reagan Republicans were united under a single banner of smaller government (which translates into states' rights, or federalism).
These positions have been all but abandoned by the current Administration, but they were and are, above all, moderate ones. ... [F]ederalism is not a partisan stance, but a constitutional basic. And the principle of separation of church and state, too, is no more partisan -- and no less part of our Constitution -- than, say, the fact that we have a bicameral legislature.
There's much more in the essay. You should read it.
पोस्ट्स
४ टिप्पण्या:
Ah, yes, so obsessed with federalism and states' rights that they as a result won't let abortion be decided by the states. Not all that persusive, really. Goldwater Republicans who won't strike down affirmative action. Remember, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because of concerns that it would restrict private rights and bring in affirmative action. (Hubert H. Humphrey vowed to eat the Federal Register pages of the debate on the bill if it could ever be found to have legalized affirmative action.)
How often do I hear the Left use stare decisis to justify the abortion jurisprudence, but ignore it completely when it suits their purposes? (Death penalty law, etc.) International law is used when it gives a result that people like (death penalty again), but of course never when it doesn't. (abortion again-- try looking at European laws on it, and notice how some nations have recently restricted late-term abortions based on technology. Considering how Casey and Roe left room for advancing medical technology to change the right, I'd say that it's pretty similar to the death penalty jurisprudence.) Sometimes federalism is important-- but never in the case of abortion.
Odd, that. Ah, well. Hypocrisy happens to everyone.
Ah, yes, so obsessed with federalism and states' rights that they as a result won't let abortion be decided by the states. Not all that persusive, really. Goldwater Republicans who won't strike down affirmative action. Remember, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because of concerns that it would restrict private rights and bring in affirmative action. (Hubert H. Humphrey vowed to eat the Federal Register pages of the debate on the bill if it could ever be found to have legalized affirmative action.)
How often do I hear the Left use stare decisis to justify the abortion jurisprudence, but ignore it completely when it suits their purposes? (Death penalty law, etc.) International law is used when it gives a result that people like (death penalty again), but of course never when it doesn't. (abortion again-- try looking at European laws on it, and notice how some nations have recently restricted late-term abortions based on technology. Considering how Casey and Roe left room for advancing medical technology to change the right, I'd say that it's pretty similar to the death penalty jurisprudence.) Sometimes federalism is important-- but never in the case of abortion.
Odd, that. Ah, well. Hypocrisy happens to everyone.
Marci Hamilton's column is impressive though the comments about the "far left" is dubious given the voices she says come from there really are more "mainstream." Suffice to say, the "far left" is just not powerful these days.
As to juvenile executions, why is it "made up" to note that we should not kill those who are not part of the voting public that uphold the penalty in the first place? Not that this is the only way to defend the decision; just a pretty decisive one.
As to stare decisis, which the right ignores in various cases (though at times you'd never know it), only a small group truly wants the Court to overrule the death penalty totally. Overruling a 5-4 decision from the late 1980s on a subissue is not too remarkable. The "victim impact" rule was changed in a third of that time. (the other way)
One more thing ... as to the abortion issue, in a broad sense (see Ronald Dworkin, etc.) it is a religious/moral issue.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा