Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
The Courage to Disagree
Rumors are flying around that W is going to nominate Edith Clement to the Supreme Court. Looks like we are going to have another "stealth candidate" on our hands- which of course is not a good thing, seeing how well other Republican stealth candidates have done once on the bench.
While I know little about Clement, one qoute I found has me disturbed.
She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."
Why exactly is the law settled?
Supreme Court rulings are not etched in stone. If the Court wants to change its mind because they think they erred, then they have an obligation to do so. Plessy v. Ferguson was a terrible decsion and was overturned.
It doesn't take a conservative mind to realize that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decsion from a legal and political standpoint. Even Ginsburg has admitted that she isn't the biggest fan of Roe.
I'll address the issue of abortion and potential Supreme Court Justices in a later post.
While I know little about Clement, one qoute I found has me disturbed.
She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."
Why exactly is the law settled?
Supreme Court rulings are not etched in stone. If the Court wants to change its mind because they think they erred, then they have an obligation to do so. Plessy v. Ferguson was a terrible decsion and was overturned.
It doesn't take a conservative mind to realize that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decsion from a legal and political standpoint. Even Ginsburg has admitted that she isn't the biggest fan of Roe.
I'll address the issue of abortion and potential Supreme Court Justices in a later post.
posted by LWY, 10:10 AM
3 Comments:
I'm not going to comment on Roe v. Wade right now, but while the Supreme Court does have the ability to overturn its own decisions, it's an ability that is used very, very rarely. It is not as easy as saying, "well that didn't work out too well for America, I think we should change it back."
The Supreme Court cannot maintain any credibility if it is constantly changing its collective mind. Not to mention the fact that its decisions are not about what is best for Ameica, they are about what the Constitution says.
The Supreme Court cannot maintain any credibility if it is constantly changing its collective mind. Not to mention the fact that its decisions are not about what is best for Ameica, they are about what the Constitution says.
That's pretty much what the court did in regards to the death penalty for minors...
15 years ago they were fine, but this time Kennedy flipped and said that a growing consesus against it meant that it was cruel and unusual.
What flipped out conservatives like me wasn't that the court overturned a prior decsion, but that 5 states banning it since the last time the court visited the issue was enough of a "growing consensous" to ban it.
15 years ago they were fine, but this time Kennedy flipped and said that a growing consesus against it meant that it was cruel and unusual.
What flipped out conservatives like me wasn't that the court overturned a prior decsion, but that 5 states banning it since the last time the court visited the issue was enough of a "growing consensous" to ban it.
That is something the Court does very, very rarely. And while it may or may not happen with Roe v. Wade, it is something that the Court tries to avoid. After all, nobody likes to admit that he/she is wrong, especially when that someone is the US's highest court.
