Fred Thompson on the Supreme Court

NRO ^ | 6/13/2007 | Ed Whelan

[Uncledave]

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Fred Thompson on the Supreme Court   [Ed Whelan]

In this 15-minute video interview with the Hoover Institution’s (and The Corner’s) Peter Robinson about why he’s running for president, Fred Thompson discusses the Supreme Court for about two minutes (from around 10:00 to 12:00 on the video clock).  Here’s my best quick effort at transcribing the relevant portions: 

Which justices does he most admire besides Chief Justice Roberts (whom he shepherded around the Senate)?:  “I admire Scalia, Thomas, Alito and from time to time, on occasion, there’s another one or two I admire.”  

Which Supreme Court decision since your law degree in 1967 has done the greatest disservice to the nation?  “I suppose that, overall, I’d have to say Roe versus Wade.” 

Do you agree with Giuliani that it’s okay to appoint justices who would go either way on Roe?  “No.  Roe was fabricated out of whole cloth….  I think it represents a bigger problem with the federal judiciary and that is that there are too many people who get up and decide one day that they want to change social policy in this country…  it was not only bad law but bad medicine… thwarting the notion of federalism.”

 

So it’s your position that Roe should be overturned and abortion policy returned to the states?  “Yes.”

 

Fine answers.

[Uncledave]

I'm liking Fred more and more.

[Uncledave]

Fred ping

[xcamel]

[Mr. Lucky]

Yes.

What kind of answer is that for a politician to give?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yeah, I really liked that part of the interview.

[Beagle8U]

Fred ping.

[BallandPowder]

Powder...Patch...Ball FIRE!

Wow.................Thompson - Hunter...wow...

[ontap]

Yea! What do you think he meant by that? LOL

[Politicalmom]

PING!!

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you wish to join this ping list please be aware that it is EXTREMELY active.

[Oztrich Boy]

Fred Thompson on the Supreme Court

Same career path as William Howard Taft?

[skinkinthegrass]

OMG!....A "YES/NO" ANSWER/NO WAFFLING/NO EVASIONS. :D

[SE Mom]

Can anyone POSSIBLY misunderstand?

(Never mind, I know better)

[EternalVigilance]

Federalism was the casualty? How about 50 million dead babies? Might they be worth a mention?

Inalienable rights, especially the right to life, are not a question of federalism. Not in the sense Fred Thompson means it.

[ken5050]

If you listen carefully to the video, as I did, and I believe it was done a day or so BEFORE he went on Leno, to me it sounded like he was definitely running..no qualifiers..

[Mr. Lucky]

Isn’t the definition of, and punishment for, murder generally a matter of state law?

[agarrett]

  And here we have the proof. Some people are never satisfied.

  Best bloody answer on Roe v. Wade out of any candidate, clear, concise, direct, and unequivocal. And for some, still not enough.

Drew Garrett

[Clintonfatigued]

Another reason to support Fred Thompson.

[rob777]

“Isn’t the definition of, and punishment for, murder generally a matter of state law?”

,br> It was according to the original intent of the constitution. That is why it is an issue relating to federalism.

[EternalVigilance]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constituton

[RKV]

Some here want their way, their policy, before the Constitution. I can’t call them conservative, even though that is how some would self-identify. In reality, they are totalitarians, working contrary to the design of our system of government. Limited government is not for them, because they have (as Thomas Sowell puts it) “the vision of the anointed.”

I’ll say it again (and likely to get flamed for it) - the Federal government has no enumerated power to regulate medical practice.

[EternalVigilance]

Is an unborn child a “person?”

If your answer is “yes,” the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that I posted above ends this discussion.

If your answer is “no,” then you agree with the judges who decided Roe.

[traderrob6]

Drew, The Don Quixote’s of Free Republic choose to joust against the windmills of reality. The fact is that Fred is the most conservative candidate we have that has a realistic chance of winning the general yet a select minority choose to trash every detail about him in the misguided belief that “their man” who can’t garner more than 1% of the vote in the primaries let alone the general will be elected.

Idealism without a healthy dose of realism futile.

[Mr. Lucky]

So you would prefer to remain pure in your moral conviction, while millions of innocent babies are murdered each year, than to see Roe v. Wade overturned?

[LibLieSlayer]

Amen!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

We finally made them admit that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says... and some day we will force them to come to the same conclusion with regards to the 14th!

LLS

[EternalVigilance]

No. Overturn Roe. Just don’t pretend that the Constitution doesn’t protect the Life of every innocent American.

Now it’s your turn to answer my question.

[EternalVigilance]

We won’t convince anybody if we don’t open our mouths about it every time the subject comes up. And we’ll never do it if we choose leaders who don’t seem to be able to read any better than these judges.

[Mr. Lucky]

I would not arrogate to the federal judiciary the right to declare who is, or is not, a person. It wasn't much of a problem in pre-Roe America because abortion was illegal in all US states until at least 1967.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Now it’s your turn to answer my question.

Yeah, why don't you run for President yourself?

[Lightcutter]

ROCK ON!!!!!

[EternalVigilance]

I would not arrogate to the federal judiciary the right to declare who is, or is not, a person.

Why should the Court not determine who a person is? If they can't define it, how on God's green earth can they interpret and enforce the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold and protect? That's nonsensical.

It wasn't much of a problem in pre-Roe America because abortion was illegal in all US states until at least 1967.

It wasn't a problem because no one in authority was insane enough back then to believe that any State or individual had the right to murder another person under our Constitution, the one that guarantees the God-given and unalienable right to life of every person in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and whose very basis, as spelled out in the preamble, is the securing of the blessings of liberty for our posterity. That paragraph spells out that this is the very reason for the existence of human government.

[Lancey Howard]

Isn’t it refreshing to find a man who doesn’t dance around or straddle fences?

[Mr. Lucky]

If you concede to the federal judiciary the power to define what a "person" is, you concede to them the jurisdictional basis for the Roe decision.

[Rick_Michael]

Same could be said about anchor-babies...according to the 14th amendment. Many conservatives argue it’s intent was different. But if you look at the Consitution just on words and not origin, then your conclusions differ.

To some point there has to be a way to commit these ideas to current events. May not be done right in all occasions, but that’s the nature of the beast. Interpetation is and will always be the way good and bad comes into play.

[Lancey Howard]

So it’s your position that Roe should be overturned and abortion policy returned to the states?

Excellently phrased question, by the way....

You just KNOW that the especially low-IQ segment of the Democrat base (the "Barbara Boxer wing") will automatically presume that "overturning Roe v. Wade" = "abortion becomes completely illegal", when in fact abortion would remain completely legal to the same extent that it is today unless and until individual STATES took action on their own.

Look for the scumbag Democrats to continue to dupe their easily dupable base of idiots.

[EternalVigilance]

If you concede to the federal judiciary the power to define what a "person" is, you concede to them the jurisdictional basis for the Roe decision.

If the Court cannot define what a person is, they are powerless to do what they swore to do. To claim otherwise is just silly.

There is no doubt that the Court had the jurisdiction to rule on behalf of the defense of innocent human life. They, however, had no jurisdiction to rule against life, because the cornerstone of American liberty is the right to life.

[Mr. Lucky]

Yeah, calling someone with whom you’re having a conversation “silly” is a great why to win them over to your side.

[EternalVigilance]

I didn’t call you silly. I said it’s a silly claim. I don’t know you well enough to know if you’re silly innately.

Again, how can the Court rule on anything, if they can’t interpret the plain meaning of words?

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, let's try another tack,

If, say, the State of Vermont were to pass a law which clearly defined when, where and how abortions could be performed and applied the law uniformly how would the 14th amendment be offended?

[EternalVigilance]

Let me put it another way: Do you believe that the word "person" is an important one in determining whether you can make any sense at all of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments?

Let's remove it, and those words that refer to the same person, in the relevant portions those two Amendments and see what you can make of it all, shall we?

"No shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"Section. 1. All born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of of the United States; nor shall any State deprive of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[DanielLongo]

Solid answers. He is going to have to work on delivery though. I am assuming because this was a low key interview is the reason he came off so flat. I’d like to see more. Again, good answers Fred.

[EternalVigilance]

The founders said that the God-given right to life was "self-evident." They never dreamed that it was possible that a day would come when someone like you would even have to be persuaded, or that I would be having to spend my time explaining this.

If, say, the State of Vermont were to pass a law which clearly defined when, where and how abortions could be performed and applied the law uniformly how would the 14th amendment be offended?

How hard is that? First, you're robbing them of their life.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life

Second, you're robbing them of the same protection of the laws that every other American enjoys.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Utah persons are not superior to Vermont persons.

Surely you're not of the "Animal Farm" school of thought: "Some animals are more equal than others"?

[Mr. Lucky]

No court has held that the internal laws of one state have to be the same as the internal laws of every other state.

States are sovereign jurisdictions free to regulate the affairs of those within their borders. Senator Thompson has quite properly recognized that Roe v. Wade violated the sovereign jurisdiction of the separate states.

[EternalVigilance]

Your basic assertion then is that we have no Constitution, and especially no Bill of Rights.

Under your rubric, any State that wanted to could bring back slavery. And Utah could bring back polygamy if it wanted to.

[Mr. Lucky]

Slavery is specifically prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Polygamy is prohibited by Utah’s constitution.

[ellery]

I knew politicians weasel-worded things, but I didn’t realize quite how universal the practice is until Thompson started shocking me with unambiguous, one-word answers about big issues such as Iran and Roe. It gives his more lengthy answers lots of credibility, too.

[EternalVigilance]

Slavery is specifically prohibited by the 13th Amendment.

Right. Just as the Right to Life is guaranteed by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

Polygamy is prohibited by Utah’s constitution.

Because the Congress specifically forced that prohibition's inclusion in their constitution as a prerequisite for statehood, and even for its continued inclusion in the Union. Same with several more Western States that contained large populations of Mormons.

[Harrius Magnus]

I like the fact that he needn’t wax or deliver moral sermons. You can still stay on the high road without beating your breasts, and conjuring up emotionalism from the electorate. In fact, we’d all be much better off if more politicians stuck to serving, and gettin’ ‘er done, than commiserating.

[Jeff Head]

Straight talk...and good talk.

[EternalVigilance]

He’s hedging.