Posted on 11/07/2008 8:25:32 AM PST by ikeonic
Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz consider Roe terrible law. They're a long was from conservative, and likely fall in the no restrictions on abortion camp. Off topic, they both consider the 2nd an individual right, but would clearly differ with conservatives on allowable restrictions.
Somethings are so evil, you don’t work with them no matter what your chances.
I think the Supreme Court said that the ninth amendment to the constitution gives women the right to murder their own unborn children. Of course, this was an erroneous decision. I briefly explained why in an op ed I wrote for the East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Arizona) three years ago:
Overturn Roe v. Wade?
by John Semmens
Now that John Roberts has been nominated to the Supreme Court, partisans on both the left and right are demanding to know where he stands on the issue of abortion. Would he vote to uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that overturned state laws restricting abortions?
Under a properly functioning judiciary, it is improper for judges to be asked how they will rule on a case prior to hearing the evidence specifically pertaining to that case. The idea is that a judge is to weigh this evidence in order to render a just verdict.
Wanting to know how someone will vote prior to taking office is appropriate when that office is one designated as part of the lawmaking portion of government. We want to know what kind of new laws candidates for the legislature might enact. We want to know what kind of laws candidates for the presidency might ask the legislature to pass and that he would sign.
That advance information on policy positions is being sought from a prospective new member of the Supreme Court is an indication that the courts have been diverted from their intended function of rendering justice according to existing law to an unconstitutional role of making law.
The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision is representative of a court diverted into a lawmaking role. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion that struck down a Texas law limiting abortions to cases where the life of the mother was endangered. The grounds cited were that “the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision.”
Some critics of the Roe v. Wade decision have assailed Blackmun’s assertion that there is a Constitutionally protected right to privacy. Indeed, the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution. The word “private” does appear, but only in conjunction with the word property in the Fifth Amendment.
This line of criticism misconstrues the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is a document designed to limit government. The absence of an explicit mention of a right to privacy in the document should not be interpreted to mean people do not possess such a right. To do so implies that the Constitution itself is a grant of privileges from the government to the people and that any privilege not expressly granted is not protected from government encroachment.
The Founders anticipated this possible misunderstanding and inserted the Ninth Amendment. This amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Quite simply, the right to privacy is one of those retained rights.
Does this then mean that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided? I think not. The issue with abortion is not invasion of privacy by the government. The issue is harm to another person. Namely, abortion is the taking of another person’s life. That a person intent on committing such a deed would prefer to do so in private is understandable.
The government, however, has an obligation to protect an individual’s life. Laws against abortion are a means of fulfilling this fundamental obligation. The Roe v. Wade decision impedes state governments from carrying out this obligation.
A just and humane government is incompatible with the carnage unleashed by this 1973 Supreme Court decision. Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned. Maybe John Roberts can play a role in achieving this.
Since when is government in the business of love?
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington
Since when is it accectable for parents to abandon the obligation of protection and support they owe to their children? Since when is it acceptable for government to abandon it's ordained function of punishing the guilty and instead protecting the direct and intentional killing of the innocent?
Cordially,
I think you’re failing to make an important distinction here. The fact that the Republican Party does not seek to nominate pro-choice individuals for their highest posts does not necessarily mean we’re running rank-and-file pro-choice conservatives out of the party. People are welcome to support us for any reason they want.
If they’re single-issue pro-choice voters, then maybe we’re not the Party for them. And, you know what ... we never were, so no loss.
The point is, we need to be consistently conservative — fiscally, socially, and with regard to national security. If some aspects of conservatism are a dealbreaker to some, then let them go their own way.
H
Rape and incest, yes, but there are also plenty of people supportive of a ban beyond viability, third trimester, or second or third. Of course for them it's not a front burner issue, and that's already the law in many states, so you don't hear it much.
In my view it's a state issue, I'm no more enthused about the Federal government telling California what to do than Louisiana. The job is changing opinion. I don't think demanding a litmus test accomplishes that, rather it shuts down discussion.
You’re arguing with the wrong guy ... that wasn’t my quote.
H
I didn't say they did, I don't think RINOs and Fiscal conservatives stayed home either, turnout was pretty good. Nor do I think abortion was much of an issue. Were you right that the Religious Right turned out, RINOs stayed home over the abortion issue, the fact that the GOP lost would demonstrate the need for some of those voters.
That's the point, with difficulty, I was trying to make.
I disagree. There is no room for disagreement on any of the “social issues”: they are precisely the ones we have to hold on to the closest, the ones that are most important. Not in our party. We can’t budge an inch for the RINOs, lest we become like them.
What about the children that will be exposed to gays? They have no choice, just as the unborn have no choice. Don’t give an inch to the RINOs: “libertarianism” is just another word for “liberalism”.
How could anybody look squarly at the murder of millions of children and only be "troubled".
“Somethings are so evil, you don’t work with them no matter what your chances.”
I agree with this. I often think back to the 1800s and wonder where I would have stood on the issues. I’m sure I would have been a strong abolitionist.
For me, there are many areas that are negotiable, but there are three areas that shouldn’t be:
1. Abortion
2. Defense
3. Capitalism
These issues are what make up the core of the republican party and separate us from the Dems. I can agree to disagree on so many other things, like gays, but these are critical.
I know a woman who went looking for her biological mother (at the request of her own children) and discovered that she was the result of both rape and incest.
What freaked her out the most was not that her real mother and father were brother and sister, but that had it happened years later instead of the early 50s, she would have been aborted - and everyone, even the "pro-lifers," would have approved.
>> Rape and incest, yes, but there are also plenty of people supportive of a ban beyond viability, third trimester, or second or third.
Then they’ve got a choice to make. Two parties ... one pro-life, one pro-choice. Neither agrees with their position. So, the likelihood is that their decision will come down to other policy areas ... the liberals will go Dem, the conservatives will stay Republican.
I fail to see how compromising our fundamental beliefs would benefit the party in this particular case. Compromising such a deeply ingrained principle is likely to drive away more votes than it gains.
>> In my view it’s a state issue, I’m no more enthused about the Federal government telling California what to do than Louisiana.
That’s fine, and I can certainly see your point. And, honestly, you’re welcome to vote for whichever Party you prefer. If the pro-life position is a dealbreaker — then perhaps this isn’t the Party for you, and Godspeed.
I simply don’t think the Republican Party needs to be everything to everyone — and such a strategy has lost us more elections than its won. I think the Party needs to state its principles outright, and let those voters that cannot support those positions (as a whole) go elsewhere.
We need to stop the “big tent” nonsense — it doesn’t gain us voters, it just makes us look like we’re not sold on our own principles.
H
The Republicans lost because Democrat turn out maintained the recent growth rate while Republican turn out dropped. There was some cross-over, Catholics (in name only) and others who support “choice” first among them.
ikeonic
Cordially,
Yes there is a party for pro choice folks.
The Democrat party, so get outta here, please.
I agree with you that we can’t give in to the RINOs, but I disagree somewhat with the rest of your comment and this is why. There is a way to live and let live on the gay issue that doesn’t result in indoctrination in the public schools and things like that. Granted, the liberals want that , but it doesn’t have to be that way. There is no way to live and let live that makes abortion suddenly not the slaughter of innocents.
I get your point, they ought to be much more than “troubled”, but there certainly are plenty of Democrats who claim not to agree with their party on abortion.
Anyway, my point is that socon Democrats are more numerous and reachable to our party than solib Republicans are to the Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.