When Democrats want to reject Supreme Court justices who aree against abortion that is very narrow minded. It is also narrow minded when Republicans reject Supreme Court justices who support abortion. To me, both parties are making too much of a deal about one issue (abortion). Doesn't it seem like there's more to a qualified court justice than his/her view on abortion?
It's about more than "is abortion right or wrong". The abortion issue is used as a measure of a person's qualifications for Supreme Court justice because it sheds light on how the judge views his/her duties as a justice. The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is supposed to interpret the law, not make law, or "legislate from the bench". Since the Constitution does not address the subject of abortion, many feel that it should be strictly a state issue, not a federal one. The Roe vs. Wade decision made the right to an abortion a federal issue, and a potential justice who agrees with that decision is seen as someone who might use their position to legislate from the bench in future cases. If a potential justice is a strict constitutionalist, who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written, with authority to rule on those things enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government and let the states handle the rest, they are not very attractive to those who wish to give more power to the federal government.
It's about more than "is abortion right or wrong". The abortion issue is used as a measure of a person's qualifications for Supreme Court justice because it sheds light on how the judge views his/her duties as a justice. The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is supposed to interpret the law, not make law, or "legislate from the bench". Since the Constitution does not address the subject of abortion, many feel that it should be strictly a state issue, not a federal one. The Roe vs. Wade decision made the right to an abortion a federal issue, and a potential justice who agrees with that decision is seen as someone who might use their position to legislate from the bench in future cases. If a potential justice is a strict constitutionalist, who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written, with authority to rule on those things enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government and let the states handle the rest, they are not very attractive to those who wish to give more power to the federal government.
It's about more than "is abortion right or wrong". The abortion issue is used as a measure of a person's qualifications for Supreme Court justice because it sheds light on how the judge views his/her duties as a justice. The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is supposed to interpret the law, not make law, or "legislate from the bench". Since the Constitution does not address the subject of abortion, many feel that it should be strictly a state issue, not a federal one. The Roe vs. Wade decision made the right to an abortion a federal issue, and a potential justice who agrees with that decision is seen as someone who might use their position to legislate from the bench in future cases. If a potential justice is a strict constitutionalist, who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written, with authority to rule on those things enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government and let the states handle the rest, they are not very attractive to those who wish to give more power to the federal government.
That pretty much puts the brakes on this thread. Great answer!
I agree, it was a great answer. Libertarian-type here who thinks, aside from any personal feelings on the subject, that the decision needs to be left in the hands of the states.
Great answer... but when it comes to Human life(or many other Laws governing us today)...that Law wasn't written by any State. You just opened another can of worms... Separation of Church and State(which isn't written in the Constitution,BTW..more pathetic heresy). You can't separate the yoke from the white, and still hatch a chicken............ I don't care HOW intellegent humans brag they are..... this issue is GREATER than ANY court...well, save the Highest Court of One
These type threads tickle me.......Oooo..Supreme Court Justices.... Ahhhhhh..
I agree with the previous posts that supreme court justices should be restricted to constitutional decisions and not legislate from the bench. But the murder of innocent children as a means of "birth control" is always going to be a hot button.
But the murder of innocent children as a means of "birth control" is always going to be a hot button.
The button is particularly hot when a simplistic statement such as yours is used to fan the flames! Without jumping in on the side of pro-abortion activists, it might be wise to consider that not all terminations are the result of failed birth control. There are other reasons - the mother's health, damaged or undeveloping fetus, results of rape/incest, etc. There might be a few women in the world so without feeling that they might take such action without pain but I assure you for most females it is NOT an easy decision.
Also, if life begins at conception, then many birth control pills are also "murder" as they destroy a fertalized egg - one of the many reasons the Catholic Church uses for forbidding them. Similarly, the morning after pill.
I personally object to a bunch of mostly old men legislating this matter at the State or Federal level. As a mother and grandmother, I value our babies enormously but the decision to bear a child is between a woman, her doctor, and her concience. People with religious or political agendas using this issue as a scare tactic is detestable.
I agree, it was a great answer. Libertarian-type here who thinks, aside from any personal feelings on the subject, that the decision needs to be left in the hands of the states.
Actually abortion should be a matter of individual choice not law. If you don't want to get an abortion then don't get one. But don't prevent somebody else from getting one simply because your religious or moral convictions are against it.
The button is particularly hot when a simplistic statement such as yours is used to fan the flames! Without jumping in on the side of pro-abortion activists, it might be wise to consider that not all terminations are the result of failed birth control. There are other reasons - the mother's health, damaged or undeveloping fetus, results of rape/incest, etc. There might be a few women in the world so without feeling that they might take such action without pain but I assure you for most females it is NOT an easy decision.
Also, if life begins at conception, then many birth control pills are also "murder" as they destroy a fertalized egg - one of the many reasons the Catholic Church uses for forbidding them. Similarly, the morning after pill.
I personally object to a bunch of mostly old men legislating this matter at the State or Federal level. As a mother and grandmother, I value our babies enormously but the decision to bear a child is between a woman, her doctor, and her concience. People with religious or political agendas using this issue as a scare tactic is detestable.
The button is particularly hot when a simplistic statement such as yours is used to fan the flames! Without jumping in on the side of pro-abortion activists, it might be wise to consider that not all terminations are the result of failed birth control. There are other reasons - the mother's health, damaged or undeveloping fetus, results of rape/incest, etc. There might be a few women in the world so without feeling that they might take such action without pain but I assure you for most females it is NOT an easy decision.
Also, if life begins at conception, then many birth control pills are also "murder" as they destroy a fertalized egg - one of the many reasons the Catholic Church uses for forbidding them. Similarly, the morning after pill.
I personally object to a bunch of mostly old men legislating this matter at the State or Federal level. As a mother and grandmother, I value our babies enormously but the decision to bear a child is between a woman, her doctor, and her concience. People with religious or political agendas using this issue as a scare tactic is detestable.
I agree with the previous posts that supreme court justices should be restricted to constitutional decisions and not legislate from the bench.
It was the Supreme Court decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson that upheld the concept of "Separate But Equal" and led to Jim Crow laws and segregation. It was the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that led to the eventual desegregation of most public institutions and places.
If both cases the Consitution was "Interepreted" based on the prevailing social climate.
February 4th, 2006, 07:09 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
