Our National Conversation: I have to agree with these sentiments by Kinsley and Lithwick; shouldn't a judge outline their thoughts on what everyone seems to think is the most important case ever?
I think Roe was wrongly decided. The question isn't whether there's a right to privacy, but whether the right to privacy logically implies the right to an abortion and whether this right trumps a state's police power. If it does trump, then what personal decision does the right to privacy not penubrate or in what case do these personal decisions not trump the police power?
I'm not saying this because I support anti-contraception laws or laws preventing me from going to the store on Sunday. I'm saying this because I think a careful reading of the Constitution at the time of the decision should have led a justice to conclude it was within a state's police power to criminalize abortion in various instances.
Despite my personal and moral objections to it, I wouldn't want abortion totally illegal in my home state.But I do think states should be able to set the circumstances under which it is permitted. If that means Texas has a more restrictive abortion law than New Hampshire's, fine.
This system of federalism is what the Constitutional framework mandates. What is so controversial about saying this at a confirmation hearing?
I'm angered by conservative judges - as Alito appears to be - who won't explain this philosophy clearly or draw out the implication of federalism questions before the Senate. It's almost a cliche to say that confirmation hearings have become Kabuki theater, but it's true.
As long as the proper 'codes' are given to indicate the right things to each side, judges can be confirmed without anyone having a clue how they judge cases!
Imagine being in eighth grade and a girl you have a crush on says a few words to you and your friends as she walks past. You, enamored and susceptible, interpret the tone to indicate she likes you. Your friends, under no such delusions, interpret the words as plainly spoken to indicate she was just being polite. Or worse, they don't like the sound of one word, and decide she's stuck up. This, my friends, is the same method we are currently using to vet judges for the Supreme Court of the United States. National conversation indeed.
I think Roe was wrongly decided. The question isn't whether there's a right to privacy, but whether the right to privacy logically implies the right to an abortion and whether this right trumps a state's police power. If it does trump, then what personal decision does the right to privacy not penubrate or in what case do these personal decisions not trump the police power?
I'm not saying this because I support anti-contraception laws or laws preventing me from going to the store on Sunday. I'm saying this because I think a careful reading of the Constitution at the time of the decision should have led a justice to conclude it was within a state's police power to criminalize abortion in various instances.
Despite my personal and moral objections to it, I wouldn't want abortion totally illegal in my home state.But I do think states should be able to set the circumstances under which it is permitted. If that means Texas has a more restrictive abortion law than New Hampshire's, fine.
This system of federalism is what the Constitutional framework mandates. What is so controversial about saying this at a confirmation hearing?
I'm angered by conservative judges - as Alito appears to be - who won't explain this philosophy clearly or draw out the implication of federalism questions before the Senate. It's almost a cliche to say that confirmation hearings have become Kabuki theater, but it's true.
As long as the proper 'codes' are given to indicate the right things to each side, judges can be confirmed without anyone having a clue how they judge cases!
Imagine being in eighth grade and a girl you have a crush on says a few words to you and your friends as she walks past. You, enamored and susceptible, interpret the tone to indicate she likes you. Your friends, under no such delusions, interpret the words as plainly spoken to indicate she was just being polite. Or worse, they don't like the sound of one word, and decide she's stuck up. This, my friends, is the same method we are currently using to vet judges for the Supreme Court of the United States. National conversation indeed.
posted by Joshua @ 11:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home