![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tempest vs teapot
Jan. 22nd, 2003 10:26 pmbear with me, read my entire post before commenting.
well, it is the anniversary of roe v wade, our prez celebrated by calling in moral support for the many pro life protestors. he cited the preamble to the constitution, calling the 'right to life' a "self evident truth."
frankly,if the president does appoint a few right wing judges, (which seems inevitable, watchers say that at least one justice will retire in the next two years,) i wouldn't be too upset if they overturn roe v wade for two reasons...
1) roe v wade is based on an implied right to privacy, and an implied application of that implied right to a person's body. it is very shaky, legally, many constitutional interpretationalists, like chief justice scalia and justice thomas, want to overturn roe v wade and other implied privacy laws because the right to privacy is not implicitly granted in the constitution, it is their view, that justice william brennan overstepped his bounds (under the intended separation of powers set out by the framers of the constitution) by making law (the traditional realm of congress) rather than interpreting it. if roe v wade is overturned, the next step is a constitutional amendment to "codify" or place in writing, a rule allowing a right to privacy, that extends to one's person. i think this would be good, not only for abortion, because it's position would be unassailable, (other than a countering amendment, which would raise all kinds of privacy issues), but such an amendment would also raise the issue of a "right to die" and possibly, the right to ingest whatever substances one pleases.
2) if roe v wade is successfully challenged, it will incense fully half of the country. they will realize the folly of sticking too close to the center, and they may become polarized and fight for a candidate that will more closely reprent their ideals, rather than their pocketbook.
so given all that, flame away, as you all know, i'm not afraid to be wrong, and if you think i am wrong, i want to hear it, so say your piece,
well, it is the anniversary of roe v wade, our prez celebrated by calling in moral support for the many pro life protestors. he cited the preamble to the constitution, calling the 'right to life' a "self evident truth."
frankly,if the president does appoint a few right wing judges, (which seems inevitable, watchers say that at least one justice will retire in the next two years,) i wouldn't be too upset if they overturn roe v wade for two reasons...
1) roe v wade is based on an implied right to privacy, and an implied application of that implied right to a person's body. it is very shaky, legally, many constitutional interpretationalists, like chief justice scalia and justice thomas, want to overturn roe v wade and other implied privacy laws because the right to privacy is not implicitly granted in the constitution, it is their view, that justice william brennan overstepped his bounds (under the intended separation of powers set out by the framers of the constitution) by making law (the traditional realm of congress) rather than interpreting it. if roe v wade is overturned, the next step is a constitutional amendment to "codify" or place in writing, a rule allowing a right to privacy, that extends to one's person. i think this would be good, not only for abortion, because it's position would be unassailable, (other than a countering amendment, which would raise all kinds of privacy issues), but such an amendment would also raise the issue of a "right to die" and possibly, the right to ingest whatever substances one pleases.
2) if roe v wade is successfully challenged, it will incense fully half of the country. they will realize the folly of sticking too close to the center, and they may become polarized and fight for a candidate that will more closely reprent their ideals, rather than their pocketbook.
so given all that, flame away, as you all know, i'm not afraid to be wrong, and if you think i am wrong, i want to hear it, so say your piece,
