RantFever 4

I pontificate but not in the pejorative sense of the word.

Archive of Rant Fever 3, 2, 1, & Beta

Roberts Grandslam

by: Abinadi Ayerdis | on: 2005-09-16 00:00:00
I love all these baseball metaphors.

There is an article from the Christian Science Monitor that makes a couple of interesting points about what congress will do and what was revealed in the confirmation hearing.

The author, Gail Russell Chaddock, makes the point that Senators may approve Roberts in order to save their energy for fighting Bush's next potentially more conservative nominee:

"After the vote [on Rehnquist], the Senate didn't have the appetite for another big fight," says activist Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice. "There's a huge temptation to be on to the next nomination, but a vote for Roberts is voting your fears that the next one is going to be worse."

Chaddock also makes a list of four "things learned" from Roberts from the hearing:

• He says he now believes the 14th Amendment contains a substantive privacy right, an issue tied to the abortion debate.

• He says he now disagrees with the approach taken by the Reagan administration in a 1980s civil rights case involving Bob Jones University.

• He is troubled by the citation of foreign law as a precedent in the interpretation of American statutes and the US Constitution.

• He says he is no longer certain that the US Constitution permits Congress to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction in controversial areas.

The privacy right thing is suspect, but I still think that Roe v. Wade is far from settled. And if the issue comes up before future Justice Roberts, there could very well be some huge changes ahead.

The third point about foreign influence on our legal system is great. Sandra Day O'Connor feels that the Supreme Court should look to international law when making judgements. That is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Keep it domestic, my friends. It's good to see that Roberts has a good head on his shoulders with respect to this issue.


Dubya 2005-09-17 00:00:00

I think there is a substantive right to privacy embedded in the Bill of Rights itself; every amendment implies the importance of privacy and then the ninth amendment protects rights retained by the people but not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I don't think the debate should be over whether there is a right to privacy, but whether or not a right to privacy entitles a man to have unprotected sex with a woman, create new life, then destroy that life. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, the man is just as culpable as the woman in the death of the baby.

The fact that the Supreme Court was able to extend the right to privacy to cover the murder of unborn babies is amazing.

el Seco 2005-09-17 00:00:00

Amazing and stupifying and revolting. It makes me madder than a beaver with a toothache.