Roe, The Sequel
Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning. Unfortunately it is not on their free site. Basically is points out that Antonin Scalia’s predictions in both the Lawrence decision (that the Sodomy decision would lead to same sex marriage) and more importantly in Planned Parenthood v. Casey on abortion were correct. As Scalia wrote in the latter, “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs an intensifies the anguish.”
Some key quotes,
quote:
So let’s be clear. Notwithstanding headlines trumpeting that Massachusetts has just opted for gay marriage, the people of that commonwealth did no such thing. It was four liberal judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court who, egged on by well-connected and politically powerful gay rights activists, have imposed their own moral values on the rest of its citizens
quote:
In other words, it’s precisely the American public whom they most fear and whose voice they want to keep out of this process. So they’ve done what liberals so often do: Provoke some state court decision in hopes that the US Supreme court will finally do the legislating for them. This sure beats having to persuade your fellow Americans through democratic debate.
quote:
And if you don’t agree they’re going to force it on you anyway.
It is not just a matter of whose ox is being gored, but rather judges writing laws. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion. The problem with the Roe decision is not that it came down on the pro-choice side, but that it created a new right. In short it effectively amended the constitution so as to impose the values of 5 judges on the court. The fact is that there is a very good likelihood that within the next couple of decades we could have a majority on the court to overturn Roe. If that court was to rule on the pro-life side, and ban all abortion this would be equally as bad as Roe.In the current case, it simply strains all credulity to believe that same sex marriage has laid undiscovered in Massachusetts constitution for centuries, only to be suddenly found by the current court. This is not a court interpreting the law, this is four judges effectively rewriting the constitution so as to impose their values on society.
You may not like the results of the Bush v Gore decision, but the only thing it really said was the law had to be obeyed and that you could not ignore the law just because it did not achieve the outcome you desired. (And to be clear here, the outcome in question was that ever vote must be counted. This could not be done in the fashion that the Florida Supreme court was asking for without violating both Florida and Federal law.)
The key issue in all three cases is whether a Judges suppose to rule based on what the law and the constitution says, or on what they believe is the right thing to do. I believe that they should rule on what the law and the constitution says. If there is a problem with the law or the constitution, then it should be changed or amended. It should not just be creatively reinterpreted so as to achieve what the judges want.
This is why judicial appointments are becoming so political. Judges are increasingly imposing their own views rather than ruling on the law. Not only is this accepted, it is openly defended by many legal theorist. In fact the reason Bork was seen as so “controversial” and “out of the main stream” was because Bork is the leading proponent of original intent, that a judge must rule only on what law and constitution says as originally understood by those who passed it. This is seen as so dangerous because much of the leftist agenda had been put into place by doing what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, by reinterpreting the law and constitution so as to be in accordance with leftist values.
It is not just a matter of whose ox is being gored, but rather judges writing laws. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion. The problem with the Roe decision is not that it came down on the pro-choice side, but that it created a new right. In short it effectively amended the constitution so as to impose the values of 5 judges on the court. The fact is that there is a very good likelihood that within the next couple of decades we could have a majority on the court to overturn Roe. If that court was to rule on the pro-life side, and ban all abortion this would be equally as bad as Roe.
In the current case, it simply strains all credulity to believe that same sex marriage has laid undiscovered in Massachusetts constitution for centuries, only to be suddenly found by the current court. This is not a court interpreting the law, this is four judges effectively rewriting the constitution so as to impose their values on society.
You may not like the results of the Bush v Gore decision, but the only thing it really said was the law had to be obeyed and that you could not ignore the law just because it did not achieve the outcome you desired. (And to be clear here, the outcome in question was that ever vote must be counted. This could not be done in the fashion that the Florida Supreme court was asking for without violating both Florida and Federal law.)
The key issue in all three cases is whether a Judges suppose to rule based on what the law and the constitution says, or on what they believe is the right thing to do. I believe that they should rule on what the law and the constitution says. If there is a problem with the law or the constitution, then it should be changed or amended. It should not just be creatively reinterpreted so as to achieve what the judges want.
This is why judicial appointments are becoming so political. Judges are increasingly imposing their own views rather than ruling on the law. Not only is this accepted, it is openly defended by many legal theorist. In fact the reason Bork was seen as so “controversial” and “out of the main stream” was because Bork is the leading proponent of original intent, that a judge must rule only on what law and constitution says as originally understood by those who passed it. This is seen as so dangerous because much of the leftist agenda had been put into place by doing what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, by reinterpreting the law and constitution so as to be in accordance with leftist values.
