Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Supreme Court Gets It Right by a Narrow Margin

The Supreme Court took a small, but important step forward today toward dismantling the societal damage and just plain bad law of Roe v. Wade by upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion on a 5-4 vote. The decision is being hailed by conservatives as a step in the right direction while being denounced by liberals (as any restriction on abortion, no matter how small, always does).

The close vote on what should have been a slam-dunk unanimous decision emphasizes why it is important to get conservatives elected to positions that appoint judges. Justice Kennedy, the "moderate" (i.e. unpredictable, and often liberal) swing vote joined the reliable conservative justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito in upholding this federal ban on infanticide and wrote the majority opinion.

The liberal minority (has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?) of justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer expressed their disappointment in the decision as expected, with Ginsburg writing in the dissent that she is "troubled" that the decision refuses to take previous Court decisions on abortion seriously. This is a common view of liberals on the court that precedent should trump constitutional original intent and/or relevance.

In contrast to Justice Ginsburg's dour statement, I found Justice Thomas's statement particularly encouraging:
I write separately to reiterate my view that the court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution.
Unlike the libs on the Court, Justice Thomas "gets it".

Better to get it right than perpetuate mistakes of the past. Justice Thomas is absolutely correct in that, even disregarding the gross immorality of the decision, the Court should not have considered Roe v. Wade in the first place and that the decision is, and always has been wrong and should be overturned strictly on Constitutional grounds.

2 Comments:

Anonymous daisy said...

This is very good news, indeed!
Thanks for carrying it, Right Hook!

4/18/2007 8:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right Hook, very right. You came, you saw the inconsistancies, you researched, AND SAID SOMETHING IMPORTANT, AGAIN.

Death seems to be unconstitutional(!) for the pre-born, for the elderly, for the sick and for the well, usually for everyone.

We seriously choose to protect "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." right here in America--for ourselves and for those who would have hope and a future.

Keep faith in the good stuff. Write more and you'll be right again. I'm confident..

Thank-you!

4/20/2007 1:15 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger