Friday, December 23, 2005

Liberals and the Courts

Interesting that liberals consider that only Supreme Court decisions that benefit their cause are sacrosanct. They have been struggling for years to get courts to overturn the gun ownership rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and have fought hard to get the courts to step into all kinds of things that are not their business, such as national security. And it is funny that the anti-smoking lawyers are heroes on the Left after they lost over 700 court decisions before finally beginning to wwin.

Liberals are very willing to fight against clearly stated Constitutional language or against common sense until they find the rigvht judge. Those decisions obviously were not sacrossanct! Yet Roe versus Wade, widely reviled as one of the flimsiest legal decisions ever, since it is based on a supposed 'right' that clearly exists nowhere in the Constitution, is somehow exempt from discussion? That sounds suspiciously like the Southern slave-owners, after the infamous Dred Scott decision. That one was overturned by the results of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment (ratified under Andrew Johnson in 1865). I believe that eventually Roe will also fall, since the Court did not then and does not now enjoy the right of legislative power. Roe is the classic example of the Supreme Court overstepping its authority, and the Congress of the time being too happy with the results to rebuke the Court. The Presidency could not interfere, as at that time, remember, it was being seriously wounded thanks to Nixon's shenanigans. Not until Bill Clinton would we have a President who so seriously undermined that august office.

So now that Samuel Alito, a widely respected jurist, who has been a model of strict contructionism, has been revealed to have argued in 1985 for Roe's repeal, I am sure that the Left and their DEmocratic allies will seize on this as evidence that Alito is somhow not in the mainstream. Maybe not in the mainstream of journalistic iwshful thinking, but certainly in the manistream of the American public. After all, the Left and their allies in the MSM are so out of step that the New York Times called Alito "an advocate for the right', but called Ruth Ginsburg, undeniably a far-left advocate, a "balanced jurist at home in the middle'. Hmm...Who's out of step with the mainstream?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

No comments: