So, it looks like John Roberts has been confirmed.
This seems like a good time to mention something I've been thinking about lately. A lot of liberals are worried about Bush getting to nominate new justices. The main talking point is usually that they'll "overturn Roe v. Wade," which would, of course, take away the precious right to infanticide choice.
I just have a simple question. As much as I'd like to see that travesty of a decision reversed...
HOW THE CRAP WILL IT EVER HAPPEN?!
I really don't think a lot of these people understand how the Supreme Court works. First of all, a justice can't just stand up and declare a previous decision invalid. The SCOTUS can only rule on cases brought before it. In order for Roe to be overturned, there would at least need to be a case in the Court related to the "right to privacy" that the majority inserted into the Constitution.
In addition, even if that did somehow happen, the question of abortion would be thrown back to the states. The only way for the Supreme Court to single-handedly make abortion illegal would be for it to declare abortion unconstitutional, and in order for that to happen, the plaintiff in a case would probably have to claim that his or her Constitutional rights were violated by someone else having an abortion. Until we let unborn children file lawsuits, I don't think that's going to happen.
Look, libs, I'm not going to lie to you. I, and a lot of other conservatives, hope that Roe v. Wade can be overturned someday, and we definitely support much stricter abortion laws, but you're being willfully ignorant if you believe that all it takes for that stuff to happen is a conservative majority on the SCOTUS. The judicial process is (unfortunately, in this case) a lot more complex than that.
...Why yes, I have been concentrating a lot on my Constitutional Law class lately. How did you know?
*passes out from exhaustion*
Posted by CD on September 29, 2005 02:48 PM | TrackBackI'm trying to figure out when the "balance of the Supreme Court" became the deciding factor in nominating potential Justices. Everybody (meaning the crackheads on CNN) is saying that although the Senate passed Roberts with no problem, they'll probably give Bush a big fight if he picks another conservative to replace O'Connor, because she wasn't very conservative. That's just stupid. If Bush wanted somebody exactly like O'Connor on the Court, he'd ask her not to retire, not pick a friggin' clone. What to the Donks expect him to do if Ginsburg does us a favor and retires before 2008? Nominate another radical who has no idea what the Constitution says? No- I think he'd pick another conservative, because if Americans didn't want conservatives on the Court, we wouldn't have picked a conservative President- twice.
I've been meaning to vent that. Those "Ooh! Ooh! The Balance of Power™!!!" morons are irritating.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at September 29, 2005 06:00 PMAnd you thought that constitutional law class would be worthless. Feh. That's one of the regrets that i have had that i couldn't work it in in any way shape or form up here.
Ehh, well.
Posted by: tommy at September 29, 2005 08:47 PM