About me
I suppose I should give a little background about myself and my beliefs since most of my entries will be political in nature. My name is Chase and I am pretty much a standard conservative Republican (although I agree with many of their platforms I find their actions ranging from bizzare to extremely frustrating). Yes I voted for Bush, no I am not an idiot. I am a politcal science major (econ minor) at the University of Colorado-Boulder and am very politically literate. I read a lot, newspapers, online articles, academic papers etc. So if you disagree with anything I say I would appreciate comments that get to flaws in arguments and not straight to intelligence (or lack thereof) of myself or our leaders (W in particular).
Anyway, the filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees has got me thinking a lot about the judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular. Since these recent filibusters are just a pre-party, per se, for the Supreme Court vacancy(s) that Bush will have to fill sometime, I have realized that both parties, and most of the population know that whoever fills one seat could determine so much of our country's future policy. This, to me, is very sad. The framers of the Constitution were very explicit in giving lawmaking duties to the branch that they felt was the most representive of the population: the legislature. They are responsible to their consituents who can kick them out of office if they stray too far from the people's demands.
However in the last 50 or so years, legislating has been done by both the legislature and the judiciary. This is bad on two counts: first the judiciary cannot explicitly make law, it has to create de facto law. This requires the Constitution to be bent to fit Judges views of how the law should be. Secondly, federal judges are not responsible to anyone. Once they are on the bench, they cannot be voted off.
This leads to ugly things happening from the judicial branch of government. One of the worst decisions, both Constitutionally and in the mental leaps of logic required even if the Consitutional stretches were to be believed is Roe v. Wade (1973). (Before I start I should preface by saying that I am personally pro-life, but that has no bearing on the argument presented here.) Essentially, the Supreme Court built on the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in which they determined that the Framers "implied" a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. They then found that this right to privacy allowed women the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
Even if one believes that the Bill of Rights implies a right to privacy, there are still problems with the decision. Where in the Constiution, for example, does it say that women have the right to privacy, which implies abortion, but only in the first two trimesters? What would the Court have decided if pregnancies lasted eleven months? Or seven? What is so special about six months that the Constiution should be invoked to claim this right? This is a clear case of the judiciary legislating from the bench, but they do not have the tools of writing laws that the legislature has to be precise and accurate.
In this case, the Supreme Court took a law which it didn't like and overturned it on grounds to which the title shaky would be generous. Instead of waiting for democracy to take action, for both sides to argue and compromise on the issue on a state-by-state basis, the Supreme Court took all the debate off the table by making it a Constiutional question.
What is truly ironic is that states were in the process of liberalizing abortion laws anyway. All the Supreme Court did was radicalize pro-life supporters by completely taking away their voice that they are supposed to have in our government. People who are against abortion would be much less radical if they felt that they could petition their representatives to vote a certain way. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned today, abortion would still be legal in most states. Regulation would vary from state to state and to be sure some states would outlaw it. But debate and compromise would determine the outcome, as it is set up in the Consitution.
Everyone in Washington and across the country knows that the Supreme Court holds this kind of power and are desperate to get a Justice that will vote their way on different issues. I agree with president Bush that we need judges that will read the Constitution and make decisions based on what it says. Judges should not look at their own opinion on issues, popular opinion or world opinion when making decisions. They should stick to what their job had been before the second half of the twentieth century: comparing laws to the Consitution to see if they violate it. That is all. We ask no more from you. We give you power to rule until you no longer want to. Do not abuse this power.
Well I just popped this out and haven't looked at it or anything so if its rambling or doesn't flow right I apologize. I'll look it over, edit it and maybe try to do better next time.
Chase
Posted by hutchizel
at 8:19 AM MDT
