register |  login
› LONGMONT
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 10 of 208 The Subversive Liberal
"If by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal." – President John F. Kennedy...................... Some people find me and that sentiment subversive. I'm here to set the record straight and offer the real typical liberal point of view. Some call it subversive, I call it patriotic.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~BingVanGorden

Conservative Activist Judges
Contributed by: Bing Van Gorden   on 4/18/2007

Today the Supreme Court ignored years of legal precedence to uphold the ban on a late term abortion procedure dubbed "partial birth abortion" by radical elements of the religious right. Justices Scalia and Thomas went one step further to offer the opinion that they don't see anything in the constitution that allows abortion at all.

I went back to re-read the historic Roe V. Wade ruling. In that court's interpretation there is a "right to privacy" as outlined in the 4th Amendment that supersedes a state's authority to prevent women from having an abortion. They based this interpretation of a right to privacy on previous court rulings as most responsible courts do. These justices ruled along legal and constitutional lines, leaving their personal religious beliefs and emotions out of the process. As all judges are supposed to do.

Unfortunately today's right leaning stacked court threatens to dismantle further civil liberties that have been ours for years. Scalia flatly denies the Constitution is a living document but must be rigidly interpreted as our founding father's intended. He called those who do consider it a living document "idiots" in a recent speech.

He has insisted that even our founders were opposed to abortion, but ignores the fact that no abortion laws were enacted until the mid 19th century.

If you look hard enough you can find the transcript of a young State Senator Alexander Hamilton of New York arguing eloquently and effectively against a bill that would require a witness be present at birth to ensure the mother did not kill her baby. His reasoning? Her fundamental right to privacy.

That's about the closest thing you'll find regarding abortion. If the Constitution is not a living document that changes with the times, and 200 years of precedent to the contrary are to be ignored as Scalia wants us to believe we can say goodbye to all the Amendments to it including the Bill of Rights.

The IVth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The government does not have the authority to tell women what to do with their bodies. We do have a right to privacy from the government's intrusion unless they get a warrant and meet the requirements to do so. So much for liberals being the activist judges.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating
Based on 3 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 13 comments
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/29/2007 @ 11:38:10 AM
(Not Rated)
That's fine Gladys. But the party's stand on abortion is simply it isn't Constitutional for the government toput restrictions on your body against your will. Safe, rare and legal is the goal. So called "partial birth abortion" is very rare. But now it's illegal. I wonder how they will avoid breaking the law to enforce this one. So much for Doctor, Patient cofidentiality. Like it or not you have a right to privacy from this kind of aggregious government intrusion. Until now.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Gladys Mercier
posted on 4/25/2007 @ 10:17:05 PM
Rated Blog Entry
I am a democrat that is ashamed of my party's stand on abortion. How could anyone want to kill a baby? Adoption is a great alternative. I am glad that " partial birth " abortion has been stopped.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/21/2007 @ 8:33:14 AM
(Not Rated)
Is it murder for the state to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term that ultimately kills the mother? When that happens, and the husband sues and takes it to the Supreme Court will he be awarded damages or will the court correct itself again? Is it moral for the government to force women to do something they are unwilling to do? If we go further and ban abortion for victims of rape and incest is that moral or just? When in doubt, leave the government out.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/21/2007 @ 8:29:23 AM
(Not Rated)
Morality is fine Chris but it's not the law. Yes the procedure is disturbing, but the decision isn't based in law, it's based in ideology, morality and religion. Banning this procedure was an empty effort. It is rare and is usually done because of severe birth defects or the health of the mother which the ban allows for already. Secondly the addendum by Scalia and Thomas not only over steps the ruling, it ignores years of previous court decisions. Law is rooted in precedence. This ruling like BushVGore, is unprecedented and activist.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 4/20/2007 @ 5:21:18 PM
Rated Blog Entry
I know not many people want to look at the moral aspect of this, but it's important - and I'm not an activist, marcher, or nut. But I have a conscience. Did you read Kennedy's opinion? http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf Especially starting on page 14 of the pdf? I wont repeat it here, but if that doesn't disturb you in the least...This is right out of the Nazi/Mengele playbook. I know your post isnt about morality, but morality played a part in our countries founding. Even if it didn't, it's beyond belief that THIS procedure is allowed and not called murder. Read it if you don't know what I'm referring to. Prepare to want to puke.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 4/20/2007 @ 5:10:54 PM
Rated Blog Entry
What's really rich are these congressmen who voted FOR this law, "The Partial Birth Abortion Ban", and now blast the court for upholding it! Explain that one, total hogwash. RoeVWade imposes the feds rule over the states, not very constitutional. On those grounds it'll someday be overturned, a states rights angle. The Supreme Court should not be involved, nor should it be a campaign issue endlessly beaten into the ground. This is an individual and medical issue, best left to the individual, or the states at worst.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 4/20/2007 @ 4:58:47 PM
Rated Blog Entry
That's not how I define "judicial activism". It's activism when they overstep their constitutional authority and make law. This case was the court ruling on a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, and the constitutionality of it. In other words, doing their job. If one doesn't care for the outcome, that's fine, but this wasn't activism. But when 1 guy (the 5th in a 5-4 decision) has the power to override all other branches and millions of people, there's something wrong with that.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/19/2007 @ 7:42:27 PM
(Not Rated)
If you read the recent decision, you may also come to the conclusion the court is clearly overstepping it's bounds. Read Roe v. Wade and see if you come to a different conclusion. Morally speaking, I don't like abortion either. Especially a third trimester procedure such as this. But it isn't as black and white an issue to me as it is to others. When a fetus becomes a life can't be an issue the government determines. The potential human being is terminated in a rather callous way. But men don't get pregnant, women get raped, are pressured into sex, and ultimately have to bear the physical burden that men do not. In these matters, I argue that government can not make the decision. But what can the government do? The government has the Ad Council. The government has the ability to fund programs that educate young people of the consequences. Without thrusting a sonogram in their face. A jingoistic phrase I actually agree with is "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/19/2007 @ 7:42:15 PM
(Not Rated)
s had a "right to privacy". They also based their decision on the precedent established in the "equal rights clause" of the 9th amendment. This decision was clearly rooted in law. But they left the door open to leave it up to states what restrictions, within reason, to put on abortion. Ultimately the court has set the restriction that states can not impede on a woman's right to abortion. This "partial birth abortion" procedure is rare but does happen in the graphic nature you stated. Provide for a woman's health and the ability to confer with her doctor and do not restrict when the mother's life is threatened and you have a compelling argument to ban the procedure. It will now be left to the state's to set those restrictions. Again, the issue is the Scalia/Thomas addendum to the decision this week not so much the majority opinion.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/19/2007 @ 7:40:35 PM
(Not Rated)
With all due respect Chris, and I do respect you, this post isn't about the morality of late term abortion. It's about the court's responsibility to judge based on legal precedent and interpretation of the Constitution. Not on morality, or religious grounds. This is why I call it activism. Scalia and Thomas went beyond giving an opinion on this particular case but went on to say they did not see any constitutional basis for a woman to be free to make decisions that involve their person. Roe V Wade is not only legal precedent it's rooted in legal precedent that came before it. This is how the Constitution is a living document. The issue of abortion came before the court. It was argued before them, they conferred and wrote their opinions. If you read Roe's decisions including the dissent by Justice Renquist, you will see it was no case of judicial activism. The majority opinion used the 4th Amendment and how previous court's concluded this entitled or meant that citizen
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 13 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Bing Van Gorden

Longmont , CO

Bing Van Gorden has posted 208 blog entries and 985 comments since joining on 3/28/2007. Bing Van Gorden 's average blog rating is 3.47.
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
SAVE AND SHARE THIS ITEM

BLOG LIST
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos