I will preface what I am about to write by saying that I thank God Almighty John Kerry is far away from the levers of power. I will also say that I absolutely support him on stem cell research. This being said, I would like to know what separates Judge John Roberts from a person John Kerry would have nominated for the Supreme Court. Today I smelled an Anthony Kennedy in the works. "Roberts says he believes in right to privacy," the Chicago Tribune said on the front page. Everyone over age 15 knows that in courtspeak, "right to privacy" means abortion, in all three trimesters, no limits. It isn't even a euphemism- - it's a synonym. All this doesn't square with the president's Christian image.
This month I recieved a piece of mail from the Republican National Commitee. "But Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House are already talking tough. Desperate for a partisan edge, they're vowing to torpedo the President's agenda with stonewalling and obstructionist tactics." Obstructing what- - a judicial nominee that thinks just like the Democrats? If Bush wants money to campaign for Roberts, he'll have to wait a long time.
1 comment:
I think (hope) Roberts will surprise those who think he is going to be a liberal on the Court. How far do you think he would have gotten if he said that a Right to Privacy doesn't exist under the Constitution.
The Right to Privacy in the 14th Amendment, which Roberts cites is the basis for his recognition of it does exist. The provision is,"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
My feeling is that Roberts is going to look more to the original intent of the Constitution rather than interpreting it in a way that sets forth any political agenda.
Post a Comment