The press pushes its agenda
"During his 15 years on the federal bench, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. has worked quietly but resolutely to weave a conservative legal agenda into the fabric of the nation's laws." So writes Stephen Henderson for Knight Ridder in a story widely picked up by the nation's press.
That is the lead off. Later in the article, Mr. Henderson allows that Judge Alito has, according to just about everyone that has ever worked for or with him, only ever applied the law to the cases on which he worked and which were brought before him. He has never in any instance that anyone can point to applied a political view to a case: inverse judicial activism, if you will.
Judge Alito is then a conservative ... a conservative judge who does not read more into a situation regarding individual rights than is already present. He does not find penumbras of protection where other more activist (what we erroneously call "liberal") judges are able to stretch the meaning of laws to "protect" the individual. Never mind that the protection afforded was never in the minds of representatives who drafted the laws in the first place, the "liberal" judges see fit to extend coverage to where they presume it should have extended: judicial activism.
For his rational and clear thought Alito risks a political session in the pillory -- look that word up if you do not know exactly what it means -- because the press and the knee-jerk leftists who control it wants you to believe that you are at risk if Alito is elevated to the Supreme Court. At risk of what? Well, of having the laws of the United States applied and put into effect as drafted and intended by the legislature. That is, as intended by the people who are elected by us to draft such laws. The risk here is that Congress, the Senate and the Executive Branch are idiots -- and if that is the case, then it is our fault, not the fault of people like Sam Alito.
Those that support judicial activism eagerly point out that in fact the Executive Branch is populated by idiots ... well, I can't totally disagree, but then I really don't see where this is new. In fact, I can't really remember in my life (which covers back to Eisenhower) where an idiot has not been in the White House, accompanied by toadying sycophants and assorted lunatics. Far from being the exception, Dubbya's White House is really only the norm -- and please, before you trot out Pope Bill and Saint Hillary, remember getting a hummer under your desk from an intern while taking calls from Senators does not exactly model primo frontal cortex decision making. And staying with him does not show strength of character, but rather a purient lust for power.
But let's get back to the root of Alito-fear: Roe. And the unfettered right to abortion no matter how and where. If you are a pro-lifer, that right is the unfettered right to commit murder and slaughter the unborn. If you are pro-choice, it is the unfettered right to determine what happens to your body and what may or may not be able to grow within it -- found under the penumbra of PRIVACY.
Privacy and self determination ... reductio ab absurdum this right also would entail the right to commit suicide, perform any manner of self mutilation, or perhaps do anything so long as no-one else is harmed. Ah-hah say the right to lifers, you see it is precisely at that point where the harm occurs: you are killing another human being. Alito appears to say that the Constitution does not directly address this one way or the other, and certainly does not do so as it regards privacy. And this scares the crap out of the left -- its a domino theory, First we lose abortion, then a whole ton of other rights. But that is not the case. Where a right is directly given, Alito is your most rabid supporter: his record on First Amendment speech issues and freedom of religion is spotless. He is one of the most ardent protectors of these rights on the bench today. I like that. You want Alito to protect the right to abortion, then let's pass the laws that expressly permit it. It is up to us and the legistlature. We can enshrine it in the Constitution too.
Don't shoot Alito because he refuses to step in to correct the flaws already in the system by exercising power that should not be his to exert in the first place and in of themselves may be unconstitutional. If we cannot pass the appropriate laws to protect abortion rights as a federal concept, then if Roe goes down, it will be a State's rights issue. Certain states may outright ban it. Other (in my opinion the more enlightened ones) will protect these rights. That is democracy and our federal system in action.
It is simply not OK to say that because the result is correct that we can overlook flaws or errors in our system. That is not the path of clear and evenly-applied laws which will ensure the right access them. It hurts all of us. We may need to take a step back to get things right. One of those painful exorcisms may be the need to get rid of activist judges and bring the focus back to a representative system of intelligent and committed law makers who do their jobs rather than worrying about their pork ration. But the press does not want to go there. That would hurt them too. Imagine having to tell the truth? How could the New York Times manage?
That is the lead off. Later in the article, Mr. Henderson allows that Judge Alito has, according to just about everyone that has ever worked for or with him, only ever applied the law to the cases on which he worked and which were brought before him. He has never in any instance that anyone can point to applied a political view to a case: inverse judicial activism, if you will.
Judge Alito is then a conservative ... a conservative judge who does not read more into a situation regarding individual rights than is already present. He does not find penumbras of protection where other more activist (what we erroneously call "liberal") judges are able to stretch the meaning of laws to "protect" the individual. Never mind that the protection afforded was never in the minds of representatives who drafted the laws in the first place, the "liberal" judges see fit to extend coverage to where they presume it should have extended: judicial activism.
For his rational and clear thought Alito risks a political session in the pillory -- look that word up if you do not know exactly what it means -- because the press and the knee-jerk leftists who control it wants you to believe that you are at risk if Alito is elevated to the Supreme Court. At risk of what? Well, of having the laws of the United States applied and put into effect as drafted and intended by the legislature. That is, as intended by the people who are elected by us to draft such laws. The risk here is that Congress, the Senate and the Executive Branch are idiots -- and if that is the case, then it is our fault, not the fault of people like Sam Alito.
Those that support judicial activism eagerly point out that in fact the Executive Branch is populated by idiots ... well, I can't totally disagree, but then I really don't see where this is new. In fact, I can't really remember in my life (which covers back to Eisenhower) where an idiot has not been in the White House, accompanied by toadying sycophants and assorted lunatics. Far from being the exception, Dubbya's White House is really only the norm -- and please, before you trot out Pope Bill and Saint Hillary, remember getting a hummer under your desk from an intern while taking calls from Senators does not exactly model primo frontal cortex decision making. And staying with him does not show strength of character, but rather a purient lust for power.
But let's get back to the root of Alito-fear: Roe. And the unfettered right to abortion no matter how and where. If you are a pro-lifer, that right is the unfettered right to commit murder and slaughter the unborn. If you are pro-choice, it is the unfettered right to determine what happens to your body and what may or may not be able to grow within it -- found under the penumbra of PRIVACY.
Privacy and self determination ... reductio ab absurdum this right also would entail the right to commit suicide, perform any manner of self mutilation, or perhaps do anything so long as no-one else is harmed. Ah-hah say the right to lifers, you see it is precisely at that point where the harm occurs: you are killing another human being. Alito appears to say that the Constitution does not directly address this one way or the other, and certainly does not do so as it regards privacy. And this scares the crap out of the left -- its a domino theory, First we lose abortion, then a whole ton of other rights. But that is not the case. Where a right is directly given, Alito is your most rabid supporter: his record on First Amendment speech issues and freedom of religion is spotless. He is one of the most ardent protectors of these rights on the bench today. I like that. You want Alito to protect the right to abortion, then let's pass the laws that expressly permit it. It is up to us and the legistlature. We can enshrine it in the Constitution too.
Don't shoot Alito because he refuses to step in to correct the flaws already in the system by exercising power that should not be his to exert in the first place and in of themselves may be unconstitutional. If we cannot pass the appropriate laws to protect abortion rights as a federal concept, then if Roe goes down, it will be a State's rights issue. Certain states may outright ban it. Other (in my opinion the more enlightened ones) will protect these rights. That is democracy and our federal system in action.
It is simply not OK to say that because the result is correct that we can overlook flaws or errors in our system. That is not the path of clear and evenly-applied laws which will ensure the right access them. It hurts all of us. We may need to take a step back to get things right. One of those painful exorcisms may be the need to get rid of activist judges and bring the focus back to a representative system of intelligent and committed law makers who do their jobs rather than worrying about their pork ration. But the press does not want to go there. That would hurt them too. Imagine having to tell the truth? How could the New York Times manage?
posted by Zaphod at Friday, December 02, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home