My Democrat friend knows how I feel about religion seeing as how we are both Agnostic but I can't make him understand why I support the nomination of Barrett. He insists that she will bring her Catholic beliefs to her position. Gee, where have I heard that before? JFK anybody? Did the Left worry about Ginsburg bringing her Jewish beliefs to the highest court?
I try to explain to my friend that as much as I recoil at people who proselytize, I see no evidence that Barrett does this outside the religious group she belongs to. I understand why some people are skeptical that people like Barrett, Scalia, RBG and yes, JFK, can keep their beliefs to themselves and in the case of a SC Justice, only look at the law as it is written, the definition of a Textualist, something I consider myself to be.
Just read the words as written, forget about "the times we are in and how the world may have changed". That is not the job of a judge IMHO. Considering the times we live in and the changing values of the country is precisely why we have the Legislative branch both by states and the federal bench. The SC is there to decide if what is being proposed is discussed in the Constitution. If there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, I believe that according to the 10th Amendment,
Quote:
|
The Tenth Amendment's simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
|
that decision belongs to the states. The previous court decided in their infinite wisdom that abortion was found in the "right to privacy" clause in the Constitution
Quote:
|
The right to privacy is alluded to in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, "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 .
|
Saying "well, I think I know what they meant" isn't going to cut it. If a woman has the absolute right to do with her body what ever she wants, to be secure in her person, without interference from the government, why isn't her right to sell her body and organs part of that privacy right? Why doesn't she have the right to open a casino in her private home? When you start picking the things you like against those you don't, you upset the whole idea of an "un-biased" decision. That right to privacy clearly does not extend to taking the life of another human being. That decision should be made by the states just like the right to sell your body for sex is decided by States. The idea that it would be inconvenient/ harmful/ upsetting for those women living in states that would outlaw Roe, is a problem that can be overcome by moving or by filthy rich Liberals setting up a fund to transport any pregnant woman to a state that allows abortion if it so offends them much like Bloomberg spending 100 million to defeat Trump in Florida.
If Barrett over turns Roe, it won't necessarily be because of her Catholic beliefs, it could and most likely would be because she can't find the right to an abortion in the Constitution and rather than base her decision as if she were a Progressive Protestant and rule on what she feels and what is "best for women", she will most likely say that her training in the law and respect for the Constitution demands that she be a Textualist.
Of course my Democrat friend can't let the law and the Constitution stand in the way of what he believes should be the law of the land. Thing is, I agree. As I said before, I think Roe with it's limits, is a good compromise and if individual States want to adopt Roe, I would support that idea. I just can't support the idea that abortion is in the US Constitution because it is not.
If 38 States want to Amend the Constitution to make abortion the law of the land, they can do that and we would be right back to Roe being Constitutional. If 13 states decide they don't want to go along with that, people can move from those states, people can choose not to do business in those states. Sports teams can decide they will not play in those states. Actors and actresses and movie producers can decide they will not conduct their craft in those states and we can see how long they can buck the tide that I think will surely come.
If "the people" want Roe to be the law of the land, they should do so through the proper legislative process not the decision of 9 people who will bring their "feelings" into the decision and not uphold the tradition of interpreting the Constitution by what is written not by what they think should be written.
Sometimes adhering to principles can be difficult but that is the beauty of our system that has worked so well. When the people change their minds through their elected Representatives, we change the Constitution and I think that is exactly what Amy Coney Barrett believes so I will put aside my distaste for her religion, all religion and support her nomination.
If Barrett starts proselytizing from the bench, I'll support her impeachment.
