From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:57:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <emPkPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> In article <TqgFPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
>> Winemiller) writes:
>> >rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>> >
>> >> In article <63s9oB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
>> >> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> >There can be no requirement for justices to be personally "a-political"; it
>> >is unrealistic, and, as private citizens, they have a right to be
>> >politically active.  However, _when they sit as judges in active court_,
>> >they should set aside the personal political cloak, and don the cloak of
>> >"court justice", deciding what the laws mean (as they were intended), and
>> >applying them to the situations at hand.  I think this can be possible.
>> >Other professionals (doctors, psychologists,..) set aside "personal" issues
>> >when they step into their offices; why not justices?
>> 
>> 	Well, I don't buy that line of reasoning. "Other professionals" barely
>> equates with "Supreme Court Justice". And, those others are certainly swayed 
>> by bias... we all are, like it or not.
>
>Those professionals don't just "invent" their way along their jobs.  Doctors
>and psych's, for example, put a distance between themselves and their
>patients in order to bring as much objectivity as possible to their work. 
>They also act according to what are the known facts upon which their
>professions are based (e.g., biological facts).  I expect SC justices to
>bring the same professional objectivity to their work.

	Well, I strongly suggest you read up on how doctors and psych's
determine treatment methods. Not only is there extreme bias w.r.t diagnosis
and prognosis, but they read magazines related to their industries, and 
try out new equipments and medications that they just read about. Now, the
"bias" in such cases are not "He's a negro, he's probly got sickle cell", but
doctors do have tendencies. Otherwise, you suggest that the same patient
would get the same diagnosis and treatment from all doctors? Doctors also
adjust their techniques for modern times, no? Psychologists vary much more
widely in their treatments of similar disorders. I read a book called "Peace,
Love and Healing" that concerns cancer patients. The book suggests- and
gives examples of successes- that doctors not be so quick to tell a patient
he/she's got X months to live. Furthermore, the book demonstrates that patients
under sedation, in surgery, do know what's being said, respond accordingly,
and that doctors are especially cruel in this situation despite having read
similar accounts. Music in the operating room has proven itself- yet, most
surgeons still refuse to allow it. Dr. Koop is following up on insinuations
made in the movie "The Doctor" (based on a true story written by a doctor
who got cancer, and found doctors to be uncaring and differing in diagnoses)
by starting a forum for doctors to "get back" to "original intent"-
befriending and caring about the patient. I've read many psych books, BTW,
and find chasms of difference between them.

>> 	Bork's the only S.C. Justice that ever followed "original intent"?
>
>Of course not.  But a majority of SC justices since about the 30's have
>rejected this principle.

	Verbalized same?

>Do you now see how original intent works?  The purpose is to interpret the
>existing text of the Constitution (which includes its amendments of course)
>according to the intent of the text, as determined by its historical
>context.  _Then_ one can extrapolate to current circumstances.  Which, by
>the way, is exactly what a judge should do: interpret the existing law to
>come up with a "legitimate" application of that law to some specific
>circumstance (i.e. a court case).  This principal gives us the best shot at
>unbiased interpretation of the law.  (Note: I said "best shot at", not
>"guaranteed").

	Now I see how original intent works. Thanks. Original intent:
Article 14, section 2: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Priveleges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Article 3, section 2: (After appointing jurisdiction of the S.C.): "In
all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have 
appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions,
and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

>> 	Prove in any way that a fetus was protected by the Constitution.
>
>I'm not arguing in the "fetus/baby" debate; I'm arguing about principles for
>Constitutional interpretation.

	Sorry, I was assuming you were, having checked the subject line.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"