From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:23:49 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

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.

> >The best solution, I think, is for justices to have a consistent, sound,
> >proven set of principals by which they can consistently interpret the
> >Constitution.  Only one exists: "original intent."  See Robert Bork's book
> >for an exposition of this viewpoint.
> 
> 	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.

> Perhaps the call for a return to slavery, and abolition of women's rights
> to vote? These certainlyy were "original intent", weren't they?

Slavery was indeed an original intent.  And since the amendments of the
1860's it is now the "original intent" for slavery to be illegal.

"Abolition of women's rights" implies that the original Constitution had
explicit wording preventing women from voting.  There is no such wording, so
this point is invalid.  A later amendment guaranteed (or "invented," if you
please) that right, so that the "original intent" of the Constitution is now
that women have this right.

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").

...
> was their [Founding Fathers']
> original intent to build a foundation that could sway?

No; they built a solid foundation which could be "remodeled" through the use
of amendments.

> 	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.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil