From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:56:03 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

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:
>> >
>> >Before the SC invented the [limited] right to abortion, the majority of
>> >people _had_ expressed their opinions on abortion through their states'
>> >legislatures.  Why do _you_ think SC judges have the right to create new
>> >Constitutional rights against the express will of the _people_?  If
>> >convenience abortions are so popular, then there should be no problem
>> >creating a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right.
>> 
>> 	The Supreme Court decision I've now posted twice does indicate
>> that the "right" to an abortion is guaranteed, to the satisfaction of
>> those on the court at that time. Of course, today's court might not make
>> the same "interpretation". I'll grant that "interpretation" has become
>> politically motivated to the point that it really represents "creation".
>> I'll accept that that is the case, be the court liberal or conservative.
>> Agreed?
>
>Agreed; no court (liberal, conservative, or whatever) should be permitted to
>exercise such creation.
>
>> Now, that said, [what do we do about this problem?]
>
>[Joe's suggestions chopped for brevity's sake]
>
>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.

>Additionally, I agree with your point that extremes are partly balanced by
>slow-moving changes in the political nature of the court, as new appointees
>by different Presidents ascend the bench.
>
>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"?
Perhaps the call for a return to slavery, and abolition of women's rights
to vote? These certainlyy were "original intent", weren't they?  Now, I
realize the argument for these is the amendment procedure. Does Bork
support that? Yes, it was part of original intent. Is a non-biased S.C.
an idiot notion out forefathers believed could happen, or was their
original intent to build a foundation that could sway?

>...
>> What this means is that the court doesn't
>> and hasn't invented any rights, technically, and that it feels our
>> forefathers intended such a right to exist. Now, your argument that the
>> court shouldn't be able to "find" such rights that didn't seemingly
>> exist before would tend to scare me.
>
>The _reverse_ frightens me: a court which can "create" law (or "rights") out
>of nowhere by ignoring the _contract_ (Constitution); such a court can also
>"uncreate" rights, even if explicitly found in the Constitution's text. 
>How? By holding to the view that the text cannot be directly meaningful to
>today's country.  I'd much prefer a court who obeys _the written law_
>interpreted according to its original intent.  _That_ will provide sound
>principals for extrapolating to current situations in our country.  It will
>also force usage of the Legislature to bring about changes in law, just as
>it should be.

	Prove in any way that a fetus was protected by the Constitution.
Prove that modern men at that time knew what a fetus was like, and felt it
was a human being. Now we're talking original intent. Of course, that intent
was based upon knowledge available in that time. What fools, those FF's,
to not have granted leeway for interpretation. That's why they made everything
so crystal clear, right?



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"