Aug
10
Masterpiece
August 10, 2009 | 3 Comments
I love getting comments. I especially love getting comments on posts written several months earlier, because they never fail to be entertaining. For those of you who missed it, let me share with you the comment I received on my April 15 post on the ten worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Let me share it with you in all its breathtaking stupidity, uninterrupted by any comment.
If you are basing your distaste on Roe v Wade because of religion, you are a judicial activist. It is a womans right to choose, which is the pillar in any democracy. Any Judge who wants to overturn Roe v Rade is a activist. We have stare decisis which means the issue has been ruled upon… it is time that people keep religion out of the courtroom
Ahhh, just soak it in. Let the fragrance just sift through your nose. The bouquet of idiocy is such an enchanting fragrance. Like a fine wine you should let the taste linger.
Okay, let’s get to this, line by line.
If you are basing your distaste on Roe v Wade because of religion, you are a judicial activist.
Oh, I forgot to mention, our friend’s handle here is “Sep Church State,” which gives you an idea about two things: where the commenter is coming from, and precisely how unoriginal he is. (For the sake of argument I’m going to guess that we’re dealing with a he, because women tend to be grammar nazis. Not always, and I’m sure I’m just feeding the stereotype by saying it, but I’m saying it.) Now Sep Church State is a great handle because it comes from a very important line in the Constitution. Errr, scratch that. At the very least it was a very important sentiment expressed at the constitutional convention and during the ratifying debates. Err, scratch that as well. It was a very noble sentiment expressed by one of the Framers of the Constitution. Whew, you know, that’s not accurate either. Oh that’s right, it’s a phrase written in a letter by one of America’s most radical theorists, one that really does not capture the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Anyway, I’ll give Sep Church some credit because if I based my interpretation of the Roe v. Wade solely on my religious views, I would indeed be acting as something like a judicial activist – or, more importantly, a proponent of judicial activism, since as a layman I can hardly be guilty of engaging in activism myself. Alas, my interpretation of the case has more to do with a reasonable and functioning understanding of the Constitution. I know this is a difficult concept for completely original intellects like Sep Church to grasp, but for some of us, the Constitution is a pretty clear document. Oh sure, not every decision is black and white, but I’m reasonably sure that there’s no right to abortion in the Constitution, and I am certain that there is no grant of unlimited authority to the federal government to overturn state laws. I think there’s some amendment to that effect, maybe the tenth or something.
It is a womans right to choose, which is the pillar in any democracy.
Plato. Aristotle. John Locke. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. These and so many other great political philosophers have discussed the political order. They have examined the roots of democracy and the merits of this form of government. But none of these ground-breaking thinkers were able to successfully pinpoint the “pillar” of democracy. Amazingly, Sep Church State has made the discovery that eluded these great men. Yes, the right to an abortion is the pillar of democracy. There is no need for further speculation on this topic.
But keep in mind these thoughts about democracy.
Any Judge who wants to overturn Roe v Rade is a activist.
That’s right. Anyone who feels that Roe v. “Rade” (and I had no idea that Scooby Doo was now commenting on political blogs) was a badly decided case must be an activist. And why is that. Well . . .
We have stare decisis which means the issue has been ruled upon…
Oh, where to begin.
Technically it means “maintain what has been decided,” but he basically gets the meaning right.
Here’s the problem: stare decisis is irrelevant when considering whether the original decision was correctly rendered. The blog post was not about the ten cases I’d most like to overturn, but the ten worst decisions handed down by the Court. The fact that the Court has set a precedent means nothing in trying to figure out whether the precedent is any good. Therefore stare decisis is perhaps relevant when discussing Casey v. Planned Parenthood, but not the case which established the original precedent Casey was based on.
Second, it assumes that the Supreme Court is forever bound by prior decisions. Hmmmm. In that case, I’m sure Sep Church State was completely outraged by Lawrence v. Texas. After all, it up-ended the Court’s decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Damn that activist Court? Or is the doctrine of stare decisis applicable only for cases that we agree with?
Finally, for a person who was talking about “pillars” of “democracy,” Sep Church State has an unusual appreciation for what amounts to judicial tyranny. Can five or more Supreme Court Justices simply alter the Constitution based on their own political preferences without any concern that their error can later be corrected? That’s an awful lot of power being placed in the hands of unelected officials. Doesn’t sound very democratic to me, but then again I’m basing my understanding on an out-dated notion of democracy. It’s all about abortion, so all other concerns can be swept under the rug.
it is time that people keep religion out of the courtroom
By the way, there’s no period in the origjnal comment either.
This is very artful, because we’ve come full-circle to the first line of the comment. It seems odd that religion should be completely divorced from civil society, but if Jefferson said it, it must be so. And if American history has taught us anything, it’s that Thomas Jefferson is always right and we should all create blog handles based on things he wrote. I could think of some creative potential blog handles based on statements from the Notes on Virginia, particularly all that stuff he wrote about race, but then I’d probably be banned from the internet.
But I’m actually a little curious. Does this prohibition apply to people in the courtoom engaging in prayer? Does keeping religion out of the courtoom entail rounding up all those rabble rousers who might be inclined to fold their hands in supplication to some higher entity? Because, if so, I’m sure there’s some kind of amendment to the Constitution that prohibits such a prohibition. Crazy, huh?
No TagComments
3 Comments so far
I was not fortunate enough to read your post back in April and therefore am reluctant to post a comment. But here it goes.
Roe -V- Wade was decided in the seventies and has been under attack every since. This independant conservative belives it time to put the issue to bed, we simply have much graver issues knawing at the republic as this is written.
Creeping socialism/Marxism, a 12.8 trillion dollar national debt and growing by the millisecond, an out of control congress that no longer represents the people, corruption at all levels of government and in both parties, the attack on freedom speech and a growing political correctness movement that threatens our American values, etc., etc.
Church and State should remain seperate. That is to say the state (under the constitution)has no authority to establish a state religion or church as existed in England and was one of the reasons the colonists came to the Americas, to escape state religous persecution.
Having said that the constitution clearly established the right of the prople to practice the religion of there choice. As it should be.
There is no “right to abortion” found in the constitution. However the argument that a woman has the right to chose is a powerful and strong argument. One the majority in this nation accepts. The real issue in my mind is this; when is a fetus viable and able to live outside the mothers womb, either with or without life support. That has been fairly well established and should be the point at which abortion is no longer an option.
Again, speaking as a true independent conservative, and admirer of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it is time to move on from this issue. The nation has greater perils facing it and we conservatives should focus on the issues that could bring this republic to it’s knees if not resolved. Our children and grandchildrens futures are at stake.
Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com
You’re worried about what the future is going to be for our grandchildren, but you don’t have a problem with killing those grandchildren in the womb? Interesting.
I knew there was a reason I am finding Atlas Shrugged revolting.
Ouch. Completely accurate, but still Cranky. Remind me again never to get on your bad side.