The redoubtable and regrettable Sen. (would that it were not so) Charles Schumer from my state of NY, I am ashamed to say, laments today that the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court raises the specter of the "reproductive rights of women being in the hands of five (yeeechhh) men on the Supreme Court." Why now, "here's a change i' the commonwealth indeed", (from Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, a dramatization of the misapplication of law).
Gee Charles, Roe v. Wade, decided by seven justices (is it the difference of two which raises your hackles?) has sealed the fate of some tens of millions of unborn humans since 1973 with your enthusiastic approval. Not only were they denied the free exercise of life itself in this highly favorable U.S. setting, but the approximately half of them who were female were denied an opportunity for reproduction which most of them would have exercised by now.
Now, stick with me here Charles: Verbal opposition to the summary ending of their lives was impossible for these already brain, arm, leg and torso endowed creatures to express because the use of the tongue to project intelligible audible communication requires access to the atmosphere. Oh they might have had time for a couple of squeaks as they embarked on their involuntary rendevous with eternity but you would agree it would be unreasonable to expect any more of them. They could not have bid those justices "hey, gimme a chance at life" now could they?
But those for whom you now stand do have power of expression, having been born. And should SCOTUS limit their power to deny the open air itself to human beings conceived by actions far beyond the fetuses' ken or control, they would retain their ability to petition the more democratic organs of our government, legislatures and Congress, for succor. Now they may be denied - after all, how many legislators are there vs. how many judges - but as a master legislator yourself I know you understand, Charles.
You're also a lawyer Charles and I know you know that "the law" comprises and that it is reasonable for a competent judge to consider, many sources of legal authority. Statutes, legislative intent, the texts of decisions, learned commentary on the text of decisions, the fate of statutes and cases after enactment, amendment or decision, are some examples. In a future case involving Roe v. Wade it is conceivable that some little credible authority may have expressed doubt as to the legal soundness of the original decision. A principled jurist might consequently conclude this case is as legally weak as to be undeserving of continued deference. Such a principled person, if seated on SCOTUS, might well vote that way; a candidate possessed of such integrity has just been nominated. If he follows "the law" he may well consider himself constrained to vote this way regardless of any prejudice he may or may not harbor as to the moral or social issue involved. He might well be inclined to leave law making to elected law makers.
But I know you are first and foremost a politician, Charles, and that you must be realistic in shepherding your flock. You have of necessity then to reflexively excoriate him by urging the certainty that Judge Kavanaugh is utterly insensitive to the needs of pregnant women and may well take pleasure from harming them. Your excitable avatars are buzzing like hornets in a busted nest already. But the real America has done and is ready to do again what it takes to frustrate you - out vote you and out vote you. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a good riposte to Schumer's blather, Jack. It is indeed food for thought how many lives were cut short by Roe v. Wade, and how different this country would be if they hadn't been. Personally, I don't believe the Constitution has anything to say about abortion -- pro or con -- and thus I agree with you that any sensible jurist would leave the regulation of every species of murder and manslaughter to local, state, and federal lawmakers. Practically speaking, that won't lead to the abolition of all abortion, but it will curtail it in a great many states. The only way to get rid of it is to win the "culture war" over the definition (and dignity) of life, and there are some positive signs in that regard, although, if Roe is repealed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the "pro-choice" propaganda will reach an unprecedented crescendo.
Dr. Waddy: In my comment appended to my preceding post I painfully acknowledge that there are some people of good will in the "pro-choice" movement who can make honorable arguments that the fateful choice should ultimately be left to the woman carrying the fetus. I disagree with them but think them sincere and responsible. Then there are the sociopaths who celebrate their present legal right to this hideous act and they are beyond contempt. I think that American law will cleave more and more to the side of the fetus because that is the will of the real America and the Federal Judiciary under President Trump becomes more representative of this will apace. Abortion will not be entirely outlawed but it will and should be, subject to very demanding restrictions. Women and men are different and women are born with an inescapable, special and perhaps blessed obligation to those unborn they may harbor. Those among them who advance grotesquely wrongheaded denial of this truth should be resolutely defied and politically completely discredited. This could be done by constantly chipping away at "abortion rights" even if Roe v. Wade is not fully expunged ala the Dred Scott Decision. Leftists ought to recognize the tactic; they've been using it to attack our gun rights for decades. I wonder, would they trade their abortion rights for our gun rights? God forbid such an exchange but one can readily guess their response. By the way if some would denounce the right of any man to comment on this issue I would remind them that approximately half of the tens of millions of feti exterminated since 1973 were male. Some would be 45 by now.
Post a Comment