"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Friday, July 01, 2005

Sandra Day O'Conner and the Supreme Court

Get ready, the war for the Supreme Court will now commence. Already, you have the Democrats demanding that the President not change the court by selecting someone who disagrees with their views. They will of course, spin this as a "reproductive rights" issue. Silly euphemism as that is, for the destruction of innocent life, simply because it is temporarily at your mercy.

The problem with all the hysteria that will be raised, is that all the Supreme Court would really do is overturn Roe vs Wade. This merely places abortion regulation in the hands of the states, from which it never should have been taken in the first place. Obviously, there will be a range of decisions across the country. Some states will severely restrict abortion, others will not.

Something else that needs to be kept in mind is that the baddest conservatives on the Supreme Court protected our property rights in their dissent to the Kelo decision. True, Justice O'Connor was also part of the dissent, this time, but her history of judicial decisions give no guarantee that she could be counted on to always make such decisions.

This shouldn't be surprising, when someone makes the middle their ideology, they really have no solid bearing. They are merely splitting the difference between what they perceive as extreme positions. But how do they define extreme and why should one assume the extreme is always wrong or that splitting down the middle is correct? Perhaps, the split is 60/40 to the right or 80/20 to the left. Shouldn't truth be the guide, no matter where it leads? Yes, that takes courage and will not win you applause from the NY Times. But why should someone care about that?
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: