The Roe v. Wade question
One of the great mysteries of my life will be how certain parties became so steadfast with a point of view. Actually, there are many high profile pro choice Republicans. Arnold, Rudy, Condoleeza all come to mind.
But the fact is that that while Bush has taken heat for choosing some for the Supreme Court who *might* overturn Roe v. Wade, there is, in fact, little reason to believe he is trying to get it overturned.
I am (surprise, surprise) against abortion except in the extreme cases such as rape and incest. Sometimes, despite what he says, I think President Bush has little interest in helping to overturn the decision. My support for the President was not based on abortion, and I'm ok with him not appointing justices who will overturn it and send it to the states.
But I wonder why those of us who are pro life get painted into an extreme corner.
I have people who I love and respect who disagree with me on this issue. They are not immoral, they just have a different opinion.
My concern is not over the Supreme Court, but rather that a pro life ideology is now being viewed as extreme right. It's not.
If Bush were to choose a justice who was against abortion, it wouldn't be time to sound the alarm. He just would have chosen someone with an opinion similar to many Americans on the issue.
At present, that does not appear to be the case.
1 Comments:
I think a big problem is that (as we noticed in my Con Law class) over time Supreme Court decisions become unquestioned by the general populace. Who would have ever thought how wrong the SC could be as much as 150 years ago or more?
The other problem is that justices now like to jump into a legislative role. If they weren't, then they would have to face the legal truth.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home