DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" ""> PELICANPOST.BLOGSPOT.COM: "Who's the Extremist?" Well, it's not Judge John G. Roberts, Jr....

Saturday, August 06, 2005

"Who's the Extremist?" Well, it's not Judge John G. Roberts, Jr....

Readers, this is an excellent *****Five Star, must read column by Steve Chapman in defense of some of Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.'s former statements now being attacked by the hard-left in the run-up to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination.

Chapman also debunks some of the left's distortions and myths that have become permanent mantras they use over and over to deceive the American people.

The hard-left is so desperate to block his nomination, with no legitimate ammunition for doing so, that they are attacking everything from Robert's wife and children to The New York Times having investigators trying to plunder the Roberts' private, sealed adoption papers---fishing for something to smear him with.

More info can be read below and here.
"When T.S. Eliot wrote "humankind cannot bear very much reality," he could have been talking about the abortion debate. As abortion-rights advocates try to make their case against the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, they have abandoned fact-checking in favor of myth-making.

The myths in this case are two. The first is that Judge Roberts is a frothing extremist on the subject of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to abortion. The second is that the American people -- the "pro-choice majority" -- staunchly support that ruling and everything it stands for....

In one 1990 case, Judge Roberts signed a brief arguing, "The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution." Another time, he noted a "serious problem in the current exercise of judicial power," as illustrated "by what is broadly perceived to be the unprincipled jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade...."

Former Watergate prosecutor and Harvard law professor Archibald Cox once wrote, "Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution." The late Stanford law school dean John Hart Ely said the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who argued Al Gore's postelection case before the Supreme Court in 2000, has said of Roe that "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton, criticized Roe v. Wade before joining the court. In 1985, she called it an act of "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that "ventured too far."

What's striking is how many supporters of legal abortion have trouble justifying the way the court addressed the issue. So when Judge Roberts faults the court for its overbearing presumption and lame reasoning, he is not on the fringes of the debate -- he's smack in the middle.

The same can't be said of abortion-rights advocates. They not only insist Roe is sacrosanct but pretend the public agrees with them....

Most people equate overturning Roe with banning all abortions. In fact, a reversal of the decision would simply allow states to decide for themselves whether to ban all abortions, some abortions, or no abortions. Under Roe, however, the government has to permit almost all abortions, no matter when they occur.

There's no way to know if Judge Roberts would vote to junk the 1973 decision. But if the court were to do so, it would merely let the electorate put its conflicting feelings about abortion into law in a way they can live with.

Allowing the American people to have their way on a subject that is not mentioned in the Constitution is not extremism. It's democracy...."

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home