|
SOURCE: eXileMM - www.eXilemm.com
Roberts endorses “Right to Privacy”;
John G. Roberts, Bush II’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, surprised
many when he endorsed a Constitutional “right to privacy” during his
Senate
confirmation hearings.
Although the term “right to privacy” does not appear in the Constitution,
Supreme Court judges created one in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut
(1965). The Court later used Griswold’s “right to privacy” to legalize
the crime of abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973).
Roberts believes in Constitutional “Right to Privacy”:
Lest there be any doubt that he was endorsing the same “right to privacy”
that federal judges created in Griswold, Roberts clarified his view in the
following exchange with Wisconsin Senator Herbert Kohl:
ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy
extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since
Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the
liberty interest protected under the due process clause.
That is the approach that the court has taken in subsequent cases, rather
than in the (inaudible) and emanations that were discussed in Justice
Douglas' opinion.
And that view of the result is, I think, consistent with the subsequent
development of the law which has focused on the due process clause and
liberty, rather than Justice Douglas' approach.
KOHL: Well, I'm delighted to hear you say that because, as you know, many,
many constitutional scholars believe that once you accept the reasoning of
Griswold and find that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy
and
a right to contraception, that you've essentially accepted -- scholars
have
said this -- essentially accepted the basis for the court's reasoning and
decision on Roe, that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to
choose.
In Griswold, the Court used the “right to privacy” to create a
constitutional right to contraceptives. Senator Kohl is correct in noting
that the reasoning used in Griswold led directly to the Court’s decision
in
Roe v. Wade, that the “right to privacy” also includes a right to
abortion.
Calling Griswold’s rationale “reasoning” is charitable. The decision is as
notorious as its then corrupt and soon to be senile author, William O.
Douglas. In Griswold, Douglas wrote that the “right to privacy” could be
found in the Constitution’s “penumbras formed by emanations.” (As Dave
Barry would say, I am not making this up.) In 1970, then House Minority
leader Gerald Ford moved to impeach Douglas for his financial ties to
casino operator Albert Parvin. As the senescent Douglas’s mental lapses became impossible to hide, his
fellow Judges took the unprecedented step of refusing to consider cases
where his vote might be decisive. In 1975, Douglas finally resigned after
a record thirty-six years on the court.
In his above-quoted Senate testimony, Roberts distanced himself from
Douglas’s notorious “emanations” approach. Roberts stated that he
preferred to locate the “right to privacy” in the Fourteenth Amendment (even though the words “privacy” “contraception” or ‘abortion” don’t appear there
either.)
Roberts went even further to convince the Senate that he would vote in
favor
of a Constitutional right to abortion. In an exchange with Senator
Feinstein, Roberts testified that he had no quarrel with the second
Supreme
Court “right to privacy” case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). Eisenstadt
expanded Griswold’s holding to include unmarried individuals, and prepared the way for the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade the following year:
FEINSTEIN: Now, yesterday you said this: I agree with the Griswold court's
conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability
of
that. The courts since Griswold has grounded the privacy right discussed
in
that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process
clause.
Do you think that right of privacy that you're talking about there extends
to single people, as well as married people?
ROBERTS: The courts held that in the Eisenstadt case, which came shortly
after Griswold, largely under principles of equal protection, and I don't
have any quarrel with that conclusion in Eisenstadt.
Naturally, Roberts refused to say one way or the other whether he would
apply the “right to privacy” to uphold Roe v. Wade. But by agreeing first
with Griswold that the right exists and then with Eisenstadt’s expansion
of
the right, it is all but certain he will do so. To not uphold Roe under
those circumstances would be like setting the dining room table and
ringing
the dinner bell only to announce that there will be no dinner.
Bush II’s Betrayal of his Christian supporters:
Now Bush II has never promised that he would appoint federal judges who
will overturn Roe v. Wade. But in both his 2000 and 2004 campaigns, Bush
II did promise to nominate judges who would “strictly interpret the
Constitution” in the mold of Judges Scalia or Thomas.
Yet by nominating Roberts, Bush II has broken even this minimal promise.
As
the Washington Post correctly notes, Scalia, Thomas and other strict
constructionists do not believe in a Constitutional “right to privacy.”
“Roberts was perhaps most unlike Scalia and Thomas in his acknowledgment
that the Constitution creates a right to privacy, even if such a right is
not specifically spelled out in the Constitution”
According to the Associated Press, one left wing law professor has already
remarked that Roberts may resemble a different Supreme Court Justice who
was nominated by Bush I:
"I don't think he's locked himself into any positions. He could go
anywhere. He could be another (Justice David) Souter," said Ann Althouse, a law
professor at the University of Wisconsin, referring to the liberal justice
named to the court by President Bush's father.”
Other commentators have noted that by replacing the late Justice
Rehnquist, a strict constructionist, with Roberts, Bush II is actually moving the
Supreme Court to the left.
None of the foregoing can be excused by saying that Bush II inadvertently
chose Roberts or made a mistake.
On the contrary, by nominating Roberts, Bush II is demonstrating the
Republican Party’s historical commitment to judicial dictatorship. Since
1973, Republican appointees to the Supreme Court who have considered the
issue favor a Constitutional right to abortion by the same ratio as
Democratic appointees - three to one in favor.
Where is the outrage from our so-called Christian leaders?
The so-called Christian leadership reacted to Roberts’ embrace of the
“right to privacy” with a deafening silence.
For example, influential Christian leader James Dobson immediately and
unconditionally endorsed Bush II’s nomination of Roberts, eschewing a
prudent “wait and see” approach. Now, he has nothing to say.
Conservative Christian beltway outfits like the Family Research Council also signed onto the Roberts nomination - unconditionally and prematurely.
Those who advocate for a Constitutional right to abortion and sodomy have
expressed puzzlement over Dobson’s endorsement of Roberts. Left-wing New
Republic contributor Jonathan Chait remarked:
“The battle lines on the Roberts' nomination had already hardened before
the
Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that Roberts had done pro
bono work on behalf of gay-rights groups in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 case
establishing protections for homosexuals against state discrimination.
Unlike Roberts' work for the Bush administration or in private practice,
in which his role is to advocate his client's view, pro bono work really does
tell you something about Roberts' personal beliefs. And given the fact
that gay rights is a major new frontier in the legal and cultural wars,
conservatives ought to be highly alarmed.
Despite all this, conservative groups such as James Dobson's Focus on the
Family continue staunchly to back Roberts. It's hard to convey just how
weird that is.”
In light of Roberts’ testimony that he believes in a Constitutional “right
to privacy,” and Bush II’s broken promise to nominate strict
constructionists in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, these so-called
Christian leaders should retract their endorsements of Roberts. They should turn
about face and announce they oppose Roberts’ confirmation.
But don’t hold your breath.
What can Christians do?
Our Lord Jesus Christ admonished us “Be ye wise as serpents...”
Is this the best we can do to in following Him? Voting for and supporting
Republicans like Bush I or Bush II who renege on promises to appoint
strict constructionists to the federal bench? And by doing so, enabling the
slaughter of the unborn?
Christians should stop contributing money to James Dobson, Focus on the
Family, the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee
and other organizations that support and defend Bush II. Contributing
money to so-called Christian leaders who support Bush II allow him to claim the
support of the pro-life movement. Based on his actions, he does not
deserve it.
If you have money to contribute to the pro-life cause, better that you
contribute it to Christian leaders who are committed to ending abortion at
the State and local levels of government.
One such leader is Cory Burnell, the President of Christian Exodus. You
can make your contribution here.
Meanwhile, innocent blood cries out to Heaven:
Perhaps the worst aspect of the judicial nomination and confirmation
spectacle is that takes on the appearance of a game. Its trivializes the
importance of the matters at stake - the integrity of the United States
Constitution and whether the lives unborn children will be entitled to
legal protection. After Roe, forty million have been killed.
Their innocent blood cries out to Heaven. The Lord hears their cries, and
hates the hands that shed their blood. Gen 4:10, Prov 6:17
Do Christians who support Bush II and the Republican Party love that which
God Himself hates?
Or to quote Mr. Eric Rudolph, instead of paraphrasing him:
“There are those who would say to me that the system in Washington works.
They say that the prolife forces are making progress, that eventually Rob
v. Wade will be overturned, that the culture of life will ultimately win over
the majority of Americans and that the horror of abortion will be outlawed. Yet, in meantime thousands die everyday.
They say that the mechanism through which this will be achieved is the
Republican party, and under the benevolent leadership of men like George
W. Bush, the wholesale slaughter of children will be a thing of
the past. But with every day that passes another pile of corpses is added
to the pyre. George W. will appoint the necessary justices to the Supreme
Court and Roe will be finished, they say. All of this will be achieved through
the lawful, legitimate democratic process. And every year a million and a half more die.
I ask these peaceful Christian law abiding ProLife citizens, is there any
point at which all of the legal remedies will not suffice and you would
fight to end the massacre of children? How many decades have to pass, how
many millions have to die? Is there any point when the cries
of the children will not go unanswered?
I think that your inaction after three decades of slaughter is a
sufficient answer to all of these questions.”
Home | Contents | News | Contact |
|