Anyway the point is the republican I want to win is Kay Hutchinson. She won't but I wish she would. But the thing that gets me is the other day I heard some right to life group saying that Kay was pro-abortion because she will not support an out and out overturning of Roe V Wade, and I want to talk about that.
First off let me say that abortion is murder.
So there now that I have identified myself as a dangerous wacko let me get to the point.
In not saying that she would support an out and out overturning of Roe the senator was actually showing a keen understanding of the law. The thing is, abortion was legal before the Roe decision. It was not legal in every state and neither was it available carte blanch but there was no overriding federal which outlawed abortion in this country. It did not exist. The laws instead were handled at the state level and the one in question which led to Roe was a law which said that a married woman must have the permission of her husband before getting an abortion. Notice, it was not a law which outlawed abortion but restricted it. The court ruled that such a law amounted to a violation of privacy and struck down such laws.
Two things have happened since.
One, there has been a mountain of case law written on top of the presupposition of a right to privacy (which yours truly does not believe exists) and included in that law is a volume of criminal law a great deal of which has been used to help convict people and put them in prison for a long long time. If Roe were struck down all such law would go with it and years of civil and criminal lawsuits would have to be reopened to see if they passed constitutional muster apart from Roe.
Two, there has been a mountain of law written concerning restrictions on abortion such as parental notification laws, mandatory sonogram laws, partial birth abortion bans, and born alive laws just to name a few which have all been found to pass constitutional muster in light of Roe. All such laws would be again subjected to legal challenge if Roe were overturned and even perhaps thrown out all together because the High Court decision upon which such law was written would have been nullified.
So far from supporting abortion, what Kay said is that any such over turning would need to be carefully considered.
But the hair model who's currently governor in my home state does not understand such fine distinctions, and clearly neither did the group which made the commercial. Instead they re counting on the voter being too stupid and lazy to dig past the sound bite and try to grasp what the real issue is, and considering that as of today Governor Dick is ahead by 10+ in the polls I would say they have Texans just about pegged.
Just thinking.
You don't believe in right to privacy?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, excellent points, and I doubt anyone (almost) in Texas is listening to you.
Hal wrote
ReplyDeleteYeah, I have an issue with the anointing that is presumed about Republicanism. I remember, (I am old enough to do this), when Ronald Reagan utterly destroyed the
State of Texas's existence as a one-party state, (when there was no such thing as a functioning Republican party, in Texas). Conservatism took an enormous hit, and no one paid any attention to it, because most ot the country had functioning Republican parties. Why? Because when Texas had only one party, there were conservative and liberal Democrats, (the liberals, at that time, were sort of like Joe Lieberman, who are now considered as conservative Democrats, and cursed by the mainline Democratic party). We of the existing educated voters, KNEW who the conservatives were within our political structure, and voted for them, which hamstrung the liberals within the party, for Texas had a lot of power. Why? Because the conservative Democrats had been in power for a LONG time, and had the seniority within the system that gave them powerful offices,offices that were LOST when Reagan brought in neophyte politicians on his coattails. Has conservatism REALLY profited by the Republicans cornering the market on conservatism? NO, because the Democratic party was weakened by the presence of a conservative wing. Sometimes, there are Dems who have a good populist cause, but are hamstrung by being in a party that has no conservative wing they can ally themselves with. As much as I cheer the Reagan defeat of the Soviet empire, by using our financial might to bankrupt them, & then cut the throat of the military industrial establishment, which gave us several years of budget surpluses (which none of the following presidential administrations can legitimatley claim credit for), I think that the Republican party sacrificed conservatism to gain Repubican ascendency. I don't think the Republican party gives a rats fuzzy behind for the conservatives of the nation, but only about party power, which they control, (control and power being the real issues).
Hal
I do believe in privacy rights, but I don't think that they are outlined in the constitution. Perhaps the court felt that such rights had always been sort of guaranteed and wrote them in, but there is nothing in federal law which dictates a right to privacy. Any such right is limited of course, for example you cannot grow pot in your own house for personal consumption even if it is your property, your weed, etc. The rights of privacy even as they stand today are limited.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, the Roe vs. Wade decision, which was the privacy right decision made, was under the Warren Court, wasn't it? (It has been a little while since this was in current events, so don't remember. Has anyone taken a course in political history, recently enough to know this?) Interestiingly enough, Roe later admitted that she lied about the reason for wanting the right to have an abortion, but the truth was beside the point,right?? They never changed the decision,since then,so I guess the Supreme Court STILL doesn't think the truth ever had any bearing on the decision they made,or still does.
ReplyDeleteWhether the plaintiff lied or not is actually irrelevant. Th purpose of the Supreme Court is not to determine truth or fiction, that is not even technically the responsibility of the lower courts, but rather to determine what is or is not constitutional.
ReplyDeleteI say truth is not the responsibility of the lower courts because the purpose of the court is to fairly administer the court's proceedings. It is up to the jury to determine truth or fiction, and hopefully use that to administer justice.