Peroutka Pro-Life Ad

Try answering my question.

 

Who has the AUTHORITATIVE interpretation Netpub? Hint: it is in the constitution.

 

Fine, our system allows for change. However, their interpretation is the only one that matters until it is changed. You don't have to like it. I dislike a lot of their decisions. They still are the only ones with the authoritative interpretation.

 

I think, according to NP, the original authors have the authoritative interpretation of it. Of course, if you agree that it should be defended in it's "...original language and intent...", then I am guessing that we should also reinstate Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1, to it's original language and intent as well? Or, shoudl we go with the later ammendment (change from the original language and intent) XIII, Section 1, which was ratified in 1865 after a big war, I believe? What about ammmendment XIV, Section 1, which was also different from the original language and intent, ratified in 1868? Or, Ammendment XV, Section 1, which was also different from the original language and intent, ratified in 1870? Or, how about Ammendment XIX, which was also different from the original language and intent, ratified in 1920?

Just curious if you would really be willing to take it that far.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, welcome back, we've missed you (in my best Agent Smith voice).

The constitution party is just an embittered, ragtag group of parachurch wannabes. If they would just put the theonomy kool-aide down for a minute, they might be able to find a clue.

 

I actually agree here. The SC is wrong and immoral in many decisions that they make. Of course, I think a good case could be made that the original authors and their intent was wrong and immoral at least when it came to the issue of slavery. At least I would hope we would all agree to that. This is why the Constitution is a good document, but not always perfect and not even close to being inspired. This is why I think that perhaps it is good if it is changed and not always held to the interpretive standard of the original language and intent. Perhaps this is the reason we have an ammendment process, which, in and of itself, does make it a liveing and changing document. Just look at how it has changed through the years. Further, the Constitution itself gives the SC the final authority when interpreting the document, not the original author and their intent. Was the Constitution wrong to do so because the SC has made many bad and immoral decisions?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Hey, Joseph, where you been, man ?

'less my eyesights are failing me, I haven't seen you posting much lately.

Anyway, glad to hear from you again.

 

The rulings of the Supreme Court actually apply to only the case at hand.

Sometimes other courts refer back to a previous ruling in an attempt to maintain consistency, and also sometimes to avoid earning their pay by having to work out their own ruling.

But, we have drifted into a muddle of "case law" that has falsely elevated the courts to the status of lawmakers. This is not proper, and not really lawful, for that matter.

But, the important thing in this case is that Roe vs. Wade was the ruling in ONE CASE, and SHOULD BE IGNORED for all others. 3800 innocent lives will be lost TODAY because nobody has the backbone to do so.

 

While you are right that case law rules on only one case, the general legal procedure is to appeal to precedents as the basis for a ruling. In such an appeal, the judge or judges believe that the principles of one case are transcendant. A higher court then decides if the precedent was valid. Such is the case in Roe.

I find the charge that they are trying to avoid earning their own pay as unfounded. Case law is notoriously difficult and judges who ignore it create an even worse situation, where there is no rule except the whims of the judge. Judges do not have to follow case law, and routinely do not, which is where many legal challenges come from. In addition, there is often case law on both sides of a ruling. I have a judge in my church and he and i have talked about these things. I would hate to have his job.

FTR, I ignore Roe all the time. Many of us do. It has been challenged and will be again. If Bush is not reelected, Kerry will appoint pro abortion judges who will not overturn Roe. Bush might appoint judges who will. This issue alone, if no other, renders a vote for anyone but Bush a vote to ensure the continuation of abortion. Kerry will do absolutely nothing to stop. Bush might not ... but he has shown through some of his appointments already that he is willing to appoint pro life judges.

Give life the best chance we are able.

 

Larry, don't you see that Bush has appointed pro-abortion judges while Governor of Texas, what makes you think he will be any different in dealing with Supreme Court nominations?

 

Thanks for the kind words. It is good to be back.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Been extremely busy. Glad to be back. Thanks for the kind words.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I think it might have something to do with his record of appointing pro-life judges like Pickering as President of the United States.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I also see that he has appointed prolife judges while president of the country. So here is the scenario. With Kerry, it is an absolute certainty that he will appoint pro abortion judges. With Peroutka, it is an absolute certainty that Kerry will appoint pro abortion judges. With Bush, there is a chance, however slight that chance might be.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Bush and Kerry are identical on everything else (something far from true), this issue alone is a reason to vote for Bush over Kerry or Peroutka. There is at least a chance for pro life judges. There is no chance with the other two.

 

Welcome back to the board, Joseph. I'm looking forward to having some well-thought out discussions with you in the future as we search for answers for solving the federal budget deficit, the trade deficit, the impending Social Security disaster, the impending Medicare disaster, the health care cost crisis, our border crisis, and the out-sourcing of American jobs problem.