|
I only caught a few minutes of the hearing today, but what I caught I have to admit that Roberts was pretty impressive.
Hell I'd do him.
I mean, err, uh, nevermind.
Regardless, Biden was a bit onto something about Roberts' evasiveness, and I do think it's appropriate to answer directly. History has taught us to be a bit cautious on the answers nominees give during these hearings. Enter Clarence Thomas:
| quote: | SEN. LEAHY: . . .[Y]ou've expressed some very strong views, as you know better than all, on the Ninth Amendment, and you had an article that was reprinted in a CATO Institute book, an article -- the book was on the Reagan years, but you referred to Justice Goldberg's invention, using the Ninth Amendment in his concurring opinion in Griswold. And you said, and let me quote from you, you said, "Far from being a protection, the Ninth Amendment will likely become an additional weapon for the enemies of freedom." A pretty strong statement, but you would say, would you not, Judge, notwithstanding that strong statement, if a Ninth Amendment case came before you, you'd have an open mind?
JUDGE THOMAS: Again, Senator, as I noted, my concern was that I didn't believe that -- it's such an open-ended provision as the Ninth Amendment. It was view that a judge would have to tether his or her view or his or her interpretation to something other than just their feeling that this right is okay or that right is okay. I believe the approach that Justice Harlan took in Poe v. Ullman and again reaffirmed in Griswold in determining the -- or assessing the right of privacy was an appropriate way to go.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...73593&textreg=1 |
One year later, Thomas had this to say:
| quote: | In construing the phrase "liberty" incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we have recognized that its meaning extends beyond freedom from physical restraint. . . . [W]e have held that the term "liberty" includes a right to marry . . .; a right to procreate, . . .; and a right to use contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). But a reading of these opinions makes clear that they do not endorse any all-encompassing "right of privacy."
In Roe v. Wade, the Court recognized a "guarantee of personal privacy" which "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." 410 U.S., at 152 -153. We are now of the view that, in terming this right fundamental, the Court in Roe read the earlier opinions upon which it based its decision much too broadly. Unlike marriage, procreation, and contraception, abortion "involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). The abortion decision must therefore be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=505&invol=833 |
First Thomas agrees with Harlan on Griswald, then he disagrees. Pure and utter bullshit. If you believe in the right to privacy and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, then you must abide by strict constructionist standards in accordance to the Constitution (or at the very least, stare decisis). As Justice Stewart opines in regards to Roe:
| quote: | . . . Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 , we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
. . . Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=410&page=113 |
Disclaimer: If you don't know already, this is one of the few issues I tend to sit "on the fence". I tend to see both sides of the argument, and haven't quite felt completely compelled to sway one way or the other. Nevertheless, I will hold one to a particular standard, especially if that standard was set by none other than themselves.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
