Abortion & The Supreme Court

David Kirkpatrick had a very interesting article in the New York Times today (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/politics/politicsspecial1/16alito.html) regarding the recent supreme Court justice hearings. He was pointing out what we all have been witnessing; the flash point issue of abortionSand Roe v Wade is no longer an absolute taboo to discuss. Sam has been the most upfront of recent nominees regarding his position relative to the case and the concepts of precedent. This is amazing at so many levels, but I feel the most telling is the quote from Kate Michelman, the former president of Naral Pro-Choice America, which says that since the last election there is less willingness to be forthright supporting a woman’s right to choose…..WOW! I immediately start wondering if I have totally lost touch with the rest of the country. How can that be? I mean, this is really a core issue on personal freedoms in our country and we have “less willingness” to support “a woman’s right to choice”? Did I miss the memo regarding the a comprehensive move of our country (and the representative leadership) to evangelical values? Did I miss the directive that our government should involve itself in our bedroom and our choices around pro-creation? I guess I need to get out more.

To be clear, I completely understand that this is a highly charged moral issue. I also understand that because of that fact, we have little to no ability to work out an optimal solution (Abortion is legal in the first trimester, illegal in the last, and some definition of circumstances to allow for abortion in the middle trimester). But here is the rub, in a society that has been built on personal freedoms, further validated by any number of Supreme Court rulings, why would we not stand in support of a woman’s right to choice.

The only bright spot in the article came from Senator Diane Feinstein. She was able to make her position clear as to her perspective on the issue as opposed to the qualifications of the man. She was quoted, “I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.” While still voting in a partisan manner, she can at least acknowledge the difference between the issue and the man.

Wouldn’t it be nice…

Wouldn’t it be nice if I didn’t have to read about the Congressional hearings for the nominated Supreme Court Justice and think how disingenuous ALL of the players are? I mean really, are we living in a society driven by frat-boy rules? Since you are a member FiCapaBigOne (Republican), you need to do as we say. Not that the other side is putting a better foot forward; Teddy really is kicking a dead horse.

But the biggest crime is that I know from Sam (do you think he minds if I call him Sam?) Alito’s past what he stands for (Strong Presidency, Strong Business, etc ) and what he doesn’t (abortion to name one) but he is unable to have that conversation. The only ones getting screwed here are the general public as we will have to live with Sam for life, whether we want to or not.

Not that Sam is a bad man, in fact, I believe he is quite intelligent. The problem is balance, something that we are seeing little of over the past 6 years. Only time will be the judge (pun intended) is Sam is both a good person and a balanced one as well. Due to the definition of process when reviewing and approving a Supreme Court nominee, we get nothing from the candidates mouth. Can you imagine going for a job interview and saying so little and still get the offer? I know it has never really happened to me, maybe I am just not going for the right jobs.
This leads me to the core point. The agenda (as in national) is being driven by the fringes. We have to have a Conservative judge (clearly demonstrable via past writings and decisions) as he is more likely to against abortion and pro business and church, in order to determine our most important legislative interpretations because the hard right demands it. And because the hard right demands it, the hard left must make equally aggressive positions in order to offset the hard right position. It is a lot like tetherball, you keep hitting the ball as hard as you can at your opponent in the hope he/she will miss one time and you will get an advantage. The problem is, we are not playing tetherball, we are trying to get the best people to assume leadership position in representing the rights of the people of the United States. It should not be about getting an advantage or hoping your opponent misses. It is about working for what is best for your country and the people that brought you to office. Sorry to say, with all of the lobbying and fundraising, I see elected officials more concerned with maintaining power than leading their country.

So wouldn’t it be nice if our elected officials, in a representation based system, would represent us in some why so there can be honest dialog around really important issues? Yeah, I think so…….

Hello world!

Hello world.  I have been a long time consumer of blogs and felt it was time to start speaking.  So here I go, many thanks to any and all who spend a few minutes reading.  I don’t know if it will be worth your time, but I hope so……