Sunday Afternoon Aside

Primer On Why Liberals Are Against Judge Alito, And What's This Abortion Fuss Really All About Anyway.

Subtitled: We Have The Right To Privacy As Long As We Can Be Public About It...

Step 1:

Griswald versus Connecticut established a right to privacy in allowing married couples the right to purchase contraception.

The fact that the Supreme Court legislated from the bench...there is no provision in the Constitution for such a premise, and that's all the Supreme Court is supposed to decide upon...the fact that they took matters into their own hands is lost upon inane politicians such as Charlie Schumer who vehemently protest that making law is the job of Congress. Only when the likes of Charlie decides that such legislating is cool do they refrain from criticism, but this nebulous right to privacy law is coming under fire, and heaven forbid the court takes in these troublesome reins and hands legislation BACK to the Congress.

Step 2:

Griswald begat Roe, and most if not all conservatives want to bring the court back to it's roots that porcelain that if the PEOPLE wish for something, then THEY should vote for it. In the matter of abortion, for example, as long as a law permitting various types of abortions was not unconstitutional, then the court shouldn't have ANY say in the matter.

Not so, say the liberals. They believe that the highest court SHOULD step in when, in their minds, an injustice has been committed. The fact that they, the elected representatives of the people, would even want such a thing means of course that they couldn't get the people's permission, and they want to have the court make these things up as it goes along.

But only IF the judges are liberal enough to see past the silly ignorance of the people and behave like liberals SHOULD behave. Liberals know what's best for us all, and when we can't decide they turn to a liberal court to decide for us.

Planned Parenthood versus Casey was such a case. The justices found that asking a woman to notify her husband that she was having an abortion was an undue burden. Not asking his permission, mind you, merely telling him of her desire. This notification did not extend to women who felt they would be harmed by a disapproving spouse, or those who had been raped, or those whose husbands had abandoned or divorced them.

Men had no right whatsoever to even learn of a wife's decision, and many men felt that this essentially dismissed their rights of reproduction...and they are clearly defined as RIGHTS because a man is held responsible for the financial well being of his offspring regardless of any protestations he might have on the matter. A woman's body, a woman's right to choose, but hey fella, ante up.

Step 3:

Samuel Alito did not go along with that, and thus the rub. He did not see an undue burden in a woman notifying her husband, the law was constitutional and as such above his redress, and from that belief we have the liberals once again up in arms that he is not the right man for the job. Or. too much of a RIGHT man for the job.

Bottom Line: All the Supreme Court does is decide upon the constitutionality of a law. It was not established to redress wrongs. Elected officials make the law, not the courts. This is indeed a simple fact that escapes the Chuckie Schumers of the world, and we really don't believe him to be THAT dumb. Changing society from the bench is a helluva lot easier than going through the people.

Because liberals know what's best for us.

Step 4:

Get justices that know the law and are willing to stand by the Constitution though thick, thin, and even the odious breath of Ted Kennedy.