Locke and Load

Supreme Court

This is a pretty concise point that conveys my feelings on the next Supreme Court appointment:

I don't see that state-sponsored executions are a left-right issue. The issue is the interpretation of our constitution, a matter of the courts and for the courts, which should apply principles, yes, but should be above the -- sometimes quite petty -- distinctions of liberal and conservative.

You could insert any issue in place of the death penalty, and the same statement would apply. Which is why it's a shame the debate has been framed by the terms "liberal" and "conservative. Also why it's a shame that Bush's screw-up with Miers resulted in the Republicans framing the debate as all about abortion.

The court's job is to interpret and apply the law. Which is why it is so ridiculous for the court to quote foreign law as some sort of source or precedent when no such consideration went into passing the law. The legislature is elected by, and responsible to the people who elected them, not the French. The law, and the constitution, should be interpreted based on the law and it's original intent. And if the legislature, or in this case, the founding fathers, didn't intend to grant a right to abortion, they didn't. Did they mean for the "right to privacy", sometimes correctly construed, to allow a woman to kill her unborn child? If you want a law that grants that, then get it passed.

posted by The Man @ 10:05 AM