The forecast for the Supreme Court vacancy is already looking a bit gloomy. I heard on the radio Pres. Bush defending Alberto Gonzalez. It's sobering if Bush is even thinking of nominating him. Also the President made some seemingly contradictory statements as quoted in the Wash Times link above:
Bush said he would have no "litmus test" that disqualifies candidates because of their opinions on abortion and gay marriage.Hopefully this is on order of the single gal saying, "I have no litmus test that disqualifies a potential husband because of his opinions on religion. But I do want someone who will enthusiastically attend Mass every Sunday."
"I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, and people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from," Bush said.
Because if you want someone to strictly interpret the Constitution, then they won't find the right to an abortion in there. Even honest liberals such as this author admit that the Roe v. Wade was pulled out of thin air since there's no right to privacy found in the Constitution. My question is: "do you consider 'settled law' settled if the law was originally legislated from the Court?"
No comments:
Post a Comment