White House Rep Can't Defend Obama's Abortion Litmus Test for Supreme Court

[juliee]

Washington, DC – The top spokesman for President Barack Obama was stymied by the press Wednesday afternoon after Obama said in a morning meeting that he would have no abortion litmus test for the Supreme Court and then proceeded to outline how any nominee must support unlimited abortions.

LifeNews.com/nat6275.html

 

[JimG]

““If it turned out that the person he appoints to the court someday provided the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, would Barack Obama be upset about that?” the reporter asked.”"He would be upset and astonished. But I’m predicting it will be Elena Kagan, and that scenario will never happen.

Roe v Wade will be reversed. But we will have to wait for Obama’s pro-abortion appointees to retire. It will be a long wait, with millions of abortions continuing in the meantime.

 

[Timothy17]

Roe v Wade will be reversed. But we will have to wait for Obama’s pro-abortion appointees to retire. It will be a long wait, with millions of abortions continuing in the meantime.

Not true.

A Constitutional amendment can strictly forbid abortions. Slavery was ended that way, and abortion is fundamentally worse than slavery.

The Life Movement would do well to look at people who, in times past, were instrumental in reversing popular opinions and misconceptions about issues of justice. Charles Dickens and the groups that helped end slavery in GB and the USA would be excellent models to follow. We need to speak to people’s hearts. Abortion is positively wrong whether one is religious or not- it does not necessarily require a pre-existing foundational belief in God the Author of Life to see the inhumanity and injustice of abortion.

 

[Darkbloom]

A Constitutional amendment can strictly forbid abortions. Slavery was ended that way, and abortion is fundamentally worse than slavery.

You’re right, but it took a war and the secession of several states to lay the ground work for a Constitutional amendment that banned slavery. I doubt abortion will be stopped the same way. We’d have to have a huge proportion of the members of both houses of Congress effectively out of the picture, as they were during the Civil war.

 

[Timothy17]

So votes are needed.

If the US Supreme Court proves anything, it’s that its Justices are merely ships in the wind, willing to interpret laws in the light of popular opinion, albeit academic or political opinion. Their job is to ensure the law is upheld; not ensure the laws themselves are just (that’s the legislature’s job).

I remember laughing my butt off when I read that the Canadian Supreme Court officially ruled a section of our Bill of Rights (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) Preamble was “meaningless.” In one foul swoop they erased for all practical purposes a section of the Supreme Law of the Land. What did they rule as “meaningless” in the interpretation of that document? ‘Canada is a land that recognizes -]the Supremacy of God/-] and the Rule of Law.’ That opinion of theirs thereby made justification for unlimited abortions a matter of Constitutional right.

Secular judges/courts are as stable and constant as secularism (and its whimsical notions of morality) itself. Hence the constant unease that “progressives” feel even when/after they have “won” an argument or battle and achieved some nominal or practical victory.

 

[JimG]

So votes are needed.

If the US Supreme Court proves anything, it’s that its Justices are merely ships in the wind, willing to interpret laws in the light of popular opinion, albeit academic or political opinion. Their job is to ensure the law is upheld; not ensure the laws themselves are just (that’s the legislature’s job).

I remember laughing my butt off when I read that the Canadian Supreme Court officially ruled a section of our Bill of Rights (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) Preamble was “meaningless.” In one foul swoop they erased for all practical purposes a section of the Supreme Law of the Land. What did they rule as “meaningless” in the interpretation of that document? ‘Canada is a land that recognizes -]the Supremacy of God/-] and the Rule of Law.’ That opinion of theirs thereby made justification for unlimited abortions a matter of Constitutional right.

Secular judges/courts are as stable and constant as secularism (and its whimsical notions of morality) itself. Hence the constant unease that “progressives” feel even when/after they have “won” an argument or battle and achieved some nominal or practical victory.

Your point is well taken, but it also gets to the heart of the problem of constitutional “interpretation.” If the written words of a Constitution can mean whatever a court decides them to mean, then even a constitutional amendment can be interpreted out of existence by the Court.

If the Court were interpreting scripture, we would call what they do eisegesis instead of exegesis–reading out of the document whatever result they wish to obtain, instead of reading it to determine the intent of its authors.