7.02.2005
Is there a "constitutionalist" or "original intent" jurist who is for equality for sexual minorities or who supports abortion rights?
If so, I would like to hear more about them from the folks who run The Committee for Justice and their ilk. (Justice and committees? Discuss.)
Listen up, conservatives: if you want to maintain that what drives you is your unfettered commitment to principle and an interest in the "correct" way to read the US Constitution then I want you to present, front and center, someone who can make a case for minorities under that rubric. Until then, I will maintain that what motivates your "principled" positions of judicial "philosophy" is bigotry, hatred, and petty, tin-god ill-will.
If so, I would like to hear more about them from the folks who run The Committee for Justice and their ilk. (Justice and committees? Discuss.)
Listen up, conservatives: if you want to maintain that what drives you is your unfettered commitment to principle and an interest in the "correct" way to read the US Constitution then I want you to present, front and center, someone who can make a case for minorities under that rubric. Until then, I will maintain that what motivates your "principled" positions of judicial "philosophy" is bigotry, hatred, and petty, tin-god ill-will.
[ tyler curtain ] 23:36
2 Comments:
Finding an Originalist/Constitutionalist who is pro-choice in the abstract is one matter, but considering oneself an Originalist ipso facto makes one opposed to Roe v. Wade. Roe grew out of and drew heavily upon Justice Douglas's 1965 finding in Griswold that "the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion". As I type this while wearing my "ACLU Monitor" t-shirt you can understand that I find the concepts of "penumbras" emanating from the First Amendment convincing. But Griswold and Roe are not simply anathema to Originalists, they were the very reasons that form of jurisprudence came into being.
Joel
Joel
