Tuesday, January 17, 2006
My One and Only Political Post
OK, I know it's not in character and certainly out of my arena... but I couldn't help noticing the following exchange (from the transcript of Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court Nomination Hearing):
SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?
ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.
SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of "Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion" the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?
ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.
SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question.
If you're scoring at home, that's one for Alito.
Links to this post
SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?
ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.
SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of "Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion" the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?
ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.
SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question.
If you're scoring at home, that's one for Alito.
Links to this post
Comments:
While it is an outrage that abortion is allowed to continue in this country, I think it unfortunate that this question has so much bearing on the selection of nominees to the supreme court. There are so many other important issues for them to judge, and to focus in on this question so much makes a mockery of our highest court. There should perhaps be some other procedure in place, involving other branches of government, along with the present slate of judges, requiring more than just a simple majority vote, that would be required in order to overturn previous decisions of the supreme court. Perhaps with such safeguards in place, new nominees stances on already decided issues wouldnt be such belaboured topics.
I do agree with you here Russ, Alito's answer is appropriate.
-J>
Post a Comment
I do agree with you here Russ, Alito's answer is appropriate.
-J>
Links to this post:
|
| 
|
|  |
