On Friday, the following column by Rick Santorum appeared in the Washington Times. In this column, Santorum comments on Mitt Romney’s record of judicial appointments. Then he promises to fight for Conservative judges.
SANTORUM: Romney’s record of judicial capitulation
Name the last nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president who turned out to be a judicial conservative. Maybe Justice Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy, who dissented from Roe v. Wade, but one largely draws a blank. Ask the converse, and the list is long and disheartening. Republican appointees formed the majority in Roe v. Wade (Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Potter Stewart and Warren E. Burger). Earl Warren was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower, John Paul Stephens by Gerald Ford. George H.W. Bush nominated David H. Souter, a blunder mitigated by the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Even conservative-by-instinct George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who withdrew in the face of conservative indignation, in favor of Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (continued here)
Hi Tom,
Long time no see…I never understand how humans feel it their right to over-ride God’s law on this one. There are certain laws that are impossible to enforce — such as abortion. God gave woman the right to choose to become pregnant and guard/reject that life until it can independently survive (breathe, swallow, cry) outside of her womb. That’s god’s arrangement — not yours, not mine. — not a government’s, religions or any other entity. What the governments/social laws (judges), religions and men can do is ensure that women are able to feed those children. The concerns of the children rest on us as a society (there is plenty of work to do there). That is enough for me…I’ll leave a woman to answer to god directly for her choice to have an abortion. You should too.
Have you noticed that women with infants are the most vulnerable and dependent in most world economies? In the Jewish, Christian religion and Muslim religion women are considered “punished” with childbirth/ergo their babies (for having sex or even being raped). So we see a fundamental restriction of resources for them in societies — even ours. Where the puritanical or christian influences dominate we see a great deal of judgment on the women for how children came to be. This is why women tend to be overpowered in societies. We can do things so much smarter for women and their children, but noone asks us. How many mothers do you see making the economic laws??? ZERO (except in Scandanavia where child poverty is the lowest in the world.. And yet there is no shortage of laws over reproduction. Man’s laws will never contain what god has already ordained.
Hello Heather,
Good to have you visiting again
To some extent we agree. In order to make any sense, a law requires three characteristics. The law must be: understandable, supported by the vast majority, and enforceable. Because an outright ban on abortion would not be supported by much of the population and because it would not be enforceable, an outright ban makes little sense.
So where do we disagree? Well, in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stuck its nose where it does not belong. Just because a law may not make any sense does not give the Supreme Court authority to overturn it.
Consider that the Constitution does not define when life begins. What the Constitution does do (in the 9th and 10th Amendments) is empower the people and the states to run their own affairs without undue interference from the Federal Government. Thus, instead of an iron-handed Federal Government demanding uniformity, each state government has the opportunity to experiment and try to get it right.
Like it or not, we really don’t know when we should declare a baby a human being. Is there anything so magic about birth that we know that to be that special time? No. Should any human being be completely without the protection of the Law? For the most part, the unborn are without such protection. Only because most people consider partial birth abortion hideous has allowed some control. Nonetheless, it is legal to murder a “fetus” right up to the moment gestation ends.
Anyway, in the battle over judicial activism, Roe v. Wade is only a flash point. The fundamental problem is to appoint judges that stick to the law. Santorum addresses that fundamental issue in his litmus tests.
I think that a four-part test, but why quibble?
Let me also address this comment.
Marriage exists to provide women the support they need when they are either pregnant or with children. I don’t know why you think either the Jewish or Christian traditions punish women for being raped. In fact, I can think a Bible passage that specifically excuses women for being raped. In fact, the Bible shows little favoritism between the sexes. Sex was something done between a married man and woman, and that was that. Here is the passage in context.
In some respects the last case is similar to what we do today in the event sex results in a child. Consider the attitude in those days. Men wanted to marry a virgin. Families insisted their sons marry a virgin. So a deflowered young woman had relatively little opportunity to find a good match. Therefore, the rapist found himself punished by having no choice. He had to take care of his victim for the rest of his life. Similarly, in our era, married or not, if a man impregnates a woman, and she bears his child, he has to pay child support.
Hi Tom,
There is just so much here. I can take your point on the Santorum characteristics. However, I see him and those he would put on the bench to interpret the Constitution along highly religious, restrictive–essentially freedom limiting lines. His perspective is troubling and narrow. I need not worry, he will not become our president.
I want to address this summary of the troubling biblical quotes: “Therefore, the rapist found himself punished by having no choice. He had to take care of his victim for the rest of his life. Similarly, in our era, married or not, if a man impregnates a woman, and she bears his child, he has to pay child support”.
This is the slippery slope — because you seem to think that man with the immature violent mind to rape a woman gets to “take care of his victim and child”. Sounds like a lucky woman and child! You really do not seem to know people who have experiences around these issues. Women and children get beaten in the care of such individuals. That ‘s is why they fought for independence and self-actualization. Following the letter of the bible literally creates hell for some. The best option for woman and child is that the woman have means to independentally provide for herself, not get tangled in what would become an abusive marriage. Marry the attacker???? To punish HIM???
To suggest that child support is on par with being forced to bear a man’s child and have no means to provide for it makes no sense. I agree that some women can be quite irresponsible and take advantage of men with this these days but men make choices too. They need to take responsibility too.
Anyway, the larger is issue (and one we could agree with) is that women should take more care and guardianship and responsibility for themselves. Because they have the PRIVILEGE of bearing children. The reason I take issue with what you say here is that my mom was a teen mom who did not marry my father. He was not in the position to be a good husband/father. She was/is a great mother and took excellent care of me. I — like many people my age! — defy the expectations of bible thumpers. I married, had a son and have lived happily ever after. The point is, I know that women marrying men become tied to financial dependency and that is the problem — not the children two people bring into the world. Alleviating the restrictions on certain necessary resources would be much easier than forcing sexual activity into the limited confines cave-dwellers thought they should be 2000 years ago.
All that I see in those quotes are words intended to taint the beauty of gods creation (life) and control and limit individual freedom. Places operate like this in the world. You seem like a man who would have volunteered to help in those places but I wonder if you have ever been. You certainly would not want to turn the U.S. into places Haiti if you had…they live by the laws you wish to see here. I think you should go to those places first.
Heather – Thank you for the comment. I expect to respond with a post tomorrow evening.
Pingback: BECAUSE OF YOUR HARDNESS OF HEART | Citizen Tom
Pingback: BECAUSE OF YOUR HARDNESS OF HEART | Citizen Tom