Tuesday, November 22, 2005


A Melanie Barrett (mbarrett@bayoucity.net) wrote to me as follows (I have not endeavoured to fix the grammar or spelling):

"we should adhere to the belief that if you do not make more than $100K a year or you are mentally deficient or physically ill, tough luck. Are you so vain as to not realize that there are many people that actually contribute to this world that do need some help? Your blog brings reason for euthenasia.

Actually every time I read some conservative blog, hear Limbaugh or one of those radio talking heads, I cringe to think that there is so much hate in this world".

I replied:

"You want to kill me ("euthanasia") and you say that I am the one full of hate? You are a psychiatric case -- the phenomenon is called "projection" -- seeing in others what is really in yourself. How sad that people like you have to live a life of such deranged suffering"

In a subsequent email she made this rather sad statement: "And for your information - life is suffering, for everyone..... ". She really is a mess -- like another Leftist emailer I commented on recently.



No more striking down constitutions: "Let's drop the talking points about 'conservative,' 'constructionist' and 'originalist' nominees. Such language obscures what's going on. These nuances are a polite way of pretending that the mainstream in law and government interprets the Constitution differently than we do. No. They are oblivious to the actual content of the Constitution, or they are anti-constitutional. A polite term would be 'post-constitutional.' If Ginsburg, Souter, and friends have a 'theory' of constitutional interpretation, they're keeping it to themselves. When they shake the foundations of the earth from their bench it is neither theory, nor constitutional, nor interpretation. They are, wrote Jonah Goldberg after one heinous ruling, 'making it up as they go along.'"

Roe v. Wade was a legal absurdity: "What do Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe have in common with Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork? They all believe Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. Dershowitz and Tribe are not the only pro-choice legal scholars who denounce Roe as poor jurisprudence. John Hart Ely, another pro-choice legal scholar, wrote in 1973 in the Yale Law Journal that Roe was wrongly decided. Edward Lazarus, a dedicated pro-choicer and former clerk to Roe's author, says Roe was borderline 'indefensible.' Pro-choice Washington Post writer Benjamin Wittes calls Roe 'a lousy decision.' Slate columnist William Saletan--who left the Republican Party in 2004 because it was too pro-life--has written that Roe was a sloppy 'overreach.' Pro-choice Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen calls Roe 'a bad decision.'"

Privacy rights may be good but finding them in the constitution is absurd: "Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee the right to privacy. The word "privacy" isn't even mentioned in the text. But if all you had to go by was the obsessive interest in the subject whenever there is a Supreme Court vacancy, you might imagine that privacy is the very bedrock of American constitutional law. Few legal cows today are more sacred. A judicial nominee who referred dismissively to the "so-called right to privacy" or insisted that courts should not "discern such an abstraction in the Constitution [and] arbitrarily elevate it over other constitutional rights," would stand no chance of winning confirmation. That is why John Roberts, who wrote those words as a Reagan administration lawyer in 1981, smoothly disavowed them during his confirmation hearings in September. It is why Samuel Alito's nomination to the court was no sooner announced than his most important Senate ally -- Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter -- called a press conference to say that the nominee had assured him that "there is a right to privacy in the Constitution"


No comments: