Reply To: Political Statements
@JoAnn: “Activist judges”: another right-wing heavily e-mailed talking point that went out around the country and media several years ago much like “No Child Left Behind,” “Clear Sky Initiative,” “Healthy Forest Initiative,” “War on Terror,” “Fight Them There So We Don’t Have To Fight Them Here,” “Death Tax,” “Abstinence Only Education,” “If You’re Not With Us, You’re Against Us,”Tax and Spend Liberals.” Upon close inspection, have any of these carefully-crafted phrases lived up to their intended or implied meaning? Our children struggle with hours of preparation for mandated tests, losing their enthusiasm for learning, the President has filled agencies with former energy industry execs for whom science is secondary in the decision making process, the war in Iraq? (I won’t bother with this one) Death Tax? Gee – sounds like a bad thing, huh?
But the real answer is this: Yes. All of these buzz words are code and they worked well in ’04 to reelect President Bush and pass anti-gay marriage amendments across the country.
“Activist Judges” The debate as to constitutional interpretation will never end. Whose ox is being gored? Well, the Warren Court in the 60’s (Warren appointed by Eisenhower) brought the country many decisions regarding first amendment rights, civil liberties, etc. The court, under Burger’s (Nixon’s appointment) leadership dealt with the number one issue that has and will continue to divide us: abortion rights.
Consider this: The constitution can be interpreted literally, much the same way the Bible or the Koran can be interpreted literally. The argument is as follows: “There is nothing in the constitution regarding abortion, therefore Roe v. Wade was a bad decision.” There was nothing in the constitution that gave women the right to vote, minorities to right to ride in the front of the bus, drink out of the same drinking fountain as whites, stay in the same hotels, etc. etc. etc. Did the constitution have anything to say regarding police interrogation? No. Yet here we are today, assured of the right to counsel and remaining silent when arrested because in 1966, the Supreme Court decided that this was necessary (Miranda)
Does this mean that we have a “Living Constitution?” Do societies change? Did the Roman Catholic Church finally agree that “Yes, Martha, we now believe that the Earth is, indeed, not the center of the universe and sorry, Gallileo, you were right all along.”
If your big issues include abortion or antidisestablishmentarianism (not really appropriate term since it originated in England by those who were against abolishing established state religion but I’ve never actually used and just feel like it today) then you will most likely join the chorus of the “activist judges” crowd.
Want fewer abortions? (I do) Educate kids today with sound science, and, yes, this includes methods of contraception. Give me a break: only telling people not to have sex is like, . . . well . . . . someone, help me out here . . .
Finally (sorry for the reverse order here) a constitutional scholar is someone who has not only studied the constitution but has a thorough grounding in the law, including a combination of academic and professional experience. Both Obama and Biden have practiced extensively in the area of constitutional law and both have taught constitutional law at major law schools. What’s more, both of them have very high level experience in Congress, one of the three branches of government, specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution. This puts them in the realm of constitutional experts.
But hey – I’m only a piano teacher, it’s my J.D., Ph.D. husband who is the know-it-all . . .
ETA: Since beginning this diatribe, Jinx and MT have weighed in. This post is in reference, only, to JoAnn’s question. I will now read the other two. (I’m slow today)
ETA: WOW – Can you (Jinx and MT) believe how similar our posts are? Even down to “Miranda.”