Jul 01, 2005 13:57
Okay. I will stop freaking out...now. I just went to the bank...
Sandra Day O'Connor retires?!
Now, I expect Rhenquist; we all did. But this is bad. O'Connor has traditionally been a swing vote, leaning liberal. If we assume (correctly, I mean, come on, seriously) that Rhenquist is also going to go, that gives President Bush two appointments. With homosexuality being a current hot-button issue, it is almost certain that he will appoint judges who don't support equality. I believe that O'Connor was the swing vote in Texas v Lawrence (homosexual sodomy is covered under that nice privacy umbrella).
Will someone do me a favor and do some research on Luttig (the supposed front-runner) and some of the other justices, particularly in regards to their views on church and state, free speech, and homosexuality?
And for all of those who are saying that the Court is impartial, I say "bullshit". The justices all have their opinions on legal interpretation, which is good and right. I realize that original intent and textualism have their supporters and their reasonings, and that the people who are on the Court (yes, even Scalia, lamentably) know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the laws and all of this stuff.
I respect the Founders. I have great respect for them, and I believe that they wouldn't have intended for the Constitution to be interpreted according to their "original intent". I mean, look at the Ninth Amendment, for example, which was added in 1793, certainly still in the age of the Founding Fathers (does James Madison ring a bell?). And the fact that there is an amendment process in the first place shows their wisdom: they knew that the Constitution would need to be changed as issues came up and as the times changed. There is no way they could have forseen issues like Internet porn or probably even homosexual rights. But we still (yes, even you, Antonin) must use the Constitution to determine what is correct and right for this country in the current age, with these modern issues. The Founders certainly meant for the Constitution to be a living document. They were aware, as we all should be, that meaning changes with the observer.
For a quick practical application, I'll use homosexual rights. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly meant for that amendment to apply to African-Americans. To debate that point would be stupid. They determined that equality (in those broad terms) was fundamentally important to our country, enough so that they put it in the Constitution. Just because they didn't specifically forsee women's groups and advocates of homosexual equality (ok, that term is kind of funny out of any legal context) doesn't mean that the principle is flawed. I mean, it's the principle of the thing. Isn't that what the Constitution is all about in the first place?
Sorry that was kind of disconnected; this is coming at me quickly as I'm about to leave for work and it would be better if I could come back to it and edit it. I hope my point comes across, however. I think the point is that...I believe in a living Constitution and I am afraid that a Bush appointee will try to deny me of rights I believe are guaranteed to me in the Constitution. Sometime I should take the time to write a meaningful essay on the topic. All apologies for any annoyance/stupidity.
law,
gay rights,
thinking,
essay,
supreme court