Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Test your knowledge on Roe

Our friends at CitizenLink would like to know what you know about Roe.


Devon Williams writes:

At what stage of pregnancy can a woman have an abortion under Roe v. Wade? Does Roe allow late-term abortions? What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest?

Jan. 22 marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton — the two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that legalized abortion. But how much do Americans really know about the landmark rulings that have been responsible for the deaths of more than 45 million preborn babies?

There is a link provided in the CitizenLink article where you may test your knowledge of Roe.

Read More

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Old News; New News

Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.

In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.

If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol

I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.

Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).

Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.

Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.

By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.

-DW

Read More

Saturday, June 30, 2007

What say we cut the President a little slack...

There's an AP story out this morning -Supreme Court Term Shows Shift to the Right- which focuses, as the title implies, on the noticeable trend of the Supreme Court during its last term to render its decisions in a more right leaning fashion.

This story underscores, I think, one of the outstanding accomplishments of the Bush Presidency. And to my mind will forever cast a more favorable light on this administration than on either of the two preceding it. Depending on how one looks at it; that is, the worldview perspective that invariably guides one's thinking on such a subject, the appointments of Alito and Roberts to the court might be said to be the defining characteristic of the Bush Presidency, for better or for worse.

I own that I voted for President Bush twice, and on reflection I don't regret either vote. As I've said before, I've never thought of him as much of a 'conservative,' but he is a damn sight more conservative than either of his opponents were/are. And seriously, folks, I could never have, in good conscience, voted for the other candidates. Nor could I have chosen not to vote, or encouraged it in others, given the gravity of the situation. And here is an undeniable case in point, for even the most extreme conservative Bush-bashers out there must at least acknowledge that the trend cited in this AP story is a quantifiable step, though a small one it may be and of little consolation to some, in the right direction for the court and for the country over which it presides.

Now, with the recent happenings concerning the amnesty bill, the President has managed to get severely under my skin too. I think I even referred to him as 'El Presidente' once or twice during the more stressful moments of the late showdown. And I admit that his getting chummy with the gentle-scum from Massachusetts (to whom I'll yield none of my time) didn't sit well with me either. I don't necessarily regret having said what I said (I'm a big believer in the idea of 'if you've got it coming to you, just buckle up and take it like a man'), I do however regret what the expression of it might imply - that I harbor contempt for the President himself, and the office that he occupies. Neither of which is the case.

We must be cautious, my friends, to incorporate in our own assessments of a given situation the idea of balance. And a balanced perspective on the president takes many variables which may not be readily apparent into consideration. The way we think the President should be conducting himself under a given scenario is not necessarily the way reality lends itself to the actuality of the thing. Let us always keep in mind that so long as this nation is inhabited by a more or less dependent citizenry then the various branches of government are likely going to be negatively affected in the manner in which they conduct themselves, their proceedings, and the administration of their duties. Even the best preachers can be limited in their effectiveness by disaproval within their congregations.

We also must remember that the President is a human being, which is to say corrupt to some extent or the other. And it's not like we bear no responsibility for the mess we're in. To the contrary I'd say we bear most of it. But I can tell you that if I were tasked with taking over a business which had been poorly managed for years and years, the great likelihood is that many of the correctives I'd initiate (if I could successfully navigate all the obstacles in the way) would probably cast an appearance of being detrimental to the business itself, and self-aggrandizing to me, simply based on the fact that they would at first appear to be radical changes for some within the company. Furthermore, if I were given two, and only two, limited terms in which to accomplish my objectives without the possibility of being chosen for another term, then I think reasonably it's hard to argue that my second term would experience anywhere near the successes I may have had in my first. Provide me with a hostile board of directors, and so on and so forth, and, well, you get the point.

But truly folks (and I'm speaking mainly to you conservatives out there) we can be thankful for President Bush's appointees to the federal courts, and to the High Court. I mean, it's not like it wasn't a battle all the way through. And even if there were nothing else that he'd accomplished during his Presidency, this in itself is vindication enough for this conservative and his choice on both occasions of Bush's election.

Let us be minful of that, and let's cut the President some slack, shall we?

-DW

Read More