Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
And IMO, a "failure to reasonably interpret the words on the page" is more a political talking point, and a creature of political outlook, than anything else.
As such, it's not the "root cause" of anything, other than the GOP being pissed that they're not geting their way, and that they don't have public support sufficient to work through the system that the framers set up.
Being pissed at the result is, in itself, an insufficient reason for the GOP caucus to attempt an end run around the courts.
|
I don't agree with this end run any more than I agree with the "new" rules for confirming judges, which are surely not what the framers invisioned. Point is, this is not a one sided problem.
Please tell me where their is a right to abortion in the Constitution. Now this may or may not be good policy, but the words are certainly not explicitly in there, so it is at least debatable whether the framers intended such right to exist. Wasn't the SC interpretation, then, away of the left "getting it's way. Why not require proponents to garner sufficient support to work the issue through the system instead of doing an end run?
