03 November 2005

"If judgments about the prudence of overruling are invoked, the justices should take note of the fact that Roe lies at the center of the bitter polarization of much of American society. In countries where the issue is decided democratically, no such intense animus exists. Compromises are worked out and each side knows that it is free to continue the public debate in hope of doing better next time. That was, and would be again, the case in America if the subject of abortion were returned to state legislatures and electorates. Overruling Roe would not, as some Democrats will claim, make abortion illegal, but merely the subject of democratic regulation. We have paid a high price for a ruling that rests upon nothing in the Constitution and was arrived at in an opinion of just over 51 pages that contains not a line of legal reasoning." --Robert Bork

Funny to see the irony...Democrats don't consider democracy to be worthy of regulating the central rite of American liberalism, abortion. He is right...where else but America is abortion such a hot-button issue? Do other countries not have hard-line left/right wingers? Of course they do. But here is the issue; the American Right is passionate to overturn Roe because it was unjust, in that a court wrote a relatively shabby ruling based on the beliefs of just a handful of unaccountable men, and democracy was subjugated to the perceived divine right of the Court. The American Left is equally passionate because the tenet of Roe is the highest example of how a minority can impose its will upon a majority. Although to be honest I can't begin to explain why abortion really is that most sacred of liberal tenets. So you want the unchallengeable legalization of surgical infanticide to be the core platform upon which you campaign? Oh, great. I can't install a high-flow toilet in my house, but I can hack apart unborn children in the womb with a mother's consent. Not only that, but it is a Constitutional RIGHT...no state or federal government can challenge my right to do so. Never mind that there isn't a single thing in the Constitution that says that.

But even that isn't the issue. The legalization or illegalization of abortion is beside the point, and not what mobilizes most true conservatives on the issue. What angers us is that democracy did not decide the issue. America did not have a voice. It was decided for us by our "betters", a ruling handed down from On High. If we made the decision for ourselves as Americans and legalized abortion, that would be much more acceptable. I still would vote to criminalize it out of my moral and intellectual convictions, but I would accept its legalization as authentic and just law.

As it stands now, the liberals fear to put policy in the hands of the people and their elected representatives; thus the anguish at a slow return of the court to judicial function on a more traditional, Constitutional level. The ivory tower from which they exercised rule is crumbling.

2 comments:

Matt said...

It's fairly common to make your own blends, but it requires more experience than I have. As you can see here:

http://www.sweetmarias.com/tastewheel2.jpg

there are many different things you can shoot for. I am still working on being able to identify even half of those tastes and aromas, so I imagine it will probably be years before I attempt a blend.

Actually, the oils left behind in an old pot used to be highly valued by cowboys. They did not consider a clean coffee pot to be a good thing as it would reinforce the same old coffee they had always had.

I'm not really sure if fresh roasted will be a constant thing at Midtown. So long as the church is paying, I'll gladly continue to do it. It would be cheaper anyway - green coffee costs about half as much as roasted. I'll need to talk to Sam, and hopefully he'll agree. If I do it again next week, I'll probably do a Kenya AA, mostly just to see what the reaction will be. It is much more lively, and I wonder if it would be as well-liked.

Chris Beggs said...

I'd say that you definitely addressed the argument that social programs can and have fostered entitlement. Johnson probably did solidify that more since America was not in such dire straights that would necessitate the expansion of the executive office to honor bloated commitments. Good stuff Neuf.