Justice vs Revenge

---

I think that this is an interesting comparison made by Leon F. Seltzer at Psychology Today [read more here].

1. Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational.
2. Revenge is, by nature, personal; justice is impersonal, impartial,
   and both a social and legal phenomenon.
3. Revenge is an act of vindictiveness; justice, of vindication.
4. Revenge is about cycles; justice about closure.
5. Revenge is about retaliation; justice about restoring balance.

I think that the heart of justice is restoration and reconcilation. Consider these passages from the bible.

Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)

This is what the LORD says: “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.” (Jeremiah 21:12)

This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another.” (Zechariah 7:9)

Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. ( Isaiah 30:18)

I love the way that these verses paint a picture of justice that is restorative in nature.

---

What is Justice?

---

This week was filled with all sorts of opinions about the recently decided jury case in Florida. Many folks have opined strongly and lengthy about the case. Some felt that justice was done and others thought it was not. The case reminds me that laws and legal systems do not always achieve justice. Here is a comment that I wrote on Heather Koop's post titled: "Will There Be Monsters in Heaven?"

I think that our thoughts of vengeance are rooted in our skewed human view of justice. Justice is not found in retribution against the monsters but in the acts that restore such devils and make them saints.

A few years ago I spent three years weekly visiting a prison in Kansas and three years monthly visiting a jail in Kansas City. My one observation was that justice was only being accomplished in those places when the lives of the men there were being changed for the better. Justice looked more like contrition and repentance than about penalization. Apart from that, I do not think that justice really exists behind bars. My hope is that one day such justice will be more prevalent.

---

How will the High Court Rule on Obamacare?

Back in March Danial Fisher of Forbes Magazine said that Obamacare Will Survive The Supreme Court. Here was his rationale back the:

• Justice Kennedy wasn't convinced by arguments healthcare isn’t a market Congress can regulate.
• Chief Justice Roberts wasn't convinced the Supreme Court has the institutional competency to unravel 2,700 pages of legislation, most of which even he hasn't read.
• Kennedy and Roberts, as moderate conservatives, will have a hard time getting past the idea they are substituting their wisdom for that of elected representatives if they strike down the law.

I honestly have no clue what they wil announce tomorrow and I doubt that many of the pundits do either. What do you think the high court will do? Any clue? If you are reading after the announcement - were you surprised? Will it affect this years election?

---

Super PACs and the SCOTUS

Many of my conservative friends are whining these days about the influence that the negative ads, sponsored by Super PACs, are having in the Florida GOP primary election. My thinking is that this huge dollar door was opened up on January 21, 2010 by a landmark decision of the conservative led United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. Here is a clip from the wiki on the topic:

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision had upheld provisions of the 2002 act, which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

Conservatives say that the court was correct because the issue was free speech. Others are not so adamant about this sort of free speech because they understand that the influx of huge amounts of money in the election process often results in an unhealthy exertion of power. I mean really, does anyone think that campaign finance reform is bad. Does anyone think that large corporate entities are people and, as such, have the same rights that you and I have with regard to "electioneering communication"?

---

Restrictions :: Violent Video Games vs Violent Movies

ZDNet recently reported on how the US Supreme Court ruled on a California law enacted in 2005 (but never enforced) that banned selling violent video games to children. The court ruled in favor of video gaming concerns by a 7-2 margin. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called California’s law “seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents…think violent video games are a harmless pastime.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here — a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games.”

But more importantly, the court ruled in a precedent-setting decision that video games are entitled to the same protection as other forms of speech, such as books, plays and movies.

The Court also took a swipe at the argument that violent video games are harmful to children - a central argument of Senator Yee, the child psychologist turned politician who sponsored the law. In their ruling, the Supreme Court said studies showing studies linking violent video games and violent behavior in children “do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively.”

The ruling surfaces the issues of whether legislatures should involve themselves in such matters. Yet I wonder where the high court would come down on allowing children to frequent R-rated movies at theaters without their parents. I guess I could be misunderstanding the issues at hand but the two scenrios seem quite similar to me.
Of course, some theaters probably do allow older children in to "R-rated" movies in the same way that some stores allow kids to buy "M-rated" games.

What do you think? Should the same rules apply for video games and movies?

Free Speech and the Gospel of Hate

October 6, 2010 Update: I am no longer a Kansan (moved to Kansas City, MO in June). The Supreme Court heard arguments on this case today. Heard that they may consider the personal nature of these kinds of protests and weigh them against the rights afforded by the first amendment. How do you think they should rule?

Sara Phelps, shown in May 2006 in Shumway, Ill., holds signs during a protest by followers of the Rev. Fred Phelps, who claims soldiers have died because they fought for a country that condones homosexuality. (James A. Finley, Associated Press / May 19, 2006)

March 10, 2010: One of the sad things about being a Kansan is knowing that Fred Phelps is also a Kansan. Soon he will be a Kansan appearing before the Supreme Court of the United States. According to this Kansas City Star article:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case involving Fred Phelps and his Topeka congregation, whose protests at military funerals have angered families across the country.

The court said it would consider an appeal from the father of a slain Marine who hopes to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church.
...
“It’s freedom of speech to some,” said Snyder, whose son Matthew was killed in Iraq. “To me it’s not what my son fought for. They’re kicking people in the face when they’re already down on the ground. All I was trying to do was bury my son.”
...
Shirley Phelps-Roper, a church leader and daughter of Westboro founder Fred Phelps, said her sister Margie Phelps is likely to argue the church’s case before the Supreme Court. Shirley Phelps-Roper and Margie Phelps are licensed attorneys.

Phelps-Roper said it’s God’s will that the church gets to appear before the nation’s highest court. Regardless of the ruling, she said it’s a “win-win” for the publicity-hungry church.

“You know how hard we’ve worked to get in front of them?” she said. “We came to the kingdom for this hour.”

Ugh.. what can I say about this? What would I say to one of the justices if they asked me for input concerning this first amendment issue?

• Firstly, the actions of these religious folks are the opposite of everything I think Jesus Christ represents.. they preach a gospel of hate.
• Secondly, I believe that our nation must stand with fallen soldiers and their families in their grief and pain.. these sacrificed all for their country.
• Lastly, I feel that there must be a direct linkage between the issue being protested and the object of the protest. Given that there is no direct linkage between fallen soldiers and the homosexuality this group protests I think that the high court should rule against Fred Phelps and his followers.

The gospel of hate needs a kick in the pants. I am hoping that the Supreme Court gives it one.  What kind of advice would you give the high court?

---

Congress shall make no law..

According to the wiki, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. Thought that I would take a few minutes to list and comment on them amendment by amendment.. right by right.. not that I have anything new or insightful to offer.. just thought it might help me to do it.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
   
   The original concern seemed to be keeping the government out of religion. These days the focus seems to be more about keeping religion out of government.
   
   
2. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
   
   Pro-gun folks often do not like the Militia part of this right. I am not against people owning hunting rifles and even handguns. I do not favor citizens owning automatic weapons.. the designation of weapon seems to indicate a problem.
   
   
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
   
   Not sure what the background of this is but there seems to be a concern about the abuse of power by the government. This may not be as much of a concern these days but the threat is still there when the Kansas City, Kansas government used "eminent domain" to seize control of private property for a NASCAR racetrack.
   
   
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
   
   Search and seizure of private property further addresses the concerns of the founders that citizens should be protected against the government. I wonder what the founders would think about the Patriot Act?
   
   
5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
   
   Again the Militia is mentioned.. I might have to research that a bit more. I love the way that our founders protected citizens against self incrimination and double jeopardy. Interesting how the seizure of private property is mentioned again.
   
   
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
   
   I think that the founders never imagined the current day quagmire of legislative processes when the penned "the right to a speedy and public trial". It is an aspect of our court system that is troubling.. seems that it sometimes takes years for an accused person to receive justice.
   
   
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
   
   The right to stand before your peers in court speaks to the desire to limit judgments to the professionals. It speaks loudly to the belief that everyday people are qualified to make these determinations of guilt and innocence.
   
   
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
   
   The protection against cruel and unusual punishment keeps over-jealous jurists from inflicting fines and imprisonments that are not appropriate to the crime. Interesting how the right protects people that have broken the law.
   
   
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
   
   The founders seem to have understood that these ten rights were not complete. The additional amendments to the constitution seems to bear this out.
   
   
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    
    There seems to be a concern that the federal government would expand and usurp powers that not only states, but individual citizens themselves, should retain. This speaks to me about the need to reduce bureaucracy in government.

In summation I think that these rights provide a wonderful delineation and limitation of the powers of government. Reading these gives me a wonderful picture of what the founders wanted for our government. It speaks to me about their desire to have a limited government that was focused more about the rights of people than their leaders.

What popped out for you when you read the Bill of Rights?

Presidential Supreme Court Justice

If you are one of the 8 brave souls who took the poll that I have been running or just want to know the answer to the question click here and let me know if you were wrong or right.. some of you were.

Do you think Bill Clinton will be the second president to sit on the high court?

Unconstitutional Day of Prayer?

Last Thursday a federal judge ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution's prohibition against the government establishment of religion. Here is an excerpt about it from a Washington Post article about it:

National Day of Prayer "goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience. . . .

"I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate. A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort 'to carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.""

The case was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group that challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 law giving the president authority to designate the first Thursday in May as National Day of Prayer.

I am not a regular participant in the National Day of Prayer.. I do not meet with other Christians on that day and pray.. frankly I probably do not pray any more on that day than other days.. maybe this year will be different though? I do think that it is a good idea.. the bible instructs Christians to pray for those in civil leadership. And I think that it is a good way to informally unite those who pray in a formal way.

In my opinion the judge has interpreted the establishment clause in a very biased manner. My understanding of it is that it simply says that congress shall not interfere in the practice of religion and shall not establish a national religion.. like "The Church of England". The National Day of Prayer was instituted by Congress in 1952 and in 1988 was set on the first Thursday of May. I see no reason why this legislation was unconstitutional then or now.

What do you think? Do you participate in the Day of Prayer? Do pray with others?

Religion, Ideology and the Court

On Friday the last Protestant on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, announced his retirement (about time - he turns 90 next week) and once again opened up all sorts of speculation on who President Obama would nominate to fill his seat. A USA Today article titled "Does the U.S. Supreme Court need another Protestant?" posits that we cannot make these assumptions about judges and their brand of religion:

• That everyone lives -- and judges rule -- in accord with that brand.
• That even if they were formed in one childhood faith, they haven't come to see the world, or that religion differently
• That they will -- or will not -- impose their personal faith views on the entire nation with their rulings.

The article specifically addresses the difference on the court between Roman Catholics (there are six of them) saying:

"Justices Sotomayor and Antonin Scalia are both Catholic but their interpretation of living the faith -- social justice emphasis on the left or traditionalist on the right -- seems quite different."

I guess I understand that.. generally speaking Christians do not walk in lock-step agreement on many issues that the courts face. Even if a protestant would be nominated their religion would probably not be a predictable reflection of their views. So maybe religion is a mute point? Maybe it should be? Maybe the focus should be on the qualifications instead of their religion or ideology?

Yes - I am dreaming. Of course ideology will be a big part of the selection. Interesting though.. Justice Stevens was thought to be a conservative leaning jurist when he was selected by (republican) President Ford. And justices Kennedy and O'Connor were thought to be more conservative when (republican) President Reagan nominated them to the high court. It is difficult to know how a person will act based purely on their ideology or religion.

What do you think? Should ideology or religion be a factor in selecting a judge?

Jury finds Smoker 1/3 Responsible

According last week's Reuters article titled Florida jury awards $26.6 million to smoker's widow a "Florida jury ordered R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris on Wednesday to pay $26.6 million to the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer". The article references a 2000 $145 billion judgment against tobacco companies that was overturned in 2006 by the Florida supreme court with the stipulation that individual cases could be tried against tobacco companies. Here is an excerpt from the piece:

The jury awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and divided the blame for Nathan Cohen's death equally at one-third for Altria Group unit Philip Morris, one third for Reynolds American unit R.J. Reynolds and one-third for Cohen himself. 

The panel also awarded $20 million in punitive damages, or $10 million for each of the two cigarette companies. That puts the total at $26.6 million, or $13.3 million for each company, if the verdict is upheld on appeal.

The idea that a jury felt that the smoker was one-third responsible for his own actions confounds me. On the surface it seems that this verdict is yet another example of blame-shifting on the part of smokers. Yet I wonder if the issue really goes to the idea that tobacco companies allegedly lace cigarettes with nicotine making them even more addictive? Even so it seems that people have known about the destructive affects of tobacco for a very long time and yet choose to smoke anyway.

I keep going back to the Thank You for Smoking movie and thinking about how strong the tobacco lobby is in DC. It seems that tobacco companies have definitely duped many people about their products and maybe enough so that lawsuits like this makes sense. I guess I am on the fence about these lawsuits - maybe the jury should have shared the responsibility equally between the individual and the industry?

What do you think? How would you have voted if you were on the jury?

Will Sotomayor replace Souter?

5/26/09 Update: News just broke that President Obama will nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the high court later this morning. Should be an interesting confirmation process.

---

5/1/09 Update: Yesterday's news of Justice David Souter retiring in June got me thinking back to this post. Of course Justice Ginsburg may also choose to retire in June when the current session of the court comes to an end. Interesting to consider that this President HW Bush 1990 supreme court nominee could be replaced by someone that he nominated for a lower court in 1991.

---

3/14/09: George Stephanopoulos recently posted this observation:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised a few eyebrows today with her prediction that President Barack Obama would "surely" pick a Supreme Court justice "soon." 

Here's my question: what are the chances that Obama DOESN'T pick Sonia Sotomayor? 

In her favor, she was appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush. Elevated to the Appeals Court by Bill Clinton. She's a protégé of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a prosecutor with Robert Morgenthau.  Graduate of Princeton and Yale after growing up in the South Bronx.

And, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic Justice on the Supreme Court bench

From what I can tell Judge Sotomayor is a liberal and is pro-choice. I wonder how our "pro-life" senators will vote if she is nominated.. of course we could thank "pro-lifer" George HW Bush for nominating her when he was president.

Religious Abortion Views

Found this chart at The Pew Forum. It is a telling picture of how divided religious America is on the legality of abortion. Small wonder that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned yet.

Apart from the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the supreme court, what do you think it will take to change the abortion laws? Do you think that medical science will ever convince anyone that an unborn baby is a life? Seems that there is already plenty of evidence.

The Freedom of Choice Act

Therese responded to my last post titled Abortion and the States saying:

I'm sure a number of states would try to outlaw all abortion, but what's really grim is that every limitation you mention, limitations voted on by the people of the states, every last one will be GONE if Pres Obama signs his "Freedom" of "Choice" Act.

Got me to wondering.. I found this summary at WashingtonWatch.com:

"Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

A few thoughts:

1. It seems that this bill would not invalidate all state restrictions on abortion as fetal viability is involved.. also doesn't address other points such as parental notification.
   
   
2. The bill has never gotten out of committee.. it will be interesting to see if it does and if it is filibuster proof.
   
   
3. I suspect that if it actually does come to a vote it will look differently then the one that didn't get out of committee.
   
   
4. It will really be interesting to see who actually votes for the bill.. at least we will have an idea who the pro-choice folks (especially the Republican ones) really are.. and how much outrage (read that filibustering) is expressed by the so-called pro-lifers.
   
   
5. If passed and signed the bill will probably and ultimately be contested and decided by the supreme court.

I will be surprised and saddened if it is actually passed and signed.. alas.. I have been surprised before.

Abortion and the States

From a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute:

Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. The following highlights the major provisions of these state laws.

• Physician and Hospital Requirements: 38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 18 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.
• Gestational Limits: 36 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability.
• “Partial-Birth” Abortion: 14 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 4 of these laws apply only to postviability abortions.
• Public Funding: 17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.
• Coverage by Private Insurance: 4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans to cases in which the woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Additional abortion coverage is permitted only if the woman purchases it at her own expense.
• Refusal: 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 43 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.
• State-Mandated Counseling: 17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (8 states), long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states) or information on the availability of ultrasound (6 states).
• Waiting Periods: 24 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed. 6 of these states have laws that effectively require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.
• Parental Involvement: 35 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 22 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 11 require that one or both parents be notified and 2 states require both parental consent and notification.

You can check out a state-by-state breakdown of these here.

I have to say that I was surprised at the diversity of the abortion related legislation.. especially the first two bullet points.. also interesting how insurance limitations are involved. Any of these laws surprise you?

I do wonder though.. if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court.. how many states would outlaw all abortions and what the penalties would be for those participating in abortions?

Voting the Supreme Court

Over at Rose's Reasonings we have been having a spirited debate about the presidential campaign. Several of the commenters have asserted that "discerning" Christians could not vote for Barack Obama because he would appoint pro-choice justices. The insinuation and innuendo is that to vote for Obama is tantamount to sinning.. but I digress. Following is a comment I left about presidents and their supreme court nominations:

For the past 28 years.. in the last 7 presidential elections I have voted pro-life.. the abortion issue trumped every other issue.. I believed that Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the elder) would nominate pro-life justices.. Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy.. Bush nominated Souter.. and Ford nominated Stevens.. much of the present court make-up can be attributed to these republican presidents.

I understand how strong this issue is but I simply no longer believe that the supreme court is the answer to abortion. I think that the best that they will do is return the issue to the states.. they will not outlaw abortion in our country.

The rights of unborn babies is not a state issue.. it is one which.. like slavery.. demands a national answer. William Wilberforce was a man of integrity who made a change in slavery for England. We fought a civil war to give slaves person-hood.. this led to a change in our constitution.

I do not believe that John McCain has a fire in his belly about the unborn.. he has never introduced legislation to abolish abortion in our country.. his support for unborn babies has been passive at best.. he will do nothing for the unborn if he is elected.. and I don't think that even a pro-life justice nomination is assured.. he makes many decisions by the seat of his pants.. if he had not listened to advisers we would be looking at a pro-choice Ridge or Lieberman VP nomination.

What do you think? Is it the position of the high court to send the legalization of abortion back to state legislatures? Do you think that they would ever rule that unborn babies have a right to life? I am interested in your thoughts.

Presidential Time Warp

My blogfriend Nephos said this in a comment:

"I can’t convince myself we would have been better off under Gore or Kerry."

Caused me to think a bit.. I did vote Bush in 2000 and in 2004.. what would it have been like if he did not win? Here is my not-so-thoughtful response to Nephos:

I think that if Gore was elected we would not have invaded Iraq and many Americans and many more Iraqis would still be alive.. anti-preemptive-war is a part of my pro-life thinking.

Maybe if Kerry got elected the republicans would not have lost the majority in Congress.. maybe we wouldn’t be overly extended (militarily and financially) in Iraq.

I have to admit that I am really not convinced that things would have been better if Bush lost either of those elections.

How would you have responded? Maybe you would speak to how these candidates would have nominated liberal justices to the Supreme Court or how they would have vetoed the congressional ban on partial birth abortions.

It is an interesting to ponder how our country would be different with a different president at the helm.

Prolife Politics

This comment by rmkton over at Julie's place resonated with my thinkings of late:

I think it is interesting to hear folks say that they vote Republican based upon the pro-life stand when it seems obvious to me that Republicans have no interest in actually overturning Roe v. Wade.

It is an easy stand to take to be pro-life when you know it will garner a lot of votes and yet the practicality of passing anti-abortion legislation is nil. I think it is why many Republicans pur forth anti-abortion bills with no provision for the health of the mother which they know will get shot down....then they can claim to be pro-life and demonize those who allow for abortion as "baby killers".

Abortion proponents at least say they are for it...but the anti-abortion crowd say they are against it, but do nothing practically to stop it. Appointing conservative supreme court justices ain't gonna do it.

I have been voting prolife since Reagan and I am thoroughly disgusted that these who depend on our prolife votes do absolutely nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ever wonder:

• what our country would look like if our conservative majority (i.e. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy) supreme court ever had the courage of their conviction to take on Roe?
• how many conservative jurists it will take (6, 7, 8 or all of them) to take on Roe?
• how many babies would be saved if abortion was controlled by the states?
• how many states would actually outlaw all abortions?
• why the Republican Party did nothing to overturn Roe when it had both the congress and the presidency for the first six years of this millenium?

I am already hearing the rhetoric in my head.. I espoused it for 25+ years.. I understand it.. I just think that it is irrational to allow this issue to cause us to ignore all of the other issues.

Gay Marriage End-Run

End-run: A maneuver in which impediments are bypassed, often by deceit or trickery. I think that what the New York appeals court did in February was an end-run around a vote by New Yorkers.. or at least their representatives. In essence they legalized gay marriage in New York.. another example of activist judges legislating from the bench. Here is the story in brief from Reuters:

New York state has instructed government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages conducted out of state or abroad, renewing debate on an issue that was used to rally conservatives in the last U.S. general election.

The directive could impact everything from health insurance to public housing and organ donation. It was welcomed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which posted a copy on its Web site and said it was "a milestone in the fight for fairness."

In the memo dated May 14 but not publicized at the time, Gov. David Paterson's legal counsel, David Nocenti, said state agencies that do not recognize gay marriages could be subject to liability.

The directive follows a New York appeals court ruling in February that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries must be recognized in New York.

LA Judge against Military Enlistment

According to this Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner foster children should not be enlisting in the military because she doesn't approve of the Iraq war, didn't trust recruiters and didn't support the military.

The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason why we're over there," said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office. "She just said all recruiters were the same - that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."

Shawn Sage, 17, said he begged for Mackel's permission. "Foster children shouldn't be denied (an) ability to enlist in the service just because they're foster kids," he said. "Foster kids shouldn't have to go to court to gain approval to serve one's country."

This action seems to be an abuse of power representative of left-wing-whacko thought.