You Bet Your Life?

For anyone whose support for the GOP depends largely on its opposition to abortion, or other social issues for that matter, that is the question to ask yourself. Are you willing to bet your life that Harriet Miers is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? If the answer to that question is no, then why are you willing to bet the lives of tens of millions not yet born? Why are you willing to bet marriage? Why are you willing to bet religious freedom? Why are you willing to bet continued domination of public policy by unelected tyrants in robes?

I am the first to say that it should not be that way. Laws should be presumed constitutional while judges determine whether the application thereof passes constitutional muster. Nobody should hear about what the Court does, much less care, because its rulings should apply only to the parties involved. We need judges willing to say that the emperor is buck naked, because the status quo is a far cry from what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Given the current situation, though, we must at least have Justices who respect some limits on the Court. They must understand that the Constitution is not a list of recommendations but a binding legal contract. Only two of the current justices understand this and act accordingly. A third may, but we do not yet know. As a result, the Court has unilaterally amended the Constitution, adding a "right to privacy", a "right to abortion", a "right to sodomy", "freedom from religion", and a "right to repossess private property" for any purpose. These are no small matters and go to the heart of who were are as a country. Sadly, there is no chance of the other two branches enforcing the limitations on the judiciary, so we must find justices whom we can trust to adhere strictly to the Constitution without the other branches exercising their checks and balances. So ask yourself, "Am I willing to bet my life on Harriet Miers?" I have my answer. What's yours?