Keeping An Open Mind
Since October 31, 2005 when President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, we have seen and heard all kinds of statements about his record, his views, his judicial temperament and his ultimate suitability for the Supreme Court.
Now that the Senate hearings have begun we have had an opportunity to hear Alito’s responses concerning various issues.
In the second day of the hearing Alito said that if he faced an abortion case he would “approach the question with an open mind.”
I must admit that his statement troubled me a bit when I heard it.
As one who believes that abortion involves the killing of a living person, I would have preferred to hear him say that abortion is nowhere protected by our Constitution. Because so many Christian and pro-life groups have endorsed his nomination, I was saddened to hear him say that he has not made up his mind about what the Constitution says about the taking of innocent life.
At the same time, one could argue that Alito would never gain Senate approval if he flat out stated that abortion is murder and unprotected by the Constitution.
Some people hold that it is better to give non-answers to many of the questions the Senate inquisitors ask. That way, the nominee at least has a fighting chance to actually make it to the bench.
Should it trouble us that we have reached this point?
The President is given the sole power to nominate judges to fulfill Supreme Court vacancies. The Senate has the limited role of confirming the nominee and assuring that the nomination was not improperly made. For example, the President should not nominate someone merely because that person is a relative.
This Senate role is a relatively minor one and does not give Senators the power to reject qualified nominees who may hold political views the Senators do not share.
Through the years the Senate has greatly expanded its sense of importance and power in the confirmation process. Today, Senators demand to know how the nominee would rule on any particular issue. Further, if the answer does not fit a Senator’s particular political view, he will reject the nominee.
In light of this situation, one can understand Alito’s dilemma. If he answers the questions he will not be confirmed. If he doesn’t answer, he appears weak and uncommitted.
It now appears that he will receive confirmation even though some of the senators will undoubtedly sputter about his views.
Must one keep an open mind on all issues?
Should we keep an open mind on whether or not the Holocaust took place? Should we keep an open mind on whether or not it is right to steal a computer from the workplace? Should we continue to be open to whether two and two equal four?
At some point, we must come to conclusions and make decisions.
One would hope that the issue of abortion would not be so confusing that a learned person would not have an opinion about it by the time middle-age arrives. One would hope that a judge would have an idea of whether or not abortion is protected by the Constitution as designed and understood by the framers.
At some point, we must be willing to take a stand concerning the great moral issues of our day. If abortion is not such an issue, there is no such issue.
What if the Senators asked Alito whether it was wrong for the Nazi’s to kill the Jews? What would be our response if Alito’s answer involved “keeping an open mind?” We would be outraged.
Abortion is an outrage, and it will never come to an end until judicial nominees are willing to plainly state the truth. The US Constitution does not protect the right of abortion.
Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned just as the Supreme Court had the wisdom to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis (1940) in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943); and United States v. Halper (1989) in Hudson v. United States (1997).
With the appointments of Roberts and Alito, there is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will decide abortion cases any differently than it has in the past. Perhaps I will be surprised and found wrong on this point. I hope so.
The bottom line is that President Bush had a wonderful opportunity to appoint conservative, pro-life judges who would properly interpret the Constitution. He did not do so.
On several occasions Roberts called Roe v. Wade the "settled law of the land." On the other hand, the framers never gave bad law that status.
Why did the Supreme Court not argue that Plessy was the "settled law of the land?" We can be thankful that the Court recognized the injustice of segregating black children from white children in our public education system even if the facilities are equal.
Alito has also taken a weak "open mind" position on abortion. His statement does not reflect the commitment or understanding of one who recognizes that the injustice of abortion is not a part of our Constitution and should not be part of our way of life.
Conservative, pro-life groups jumped on the Roberts and Alito bandwagon working hard to secure Senate confirmation. These groups seem to overlook the fact that neither judge has given any kind of indication that he will support a pro-life position with respect to Roe or similar cases.
The abortion issue is too important to address it in such a cavalier attitude.
These two judges are probably very kind men. They have certainly excelled academically and professionaly. Even so they have never communicated a clear concern about the killing of babies. For that reason, their Supreme Court appointments are a concern.
Thousands of babies are slaughtered daily, yet we do very little about it. As citizens we must demand more of our elected representatives. We ought not re-elect public officials who fail to act to eliminate this scourge on our land. We should replace them with people who will not merely talk about a “culture of life” but take the action required to restore that culture to our land.
We need to reach the place where we no longer keep an open mind when it comes to moral evil. There is a time when we need to close our mind to error so that we can live and act in the truth.
Now that the Senate hearings have begun we have had an opportunity to hear Alito’s responses concerning various issues.
In the second day of the hearing Alito said that if he faced an abortion case he would “approach the question with an open mind.”
I must admit that his statement troubled me a bit when I heard it.
As one who believes that abortion involves the killing of a living person, I would have preferred to hear him say that abortion is nowhere protected by our Constitution. Because so many Christian and pro-life groups have endorsed his nomination, I was saddened to hear him say that he has not made up his mind about what the Constitution says about the taking of innocent life.
At the same time, one could argue that Alito would never gain Senate approval if he flat out stated that abortion is murder and unprotected by the Constitution.
Some people hold that it is better to give non-answers to many of the questions the Senate inquisitors ask. That way, the nominee at least has a fighting chance to actually make it to the bench.
Should it trouble us that we have reached this point?
The President is given the sole power to nominate judges to fulfill Supreme Court vacancies. The Senate has the limited role of confirming the nominee and assuring that the nomination was not improperly made. For example, the President should not nominate someone merely because that person is a relative.
This Senate role is a relatively minor one and does not give Senators the power to reject qualified nominees who may hold political views the Senators do not share.
Through the years the Senate has greatly expanded its sense of importance and power in the confirmation process. Today, Senators demand to know how the nominee would rule on any particular issue. Further, if the answer does not fit a Senator’s particular political view, he will reject the nominee.
In light of this situation, one can understand Alito’s dilemma. If he answers the questions he will not be confirmed. If he doesn’t answer, he appears weak and uncommitted.
It now appears that he will receive confirmation even though some of the senators will undoubtedly sputter about his views.
Must one keep an open mind on all issues?
Should we keep an open mind on whether or not the Holocaust took place? Should we keep an open mind on whether or not it is right to steal a computer from the workplace? Should we continue to be open to whether two and two equal four?
At some point, we must come to conclusions and make decisions.
One would hope that the issue of abortion would not be so confusing that a learned person would not have an opinion about it by the time middle-age arrives. One would hope that a judge would have an idea of whether or not abortion is protected by the Constitution as designed and understood by the framers.
At some point, we must be willing to take a stand concerning the great moral issues of our day. If abortion is not such an issue, there is no such issue.
What if the Senators asked Alito whether it was wrong for the Nazi’s to kill the Jews? What would be our response if Alito’s answer involved “keeping an open mind?” We would be outraged.
Abortion is an outrage, and it will never come to an end until judicial nominees are willing to plainly state the truth. The US Constitution does not protect the right of abortion.
Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned just as the Supreme Court had the wisdom to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis (1940) in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943); and United States v. Halper (1989) in Hudson v. United States (1997).
With the appointments of Roberts and Alito, there is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will decide abortion cases any differently than it has in the past. Perhaps I will be surprised and found wrong on this point. I hope so.
The bottom line is that President Bush had a wonderful opportunity to appoint conservative, pro-life judges who would properly interpret the Constitution. He did not do so.
On several occasions Roberts called Roe v. Wade the "settled law of the land." On the other hand, the framers never gave bad law that status.
Why did the Supreme Court not argue that Plessy was the "settled law of the land?" We can be thankful that the Court recognized the injustice of segregating black children from white children in our public education system even if the facilities are equal.
Alito has also taken a weak "open mind" position on abortion. His statement does not reflect the commitment or understanding of one who recognizes that the injustice of abortion is not a part of our Constitution and should not be part of our way of life.
Conservative, pro-life groups jumped on the Roberts and Alito bandwagon working hard to secure Senate confirmation. These groups seem to overlook the fact that neither judge has given any kind of indication that he will support a pro-life position with respect to Roe or similar cases.
The abortion issue is too important to address it in such a cavalier attitude.
These two judges are probably very kind men. They have certainly excelled academically and professionaly. Even so they have never communicated a clear concern about the killing of babies. For that reason, their Supreme Court appointments are a concern.
Thousands of babies are slaughtered daily, yet we do very little about it. As citizens we must demand more of our elected representatives. We ought not re-elect public officials who fail to act to eliminate this scourge on our land. We should replace them with people who will not merely talk about a “culture of life” but take the action required to restore that culture to our land.
We need to reach the place where we no longer keep an open mind when it comes to moral evil. There is a time when we need to close our mind to error so that we can live and act in the truth.
posted by Steve at 9:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home