There don't need to be impending cases; once they have what they need, the SC can choose cases that they want to see that will cover those issues. In fact, the lobbies for those issues would bring cases to court specifically to try to get the SC to take them on.

I believe the Constitution does not speak to abortion at all, so the justices should not have any ability to outlaw it. However, although I agree that the SC should only touch on the Constitutionality of issues, I don't agree that the Constitution should never be updated for a world that the founding fathers never envisioned. It is a great document to have served so well for so long, but it needs to upgrading. Can you imagined if we treated software on our computers the way we treat the Constitution?

That would be nice. They tell us to save money and not get into debt, but they won't do the same. It should be required that if they want to buy something, they need to have the money to pay for it. The conservatives that constantly bray about 'no tax increases' seem to believe that we can spend money all we want without needing to actually HAVE the money we spend. They seem to believe that we should run our country like a big pyramid scheme and that it will never catch up to us. I am tired of them saying that liberals want/like to raise taxes. It has nothing to do with wanting or liking taxes; it has everything to do with fiscal responsibility, i.e. actually paying for what we spend.

I think that's correct, they definitely have no authority to outlaw it. The thing is, I'm not sure they have the authority to stop the states from outlawing it either, since rights not explicitly granted to the Feds are supposed to belong to the States..

(I realize that the Feds never restrain themselves on that basis any more. That's the basis of an old joke we used to have. "What does the 10th Amendment say?" "There is no 10th Amendment, they skipped that one.")


The abortion debate bugs me because both parties keep it alive, to be used as a campaign tool. Obviously we don't really want to leave this issue to the individual states. Really, the statesmanlike thing to do would be to figure out exactly what this right is and what it isn't, and try to pass a constitutional amendment spelling out exactly what it is.

Both parties would rather campaign on the issue than solve it. If it were solved, the Democrats couldn't say "Vote for us or else abortion might go bye-bye", and the Republicans couldn't say "Vote for us so we can outlaw abortion." It does a huge disservice to women, who don't know what their rights are going to be from year to year, but nobody even tries to solve it with an amendment.


Oh, of course I agree with that. The Constitution was specifically written with an amendment process built in. It was never intended to remain static.

But, take gun ownership again. If, for some reason, we decide that private gun ownership is no longer a good thing, then the solution should be to amend the Constitution, not to have justices tell us that someting we can all see in black and white isn't really there.

Alcohol prohibition was enacted via constitutional amendment, and abolished the same way. Imagine if we got prohibition because some unelected justices "found" the right for the Feds to do this in the Constitution (written in invisible ink, of course).

We don't bother amending the constitution any more just like we don't bother declaring war any more. We just kind of take what we want. A sign of the times...

I don't really see Obama making Abortion a main issue in his campaign. I went to this web page: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I don't see Abortion in there at all. Its not even under the 'Additional' tab.

McCain on the other hand is willing to take a stand on what he believes here: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Click on the "Human Dignity" Tab. He tells you how he feels about Roe vs. Wade. Now, its not the easiest thing to find but it is there. If Abortion is key to you one Candidate tells you their position on it. Whether you agree or disagree is a different story but at least you know where one candidate stands. Should I assume that Obama thinks things are OK now as it relates to abortion since he makes no real mention of it? Hate to 'assume' you know....

I also don't think either candidate will bring it up in a debate or any conversation. Both candidates typically only answer the question when asked. If they are not asked they don't stand out in front of a crowd and state their case.

The abortion issue has nothing to do with the candidates other than as pertains to who will get to choose the next SC justices. McCain has already stated that he would nominate conservative justices, so we know where that will lead. Funny how so few people seem to care about the idea of checks and balances, which was a principle behind everything our founding fathers did. I don't care much who is ahead in the Congress or SC, as long as it is relatively balanced. I believe that an overbalancing EITHER WAY is very bad. Why can't anyone see that and understand that having the SC be able to do whatever they want unopposed is a bad thing for our country?

No your not. I think that is very important. The two issues are clearly separate but both are worthy of discussion.

That's the entire point of the matter. The Supreme Court can't do anything they want. They rule on matters of Constitutional law and interpret the Constitution. They do not have much power at all over States and the cannot interpret State Law. They only review State decisions when the State Supreme courts refer the cases to them.

Also, just because a SC Justice is appointed by a President and lucky enough to be confirmed by the Senate it does not mean that that Justice is a pawn of the President and does the President's bidding. The President is an 8 year term tops, the SC seat is usually much longer which is why the Senate must approve and confirm the nomination. You can't just slide someone through. All of the Justices are distinguished in their own rights. To say they are less than that does them a great disservice.

Then I do them a great 'disservice' and I am proud of it. I think what they did in 2000 was beyond shameful, and I see them doing far more than merely interpreting the Constitution. They do indeed legislate from the bench. The fact that a very few justices don't do exactly what the nominating president wishes is exactly why tipping the scale so dramatically in favor of one side is a problem, because it overrules any mavericks.

On the abortion issue it seems clear to me that the Feds have no authority to outlaw it. On the other hand, it seems clear that they have no authority to prevent the states from outlawing it.

People make a big deal about the 1st Amendment, and the 2nd, and the 4th and the 5th. But the 10th is the one that's


It means, basically, that unless the constition actually says the Feds get this power, then the states get it. Unless it says specifically that the states don't get it.

For all practical purposes, this amendment no longer exists. The Feds do whatever they think is best, with or without the authority to do it. I can't remember the last time they refused to do something they wanted to because of this amendment (I'd love to know, actually).


You remember how, in 1984, Winston Smith had this job of going through the old records and changing newspapers and documents and things that made references to the "old version" of the truth? This is where I think Orwell got it wrong. If we were in an Orwell novel, somebody would have gone in and changed all copies of the Constitution to remove this amendment, or replace it with something else.

Or paint a palm tree over it. You remember the painting "Stalin Among the Palms", that started out as a picture of Stalin and his generals, but as each one got purged, a palm tree was painted over the place where the purged guy had been, to remove the evidence that he'd once existed and been part of the inner circle. When they were all gone, it became Stalin Among the Palms.

Anyway, the Orwellian idea is that when we change the truth like this, we really need to work hard to cover our tracks and make sure nobody finds out what we've done. In real life, it's not really like that. There's no need to remove the old versions of things. Leave them in there, and people won't do the legwork to find them. And if they do, they won't care, as long as their lives are more or less happy. If they're happy, they'll regard the way things are as "the way things are", and ignore or explain away indications that they should be otherwise.


In a logic class, we once heard a quote from Clarence Darrow (who had defended Leopold & Loeb from murder charges on the grounds that determinism meant that they weren't responible ). He'd said something like "Don't try to prove your client is innocent. Make the jury feel sorry for him, and they'll figure out a reason why he's innocent." I think it's similar in politics. You don't need to "prove" that the government is right, or acting within its authority, or anything like that. If people are more or less happy, they'll figure out their own reasons why it's okay, and regard anyone who says otherwise as a kook or crank. (Which is not to say that genuine kooks and cranks don't exist).

In the end, they just don't do what you want them to do. To say they aren't qualified to be there is completely your own opinion. The 4 Liberal judges on the SC now don't vote the way I want them to either, but I don't question their qualifications for being there either.

I personally find this ruling detestable: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

I will only question their ruling. I won't question their qualifications for making it.