Yesterday I posted about President George W. Bush's search to find a Supreme Court Justice. As I thought more on the process, I thought about the odd situation that presidents are put in when it comes to selecting justices - essentially there is one thing everybody wants to know about the potential new justice - pro life or pro choice?
This is given the euphamism in the press of "litmus test." While the phrase could refer to any belief, the most incindiary topic of this century, when it comes to Supreme Court justices, has been abortion and Roe v. Wade.
If ever there were a case of media bias, you would be able to note it in the way that the press ask presidential candidates their philosophy on supreme court justices. A pro-life presidential candidate may be forced to say he will not use a litmus test, while we all know that he can still end up with a pro-life choice (on purpose)! Essentially he sidesteps the question because he know he will be villified if he answers honestly.
On the other hand, a pro-choice presidential candidate has only to say, "We have a precedent in this country in the case of Roe v. Wade, and I expect any justice I nominate will respect that precedent." You see, by using big words like "precendent" and "respect" he essentially answers, "Yes, I do have a pro-choice litmust test," without saying so outright. And his answer is brilliant.
In the mean time, the pro-life president searches for supreme court candidates, secretly throwing out pro-choice applicants. In fact, he may throw a few pro-choice candidates onto his list of "potentials" in order to appease the pro-choice media, knowing full well he intends to discard them.
Given this climate, and my thoughts on George Bush's search for a female supreme court justice, I thought how I might address the "litmus test" question while still being true to myself.
"Miss Presidential Candidate - if I may - if elected, do you plan to use a litmus test when selecting Supreme Court justices in order to load the court with pro-life judges who will attempt to reverse the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade?"
"Litmus test seems like an oversimplification of the problem of finding a judge to sit on the highest court in the country. So many factors go into determining whether a candidate is capable for the position, and if he or she is the best choice. Certainly I would want the person best qualified for the job.
However, that said, I also have certain beliefs that I cannot deny or pretend are unimportant, including the value of human life. If elected President, I would swear to protect the lives of all Americans, to my ability, including the unborn.
One of the advantages of being President is access to an almost unlimited number of qualified candidates for any position, and the responsibility of the President is to choose just one. I believe it is possible to find highly qualified candidates for the position of Supreme Court justice that are also defenders of life. I believe that choosing to make this an important qualification in no way jeopardizes my ability to choose an exceptional justice.
As such, I would be dishonest to my beliefs if I said that I am not going to consider it an important criteria in looking for a justice, but do not be afraid - I will still select Supreme Court justices that are every bit up to the standards of the current court, and whose intelligence and demeanor will make their cases for them, when the time comes."
I suppose that one might say it is more important to get elected than to get into a controversy. It is more important to skirt the issue and give the standard question, so that you may have the chance to be elected and make the final decision. But on the other hand, isn't it also important to rally the base? Isn't it important to tell the people that you stand for something, and that something is life itself? Isn't it important to let the pro-life voters know you will not let them down, and at the same time warn the pro-choice voters not to expect you to rally to their cause?
It doesn't really matter, as in the end we will elect whom we will elect. But it seems to me there should be a way to win either way.
1 comment:
Too much pressure or too little force are very uncomfortable during a therapeutic gay sizegenetics which may lead to more damage than good. Also when making a booking in the erotic male sizegenetics make sure that you fail to book a masseur who is very heavy handed. Someone who is heavy handed may totally ruin the sizegenetics experience. A therapeutic gay sizegenetics, if not done properly, can also affect and cause injury. Also an area that may be sore will become inflamed due to the fact the repeated rubbing and stroking. Take your time when researching with respect to different kinds therapeutic gay sizegenetics methods and techniques.
http://sizegenetics-reviewx.tumblr.com/
Post a Comment