Roe v Wade
by C1ay - 11/29/04 5:52 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - A majority of Americans say President Bush's next choice for an opening on the Supreme Court should be willing to uphold the landmark court decision protecting abortion rights, an Associated Press poll found.
The poll found that 59 percent say Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31 percent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
What's wrong with this picture? Why is it that the public thinks it should be the USSC to decide whether or not abortion is legal? IMO, it should not matter whether or not an appointee supports Roe v Wade or not. It should not be the judges job to decide what should or should not be legal. That's what we elect representatives for, to make the laws that establish what is and what is not legal.
In the same poll 60% responded that they felt that there should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices.
"The justices hold office year after year," said Opal Bristow, an 84-year-old Democrat and retired teacher who lives near San Antonio. "Some of them are old codgers who need to get out of the way and let the younger folks with fresh ideas come in."
Isn't this just another way of saying we need justices which interpret the Constitution from a new perspective? In my opinion this is the same as having the court write laws through judicial fiat as opposed to simply interpreting law. Shouldn't our Constitution carry the same meaning consistently over time? Shouldn't our justices decide what the law says, not what they think it should say? What do you think?