Some stuff on Specter: I rarely hear Sean Hannity and when I do I usually turn him off quickly, but yesterday he interviewed Arlen Specter and I listened. It seems that Specter was opposed to Bork because of Bork's insistence of placing "original intent" in the forefront of his opinions. When you think about "original intent" it is clear that the original intent supported slavery, votes only for male landholders, and Bork indicated that he thought that the Rights enumerated under the Constitution did not include women. Specter, and a hell of a lot of others, thought that there was no way original intent can be applied to modern society and that is why Specter voted to keep him off the bench. Specter further pointed out that he had supported every Republican nominee to the courts, especially including Clarence Thomas.
It's my opinion we have to cut him some slack.
11/09/2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Original intent" takes into account amendments to the constitution, so slavery would still be outlawed and voting would not be restricted to male landholders. Bork never said that the rights enumerated under the constitution did not apply to women.
The constitution doesn't provide any protection if judges can change its meaning just by pretending it changed its mind. If the constitution needs updating, it can be amended, or a new constitutional convention can be called.
Bork was a Republican nominee, so obviously Specter has not supported every Republican nominee.
Post a Comment