Hypocrisy in action
Due to a recent SCOTUS nomination, there's been quite a bit of noise made on both sides of the political spectrum about where Robert's stands on abortion. The simple fact that they are worrying about a single issue is a different post. What bothers me is the logic, or lack of logic I should say that these people are using to justify being so worried about abortion.
The majority of of the squeaky wheels in this case have been on the left. They maintain that they have to know if Roberts would uphold the Roe decision or if he'd overturn it cuz the Constitution guarantees this particular right. This is the first mistake they make. The Constitution makes no mention of abortion at all. The founders knew that they couldn't foresee everything that would possibly come into play over the years so they worded the document in such a way so that it left the majority of the power to the states and, by extension, to the people. The Constitution states that if something is not addressed within itself then the choice for such a matter devolves to the states and populace. Hence, Roe should have been a choice left up to the states and people, not to SCOTUS.
The reason this ends up being hypocritical on the part of the left is almost amusing. There have been multiple tries over the past few years by the left to do away with the electoral college. They keep repeating "One person, one vote" like it's some form of protective mantra. So they want the people to have the final say in who is the President, but when it comes to one of their pet issues, they don't trust the people with that choice. They'd rather SCOTUS made the decision as opposed to trusting the unwashed masses to vote the way the left wants them to.
To sum up: the left is guilty of blatant hypocrisy, yet they refuse to see it. They trust everyone to vote for President but when it comes to a 'real' issue they feel that you and I and every other citizen aren't qualified to have anything to do with the final decision. They feel that choice should lay with the 9 person focus group known as The Supreme Court of the United States. Considering the SCOTUS track record and considering the left's constant 'for your own good' assault, I'm not reassured.
posted by Mindwyrm @ 10:40 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Do you think most people on the "left" (such a weird label to me) really WANT to leave the issue up to the courts? You make a great arguement for putting it in the hands of the people.
Perhaps it's a case of ignorance more than hypocracy. Until I started reading your post here and your comments at Dada's blog I just assumed that it was up to SCOTUS to decide it. That's pretty much the impression I get from the media. And it seems to be the assumption that most like-minded (to me anyway) people I talk to are operating from.
Personally I like the idea of leaving it up to the people and I'd be happy to spread the gospel, so to speak about that option. But honestly it doesn't sound like the major mouthpieces on either side of the issue are going for that. They all want someone to give the final say and make it the law of the land. Both sides want a decisive WIN.
Personally I don't think a WIN on abortion is possible in the sense people are trying to pursue it. (but that's another comment)
In any case, I would probably be considered a left leaning person/ liberal (though my heart's not bleedin') and honestly I think taking it out of the court's hands is a great idea if it has the benefits you claim. (Though I'd still be concerned about the short term backlash to women that could occur if gaining/losing/and regaining our reproductive rights turned into a game of ping-pong) Maybe what is needed is not finger-pointing but education and enlightenment.
Honestly I hate that everyone has to choose a side (left, right, liberal, conservative) I think it's fucked up and counterproductive and personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me think there can never be a solution to this or any issue.
Don't you ever feel you're being manipulated by those labels?
I'll answer the easy question first. I honestly don't feel manipulated with the labels unless they're applied directly to me. I know that seems like a double-standard as I use words like right and left in my posts. But as general descriptive terms they are almost necessary to make sure the reader understands which population segment I'm referring to. I know it's an over-simplification in some ways, but it's also the most efficient way to make sure that I'm not confusing anyone who happens to read my posts.
As for putting the power back into the people's hands I am well aware of the possible issues that would crop up for something like that. My point still stands though. With SCOTUS making the call instead of the locals there is no viable recourse for citizens who feel SCOTUS ruled incorrectly. The only ways to fix a bad SCOTUS ruling are a constitutional amendment(which SCOTUS can strike down), impeachment of the SCOTUS judges(about as likely as Angelina Jolie showin up at my door), and SCOTUS overturning their own ruling(not likely if the judges don't change). The amendment is the only one anywhere near being in the power of the people and the stipulations for an amendment to be added are almost impossible to meet.
If it was back to being up to the states then it's much closer to being back in the hands of the citizens instead of a very tiny minority. If a bad law is passed it's much easier to get it removed at the local level then it is at the federal. The founders understood that the local level would be most easily directed away from stupid choices which is why they left so much power to the states instead of the feds. The gradual usurpation of power by the feds through a reading of the Constitution as a 'living document' is what's put us all in the position we're in now. The ironic thing is that the left end of the political spectrum is most responsible for viewing the Constitution in a framework that allows it to be re-interpreted so they've pretty much put themselves in a situation where they have to worry about a ruling against their position instead of having it with elected officials who can be replaced.
Post a Comment
<< Home