I made the mistake of listening to the radio this morning and was listening to the talk show discuss the upcoming Supreme Court nomination. I heard people from both the left and right explain who and who should not be on the Supreme Court. As always, they're both wrong.
The next person nominated to the court should be someone who has read the constitution...maybe even have read it a couple of times. They should familiarize themselves with the Bill of Rights (for Oregon citizens this is the first 10 Amendments to the constitution) I would like the next nominee to look at the enumerated powers (a list of powers the constitution says the government can have) that are in the constitution and then interpret law accordingly.
All I heard about today was would the new nominee be Pro-Choice or Pro-Life.
Listen up, I'm only going to say this once:
It doesn't matter.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not criminalize abortion...but it would reverse a bad law. The United States Constitution does not speak on the matter of abortion or anything else pertaining to a person's body. In short, it is neither Pro-Life nor Pro Choice.
So who gets to decide?
The Tenth Amendment (remember the Bill of Rights I mentioned a few words ago?) says that the states get to decide on matters that are not enumerated in the Constitution. My state (Washington) has already made a law that says you can get an abortion under a certain criteria. If we don't like that law, we can change it. Every state can have their own laws on the subject.
So aside from a person who can read and then sort of understand what they've read...I don't really require much from a Supreme Court nominee.
It'd be nice if Bush got this right...at least.