Originally Posted by
Pete Hanlin
I've been doing a little study of Justice Ginsberg- looks like she has written some interesting opinions on things like ... prostitution (believes it should be legalized)...
i believe history has shown that the regulation of vices and morals through civil law results in unintended consequences far worse than the "evil" the law is purporting to prevent. in this class the big one is the war on drugs, and to a lesser extent, prostitution. the laws in both cases attempt to fight natural economic phenomenon, and both have been/will continue to be wildly unsuccessful.
roberts seems to be oriented toward federalism, though perhaps a bit less so than rehnquist. both are more socially conservative than myself, but roberts seems to give deference to court precedent, (accepting that Roe is the established law of the land, despite the arguably faulty legal logic upon which it was decided), and is unlikely to cause a great shift in the court's direction. o'connor is the judge in whose opinions i most often found my views reflected. i feel unfairly criticized as deciding cases on a whim, in most respects she took a libertarian stand (federalism, limited government, respect for individual rights, etc.)
regarding the ACLU, i'm reminded of michael douglas in The American President:
For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? ...
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
the problem is that, being a lobbying force and the biggest organization of its kind, they are forced to support the most extreme of cases along with the more pedestrian ones, and those extreme ones attract the most attention (and controversy).
and concerning the Pledge, it wasn't until June of 1954 that an amendment was made to add the words "under God". President Eisenhower said "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future." i believe it should left to the individual to decide whether or not he/she wishes to affirm a religious faith, and to the extent one does wish to do so, it should be done independently or with other like minded individuals, not as a mandated daily public school ritual.
Bookmarks