Shoe: >Agreed. This was an incredible and blatant misuse of >judicial power. I simply can't believe I'm living in an >America where 70% of the people want something, >the President and Congress inacted it and the judiciary >said, "No!". It's simply unimaginable to me. Shoe again: >But using your judicial power to allow adults to >savagely attack a late term baby when Congress >passed a law and the American public is very much >against it is not such an example. My position on late term abortion is stated on the recent abortion thread (I'm against it). With that in mind here, I find your first paragraph position to be unbelievably flawed considering the historical capabilities of "70% of americans", "the President and Congress". I'm glad we live in a country with a document which is the final say in personal rights. I am also glad we live in a country where there are checks and balances (impeachment). If there is enough outrage it will happen (there won't be). JB
I admit a strong majority is a weak argument. I'm just trying to show that the judge was acting completely independently of both her mandate and, for what it's worth, the general public. However, consider this: it takes something brutally barbaric to get a strong majority from the American public on an issue of morality. It's got to be murder, rape, child abuse, etc. for a strong majority to agree. When they agree that strongly, it's time to ask yourself if you're fighting even "natural law"... And, yes, it won't happen. I'll still call my Congressmen for the sake of my conscience though.