Saturday, August 27, 2005
NARAL's Second Strike
As I predicted here, pro-abortion advocacy group, NARAL is back with a second anti-John Roberts ad on its website, two weeks after pulling its first miserable try. You can view the ad here. Although the new ad doesn't lie through its teeth like the first one, it really is no more honest.
It starts out showing three concepts it calls well established rights--privacy, equality and choice. Right off the bat I have to say that privacy is not a right contained in our Constitution (nor is it even mentioned) and finding it hidden in the emanations from penumbras is not the same as having it well established. The equality right, which is in the Constitution, is merely mentioned once in the ad and then is heard no more. That in itself is pretty unfair. Choice, which is shorthand for the right to choose to end the life of a baby in the womb, isn't in the Constitution either but derives from the hidden privacy right.
The ad then gives examples of what John Roberts said when he was a lawyer representing clients. He questioned the very existence of a right to privacy (Yea, and?). Roberts said, in a brief he wrote for his client, that Roe v Wade ought to be overruled. (It should--abortion is a state issue nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and finding hidden rights there is the primrose path to judicial tyranny). The final point/quote in the ad is not what Roberts said but what a paper wrote about him, regarding, again, his questioning the existence of a privacy right in the Constitution (where it isn't actually, uh, mentioned).
Just in case the few readers of this post don't know, lawyers are hired to make arguments on behalf of their client and often what they say or write during that representation is what the client thinks or wants and not what the lawyer thinks. Nor does what a lawyer says while representing a client give you any idea what the lawyer would think or do if he or she were a judge.
Man, the left really must have nothing on Roberts if they're reduced to citing his briefs.
It starts out showing three concepts it calls well established rights--privacy, equality and choice. Right off the bat I have to say that privacy is not a right contained in our Constitution (nor is it even mentioned) and finding it hidden in the emanations from penumbras is not the same as having it well established. The equality right, which is in the Constitution, is merely mentioned once in the ad and then is heard no more. That in itself is pretty unfair. Choice, which is shorthand for the right to choose to end the life of a baby in the womb, isn't in the Constitution either but derives from the hidden privacy right.
The ad then gives examples of what John Roberts said when he was a lawyer representing clients. He questioned the very existence of a right to privacy (Yea, and?). Roberts said, in a brief he wrote for his client, that Roe v Wade ought to be overruled. (It should--abortion is a state issue nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and finding hidden rights there is the primrose path to judicial tyranny). The final point/quote in the ad is not what Roberts said but what a paper wrote about him, regarding, again, his questioning the existence of a privacy right in the Constitution (where it isn't actually, uh, mentioned).
Just in case the few readers of this post don't know, lawyers are hired to make arguments on behalf of their client and often what they say or write during that representation is what the client thinks or wants and not what the lawyer thinks. Nor does what a lawyer says while representing a client give you any idea what the lawyer would think or do if he or she were a judge.
Man, the left really must have nothing on Roberts if they're reduced to citing his briefs.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:06 AM 
