11.13.2005 | "fundamental rights and freedoms"

The Democrat's house organ, the New York Times, advises them to "fight for their vision" against that evil spawn of the "far right", SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito. Well, they didn't use the term "evil spawn" in today's editorial. But they might as well have. From the "be strong and don't be afraid to filibuster" piece:

Conservative Republicans demonstrated that they have a clear idea of what they want for the Supreme Court. They proved that once again with their insurrection against Harriet Miers. Now Democratic senators have to show their supporters that they are no less willing to fight for their vision.

The Times version of that "vision" is to oppose even the remotest threat to abortion on demand, and to consider the willful denial of the right to life for the most helpless of our citizens, the unborn, to be "fundamental rights and freedoms."

It is fascinating how ultra-liberals can become preservers of the status quo. So long as that status quo is far enough away from the bulwark of the actual written Constitution. Which is what any justice of the Supreme Court should hold as their ultimate, and sole, authority. Hence, Roe v. Wade becomes sacred, never to be tampered with.

It's funny, but not in a ha-ha sense. If memory serves, the Times and their ilk were quite happy, leading the cheering even, when earlier "visions" of the status quo were overturned. Key example? The infamous "separate but equal" of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Some precedents, it would seem, are more sacrosanct than others.

It is hard to know what actually motivates the far left. On the one hand, there is this uninformed and biased blather about "fundamental rights." On the other, the left, including the Times, is more than happy to trash actual rights enshrined in our Declaration and the Constitution.

Starting with the right to life.

| technorati tag | Supreme Court|