Justice Kennedy made a humorous speech the other day but underneath this speech he sends a false message. He said in the speech "that he rejects the notion that justices shall be defined by their conservative or liberal views. In answering a question about Kagan he said "Kagan will change the "dynamics" of the high court. He states "your oath requires you to search for a neutral, traditional principle within the confines and the framework and structures of the law." I believe this is probably the textbook answer you would expect him to say. However in reality does this always happen. He also said he defines activist as someone who makes a decision you don't like. I think he was clearly trying to avoid the issue. Clearly stating that a justice on the court is not to respond about someone being considered for the court. He also stated he is not to visit with them nor give answers how he feels about them. I did enjoy the speech but here is were I have differences.
Justice Kennedy fails to admit to us that decisions of the high court clearly at times have been influenced by political views. If this were not true we would not have seen a curve of decisions made leaning in the direction of the progressive movement over the course of the last 50 years. The strongest one being Roe vs. Wade which sided on the protection of the mother. Leaving the defenseless life of the unborn unprotected. If this was a neutral position where is the protection of the child? This was a one sided decision. Since this decision 40 million Americans failed to reach American land and not even a decent burial to be left for the remains. The blood of these children cry out for life. 40 million people were never able to even gasp a breath, see life, see the sky, smell a flower, or do anything in life. This was a neutral decision? Please Justice Kennedy do a writing on the fairness of this decision. Marna
No comments:
Post a Comment