The Supreme Court vacancy is sure to give us plenty to talk about this summer as the left gears up to defeat any candidate that doesn’t pass their liberal litmus tests. The latest on the left to open their mouth and remove all doubt as the old saying goes is Mr. Erwin Chemerinsky who, has somehow convinced Duke Law School that he is qualified to teach students there about the Constitution of the United States. While I was perusing my normal reading I came across his recent guest column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution where he flashes intelligence dimmer than a burned out light bulb.
In his article Mr. Chemerinsky calls for the Senate Democrats to announce that they will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court “unless he offers convincing assurances that he will not be a far-right conservative” like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Gee Mr. Law Professor, you mean you didn’t like how those “far-right conservative” judges refused to sign on to the taking of private land for other private use? Who should Judge Roberts be like? Ginsberg perhaps? How about Souter? Maybe Kennedy? Possibly Stevens? Or what about Breyer? Would he prefer another of the usual suspects that voted for taking of private lands and the destruction of actual rights? No doubt he probably would although he would not be so bold as to admit it since he spends so much time decrying the “far-right” which actually has defended liberty over the years.
The fact is that Mr. Chemerinsky’s whole complaint circles wholly around only one issue. And that issue is not a destruction of rights as he would have us believe. He is only concerned with the sacred cow of his political beliefs. That sacred cow, abortion, is what Chemerinsky is bound and determined to defend.
It takes him a while to get to it, but he eventually garners the courage to say it. “Does [Roberts] agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was adopted? Or does he believe, as do a majority of current justices, that there is a living Constitution? Does he believe in the protection of rights not mentioned in the Constitution, such as privacy and its protection for such rights as access to contraception and abortion?”
WHOA! And this man is teaching our children about Constitutional law? Be afraid … be very afraid. Besides the obvious idiocy that there actually IS a right in the Constitution (Amendment IV) which actually DOES give law abiding citizens privacy and security in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” which he claims doesn’t exist, now he wants to insert new rights.
Again, I point out that it was the “progressive” and “living Constitution” believers on the court that brought us the many decisions like Kelo V. New London! It wasn’t the Conservative and Constitutional Originalist side of the court. It wasn’t the conservative side of the court that degraded individual rights. But like I said before, this whole argument about losing rights is just a smoke screen to plant the notion that you have a right to have an abortion.
Gee. A “right” to an abortion. What a novel concept. I guess that I have had my rights violated then since I was not aborted. In fact Mr. Chemerinsky and all of you reading this apparently have apparently had your rights violated too!
It’s laughable! This so-called Constitutional law professor apparently has no concept of what rights there actually are. And I quote “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Did you catch that bolded and clearly enumerated right? Here it is again just in case you missed it — “LIFE”. And why can we say that the Constitution protects the right to life? Because the Declaration of Independence says clearly immediately following the above enumeration that “That to secure these rights, Governments (i.e. the Constitution) are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
Mr. Chemerinsky, like all the other abortion activists conveniently doesn’t want to support the right to life which begins at conception like it or not. But he does clearly want to insert vainly and try to promote a new and wholly imaginary right entitling you, me and everyone else to be aborted. Dear God in Heaven, only from the mind of a “progressive” where every new mouth is a mouth for the state to care for can one get such dizzying display of limited candlepower!
Any Constitutional professor that claims that somehow they can invent rights that contradict with clearly defined rights should be fired. But Mr. Chemerinsky will no doubt be allowed to continue to teach students his revisionist version of the Constitution. And as long as he and his fellow travelers are allowed to do so America will continue to struggle with promoting individual liberties.
RSS Feed
Loading ...