One of President Obama's short-list candidates to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court is Diane Wood, who has sat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago since 1995. Her record, it is said in the story, "reflects a mainstream liberal jurisprudence, tempered by a respect for precedent and a narrow focus on the facts at hand." If you're not clear on what "mainstream liberal jurisprudence means," this is what she says on that whole "living Constitution" issue:
She said of the framers of the 1789 document, "There is no more reason to think that they expected the world to remain static than there is to think that any of us holds a crystal ball," she wrote. "The only way to create a foundational document that could stand the test of time was to build in enough flexibility that later generations would be able to adapt it to their own needs and uses."
Nothing in that likely to make conservatives move to the edge of their seats and get ready to jump up and shout, is there?
During her time on the appeals court, she has been a dissenting voice in two big (for us, anyway) Indiana cases. In one dissent, she argued that Hoosier taxpayers had legal standing to challenge the legislative prayer practices in the General Assembly. In another case, she dissented from the opinion upholding the constitutionality of an Indiana statute requiring women to wait 18 hours and get counseling before having an abortion. No John Roberts, she.
Comments
"The only way to create a foundational document that could stand the test of time was to build in enough flexibility that later generations would be able to adapt it to their own needs and uses.
While I will admit that the WORLD does not remain static, the morality, values and principles that our founders knew all to well DO...
Think of them as "universal truths".
Kinda like 2+2=4 (except in Washington, D.C.)
While I will admit that the WORLD does not remain static, the morality, values and principles that our founders knew all to well DO...
Think of them as "universal truths".
Kinda like 2+2=4 (except in Washington, D.C.)
Moraility does not change.
Integrity does not change.
Civility does not change.
How we (society) choose to view them, or even practice them (or NOT), however DOES.
(aye, there's the rub)
;)
Bob,
Civility does change. In the mid 1850s, Congressman Preston Brooks attacked and beat over the head with a cane his colleague, Senator Charles Sumner, over the issue of slavery. He bloodied him, resulting in stitches. That's how they did things then; thank God civility changed with it. And thank God we don't hark back to them good ol' days.
AJ
P.S.
The "morality, principals and values" of some of our founders included slavery. So thank God those "universal truths" didn't remain static despite the high esteem you have given them. Many of our founders didn't believe women had a role in governance, blacks were savages, and only the educated and wealthy should lead the country.
AJ
AJ:
Samuel Adams was a STAUNCH advocate AGAINST slavery...
Ditto for Franklin, Benjamin Rush, John Adams, and Hamilton.
I think they qualify as founding fathers, eh?
AND...during the "shot heard 'round the world", free BLACK patriots were among those FIRST killed.
I'd much rather espouse THOSE values and principles we held way back when, INSTEAD of the crap we have passing for "normalcy" these days...
Problem is, people DO hold today's (lack of) values in MUCH higher esteem than what it means to follow traditional things such as honor...and integrity...and courage.
(all of which is in short supply by the masses)
But hey, to each his (and your) own, I suppose.
You know, Bob, every generation harks back to the previous generation as having a better sense of honor, integrity and courage. I'm harkened that the generation after us, which includes my daughter, will look at our values in the same high regard.
AJ