Supreme Court and ‘Right to Privacy’

Barack HUSSEIN Obama said he won’t appoint someone who did not believe in a right to privacy: abortion. He just can’t seem to say the word, can he?

“I trust the president will choose a nominee for the upcoming vacancy based on their experience and even-handed reading of the law, and not their partisan leanings or ability to pass litmus tests,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said in a statement.

The president suggested he will be looking for someone who not merely interprets the constitutionality of law but who understands that justice is “also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

Obama press briefing quote (Friday):  “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.” In other words, rewriting the Constitution, which I thought they are to DEFEND.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, and I quote (from ‘The Words We Live By’): …”It manifests no disrespect for the Constitution to note that the framers were gentlemen of their time, and therefore had a distinctly limited vision of those who counted among ‘We the People’.”

So, between Obama and Justice’s like her, the Constitution will be rewritten to the likes of them. In the previous quote, Ginsberg plainly said that the founding fathers weren’t smart enough and did not really know the ‘people’ well enough to be effective. The reason the way things are is the evolution of those that believe themselves to be smarter than the last, hence our laws determining murder are now ‘a right to privacy’.

Does anyone just look at the LAW? Isn’t that why we have LAWS? Interpretation of law is dangerous, it gives one a sense of being ‘Super Man’ when in essence your just an appointed employee. Don’t we pay these people to follow the law and not make it up as they go?

Here’s the analogy:  Man has gone undone trying to rewrite the Bible to suit their ‘interpretation’ and/or wallet. The Bible was written from original texts of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It was not originated in Italian or French or Russian. SO, ever since the first text was re-written in the King’s English, men have been trying to rewrite it to their liking. When you rewrite, you take away the actual translation, thus take away it’s definition and TRUE meaning.

This is exactly what has taken place with rewriting law. The Supreme Court has been allowed to do this and has since taken our law and turned it into something unrecognizable.

I’ll never understand why the basis of LAW is determined to abortion rights. Never.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s