RSS Feed
What's in Sotomayor's Heart?
JUST LAW AND RELIGION
By Michael Kessler
The confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor have so far reminded me of God's admonition in I Samuel that no one can see into the heart of humans but God.
The story goes that God sent Samuel to Bethlehem to look among the sons of Jesse for the newly-anointed King of Israel and Samuel understandably looked for the son who appeared most strong and formidable. When it is revealed that the youngest (and "ruddy") David is the chosen one, God tells Samuel: "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."
So what is in the heart of Judge Sotomayor? One thing is for sure: we aren't going to find out from these hearings. It's not clear Sotomayor is even revealing her hand to God.
Why this is so goes back to at least the contentious battle in 1987 over Robert H. Bork's nomination. Since then, the story goes, the process has become nothing more than a show. No nominee wants to be "Borked" again, so they are counseled to evade all substantive answers to questions about how they would decide a case--real or hypothetical. (Benjamin Wittes of the Washington Post (and author of Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times) suggests it goes back further: "Since live testimony by nominees became standard after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision striking down segregated public schools, senators have sought to pressure nominees into swearing allegiance to contested ideas, or to make statements that provide ground for opposition").
During Sotomayor's nomination so far, we have only learned a few things, and these are my highlights: The hearings are incredibly, painfully boring. Senators from both sides of the aisle struggle to make sense of even basic legal issues and often end up sounding like pandering fools. The hearings themselves amount to a game of cat and mouse--like a Tom and Jerry cartoon--where each character faithfully plays their role and, despite the explosions and traps laid for the other, no one gets hurt in the end. Not a single person's mind will be changed by these proceedings.
Tom Coburn (R-OK) bluntly stated what he wanted her to reveal: "What the American people want to see is inside and what your gut says." For once, I totally agreed with something he said.
Yet the exchanges have been predictably vague--almost laughably so. Consider this typical exchange with Senator Coburn, over abortion:
Coburn: You've been asked a lot of questions about abortion. And you've said that Roe v. Wade is settled law. Where are we today? What is the settled law in America about abortion? Sotomayor: I can speak to what the court has set in its precedent. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances. In Casey, the court announced that, in reviewing state regulations that may apply to that right that the court considers whether that regulation has an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right. That is my understanding of what the state of the law is. Coburn: Well, let me give you a couple of cases. Let's say I'm 38 weeks pregnant and we discover a small spina bifida sack on the lower sacrum, the lower part of the back on my baby. And I feel like I just can't handle a child with that. Would it be legal in this country to terminate that child's life? Sotomayor: I can't answer that question in the abstract because I would have to look at what the state of the state's law was on that question and what the state said with respect to that issue... Coburn: OK. Well, does technology in terms of the advancement of technology, should it have any varying whatsoever on the way we look at Roe v. Wade? For example, published reports most recently, of the 21-week -- 21-week -- that's 142 days fetus alive and well now at nine months of age with no apparent complications because the technology has advanced so far that we can now save children who are born prematurely at that level. Should that have any bearing as we look at the law? Sotomayor: The law has answered a different question. It's talked about the constitutional right of women... Coburn: I understand. Sotomayor: ... in certain circumstances. And as I indicated, the issue becomes one of, what's the state regulation in any particular circumstance? Coburn: I understand. But all I'm asking is, should it have any bearing? Sotomayor: I can't answer that in the abstract, because the question, as it would come before me, wouldn't be in the way that you form it as a -- as a citizen. It would come to me as a judge in the context of some action that someone's taking, whether if it's the state, the state, if it's a private citizen being controlled by the state challenging that action. ...All I can say to you is what the court's done. And the standard that the court has applied -- what factors it may or may not look at within a particular factual situation -- can't be predicted in a way to say, yes, absolutely, that's going to be considered, no, this won't be considered.
To sum up the structure of this "hearing": the Senator asks for how the nominee might rule "beyond the law," that is, at the point where the law is vague or under-determinate, and the nominee reverts back to stating the precedent that the Court has already determined. Not very clarifying for what she'd do when she is creating precedent, not following it.
Such fidelity to precedent would be great if Judge Sotomayor was auditioning to be a trial or appellate judge. And let it be clear that on this question her considerable record of cases suggest that she is precisely the kind of justice that Republicans claim they want, displaying a principled, almost mechanical, obedience to applying "the law" to facts.
Yet to play along in her pre-determined role, Judge Sotomayor clarified her "wise Latina" remarks and distanced herself from the President's call for "empathy" (in the rare 5% of cases that are not clear-cut) with a perplexing view of judicial decisionmaking at the Supreme Court level. In response to prodding by John Kyl (R-AZ), Judge Sotomayor said: "I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."
This led Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of law at Georgetown and a cofounder of the Critical Legal Studies movement (that is, a person who would presumably be sympathetic to recognizing the role that empathy plays in judicial decision-making), to sound off on her dismissal of empathy: "I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate--that the legal material frequently...must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments."
Frustration indeed. While the Republican Senators are attacking the "empathy" issue, it is also abundantly clear that they are asking her simply to declare what resources she would use to decide cases that are precisely not mere applications of law to facts. They just want her to declare that she believes that a right of privacy can be seen as a fundamental right in various places in the Constitution and therefore protected. State your principles and ideas, they seem to plead (and then we can really vote against you for those views). Frankly, I would like to hear her views on many of these issues, too, as well as the principles she will bring to the Court. Then we could have something substantive to debate about whether or not she should be confirmed.
But the process as it exists will not give us any information about what's in Judge Sotomayor's heart and head, and how she will decide cases when the law is unclear and she's in the role of setting and not merely following precedent. We'll only know for sure when we see her role in the opinions that are released during the Court's coming terms.
Dr. Michael Kessler is Assistant Director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University.
By Michael Kessler |
July 16, 2009; 1:06 PM ET
| Category:
Just Law and Religion
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Saving a Drowning Girl |
Next: Alliances for Health
Posted by: TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 | July 19, 2009 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
COMMENTARY:
WE [i] , 'The-People" (of SPace Ship Earth) firmly Believe that A so called [Licensed Jealous] 'Rabbi' from some Yeshiva or a licensed Jealous 'Priest' from some Seminary or Parochial or a Licensed Jealous "Immam" from some Madrassa or a Lisenced/Accredited Hinduist or a Biddhist aishram/sancuary et al, is based/molded in OLD-SONGS/speak/think; THAT
They, those whom still worship & falsely but Freidiantltly sing, to a Half-Man Half-Beast (or RAMma/Bull) songs,
"AMON-re/ra" AMEN, AMEEN, OMMM, AUMMM .. etc.., need to Cash-in [Surrender] their Current Religious/Domination Licenses for an accredited "NEW-SONG License" instead.
They , licensed Jealous Religion Folk, need to Shave-Off Beards, Pious's, Robes, Yamulkas, Beany Caps, Kuffis.. & let ye hair grow back on heads & thus both "SECULARIZE & SINGULARIZE" all their (not OUR) Religion/Faith/Belief (man-Made)Systems competing for a name for gods INSTEAD OF (OUR) G-D!!
Example: i [WE] as an "Ordained Relationship Minister" [ORM] that, only through "TRANS{FINITY-UNIVERSITY" (Accredited by G-D, not god(s)) can fullfill the right-path via TRUTH (opposite MYTH) for our Future Bound & Space-Forth Active MEME's in Societys!
To be an a "ORM" is to know the CHUMASH/BIBLE & to know the QURAN/KORAn & to know the GEETA/GITA & to Know the KANGYUR/TANGYUR & to Know the Sruti/Tripitakas. ELSE
Your Degree? is Worthless under OUR (not your 'MY gods' Syndrome, aka Jealousy).
Hence a SINGULARITY , never again a PLURALITY of All Faiths/Beliefs/Religions as ONE-1 via 1-BOOK, & thus finally Killing off all OLD Time (Selfish/Proud) Pre-Electric Folk Tribal lores & eliminate someone elses gods Thinking via ancient Storys.
The 4-Great ABRAHAMICS & the 4-Great VEDICS System's need to be ONE-1-EK-UNO...! So
Think the "Religion of Everything before the Science of Everything". A Prophecy, not Profitcy, who's time via Holy TIME (TEMPerature) is cometh & acsually Fore-Told/Predicted in Ye own (STATIC) Infixus-Books.
Soo; WE [i], thee 'MIXED MULTITUDES' art no longer as if be Judeoly 'god(s) chosen People" psyched but realize that We/they art ALL "NATURALLY SELECTED" and That
We art All the SON(Mavarites) & DAUGHTERS(Sporades) of the Creator of PHOTONS (biblical light), aka LIFE which equates to "OUR G-D" expressing LOVE.
Note: Sex is not LOVE. LIFE/Photons is!
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Believe it or not THAT
LICENSing LAWYERS, in order to Monopolize OUR Laws (as if be Theirs) , based on Peoples Ability to Pay or lacking average I.Q.'s, ON this Land via Tribunal /Courts (Superior or Inferior...) , is NOT-constitutional! It is ILLEGAL! Look it Up or Study this Reality/Factor. AND
Not to Mention Licensing Clergy/Theologians as if really be god(s) chosen reps [Monopolizing a certain Religion-god/Brand] INSTEAD OF OUR ek/1 G-D SYSTEM & under one PATTERN RECOGNITION (awareness)! and
Not to mention Licensing Stock Market-Brokers [Merchant Banker Monopolys] whom Pump & Dump & then Make money on the BULL & on the BEARs!?? (what un-kinda of System is that?? So,
LAWYERS for a FEE, CLERGYS for a FEE & BROKERS for a FEE ALL Need a Serious but "HONESTY" Restructuring, something like a PERESTROIKA! soo
Jealous LAWYERS for hire/Fee,
Jealous BROKERS for hire/Fee &
Jealous CLERGY for hire/Fee or Tithe or for STATE-Faith-Based [Unconstitutional] tax-Payers handout Moneys, ALL
got Us into a Big Mess both Financialy & Spiritually! "IT" {G-D by 1000+ names & no longer by 99 names} Caught-up to Them, Doers-n-Denyers! Hands Up! The Writings on the Celestial Constitution/Wall!
Pleazzza; Do not "DO-n-Then-DENY" or SITUATIONALLY LIE out of Ye reckless Cause & Effect on Man-Kind!
Does anyone 2nd that aMOTION? Yea? Nay? Oye Vay!
Note: Some folk will say that WE [i] art Anti SYSTEM or SOCiETY??? We are not the 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room. NEW Ideas via NEW song makes the world go Round! A NEW RELIGION, NEW FAITH , NEW BELIEF, is come! Please; do not be afraid of thee TRUTH (opposite MYTH) SYSTEM!
Hint: OUR great Father/Prophet Hir Albert Einstein [pbuh], foretold that the "[Holy] COSMIC FEELERS [UNIVERSAL]FAITH" ill come/arriveth some day. Guess What? YA YA!!!!
continued:
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
continued part 1 of 2:
So, Why Not Let Each High School Graduate posses a genuine ability, acsually a RIGHT, to become their own 'Defenders" & 'Mouth Pieces' 'Advocates' Reps for FREE & not FEE before Any Case involving a Friend, Loved One, Indigent nor Self; but
but Under UNIFORM 'Restructured' Simple "RULES OF THE COURT" (for getting a Foot inside OUR SYSTEM via 'PETITION' or via a WRIT) in order to 'Hear' The CRUX/meat of the Case in question befor 'The People' (wether one Trusts in god or not); aka REDRESS (OUR, not their) venting GRIEVENCES" etc..!
Note: Before The "BAR ASSOCIATION" (Monopoly via 'Licensed' Jealousy) suddenly appearance 1870, like suddenly Monopolizing & then Victimizing Us Financialy, like via Licensed WALL STREET Brokers,?; That
The Good Old days No-One-Needed-to-SUE or pay Exuberant Fees for "Redress Of Natural Grievences' [especially Federal & State CONST questions or Arguments; Local is another thing) FOR Money or Promise/Pledge!
Example: Besides attempting to 'Predict' the Stock Market (an illusion) , and like instead of having to guess or Predict an Outcome/Result of a Favorable or not of a Case; THAT
If me Polish Neighbors Son got caught stealing a "Horse Drawn Carriage" then i [WE] can represent, or be Smart/Sain BARRISTER for Him/Her (as a true FRIEND OF THe COURT & NEIGHBOR) before 'The-People", Judge (not gods) , Jury, including the Constable(s) under simple Procedures/Rules via a Pamphlet & that All such Rules are EQUALy giving Constitutional Protections. Note: Time is More Precious that Money! So is sweet JUSTICE (not False) or Revenge!
WE need to Speak more American & less English like & the Terms/Language in Law/Rules should be less Latinized! Hence "Any law made Simple for Dummys"!
Why, under lisencedlawyers, like Brokers for a FEE, should, as if Magic, turn a pebble into a Mountain? Why Should Over/Excessive 'REWARDS' be created out of Nothing at all? All this unecessarily OVER TAX's the "PEOPLES-ECONOMY"! so Obviously
Self AGGRANDIZEMENT, by licensed Jurists & Practitioners is the biggest Rip-Off , CON game, SHAM ever, in America & on Earth. If One is not a Boy/Girl Scout, then one needs to be a Licensed-LAWYER To be a President or was it a Precedent?
INCAMERA (opposite Secret): THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED ABOUT THE LAW(s) OF THE [this] LANDA [Civil,Criminal] But the "BAR" wants Ye to Think otherwise for reaching in Ye Pockets or Heads by Complicating the (OUR, not Their) SYSTEM!
We can All save more money , includes Medical Doctors etc.. & Do it Alone; THE AMERICAN WAY, not ENGLISH way!
Note: WE The People Can Also Do Without INSURANCe Company's, except for Domestic & International Commerce. & FAMILY LAW needs a Major Tweeking/AdJUSTment too!
A NEW PARADIGM is needed.
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
".. Hence the Prophecy & not Profits ...
Imagine whehere .25+ % of All The Courts SYSTEMS & their Cases (On DOCKETs or INDEXED) experiencing a drastic REDUCTION in their frequency's & Calandates?
This can be realised Uniformly If & only If All HIGH-SCHOOLr's, in order to Graduate, must 'CITE' the Miraculous U.S. Constitution by Heart or is it Head;
Line upon Line, here alittle there alittle... (Like the Pledge of Allegence) and be mindfull of the NEW "Controlling Precedences" & Simple NEW "TESTS" behind the CONST. LAWS, aka "STABLE DEFINITION FACTOR"s!
Note: In Jurisprudence there is a tendency for judges to use "Stare Decisis" (from their Districts or Circuits?) as a last-resort when "Deciding" or summing-up a case before 'The Court" [THE PEOPLE] under the 'Stabel Definition" Judicial microscope..
Like i [WE] said, "If Judges/Magistrates & Administrative Law Judges, Arbitrators, abudsmen etc.. stick with the "STABLE DEFINITION FACTOR" where a NO means "NO" & cannot be made into a "YES" (Usurpation or Departing or decenting) in Office, as if 'Legislating From the Bench' (like from the PULPIT?) even before ALL 'Facts',
Testomonials, Evidence, 'AFFIRMATIONs (by SECULAr folk) or SWEAR-in/out (By Religious folk) Cross Claims & Counter Claims & Rebutals , includes via "Briefs" etc.. are Presented according to Simple Rules so ANY HU{eMAN can properly Act before the Pantheon of Law (not as Licensed Lawyers, Jealousy for A Fee; aka Monopoly/Controll)
Then Aunt Liberty & Uncle Sam & "The People" will be Happyr & Wealthyr & TRULY endowed w/inalienable Rights! So
WE [i] need to reduce , or wean-off OUR (not Their) Justice-SYSTEM from Jealously (as jealous Individuals can Prejudice or be Vengfull, as in wrongfull Prosecution) thus monopolizing and being 'impartial' because NO cannot be a Yes; But They Do it anyway & then Word-Merchantly "DO-N-DENY" sum such. Soo, LAW LIBRAYS , like an Accordian Get Longer & Longer!
What Happened before their was Computers, i.e. LEXUS NEXIS! Why so Complicated when, by G-D IT's really Simple. Here one is always Innoscent Before. And that should Never Change Here!
Hence avoiding unecessary "APPEALS" etc.
Note: Judges also resort to "RES JUDICATA" (a Matter/Meat/Question before the Court or the-People? that sais, NEVER again Into (OUR) SYSTEM & not Theirs your case can be Re-Heard!?).
Soo, for Example; Why is not "Roe Vs. Wade" or "Right To Choose" a genuine RES JUDICATA case (Already Decided) but a very ABUSIVE POWER for an individual judge; if they Don't like You or see Ye as a threat?) that 'Court Clerks' should Kill at Filing such 'Bogus-Precedent' or Frivilous' Law Suit. Why?
because it Keeps The Lisenced Jealousy LAWYERS [For FEE/Profit, EGO's going], never mind 'Friends Of the Court', Busyily entertained, like in Self Agrandizement in the Pantheon of Legalese.
continued:
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 9:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Correction:
"... Instead Become 'Medical" DR.'s. Border or not .." Or be a Dr. in Biologists (like a Person Under Duress; try Fooling Our GENES instead) or Dr. in Astronomy (never Astrology)!
Note: OUR Military must be Reduced. And i [WE] predict a time is imminent for such relief on Holy Cosmic NEBULA-Built S.S. Earth; aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOID, S.S. TELLUSng something!
We art in the Miraculous "ETERNITY AVOIDiNG LONLiNESS" thing & ITs Stuff Enjoying the "SUN SHINE" [not only in Government] JUSTly for a time in "Holy+i TEMPerature"! A Miracle in Motion WE [i] Say! Hence the Prophetcee; not Prifitsee!
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 1:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
IN The "Laws Of NATION(s) & States therein & from where those jurists/judges/magistrates must Magnify, Uphold & Make Honorable the LAW [Secular] of the Landa must
Never (for selfish reasons USURP sumsuch Congress/Legislature Statutes ...) turn a "NO" of the Land into a "YES" (Contrary to man-made CONSTITUTIONS & forget Man-Made Bibles ) which is TANTAMOUNT to "USERPATION" of La La LAW of the Landa!
Hence: WHY Soo many LAW BOOKS Keep Growing & Growing & Growing & Growing... ALL
Beacuse some-one decided to 'Test the (Man-Made) SYSTEM Therein & Of , FOR WHAT-EVER REASONng!
If One [Jurist/Decision-maker] sticks to the "STABLE DEFINITION FACTOR" of "the MATTER/CASE/MEAT" where NO Do this & NO Do that means "NO"; and not make sumsuch [Law/Rule/Reg...] aas if be a "YES"!????
Thats Why Law Books , in Library's today & from the Beginning keep Expanding (Static; not Dynamic)] , building on LAW LIBRARY SHELFES!
Note: 75% Of Old-Time Law Books, like Old Time Religion Needs a serious Fix-n and a 1/2 or is IT 3/4!
Imagine: Any-kinda LAW, MADE SIMPLE FOR "DUMMYS"?? Our Jails/Prisons will be Half Full. And We'll reserve the Rest for so called "TERRORISTS." INCAMERA or Not!
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 1:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
WE NEED MORE DOCTORS (Break-Even w/+ fair-enough controlled bennefits) & LESS LAWYERS for a (crazy) FEE,, because they posses a Lisence (allowed; Unconstitutionaly, Since 1870 starting in NYC , not State!!???!
Lawyers should dowsize & instead [Like THEOLGIONS] "Up-Size to becomming Doctors (w/Border & No/Border aye)!???
Amazing, NO-GRACE ()
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 17, 2009 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
COMMENTARY:
i [WE] said, "... to study "Rule Of Law" [ROLllll] La LaLa;
Yet; Under Awareness/Consciousness of Any of Both Man-made Jurist Systems & Theo-Systems THAT
iGNOR{ANAMISism is "NO EXCUSE"!???
Hint: FACT: Under "U.S. Commerce-LAWS" that, under the Hood (Economic Engine) there are more than 1,000,000 Rules/Regs etc.. Under them "Interstae Commerce/Commerse" LAWS. More Than "CRIMINAL-LAW" & more than "CIVIL-LAW" [Common/English/Spanglish nor AMERICAN et al or not!!???
Point: To expect to Know All, Every & Any HU{MATE (Except US 'HU{e{MATES") LAWS/Books, in U.S. ,is Mind-Boggling enough for those w/I.Q's of 115 or Less! or is it 125 or >???
WHY Does this Planet Need [Too many] ATTORNEYS? aka LAWYERS, aka LIARS, aka WORD{MERCHANTs, aka "MOUTH PEACEs".
Why Can't "PRO{SE" person/individual (or Direct Family to REPRESENT w/more-Simplified Petition Powers) be the LAW & RULE & RIGHT Of The Landa Instead??????????????
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 16, 2009 11:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Like a Male "Mench" (w/cahoneess) Madam 'Sonya' has Ya-Gooda Sence of HUMOUR; a sign of Sanity. Note She also displayed a sign of Ya-Goooda Inteligence + Experience!
We [i] Love to Study "Rule Of Law *Globally + Locally!)!
10 Huggs and Kisses (not Oss) to the Si{star.
EeeeeHaaaa! HALALLUYA! Praise The HOLY+i NO-MAN/WOMB!
Posted by: SECULARGURU | July 16, 2009 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Heart pumps blood. We use our brains to think and interpret things.
Posted by: hsnkhwj | July 16, 2009 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What struck me as complete nonsense was the insistence of (mostly) conservative Senators at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing, that the Constitution should not be subject to personal interpretations and experiences. Sounds great in theory, impossible in reality! That would mean that EVERY decision of the Supreme Court would be 9:0 !!!
Posted by: semidouble | July 16, 2009 7:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION:
Today, since "Roe v. Wade," the major determination of confirmation of every Justice who goes before Congress is determined on the litmus test of abortion. Justices never frankly answer what their view on Abortion is.
When Bork said there wasn’t any thing in the Constitution that gave a right to Abortion, he became the target of the Dems though it was said he probably was one of the most astute Justices to ever come before the Court in the last 50 years. One Senator said Bork was a danger to the Court because he would overpower the Justices in Commercial Law.
The then president of NOW, Eleanor Smeal said, at the Scalia confirmation, that Scalia should be rejected because he was too smart, and she would rather have a dumb justice than one too smart. That seems to be the demeanor of the Dem party even now. When Bork was borked, the then president of Judicial Watch said it was the first time in history that a judge was rejected for upholding the Constitution.
“Roe v. Wade” was a travesty of justice not only to the unborn, but to the nation and the Constitution‘s IV, V, IX, and XIV Amendments. It was a contradiction of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
To counter this stark violation of the Constitution, the Court used a new standard of critique of the law called “inventive creative thinking.” Hence, to the amazement of Medical science, the Court, in Justice Blackmun's Trimester Theory, redefined “person," and created living "part human/part thing" beings.
Consequently, the Court usurped the authority of God's Natural Law. The Court had no more authority to redefine person than they had to redefine the Law of Gravity.
It is argued that the Declaration is not part of the Constitution, therefore, it is irrelevant. If the basis of the Bill of Rights, viz. the Declaration, is irrelevant so too is the Bill of Rights.
To know a Justice’s view on abortion is simply to ask, “Is the ‘conceived’ human." The “conceived” is human by ever standard of measure devised by medical and physical science irrespective of the Court.
Subsequently, that leads to the next question. Does the Constitution protect the right of a person to intentionally murder any innocent person, much more a defenseless innocent person because it benefits the murderer. The Court said yes.