Specter Says Alito Accepts As “Good Law” Griswold Case Which Was Neither “Good” Nor “Law” And Gave Us Roe v. Wade
SEN. SPECTER likes what he hears from Alito and that’s bad news for pro-lifers.In a news conference on October 31, 2005, after meeting with Judge Alito for more than an hour, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, re: Alito: “I start with his statement that he believes there is a right to privacy under the liberty clause of the United States Constitution. And he believes that the right applied to singles as well as married under the interpretation of Griswold v. Connecticut. And he says that he accepts Griswold v. Connecticut as good law” (emphasis mine).
But, the Griswold case is neither good nor law. It is not good because this 1965 case simply invented a Constitutional “privacy right” from “the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights,” supposedly the First Amendment which, allegedly, “has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” Oh, and it was also said that these Bill of Rights “penumbras” are “formed by emanations.”
In addition, the Griswold case is not “law.” For the umpteenth, no court ruling is law. Only Congress can pass laws!
In this same news conference, Specter said this about Alito’s views on stare decisis or precedent: “He viewed it as a sliding scale, and that the longer a decision was in effect and the more times that it had been reaffirmed by different courts, different justices appointed by different presidents, it had extra precedential value.”
But, this is not true. Un-Godly, un-Constitutional court rulings remain un-Godly and un-Constitutional regardless of how many times they are affirmed. Again, for the umpteenth time: No judge is bound by anything that makes him, necessarily, have to follow another judicial ruling! The only oath a judge takes is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Please read or re-read the article on this page about stare decisis written by our Managing Editor Scott W. Whiteman.
