Chief Justice John Roberts?
It's too early to say whether the Senate should confirm John Roberts for the Supreme Court, but President Bush made the right call Monday in nominating him to replace William Rehnquist as chief justice.
This confirms my suspicion that Bush made a bad call. He should have nominated Thomas or Scalia.
Just as important, it would mean that neither Antonin Scalia nor Clarence Thomas would be the next chief justice. The elevation of either man to the chief's post would guarantee a bitter fight in the Senate, since both are firebrand conservatives with clear intentions of overturning long-established constitutional rights.
Oh wait, the Fishwrapper advises against those two. Why? Because they have "clear intentions of overturning long-established constitutional rights." Let's not beat around the bush, they are talking about abortion.
But before we talk about abortion let's discuss some other "long-established" rights that were established but wisely overturned.
Slavery. The Dred Scott case was a Supreme Court ruling much like Roe v Wade. It said that everyone is equal but some aren't citizens and therefore have no rights.
Segregation. Brown v. Board of Education was a complete reversal of a "long-established" yet awful policy.
We can only hope that Roe v. Wade, which established that women have the "right" to kill an unborn baby for any reason, will be revisited and reversed. Much like blacks during the time of the Dred Scott decision, we now have a group of people, the unborn, who are seen as having no rights and are subject to ownership.
I truly hope that fifty years from now we will look back on this time in American history and see abortion in the same light as we now see segregation, as a shameful time for our society, and that we are thankful that a court decision made right the wrong that our society did to so many people.