Half of Liberals Think Constitution Is Neither Fair Nor Just
This is a couple of months old, but I just dug it up. From Rasmussen:
During his acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, John McCain told the audience, “We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench.” Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice. The number who agree with McCain is up from 55% in August.
While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
So, if the choice is between making decisions based on the Constitution and making decisions based on a "sense of fairness and justice," doesn't that mean that half of liberals believe that the Constitution is inherently neither fair nor just?
Now it's their right to believe whatever they want. Yet what is bothersome is that every liberal out there claims to be a true adherent to the Constitution and has spent eight years accusing President Bush of "shredding" the Constitution. Why have they claimed this position of supposed moral superiority regarding their loyalty to the Constitution if half of them believe that the Constitution should be flat out ignored in favor of their judges' "sense of fairness and justice?"
Paul Ibrahim
in Law, Liberals, Polls
|
2 Comments
|
1 Reference
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
-
Response: xxxxxxflaensfhrnmxdslxvjwrugvhimakqnpsqdpvchpijtdoevkbpmmjiwbbqzqnguztwdbciitsaiucugloxibgorhlzxscdabewechiypfoptednbhduv
Reader Comments (2)
"Why have they claimed this position of supposed moral superiority regarding their loyalty to the Constitution if half of them believe that the Constitution should be flat out ignored in favor of their judges' "sense of fairness and justice?"
Now ain't that the real $64,000 question?
Screaming out that Bush was violating the Constitution while embracing judges making decisions that have nothing at all to do with the Constitution, nor any existing legislation, is seriously disingenuous.
Roe v. Wade is the example. I do not have a position on abortion. I do not know if it should or should not be legal. I am a man & cannot have kids, so my opinion is moot as far as I am concerned.
However, when it comes to making abortion legal based on a court decision on privacy & making abortion legal, is unacceptable. The Supreme Court MADE law. That is NOT their place. It never has been. nor should it be.
If this nation wants abortion to be legal, then we should demand Congress pass a law accordingly & not rely on judicial precedence based on judicial fiat, as law of the land.
Such decisions will lead to many more "laws" enacted by appointed judges who represent only those who appointed them & their political ideology.
That is unfair to the rest of us & to the Constitution. Want abortion, get a law through Congress or push for a Constitutional Amendment. BUT, no law by judges who represent no one but special interests.
The ONLY special interest our "leaders" should represent, are "THE PEOPLE." ALL of the people, not just their buddies in political thinking!
Whether to find a theme which was not discussed on one on this a blog?And that we communicate only on blog themes, and other themes are not present.
����� ����������