Reasons and Precedents

The topic of judge Samuel Alito certainly defines the 180 degree difference between abortion activists and common sense. It also enlightens us all as to the place in law abortion these abortion activists bring every one of us, liberal or conservative.  In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey we see the culmination of abortion activism which turned the responsibility of marriage into a solely woman's choice. In upholding Planned Parenthood "by reasoning and tradition of the precedents" which protect any reason for a woman to kill her baby, the best reasons for a woman to create and keep her baby were destroyed. Marriage! What must be recognized is that no one wins in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.  Not the court, and certainly not the law of the land. A court, which can grant authority to marry in one circumstance, puts asunder the responsibilities of both parties in any circumstance with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. A court which can grant authority over another person's marriage, separate from the will of the parties in the binding marriage contract, creates "reasons and precedents" which undermine all reasonable precedents which created the reasons for marriage laws. When life, marriage and paternity suffer, so does society. If the state or courts have absolute authority determining all responsibilities anticipated in the contract of marriage, it is not long before other courts find new authority. It is not an accident that the property rights of private owners can be subject to the new politically correct motives of population engineers. When the quality of life is worth less than the space it takes up, it is not a stretch to evict the undesirable inhabitant.  If we can evict from a womb, we can certainly evict from a ghetto, a slum or a home. It is only a further expression of the next step after taking away the right to sovereign human life, sovereign property ownership can easily be deemed "not worthy" of the property it occupies. The quality of space a life takes up is only as quality as it is qualified by the new authorities.  Journalists like the Ellen Goodmans of the world and the population police will even go as far to overturn life, property and marriage to keep a right they are not entitled to. The right to kill an innocent human being at the moment it is inconvenient.

To me, Judge Alito is the perfect choice to stand against this madness of precedent because he has already opined against it. Like Roberts, he recognizes the limitations of the court in matters of responsibility, rather than the right to be irresponsible. The problem is not a court that protects rights, it is a court that feels it can grant rights. This is a right it does not have.

Joe Wheeler