Does the Constitution recognize and protect an unenumerated right of privacy?
That’s all we have to ask John G. Roberts in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. It’s the legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade and the precedents that support it. The Founding Fathers never did write an explicit (or “enumerated”) right to privacy for American citizens. My theory is that personal privacy was to the Founding Fathers as was hemp farming: both were such integral parts of early American society that they couldn’t conceive of a need to actually write it down, because they could never imagine anyone denying those rights.
Well, OK, not entirely. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 14th, and 15th amendments have been interpreted by the courts as implying (“unenumerated”) a right to personal privacy. Hell, I think the 4th on its own does a good job of describing privacy (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”). If government can’t seize or search my person, how does that give them jurisdiction over abortion? How much more personal is a womb?
Anyway, I’m cribbing the question from Craig Crawford over at Huffington Post. He continues:
I’ll never forget the stunned faces among senators and spectators on the day 15 years ago when Supreme Court nominee David Souter answered that question in the affirmative. It was the first answer of his Senate confirmation hearing, and it showed that he embraced the legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade’s protection of abortion rights. Conservatives were furious, never forgiving President George H.W. Bush for naming Souter. Liberals were shocked, quickly endorsing his nomination.
It should be the first question put to President Bush’s nominee, John Roberts. If, like Souter, he says yes, then he’s unlikely to provide the last vote needed to overturn Roe. If he says no, then abortion-rights activists probably will have to take their battle to the states and no longer expect the high court to stand in the way of state legislatures that would outlaw abortions.
And if Roberts refuses to answer the question, or dodges it in some clever way, he should not be confirmed. Anyone seeking to hold the swing vote on such a critical issue owes everyone — conservatives and liberals — an answer to that question.
Oh, and Karl Rove is a treasonous bastard who placed personal political gain over the safety and security of the United States. See, we can focus on two despicable issues at the same time!
