An alleged “finalist” for nomination to the SCOTUS is one Diane Wood, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago (what a coinkydink!). As discussed here, she has some unusual, and consequently liberal, views on the Constitution.
In a 2005 article she wrote for the New York University Law Review, Wood argued that the U.S. Constitution “survives” the test of time through the “evolving” interpretation of its text.
“Over the long run, even though it can sometimes be frustrating to wait for the long run, it has been better to allow constitutional understandings to grow with the times,” she wrote. “Our eighteenth-century Constitution, while a bit cryptic at the edges, is nonetheless a real treasure.”
Whaaaaaat? Cryptic? Yup, that “…nor prohibit the free expression thereof..” is a real mystery, ain’t it? Or, perhaps “shall not be infringed…” is a real enigma? Note the reference to the fact that the Constitution was written in the 18th century. This is the common libtard rationale for discounting the Constitution, and the freedoms it guarantees. Freedom means now, what it meant then. Freedom never changes, useful idiots apparently do.
In 2002, in the case, A Woman’s Choice-East Side Women’s Clinic v. Newman, she dissented against a majority court opinion that required women in Indiana to receive in-person consultation from an abortion doctor 18 hours before having an abortion.
While the 2-1 majority speculated that such a requirement might dissuade women from seeking abortions by adding a step to the process, Wood argued that this would present the women with an undue burden.
“(T)he law’s requirement that women receive certain advice ‘in the presence’ of ‘the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician or a physician assistant’ (§ 16-34-2-1.1(1)) amounts to an unconstitutional ‘undue burden’ on the abortion decision,” she wrote.
Um…mandating that the patient consult with a doctor before an invasive procedure. THE NERVE!!! Having had one surgical procedure in my life, I would EXPECT to actually go over it with the doctor in advance, and I did! And the consult was with the ABORTION DOCTOR!! It wasn’t like they were trying to persuade someone to not have the abortion. This, my friends, is an example of the “abortion at any cost” thinking that permeates the libtards!
Now, to look at this from a conservative point of view, there is no right to kill babies in the Constitution, nor should the government be mandating medical care.
OK, she’s a libtard, not a big surprise. But I think we ought to go a bit deeper and see what the libtards think about the Constitution. So, as a public service, I will reverse the dataflow on the CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE Translation Matrix and feed the US Constitution into the input. Oughta be interesting…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: NO RELIGION!!! ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, EVER!!!! It interferes with “tolerance” and “diversity,” you know. The people can speak and write as the please, as long as libtards like it, and they agree with us. Otherwise, it’s hate speech, and they need to go to jail. They can assemble, just not at Tea Parties! The press is free as well, as long as they praise our policies, and ignore the consequences. Just blame it on those blasted conservatives!
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: What does “shall not be infringed” mean?? Whatever, let’s just ignore it!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Unless they’re saying things we don’t like. Then, all bets are off!
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: I hope no one reads this! Let’s just pretend like it’s not there, mmkay?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Derrrrrrrr, gaaaaaack, urggggggh! <No translation available. Liberal minds cannot comprehend limits on governmental powers>
Well then, there you have it.
Link: US Constitution