Will Roberts leave you?

On Tue Aug 16 USAToday.com posted an oped piece. It can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-15-our-view_x.htm

The writer, who is not identified for probably good reason, runs the typical liberal slants we have all come to know. In the first place the writer says, "Ask people about personal privacy, and most will see it as a top priority and a fundamental right. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important." The logic used is the dangerous sort of thing conservatives have spoken out about on numerous occassions. Notice how the liberals have slowly but surely begun to twist the debate from abortion to "personal privacy". Make no mistake about this slippery slope. To the liberals abortion = personal privacy and when they use the words they are interchangeable. When a USA Weekend poll is taken what they ask is whether protecting personal privacy is important. When 88% of the population agrees there is a large chunk that do not "get" the sly liberalism USA Today uses.

And then we move to the next issue, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." Notice the deep rhetoric in this statement and the appeal to fear when the writer says, "may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." First one needs to remember the dual use of "privacy rights" when Liberals use the phrase. Second one needs to step through the opaque film to see the real image they are trying to portray; that somehow Robert's will destroy privacy rights. As if he alone would sit upon the bench and judge without peers. Not only is this faulty logic but this writer, if I am judging the piece through the mirror of a liberal, is in this case not talking only about privacy rights as abortion but has placed the phrase here as a ruse. S/he is saying that all privacy rights would no longer exist, including but not limited to, abortion.

Finally when we reach paragraph three we get to the meat of this authors deception. S/he says, "The conservatives' primary grievance is with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that women, not the state, get to decide whether to end their pregnancies by abortion." I truly love the biased hypocricy of the left media. Why does this author not come out and look in the mirror and say, "the liberals' primary grievance with a possible Robert's appointment is what he would say about Roe v. Wade." Instead they skirt the issue and present any number of red herrings to sway their audience away from the truth.

The writer does not stop there, however, and concludes this farce with the following, "But by questioning the unpinning of Roe, they call into doubt many earlier rulings that keep the government from meddling in people's lives." This needs a rather detailed rebuttal. First, the underpinning of Roe is whether a woman has the right to an abortion or whether the unborn have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, these "earlier rulings" the writer says kept the government from meddling in people's lives has been affirmed in the examples the writer has given but only in the first part of his/her rhetorical question. Using his/her own words, "What are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from unlawful searches and the like other than respect for privacy?" Make it a point to read carefully how this author has blended the obvious Constitutional intent with what has clearly not been expressed in his/her rhetorical question which I bolded. What are these privacy rights guranteed in the Constitution which deserve the phrase "and the like"?

From this point on the logic teeters and collapses. Here is the context:

"Starting in the 19th century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the privacy of the mail and that individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Thus it was no stretch when, in 1965, the court overturned a Connecticut law banning birth control. Surely, the court ruled, the right of privacy prohibited police searches of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms." That decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, was the foundation for Roe."

Notice the illogic the left uses to compare the "privacy" to destroy the genetic explosion between two DNA's that becomes (at some point) a living human being with things such as the mail and the right to refuse medical treatment. In the case of medical treatment the rulings were due to the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion (Jehovah's Witnesses).

Next the author postulates another red herring when saying, "To the anguish of those who want government in the bedroom and other personal places, privacy rights now protect unmarried and same-sex couples and individuals." Rather than dealing with the debate about homosexuality whether monogomous or not and heterosexuality, monogomous or not, the author diverts attention away and says there are people who "want government in the bedroom." The people the author refers to are of course "conservatives" and in particular "christian conservatives" who are demonized as "NeoCons" and other such neologisms. I don't know a single conservative who wants a government official walking into the bedroom on an illegal search. The issue is not "what happens in the bedroom". The issue is on moral grounds of right and wrong. This author doesn't appear to have any desire in debating the larger moral questions which s/he has introduced and his/her point is obvious an appeal to fear. Consider for example the closing paragraphs:

"Roberts' record on the issue is scanty, but legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote raise questions as to whether he accepts current law on privacy. As a Justice Department lawyer in 1981, for example, Roberts drafted an article that referred to "the so-called 'right to privacy,' " and asserted that "such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution." Whether that was Roberts' view, or merely what his bosses wanted to hear, isn't clear."

In the first place his record is scanty but apparently we can judge his real views based upon "legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote" when he was working for his "bosses". The author says it isn't clear but when we return to the opening silos of rhetorical fear mongering we see that the author clearly says it is clear, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." I realize the author used the phrase "may soon call into question". The author did this to try and cover him/herself. However based upon the interpretation I have provided--dualism of definition for example--the author clearly has a position s/he is trying to hide.

Now we have the fomal conclusion which tries to tie into the opening remarks, "Far clearer is that few would want a nation in which there was no limit on government intrusion into personal lives. In the confirmation hearings that begin next month, the Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line."

While the author has a clear position s/he at the same time attempts to sway the audience away from the "wait and see when there are Senate Hearings" position even though s/he mentions this in closing. If this was the authors position the Oped piece could have been shortened simply, which I will show shortly.

In the meantime recognize again the use of polling numbers and the distortion in questioning when one realizes the liberal dualism of abortion and "right to privacy" as equal definitions. Next look at the hysteria the author wishes to create that suggests anyone wants "no limit on government intrusion into personal lives".

This article could have been non-enflamatory and stuck just to the facts without the use of partisan rhetoric (which I believe most American's are sick of--though I have done no formal poll). Here is what I would have written:

Ask people about personal privacy in all its debated forms, and most will see it as a top concern with a fundamental differing set of questions and opinions in the interpretation of the Constitution. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important. But where these individuals fall in their personal views of what privacy does and does not constitute the poll does not ask.

But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist for some people and their interpretation of their rights.

The Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line.

Now see...isn't that clearer and filled with less rhetoric. It says all that needs to be said without being inflamatory or inciting fear...not to mention it is unbiased.

The left has a lot to learn...