First, a few comments on so-called “women’s issues.” In my experience, women don’t vote with their ovaries – we vote with our minds (and hearts). One non-scientific but interesting example: CafeMom members' #1 issues were the economy (32%), and health care (22%). Abortion was the #1 issue for only 15% of respondents, who based on other polls in the same group, are evenly divided between pro-life and pro-choice voters.
Admittedly, this is a non-scientific example. But common sense experience and other data show similar trends. Rasmussen recently found that people who said “abortion” was an important issue were equally likely to trust the Republicans’ pro-life platform as the Democrats’ pro-choice platform. So the argument that 18 million votes could be held hostage by this single issue just doesn't fly - with pro-choice women or with me.
The other issue, which the current Supreme Court was kind enough to highlight in a boneheaded ruling last week, is the larger scope of the Court in our government. The Court ruled that enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay have the right to sue our government. This *single decision*, a 5-4 decision by the way and vehemently dissented, will cost millions of dollars in administrative and legal costs.
"This is an important step," he said of the ruling, "toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and
we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy."
“These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,” he said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.”
The rowdy crowd rose to a standing ovation.
Last year the SCOTUS’ caseload was over 10,000 cases, only a handful of which were actually related to abortion policy. The Guantanamo ruling has nothing to do with anyone's uterus. So, Democrats, women, undecided voters: which of these men do you want picking judges? At the end of the day, whose judgment do you trust: the patriot and former POW who sacrificed all but his life for his country, or the lawyer who wants to spend your tax money defending non-citizen terrorists?