My First Post: Not Controversial at All!

I have never understood why people place so much emphasis on the opinions of the Chief Executive regarding "social issues."

Surely one reason is that the president appoints justices to the Supreme Court. I strongly favor conservative judges, but in my view a "conservative" mindset in judicial matters has about as much in common with a politically "conservative" mindset as it does with "Conservative" Judaism (which tends to be pretty liberal, incidentally).

A conservative judge is one who exercises restraint and respects the separation of powers. A good example of the distinction between conservative social views and conservative judicial views is found in Justice Thomas' dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which addressed the Texas law that criminalized homosexual behavior:

"Justice Thomas, dissenting.

"I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today 'is … uncommonly silly.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. (emphasis added)

"Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to 'decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." ' Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,' ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the 'liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,' ante, at 1."

But don't waste your time actually reading what the man wrote. Everybody knows Clarence Thomas is a homophobe. (Al Gore might refer to this as "settled science.") P.S. Can we please come up with different words for a person who is afraid of gay people and a person who hates them? While we're at it, maybe we can add a third for one whose actions demonstrate bigotry toward gay people.

I would probably support overturning Roe v. Wade, but it has nothing to do with my views on abortion. I am not a consequentialist, both out of principle and because it is so difficult to accurately predict consequences. (They don't call it the "law of unintended consequences" for nothing.) If the people want to amend the Constitution to make abortion a federal right, that's fine by me.

I can respect just about any position on abortion, but I have no respect for Senator Obama's leading role in opposing Illinois' Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--that's the name of the federal act (I don't think Illinois Senate Bill 1082 even had a name)--and his recent lying about it, which was compounded by the, ahem, audacity of calling the truth-tellers liars. Barbara Boxer and the entire Senate supported the (identical) federal version, as did NARAL. I'm all for spirited, though preferably calm and reasoned, debate on the charged issue of abortion, but I draw the line at infanticide, whether active or passive.

Why isn't this a major news story?