There were a couple more thoughts I meant to add in my Debate Observations post, but, as is all to common these days, my brain apparently left them in a back storage lobe, and I only recently was able to retrieve them.
The first is the difference in terminology (and, I believe, philosophy) regarding judicial nominees. McCain stressed the importance of appointing judges based on their adherence to the Constitution, and Obama mentioned he would select judges based on their 'fairness' and 'justice.' I have a deep, sincere problem with Obama's stance here (are you surprised?!?). Who decides what is 'fair,' if not the Constitution? Is it fair for the government to 'spread the wealth around,' or is it fair for people to have equal opportunity at success and it's rewards? "Fairness" is subjective, obviously, and I don't want a fuzzy, squishy basis of decision for the nine most powerful people in our justice system (perhaps the entire government). What is "just" if we aren't pulling from scripture? I'll tell you what it is: It's Roe v. Wade.
Dovetailing with this point is my next. Obama 'clearly sees' a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, which protects abortion choices (which should be made 'between the woman, her family, doctors, clergy..'). He also doesn't think different states should be allowed to moderate this right - any more than individual states should be able to infringe upon our First Amendment rights to free speech. I wanted to reach through the computer monitor, grab him by his stripey tie and holler, "or any more than our Second Amendment rights should be infringed!??!?" How does a 'right to privacy' have anything to do with abortion? As long as it's done 'in private,' it's allowed by the Constitution??? So, couldn't we argue that child abuse is okay as long as it's done behind closed doors? Or to children too young or handicapped to make it known publicly? Their arguments here are thin and weak. And I don't understand how our great country has been shackled by such flimsy reasoning for so long.