I Won I Think

In a Posted commentary on Crawford's Blog dated 7/20/2005 at 11:50 am, Crawford states:

"For the sake of liberty, please read and contemplate the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Founders were speaking to us. They were saying they hadn't thought of everything, that they were, indeed, fallible. They were asking us to expand our rights when we see fit. Paying attention to what they said here is true strict construction. It is our salvation against imperious government. And yet, it has never been cited as the basis for a majority ruling in a Supreme Court decision. It is time to ground the right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment, as Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut."

This is in apparent response to my question, "Where in the 14th amendment does it say we have the right to kill unborn babies?" There was little response to my comments on his blog over there, it appears they just threw up their hands out of sheer frustration at not being able to come up with a reasonable answer.

Crawford himself tried to divert his readers attention from the abortion topic by copying and pasting his next posting in the comments section, to no avail. Then, this morning I returned to his blog to see what kind of responses I received to my query. There were none save for an apology from Sheila for losing her temper at me.

I have also noticed that none of the commentators over there crossed over here to leave comments on my blog. I really don't know what to make of this without thinking I must have won.

One can only surmise why the Crawford followers have now chosen to be silent on this issue, but, if I may venture an opinion, I would like to think I won the argument. I would like to think. But knowing the dogged stubbornness that some people have, even when they are proven wrong, I highly doubt it. Most likely they realize that they aren't getting anywhere by arguing.

In any case, Crawford did apparently change the direction of his argument to now include the 9th amendment along with the 14th to support his belief that "right to privacy" includes the right to kill babies. That argument is even more ambiguous than the previous allusion to the 14th amendment.

But maybe it's just coincidental timing that he decided to post that thought at this particular time.

I don't know, though. I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, so I may just be patting myself on the back, thinking I've won an argument, when all they are trying to do is ignore me in hopes that I'll just go away.

Let me bask in the glory of believing I made a difference just this once. OK?

ADDENDUM: I was astounded to learn that one of my favorite commentators, Ann Coulter is less than happy about the appointment of Judge Roberts to the SCOTUS. So, I read her column. Basically, what she is saying is we don't know what kind of judge he's going to be. I agree. This is too important an appointment to nominate someone whose ideology is unknown. I would rather have him appoint a judge who is known to be a liberal than one we know nothing about. Unlike Ms. Coulter, however, I am disposed to giving the President the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he satisfied himself as to Judge Robert's viewpoints before appointing him. In Ann Coulter's words: "Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of 'stealth nominees' and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette." And on that last statement, I agree.