Jefferson and Tevya Understood What Federal Judge Rosenblatt Misconstrues
by Carol Turoff | View comments |
Print This Post
According to U.S. Federal Judge, choosing life is "political gamesmanship," promoting impediment to betterment of mankind.
Personalized license plates have found a market niche.
From former prisoners of war or Purple Heart recipients to state university supporters or those who endorse character education–many cars bear distinctive plates. Adding to the mix are the vanity plate owners who want you to know time is of no consequence (IAML8) or the driver is hot (GR8BOD). Many Arizona drivers are more than willing to plunk down an additional $25 fee and yearly renewal charge to get their message out.
There are specialized plates for the Fraternal Order of Police and those imploring fellow drivers to “Stop Running Red Lights.” Others make a case for wildlife conservation or against child abuse, reminding us that “It Shouldn’t Hurt to Be A Child.”
It would seem logical, then, that a special plate declaring. “Choose Life,” would be a simple, straightforward one to implement. However, Federal Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt sees things differently. In his September 27, 2005 decision, he wrote, “… while 11 other requests for a special plate contained a private speech component, most of the messages are non-partisan in nature or messages that the public accepts generally. The 'Fraternal Order of Police,' 'Professional Fire Fighters,' 'Legion of Valor,' 'Stop Running Red Lights,' 'Conserving Wildlife' and 'Service Above Self' are all slogans that cut across political lines and reinforce important public institutions and policies that seek to better mankind without the imposition of political gamesmanship.”
The fact that choosing life could be described by the judge as “political gamesmanship” and not seen as “bettering mankind,“ serves to reinforce the skepticism with which increasing numbers view the courts. Born the year the first woman passenger transversed the Atlantic, in a flight that lasted 24 hours and 49 minutes, Rosenblatt’s prism should be clearer. He came of age in a time when values were esteemed.
Center for Arizona Policy lawyer, Peter Gentala, will appeal this decision. Gentala’s next stop is the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals–the same court which held the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional since it contained the word, “God.” Another sterling opinion held that a law prohibiting child pornography was unconstitutional as applied to certain defendants. Although the U.S. Supreme Court reverses 80 to 90% of their rulings, Gentala faces a Herculean challenge before this panel.
Our Founding Fathers so fervently believed the concept of the right to life was “inalienable” they preserved these words in the Declaration of Independence:
The 1776 Declaration, brilliantly written by Thomas Jefferson, clearly states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
The outrageous ruling by U.S. Federal District Judge Rosenblatt, would appall such principled men as our constitutional framers. And although the fabled Fiddler on the Roof dairyman, Tevya, never left his tiny Russian village of Anatevka, his bold voice still rings out: “To life! To life! L’Chaim!”
Judge Rosenblatt might have missed the play—or his constitutional law class.
feedback@intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Carol Turoff
