Settled law? Or living, breathing Constitution?

By Aussiegirl

I wish they'd get their story straight. Once again I hear the Democrats repeatedly pushing Alito on the concept of "settled law" regarding Roe v. Wade. One caller to Laura Ingraham's radio show made a great point:

On the one hand when it comes to abortion, the Democrats demand that Alito admit that abortion is "settled law" -- meaning, I suppose that it is inviolate and carved in stone forever.

On the other hand, they also insist that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" which is subject to reinterpretation in light of modern understandings and even the considerations of foreign law.

If we are going to talk about foreign law, which laws will we consider? How about Saudi Arabia? Can the courts look to the fact that in Saudi Arabia women are forbidden to drive cars or to appear in public without the cloaking hajib? How would Diane Feinstein feel about that?

Are we to look to the laws of countries in Africa which compel legal stoning to death of women convicted of adultery? Just curious.

As Laura said: either the Constitution is Silly Putty or it isn't - get your stories straight.