Who?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/
Full Version: Bush bypasses Jenna; picks Samuel Alito for SC
My first thought...
NOT an attractive man.
NOT an attractive man.
I guess this guy is so conservative, CNN is saying he has earned the nickname "Scalito". eek!
Sounds like he's the kinder, gentler Scalia. And at least no one can argue that he's unqualified.
Two decisions that raise really really huge red flags:
Scalito was the sole dissenting voice in a decision overturning a law that required married women to get their husbands' permission for an abortion. In his dissent, he made it clear that women need their husband's rational voice as they cannot be trusted to rationally make such decisions themselves.
Scalito ruled that it was constitutional to strip search a woman and a 10 year old girl, when a search warrant only covered a man and his home.
So sex is immoral, and women who indulge must be punished. But men stripping 10 year old girls (and women) is just fine.
Scalito was the sole dissenting voice in a decision overturning a law that required married women to get their husbands' permission for an abortion. In his dissent, he made it clear that women need their husband's rational voice as they cannot be trusted to rationally make such decisions themselves.
Scalito ruled that it was constitutional to strip search a woman and a 10 year old girl, when a search warrant only covered a man and his home.
So sex is immoral, and women who indulge must be punished. But men stripping 10 year old girls (and women) is just fine.
MdB, I'm with you on the abortion one: husband's counsel, yes; "permission," no. As for the search, there may have been other circumstances that arose when the original warrant was being executed that led to a reasonable suspicion that mom and the kid were hiding contraband; such things DO regularly occur and not all young innocents are innocent. I'd like to know more about the facts of that one. But I agree: his abortion stance is troubling.
[ October 31, 2005, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
[ October 31, 2005, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
I can't believe it, moments ago I was on Wikipedia.org doing some research & I happened to click the link re: Scalito & his nomination. The opening sentence w/ a descrition of him stated that he was a "fascist judge". I was about to post the link here & at the blink of an eye his description was edited. Now it just says that he's a "judge". I guess big brother is watching us! That was scary.
Samuel Alito is extremely reactionary. He would set us back 100 years in civil rights.
He does not believe in constitutional privacy.
He is a evangelical christian of the most consetrvative bent.
He thinks Miranda was a 'gross misinterpretation of the Constitution' .
He is so far to the right that he makes Scalia look like a Liberal.
He has had literally hundreds of decisions overturned in his career.
He is also very, very smart, and has damn near inpeccable credentials.
R
The more I think about this issue, the more I have a suspicion I might have just been played by a master. Rove is absolutely a brilliant strategist - like him or hate him, he is smarter than hell. Why would he recommend a middle of the road nominee who would outrage the conservative powerbase and had few credentials - almost certainly calling for long hard investigative confirmation hearings in an already enbattled WH agenda? Alito is a much more believable candidate for a extremist conservative agenda.
I have never yet made a mistake in thinking the worst about Rove's spin abilities.
[ October 31, 2005, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
He does not believe in constitutional privacy.
He is a evangelical christian of the most consetrvative bent.
He thinks Miranda was a 'gross misinterpretation of the Constitution' .
He is so far to the right that he makes Scalia look like a Liberal.
He has had literally hundreds of decisions overturned in his career.
He is also very, very smart, and has damn near inpeccable credentials.
R
The more I think about this issue, the more I have a suspicion I might have just been played by a master. Rove is absolutely a brilliant strategist - like him or hate him, he is smarter than hell. Why would he recommend a middle of the road nominee who would outrage the conservative powerbase and had few credentials - almost certainly calling for long hard investigative confirmation hearings in an already enbattled WH agenda? Alito is a much more believable candidate for a extremist conservative agenda.
I have never yet made a mistake in thinking the worst about Rove's spin abilities.
[ October 31, 2005, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
MdB, I'm with you on the abortion one: husband's counsel, yes; \"permission,\" no. As for the search, there may have been other circumstances that arose when the original warrant was being executed that led to a reasonable suspicion that mom and the kid were hiding contraband; such things DO regularly occur and not all young innocents are innocent. I'd like to know more about the facts of that one. But I agree: his abortion stance is troubling.
Next time you chat with him, let us know what he has to say. MdB, I'm with you on the abortion one: husband's counsel, yes; \"permission,\" no. As for the search, there may have been other circumstances that arose when the original warrant was being executed that led to a reasonable suspicion that mom and the kid were hiding contraband; such things DO regularly occur and not all young innocents are innocent. I'd like to know more about the facts of that one. But I agree: his abortion stance is troubling.
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
Two decisions that raise really really huge red flags:
Scalito was the sole dissenting voice in a decision overturning a law that required married women to get their husbands' permission for an abortion.
Point of fact: It involved notification and not consent (at least, that's what MSNBC reported this morning on its web site).Two decisions that raise really really huge red flags:
Scalito was the sole dissenting voice in a decision overturning a law that required married women to get their husbands' permission for an abortion.
I have always wondered about the inconsistency, BTW, when it comes to a man's say-so regarding his child. If a woman simply says, "yes," he's forced to pay for the upbringing, care, etc. (which I believe any man should do, at least morally). But if a woman's decision is instead, "no," then a man is completely out of the picture and has NO rights where his child is concerned. Doesn't make sense at all.
I'm of two minds on Alito. On the one hand, the Democrats need to find their gonads and heavily scrutinize Alito to see if he truly is way to the right of mainstream America (I'm not sure if he is--I'm not familiar with his opinions beyond press reports). On the other hand, the President gets to make his picks, so I'm not receptive to a needless filibuster that could ultimately result in the so-called "nuclear option." And Alito isn't obnoxious like Bork was, which weighs in his favor.
The stakes were pretty clear in the last presidential election--it was obvious that Bush would nominate people who were not in favor of Roe. So I have little sympathy for the worried pro-choice fiscal conservatives who voted for him.
[ October 31, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
The stakes were pretty clear in the last presidential election--it was obvious that Bush would nominate people who were not in favor of Roe. So I have little sympathy for the worried pro-choice fiscal conservatives who voted for him.
[ October 31, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
QUOTE
ITJock:
He is a evangelical christian of the most consetrvative bent.
You mean, Roman Catholic?He is a evangelical christian of the most consetrvative bent.
QUOTE
He thinks Miranda was a 'gross misinterpretation of the Constitution' .
QUOTE
He has had literally hundreds of decisions overturned in his career.
I do agree that his previously cited decisions on abortion notification and the strip searches are troubling, I'm not going to judge them without the details.
Of course, if Democrats want to dictate Supreme Court justices then they should come up with something resembling a platform and win some more congressional seats and the White House. It would be nice to have TWO effective political parties again for some balance.
Notification and consent are in reality pretty much the same. A husband and certainly parents have a lot of ways of preventing a woman from choosing abortion.
As for why men can't make the choice, it's simple. They are not pregnant. They have no right to force a woman to bear a child against her will, nor have they the right to forcibly prevent her from bearing a child she wishes to have.
As for why men can't make the choice, it's simple. They are not pregnant. They have no right to force a woman to bear a child against her will, nor have they the right to forcibly prevent her from bearing a child she wishes to have.
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
Notification and consent are in reality pretty much the same.
I completely disagree with that . . .Notification and consent are in reality pretty much the same.
QUOTE
A husband and certainly parents have a lot of ways of preventing a woman from choosing abortion.
I wonder if there have been any laws or civil judgments that have implied a husband had to notify his wife before getting a vesectomy? There really are no good comparisons between the genders though.
I think marriage implies a certain loss of privacy between husband and wife that puts this judgment in the grey area where Alito's dissent doesn't seem unreasonable.
I don't think a woman has to be notified if her husband gets a vasectomy. Nor should she be IMO.
Look, the vast majority of married women faced with unwanted pregnancies, or wanted pregnancies that go terribly wrong, talk it over with their husbands. Just like the vast majority of young women talk it over with their parents. But mandating it? If a woman feels she can't, for whatever reason, does it really improve communication between husband and wife or between parent and daughter to have some stranger contact the husband or parents and say "your wife/daughter is knocked up and wants an abortion"?
In another decision, Alito ruled in favor of discrmination based on HIV status. His ruling (I'm not citing word for word but this is the gist) was that even though the company's stated motivation for discrimination, that AIDS could be easily transmitted, was wrong, it was OK for them to discriminate since they thought it was right. He also ruled that racial discrimination was OK if the employer truly believed a white person (not an individual who happened to be white but a white person generally) could do a better job.
Look, the vast majority of married women faced with unwanted pregnancies, or wanted pregnancies that go terribly wrong, talk it over with their husbands. Just like the vast majority of young women talk it over with their parents. But mandating it? If a woman feels she can't, for whatever reason, does it really improve communication between husband and wife or between parent and daughter to have some stranger contact the husband or parents and say "your wife/daughter is knocked up and wants an abortion"?
In another decision, Alito ruled in favor of discrmination based on HIV status. His ruling (I'm not citing word for word but this is the gist) was that even though the company's stated motivation for discrimination, that AIDS could be easily transmitted, was wrong, it was OK for them to discriminate since they thought it was right. He also ruled that racial discrimination was OK if the employer truly believed a white person (not an individual who happened to be white but a white person generally) could do a better job.
It's a judge's job to make sure laws are constitutional. It's a legislature's job to make sure they are helpful.
[ October 31, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: msully ]
[ October 31, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: msully ]
MdB, and everyone else for that matter, it would help if you could give the name of any opinions you're referring to. Official cites would be nice too, of course, but either way I'd like to read the opinions for myself and then make up my mind.
BTW, I do not agree that giving notification = obtaining consent. In the case of separated couples, providing notice can be done without any personal contact at all thru the mail. In fact, certified mail might be a good way to document that the notice was in fact given where required.
BTW, I do not agree that giving notification = obtaining consent. In the case of separated couples, providing notice can be done without any personal contact at all thru the mail. In fact, certified mail might be a good way to document that the notice was in fact given where required.
QUOTE
MIB:
I have always wondered about the inconsistency, BTW, when it comes to a man's say-so regarding his child. If a woman simply says, \"yes,\" he's forced to pay for the upbringing, care, etc. (which I believe any man should do, at least morally). But if a woman's decision is instead, \"no,\" then a man is completely out of the picture and has NO rights where his child is concerned. Doesn't make sense at all.
Another thing that doesn't make sense - QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
Two decisions that raise really really huge red flags:
Scalito was the sole dissenting voice in a decision overturning a law that required married women to get their husbands' permission for an abortion.
Point of fact: It involved notification and not consent (at least, that's what MSNBC reported this morning on its web site).Two decisions that raise really really huge red flags:
Scalito was the sole dissenting voice in a decision overturning a law that required married women to get their husbands' permission for an abortion.
I have always wondered about the inconsistency, BTW, when it comes to a man's say-so regarding his child. If a woman simply says, \"yes,\" he's forced to pay for the upbringing, care, etc. (which I believe any man should do, at least morally). But if a woman's decision is instead, \"no,\" then a man is completely out of the picture and has NO rights where his child is concerned. Doesn't make sense at all.
pro lifers who wont adopt, it's much easier to talk the talk.
Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Another thing that doesn't make sense -
pro lifers who wont adopt, it's much easier to talk the talk.
Yeah I agree. Plus, if your gonna be "pro-life", then that should be across the board--which would then include opposition to the death penalty. Trying to argue that God should have the final say about a humans life should also be applied to death row inmates. To call yourself pro-life, but support the death penalty is, in my opinion, sheer hypocrisy.
I also agree w/ Ms. de Blazer. I can see notifying my husband about what I'd like to do w/ my body. But ultimately, I would have the final decision. I especially feel strongly that the government has ABSOLUTELY NO business in making laws that deal with private family matters. If we start allowing this then look out for so called justified reasoning by the govt to invade our bedrooms brothers & sisters.
[ October 31, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: SCTrojan ]
Another thing that doesn't make sense -
pro lifers who wont adopt, it's much easier to talk the talk.
Yeah I agree. Plus, if your gonna be "pro-life", then that should be across the board--which would then include opposition to the death penalty. Trying to argue that God should have the final say about a humans life should also be applied to death row inmates. To call yourself pro-life, but support the death penalty is, in my opinion, sheer hypocrisy.
I also agree w/ Ms. de Blazer. I can see notifying my husband about what I'd like to do w/ my body. But ultimately, I would have the final decision. I especially feel strongly that the government has ABSOLUTELY NO business in making laws that deal with private family matters. If we start allowing this then look out for so called justified reasoning by the govt to invade our bedrooms brothers & sisters.
[ October 31, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: SCTrojan ]
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
Notification and consent are in reality pretty much the same. A husband and certainly parents have a lot of ways of preventing a woman from choosing abortion.
As for why men can't make the choice, it's simple. They are not pregnant. They have no right to force a woman to bear a child against her will, nor have they the right to forcibly prevent her from bearing a child she wishes to have.
Fine. Then you have no right to force me to pay for the separate human life you're carrying. Following your logic, child support becomes moot for any unmarried woman.Notification and consent are in reality pretty much the same. A husband and certainly parents have a lot of ways of preventing a woman from choosing abortion.
As for why men can't make the choice, it's simple. They are not pregnant. They have no right to force a woman to bear a child against her will, nor have they the right to forcibly prevent her from bearing a child she wishes to have.
The spousal notification provision that Sam Alito voted to uphold was championed by then Pennsylvania Governor, Robert P. Casey — -a Democrat. (He was the "Casey" in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.) Governor Casey believed that a husband is entitled to know if his child is going to be aborted. One may agree or disagree with this as a policy matter, but it is hardly an "extreme" idea. (The latest Gallup poll shows 72% of Americans agree with this.) Indeed, I would be very surprised if the idea were rejected (much less condemned as "extreme") by Governor Casey's son, Robert P. Casey, Jr., who is running for the United States Senate against Rick Santorum. Someone should ask him. Like his late father, Casey is running as a strongly pro-life Democrat. If the senior Casey was fit to be Governor, and if the younger Casey is fit to serve in the United States Senate, then Alito's position on spousal notification scarcely renders him unfit to serve on the Court.
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
I don't think a woman has to be notified if her husband gets a vasectomy.
Well, the next time a vasectomy destroys the woman's child, let me know and I'll support notification. Until vasectomies kill the child of both parents the way abortions do, they cannot be considered the same. Your logic is faulty.
I don't think a woman has to be notified if her husband gets a vasectomy.
QUOTE
Originally posted by SCTrojan
I especially feel strongly that the government has ABSOLUTELY NO business in making laws that deal with private family matters. If we start allowing this then look out for so called justified reasoning by the to invade our bedrooms brothers & sisters.
Government is involved in many aspects of our private lives for many legitimate reasons. Wake up and smell the coffee. I especially feel strongly that the government has ABSOLUTELY NO business in making laws that deal with private family matters. If we start allowing this then look out for so called justified reasoning by the to invade our bedrooms brothers & sisters.
QUOTE
SCTrojan:
Plus, if your gonna be \"pro-life\", then that should be across the board--which would then include opposition to the death penalty. Trying to argue that God should have the final say about a humans life should also be applied to death row inmates. To call yourself pro-life, but support the death penalty is, in my opinion, sheer hypocrisy.
To whom are you directing this, BTW?Plus, if your gonna be \"pro-life\", then that should be across the board--which would then include opposition to the death penalty. Trying to argue that God should have the final say about a humans life should also be applied to death row inmates. To call yourself pro-life, but support the death penalty is, in my opinion, sheer hypocrisy.
Another blatant example of hypocrisy: opposing the Death Penalty because an innocent human being may be executed but supporting abortion when an innocent human being will be executed, and without the benefit of a trial or appeals process. Pure evil, nothing less.
[ October 31, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
My statement regarding those who are pro-life in terms of abortion is that they should not be able to pick and choose... an innocent fetus is an innocent fetus... whether it be by rape or incest, obviously it was an act of God to create that child and have it born.... the death of that fetus or embryo is no less important in depth of murder or loss of life....
I am pro-choice. I give those who are victims of rape and incest the choice... those who are completely pro-life still permit the murder of these unborn children...
In absolution, I would be right....
But I do understand the rape/incest abortions of those who are pro-life because it is simply morbid... why can't those who are pro-life support my pro-choice support of those same unborn children, or those of young mothers who are so poor that they cannot support the child...
I dont think there ever will be a clear answer to this question- it is so interesting.
to stay on topic- Alito is highly qualified- I may not like his views or the hopes of our civil rights as homosexuals- but at least he is a highly qualified individual...
I am pro-choice. I give those who are victims of rape and incest the choice... those who are completely pro-life still permit the murder of these unborn children...
In absolution, I would be right....
But I do understand the rape/incest abortions of those who are pro-life because it is simply morbid... why can't those who are pro-life support my pro-choice support of those same unborn children, or those of young mothers who are so poor that they cannot support the child...
I dont think there ever will be a clear answer to this question- it is so interesting.
to stay on topic- Alito is highly qualified- I may not like his views or the hopes of our civil rights as homosexuals- but at least he is a highly qualified individual...
Originally posted by MIB:
To whom are you directing this, BTW?...
To the right-wing prolifers, of course.
My point being is that their argument about "killing another human being" should be put in hands of God is quite simplistic. If they truly adhered to the Chritian message of forgiveness & "cast the 1st stone" philosophy, then they should be able to reason, spiritually speaking, that "murder" is murder". A person's character--from a Christian point of view--should be pointless.
To whom are you directing this, BTW?...
To the right-wing prolifers, of course.
My point being is that their argument about "killing another human being" should be put in hands of God is quite simplistic. If they truly adhered to the Chritian message of forgiveness & "cast the 1st stone" philosophy, then they should be able to reason, spiritually speaking, that "murder" is murder". A person's character--from a Christian point of view--should be pointless.
Originally posted by MIB:
...Another blatant example of hypocrisy: opposing the Death Penalty because an innocent human being may be executed but supporting abortion when an innocent human being will be executed, and without the benefit of a trial or appeals process. Pure evil, nothing less.
I guess I should have made myself clear, Before a heartbeat of a fetus it's questionable that it's human. Most, if not all, Judaic Rabbis would argue this point. Neither can science say for certain. After the presence of a heartbeat, then yes, it's a human and can feel too.
[ October 31, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: SCTrojan ]
...Another blatant example of hypocrisy: opposing the Death Penalty because an innocent human being may be executed but supporting abortion when an innocent human being will be executed, and without the benefit of a trial or appeals process. Pure evil, nothing less.
I guess I should have made myself clear, Before a heartbeat of a fetus it's questionable that it's human. Most, if not all, Judaic Rabbis would argue this point. Neither can science say for certain. After the presence of a heartbeat, then yes, it's a human and can feel too.
[ October 31, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: SCTrojan ]
many people seem to be making a huge supposition that simply might not be true in the case of spousal notification. and that supposition is that the fetus is thd offspring of the husband!
if the husband is not the father, should he have the same legal standing as if he were? that's a stretch -- giving a husband sovereignty over his wife's body, when the fetus is not his offspring.
and this, of course, raises the issue of whether the government should be in the business of forcing a woman to admit adultry when the fetus is not also her husband's. the converse of this situation would be to require the husband to notify his wife if his mistress was going to get an abortion.
we should preach morality from the pulpit, but not legislate is it from the dais.
this spousal notification requirement opens a whole pandora's box of possibilities that the mostly facile arguments presented so far simply do not contemplate.
[ October 31, 2005, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]
if the husband is not the father, should he have the same legal standing as if he were? that's a stretch -- giving a husband sovereignty over his wife's body, when the fetus is not his offspring.
and this, of course, raises the issue of whether the government should be in the business of forcing a woman to admit adultry when the fetus is not also her husband's. the converse of this situation would be to require the husband to notify his wife if his mistress was going to get an abortion.
we should preach morality from the pulpit, but not legislate is it from the dais.
this spousal notification requirement opens a whole pandora's box of possibilities that the mostly facile arguments presented so far simply do not contemplate.
[ October 31, 2005, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]
I appreciate the debate on abortion however are we not missing the point here? This nominee is an ultra conservative right winger who is as narrow minded as Scalia. Replacing Justice O'Connor with this choice takes away most of the diversity in their decision making process. How can GW swing so far in his choice to fill this seat? I don't get his thinking or his philosophy on this or was all of this part of some sinister political scheme? Probably not...he's not smart enough to be that calculating.
QUOTE
Darius:
I appreciate the debate on abortion however are we not missing the point here? This nominee is an ultra conservative right winger who is as narrow minded as Scalia. Replacing Justice O'Connor with this choice takes away most of the diversity in their decision making process. How can GW swing so far in his choice to fill this seat? I don't get his thinking or his philosophy on this or was all of this part of some sinister political scheme? Probably not...he's not smart enough to be that calculating.
But Rove and Cheney are...I appreciate the debate on abortion however are we not missing the point here? This nominee is an ultra conservative right winger who is as narrow minded as Scalia. Replacing Justice O'Connor with this choice takes away most of the diversity in their decision making process. How can GW swing so far in his choice to fill this seat? I don't get his thinking or his philosophy on this or was all of this part of some sinister political scheme? Probably not...he's not smart enough to be that calculating.
Regardless, the one small bright spot is that Alito relys so heavily on strict interpretation and precedent. I don't think he will have much patience with a 'conservative agenda' of activism either. IMHO - More than likely he will vote for Status Quo on almost everything.
This morning I heard a sound bite clip from yesterday from the man. He said he upholds the constitutional rights of all Americans. I want to know, does that include homosexuals? Thats what I want to know.
[ November 01, 2005, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
[ November 01, 2005, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer both think the nomination is a "home run." That should tell the Dems one thing: filibuster.
When the GOP goes nuclear, bring the Senate's business to a screeching halt, til 2009 if need be. The country will be fine.
When the GOP goes nuclear, bring the Senate's business to a screeching halt, til 2009 if need be. The country will be fine.
I agree with you about Pat Robertson 100%. If the Repugs start agruing for an up or down vote asap, tell them you sure didn't argue that for Miers!
sometimes i get quite a chuckle listening to ya'all...
W clearly stated who he would put in the court.
He has a majority in the senate..
Yet, ya'all see to think that the libs have some control in the situation?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Fill-A-Buster! YEAH MAN!
Try this, win an election.
W clearly stated who he would put in the court.
He has a majority in the senate..
Yet, ya'all see to think that the libs have some control in the situation?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Fill-A-Buster! YEAH MAN!
Try this, win an election.
Actually Bush ("he") doesn't have a majority in the Senate, the Republicans do. And if this guy turns out to be too far right wing, especially with anti-abortion positions, wouldn't it be REALLY funny if the Specter, Snowe, and Chafee types in the Senate break party ranks??
I am going to say something that <shudder> I never thought I would ever say. I have to agree with Phillyfan. <Uuugghhh> Sorry, W said he wanted to change the court, the country in its wisdom voted for him, barely, granted, but at least in 2004 he got a majority of votes. I argued with at least 2 female friends who were going to vote for Bush in 2004 because they felt safer with him, even though they were both pro-choice and knew the risks of the Supreme Court issue.
When the only way to stop arch-conservatives from being appointed is a filibuster, the democrats have failed. It is time to win some senate elections, win the white house, get the House closer so that the moderates in both parties can have some power. Shutting down the Senate is not the answer.
When the only way to stop arch-conservatives from being appointed is a filibuster, the democrats have failed. It is time to win some senate elections, win the white house, get the House closer so that the moderates in both parties can have some power. Shutting down the Senate is not the answer.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
sometimes i get quite a chuckle listening to ya'all...
No worries, we chuckle at you all the time.sometimes i get quite a chuckle listening to ya'all...
How bout dem eagles!!!!!!!!!!
Some people seem to think a minority party/bloc has no rights in a democracy...
Actually no when most of you expect some liberal whack job to be put in...
QUOTE
Actually no when most of you expect some liberal whack job to be put in...
You mean like Bush trying to get Harriet Miers in?
Phillyfan, can't wait for the offterm elections next year, can you? wink
I have mixed feelings about Alito, as I did with Miers and Roberts. On one hand, Bush won the election and if all these liberal groups put as much fire and energy into preventing his reelection as they do into b*tching, maybe Kerry would be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days.
So part of me says Bush won, so he gets to put his guys on the Court. However, I can't help but be concerned for the future of our country when I hear about some of Alito's rulings.
I really don't have much at stake in the abortion debate, other than its being a point of differentiation between the two parties. A more cynical me would say that I hope the new SCT *does* impact abortion rights and that it causes a change in public opinion much like how the Voting Rights Act was one of the factors that caused a shift in the two party dynamic. My hope is that overreaching by the GOP (and via their proxy on the SCT) will turn the public against the GOP for a generation.
So part of me says Bush won, so he gets to put his guys on the Court. However, I can't help but be concerned for the future of our country when I hear about some of Alito's rulings.
I really don't have much at stake in the abortion debate, other than its being a point of differentiation between the two parties. A more cynical me would say that I hope the new SCT *does* impact abortion rights and that it causes a change in public opinion much like how the Voting Rights Act was one of the factors that caused a shift in the two party dynamic. My hope is that overreaching by the GOP (and via their proxy on the SCT) will turn the public against the GOP for a generation.
Replace "Roberts" with "Alito."
What To Ask Roberts
What To Ask Roberts
QUOTE
By Cass R. Sunstein
Monday, August 29, 2005; Page A15
....
The Constitution does not explicitly forbid the national government from discriminating on the basis of race or sex. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has read the Constitution to ban both forms of discrimination. Some conservatives disagree; they think that the Supreme Court has no legitimate basis for prohibiting either racial segregation or racial profiling at the national level. What does Roberts think about the question of whether the national government can engage in discrimination on the basis of race and sex?
Monday, August 29, 2005; Page A15
....
The Constitution does not explicitly forbid the national government from discriminating on the basis of race or sex. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has read the Constitution to ban both forms of discrimination. Some conservatives disagree; they think that the Supreme Court has no legitimate basis for prohibiting either racial segregation or racial profiling at the national level. What does Roberts think about the question of whether the national government can engage in discrimination on the basis of race and sex?
Memo to HRC, Lambda Legal, and NGLTF: You people are lawyers; You should at least do some legal research before issuing the "sky is falling" press releases you have been all day over Alito. Had you done so, maybe you'd have discovered this from Front Page, an opinion in which Alito echoes the 7th Circuit's decision and rationale in Nabozny v. Podlesny, which was widely hailed by the same groups when it issued for almost declaring gays a suspect class.
Does this answer your question, HockeyTom?
"He also showed concern for homosexuals in a 2004 case filed against New Jersey's Shore Regional High School Board of Education. Alito ruled the high school had failed in its duty to provide a student an adequate education by failing to protect him from years of brutal harassment, in which bullies regularly belittled his "perceived effeminacy," slurring his assumed sexuality. Alito sent a clear message that he would have zero tolerance for any school district that looked the other way while students vicious bullied one of their own, even if that hazing were conducted on the basis of homosexuality (real or imagined); gay kids have a right to education, too."
As with Roberts, the more I learn about Alito, the more I like him, and the shriller and more frantic - and Democratic - his GLBT detractors sound.
[ November 01, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
Does this answer your question, HockeyTom?
"He also showed concern for homosexuals in a 2004 case filed against New Jersey's Shore Regional High School Board of Education. Alito ruled the high school had failed in its duty to provide a student an adequate education by failing to protect him from years of brutal harassment, in which bullies regularly belittled his "perceived effeminacy," slurring his assumed sexuality. Alito sent a clear message that he would have zero tolerance for any school district that looked the other way while students vicious bullied one of their own, even if that hazing were conducted on the basis of homosexuality (real or imagined); gay kids have a right to education, too."
As with Roberts, the more I learn about Alito, the more I like him, and the shriller and more frantic - and Democratic - his GLBT detractors sound.
[ November 01, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Memo to HRC, Lambda Legal, and NGLTF: You people are lawyers; You should at least do some legal research before issuing the \"sky is falling\" press releases you have been all day over Alito. Had you done so, maybe you'd have discovered this from Front Page, an opinion in which Alito echoes the 7th Circuit's decision and rationale in Nabozny v. Podlesny, which was widely hailed by the same groups when it issued for almost declaring gays a suspect class.
Does this answer your question, HockeyTom?
\"He also showed concern for homosexuals in a 2004 case filed against New Jersey's Shore Regional High School Board of Education. Alito ruled the high school had failed in its duty to provide a student an adequate education by failing to protect him from years of brutal harassment, in which bullies regularly belittled his \"perceived effeminacy,\" slurring his assumed sexuality. Alito sent a clear message that he would have zero tolerance for any school district that looked the other way while students vicious bullied one of their own, even if that hazing were conducted on the basis of homosexuality (real or imagined); gay kids have a right to education, too.\"
As with Roberts, the more I learn about Alito, the more I like him, and the shriller and more frantic - and Democratic - his GLBT detractors sound.
Memo to gmginsfo, you're a lawyer, you should at least do some research before orgasmically declaring Alito a champion of gay rights or a protector of minorities. I actually read the opinion cited in Front Page (David Horowitz is a big hypocrite in my mind, but that's a separate conversation). Shore Regional High School v. P.S. isn't a win for gay rights at all, nor does it even hint at any suspect classification for homosexuals or any other minority, despite your reference to Nabozny (way to show off your erudition in front of nonlawyers!). All it said was that the district court didn't give proper weight to the Administrative Law Judge's findings. In fact, the outcome here depended almost entirely on the findings of the ALJ, NOT any independent factfinding of the appellate court, thus the result could have been completely different had the ALJ ruled differently. To wit:Memo to HRC, Lambda Legal, and NGLTF: You people are lawyers; You should at least do some legal research before issuing the \"sky is falling\" press releases you have been all day over Alito. Had you done so, maybe you'd have discovered this from Front Page, an opinion in which Alito echoes the 7th Circuit's decision and rationale in Nabozny v. Podlesny, which was widely hailed by the same groups when it issued for almost declaring gays a suspect class.
Does this answer your question, HockeyTom?
\"He also showed concern for homosexuals in a 2004 case filed against New Jersey's Shore Regional High School Board of Education. Alito ruled the high school had failed in its duty to provide a student an adequate education by failing to protect him from years of brutal harassment, in which bullies regularly belittled his \"perceived effeminacy,\" slurring his assumed sexuality. Alito sent a clear message that he would have zero tolerance for any school district that looked the other way while students vicious bullied one of their own, even if that hazing were conducted on the basis of homosexuality (real or imagined); gay kids have a right to education, too.\"
As with Roberts, the more I learn about Alito, the more I like him, and the shriller and more frantic - and Democratic - his GLBT detractors sound.
"We do not suggest that Dr. Chas’s opinion was unworthy of belief or that the testimony of Dr. Corbin-Fliger and Dr. Friedman was beyond dispute. But the task of evaluating their conflicting opinions lay in the first instance with the ALJ in whose presence they testified. When the ALJ’s determination in this case is given its “due weight,” we see no basis for overturning that determination."
The only thing this case tells me is that Judge Alito appropriately applied the law--he paid attention in civil procedure class and he knows his administrative law. If this is the best example of Alito protecting gay rights that you can provide, I'm disappointed. Given your initial post, I was expecting more, not just in Alito, but from you gmginsfo--I'm disappointed that you would take something Front Page tells you at face value without question.
Furthermore, while I'll agree that HRC and NGLTF went overboard with their statement, Lambda Legal--an organization I deeply respect--gave a pretty measured response to the Alito nomination. Did you actually read Lambda Legal's press release? I don't really see how you can call paragraphs like the following all that outrageous:
We pledge a careful and thorough review of Judge Alito, and we look forward to the upcoming confirmation hearings as an opportunity to get answers to our questions. Already, however, we have reasons for serious concern. There are a number of issues that are important in determining whether a nominee will respect the rights of all Americans. Judge Alito’s track record on reproductive freedom, enforcement of civil rights and federalism (respect for Congress’s power to enact important statutes like civil rights laws) raises potential ‘red flags’ for Lambda Legal and merits particular scrutiny.
Word to the nonlawyers on Outsports: Don't believe the hype. We legal professionals might be able to recite all sorts of mumbojumbo, but that doesn't mean we're experts at the law or anything else.
Too bad you continue to cast aspersions, Neptune, and constantly look for ways to disagree instead of paying close attention to what I write before you proceed to do so. Nowhere in what I wrote did I make any assertion - blanket, orgasmic or otherwise - that Alito was a "champion of gay rights." Nor did I claim Alito took Nabozny one step further and declared us a suspect class; all that's your spin, not mine. I simply pointed out that he was willing to look at the law without being blinkered by the sexuality of one of the parties involved - which is enough for me. Is it for you?
You're right on one point: I have yet to read SRHS v. PS in full. You see, I was in court most of today, and won't be able to pull it up on Westlaw until I return from being in court tomorrow, after which I'll read it alongside Nabozny and decide for myself, thank you. From all I've read so far, I'll be surprised if doing so materially changes what I've written so far, which is part of the reason why I wrote what I did.
Finally, I'm sorry to throw a note of discord into one of your leitmotifs, but I'm not "all about" showing off or trying to impress others; again, that's your negative spin. I'm happy to let my record of what I do and what I've done speak for itself - it's all out in the open, real name and all, and gosh, I'd sure love to see any cites to gay rights cases YOU'VE handled. So in light of your attitude, indulge me in a bit of condescension. Perhaps after you've been practicing a while, and hopefully have a higher opinion of our profession than you close with here, you'll understand why I really don't care a rat's ass if you are "disappointed" in me. Save such sanctimony for your next Lambda fundraiser, where you can whine it out ad nauseum among like minded spirits.
You're right on one point: I have yet to read SRHS v. PS in full. You see, I was in court most of today, and won't be able to pull it up on Westlaw until I return from being in court tomorrow, after which I'll read it alongside Nabozny and decide for myself, thank you. From all I've read so far, I'll be surprised if doing so materially changes what I've written so far, which is part of the reason why I wrote what I did.
Finally, I'm sorry to throw a note of discord into one of your leitmotifs, but I'm not "all about" showing off or trying to impress others; again, that's your negative spin. I'm happy to let my record of what I do and what I've done speak for itself - it's all out in the open, real name and all, and gosh, I'd sure love to see any cites to gay rights cases YOU'VE handled. So in light of your attitude, indulge me in a bit of condescension. Perhaps after you've been practicing a while, and hopefully have a higher opinion of our profession than you close with here, you'll understand why I really don't care a rat's ass if you are "disappointed" in me. Save such sanctimony for your next Lambda fundraiser, where you can whine it out ad nauseum among like minded spirits.
Touchy, touchy gmginsfo. Considering I've only posted 221 times on Outsports, I doubt that "I'm constantly looking for ways to disagree" but so be it. I just call 'em like I see 'em. You inaccurately described Lambda Legal's response to Alito's nomination and the legal significance of Alito's opinion in Shore Regional High School v. P.S., which in my mind is not very helpful in a forum where most of the participants are not lawyers, and thus would likely take what you have to say about the law at face value. And frankly it is a suprising inaccuracy because it was pretty damn easy for you to read the case. It's not like you needed Westlaw--in fact the FrontPage article you cited itself had a direct hyperlink to the opinion, which I invite everyone on Outsports to read for free here. Don't take it personally--I would respond the same way to any other lawyer on the board (MIB?).
As to my credentials, well you've got me there; although I did a substantial amount of gay rights work at a relatively prestigious law school, I graduated only five months ago, while you have had years and years to handle cases (a fact which you highlighted, thus proving my whole point). Does that mean I--or anyone else--am supposed to give your experience extra reverence? Does that mean my legal observations should have less value? I think the answer to both these questions is a resounding no.
Edited to add: I hate to be extra snarky, but aren't you the one who needlessly told us all about turning down your invitation to MENSA?
[ November 02, 2005, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
As to my credentials, well you've got me there; although I did a substantial amount of gay rights work at a relatively prestigious law school, I graduated only five months ago, while you have had years and years to handle cases (a fact which you highlighted, thus proving my whole point). Does that mean I--or anyone else--am supposed to give your experience extra reverence? Does that mean my legal observations should have less value? I think the answer to both these questions is a resounding no.
Edited to add: I hate to be extra snarky, but aren't you the one who needlessly told us all about turning down your invitation to MENSA?
[ November 02, 2005, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Finally, I'm sorry to throw a note of discord into one of your leitmotifs, but I'm not \"all about\" showing off or trying to impress others.
Finally, I'm sorry to throw a note of discord into one of your leitmotifs, but I'm not \"all about\" showing off or trying to impress others.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Finally, I'm sorry to throw a note of discord into one of your leitmotifs, but I'm not \"all about\" showing off or trying to impress others;
Excellent stuff there gmg, HILARIOUS!!!!!!
Finally, I'm sorry to throw a note of discord into one of your leitmotifs, but I'm not \"all about\" showing off or trying to impress others;
QUOTE
SCTrojan:
I guess I should have made myself clear, Before a heartbeat of a fetus it's questionable that it's human.
What kind of macabre thinking is that? If a fetus is not human, then what is it? Come on now. You said it; you must define what it is. It is irrefutable fact that the offspring of a human being is also a human being and nothing else. Furthermore, one does not "become" human at some magical point in his/her development. A human being instantly exists when the necessary "ingredients" for such come together, that being fertilization of an egg by a sperm.I guess I should have made myself clear, Before a heartbeat of a fetus it's questionable that it's human.
To say a fetus is at some point not human is the height of ignorance about simple biology and physiology.
Because of the glittering credentials that earned Alito unanimous Senate confirmation to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, those Democrats who are determined to oppose him are unhappily required to make one of two intellectually disreputable arguments.
One is that judicial conservatism may once have been a legitimate persuasion, but now is a disqualification for service on the Supreme Court. To which there is a refuting question: Since when? Since 1986, when 98 senators -- including 47 Democrats -- voted to confirm Antonin Scalia 98-0? Since last December, when Harry Reid, leader of Senate Democrats, said that Scalia would be a fine nominee for chief justice?
Reid doubtless would respond that Scalia would have been acceptable only because he was replacing someone comparably conservative -- William Rehnquist. Which brings us to the second disreputable argument Democrats will be reduced to making: Because Alito is more of a judicial conservative than was Sandra Day O'Connor, he is unacceptable because it is unacceptable to change the court's intellectual balance. This argument is triply flawed.
First, nowhere is that rule written. Second, the history of presidential practice -- Democrats should especially study FDR's sweeping alteration of the court's composition -- refutes the rule. Third, when in 1993 the Senate voted to confirm the very liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, to the seat being vacated by the retirement of the conservative Byron White, 96 senators voted for her, including 25 Democrats still in the Senate. Including Reid. Including Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Herbert Kohl and Russ Feingold, all members of today's Judiciary Committee.
Reid urged the president to nominate Harriet Miers, whose withdrawal Reid says he laments. Now Reid deplores the Alito nomination because it was, Reid says, done without Democratic ''consultation.'' But it was during such consultation that, Reid says, he warned the president not to nominate Alito. So Reid's logic is that nothing counts as consultation unless it results in conformity to Democratic dictates.
When Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: ''I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are [sic] very hard to dispute.'' There you have the judicial philosophy -- if it can be dignified as such -- of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Never mind constitutional reasoning, which is so annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?
This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- ''results'' -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?
This is a debate the president, who needs a victory, should relish. Will it, as Democrats say, ''divide'' the country? Yes. Debates about serious subjects do that. The real reason those Democrats are mournful is that they correctly suspect they are on the losing side of the divide.
One is that judicial conservatism may once have been a legitimate persuasion, but now is a disqualification for service on the Supreme Court. To which there is a refuting question: Since when? Since 1986, when 98 senators -- including 47 Democrats -- voted to confirm Antonin Scalia 98-0? Since last December, when Harry Reid, leader of Senate Democrats, said that Scalia would be a fine nominee for chief justice?
Reid doubtless would respond that Scalia would have been acceptable only because he was replacing someone comparably conservative -- William Rehnquist. Which brings us to the second disreputable argument Democrats will be reduced to making: Because Alito is more of a judicial conservative than was Sandra Day O'Connor, he is unacceptable because it is unacceptable to change the court's intellectual balance. This argument is triply flawed.
First, nowhere is that rule written. Second, the history of presidential practice -- Democrats should especially study FDR's sweeping alteration of the court's composition -- refutes the rule. Third, when in 1993 the Senate voted to confirm the very liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, to the seat being vacated by the retirement of the conservative Byron White, 96 senators voted for her, including 25 Democrats still in the Senate. Including Reid. Including Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Herbert Kohl and Russ Feingold, all members of today's Judiciary Committee.
Reid urged the president to nominate Harriet Miers, whose withdrawal Reid says he laments. Now Reid deplores the Alito nomination because it was, Reid says, done without Democratic ''consultation.'' But it was during such consultation that, Reid says, he warned the president not to nominate Alito. So Reid's logic is that nothing counts as consultation unless it results in conformity to Democratic dictates.
When Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: ''I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are [sic] very hard to dispute.'' There you have the judicial philosophy -- if it can be dignified as such -- of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Never mind constitutional reasoning, which is so annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?
This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- ''results'' -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?
This is a debate the president, who needs a victory, should relish. Will it, as Democrats say, ''divide'' the country? Yes. Debates about serious subjects do that. The real reason those Democrats are mournful is that they correctly suspect they are on the losing side of the divide.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.