Alito

[Gemini Cricket]

Bush Picks Alito (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su_co/bush_scotus)
"Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years, and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years," Bush said, drawing an unspoken contrast to his first choice, Harriet Miers.

Filibuster time!

[scaeagles]

And what is it that makes him so extreme that a filibuster would be required?

I am personally very excited about this pick. While I don't know a ton about him, he is often referred to as "Scalia-lite" or "ScAlito", but with a more low key temperament than the brilliant (whether you agree with him or not) Scalia.

My guess is that he will perform as well as Roberts in hearings and will make the inquisitors on the judiciary committee, once again, look like the mental midgets that they are.

[Gemini Cricket]

Alito and Frist use Parks for photo-op (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1265853)
Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement.The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
That's just blatantly shallow. Using a dead civil rights icon to further an agenda. That's just so wrong.

Bush said he doesn't like activist judges. I guess if it's a liberal activist judge then it's wrong, but a conservative activist judge then that's a different story.
Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.
Source (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm)

Bush just threw out what he said about diversity right out the window. Was that a flip-flop? Replacing O'Connor with Scalia-Lite.

Not only that, but this candidate has his corruption problems, too:
Three years ago Alito drew conflict-of-interest accusations after he upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the Vanguard Group. Alito had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with the mutual fund company at the time. He denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700813.html)

Forget about Roe v Wade:
In 1991, he was the lone dissenter in a 3rd Circuit decision striking down a Pennsylvania law's requirement that women tell their husbands before having an abortion.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700813.html)

Man, this is totally amazing but not shocking. I hope the Democrats filibuster this nomination. Maybe they won't need to, there's a big paper trail on this one.

Dumps Miers to jump on the conservative bandwagon (so much for staying the course with Harriet) and now catering to the right-wing nutjobs by embracing Alito.

What a circus... complete with a cowboy clown.

[Gemini Cricket]

Bush is just trying to change the subject with this nominee. He wants to take away some of the spotlight from his embattled administration by supporting someone that will divide the country again. Pathetic.

Here's what's going to happen. The Democrats are going to go after Alito for his ideological views and the Republicans are going to cry foul for what they're doing. BUT this is exactly what the Republicans did to Harriet Miers.

[Gemini Cricket]

More info:
Alito, 55, is nicknamed "Scalito" because he reminds analysts of ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He once voted to uphold a law requiring a wife to get her husband's permission to get an abortion.
Source (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13041264.htm)
Her husband's permission?!
:rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

Bring on the fillibuster......and watch Bush poll numbers climb higher and higher:) If the Dems really want to get back to the scandals and the war and whatnot they would be smart to step off and let this one in quickly(kinda like Mike Ditka used to do) Otherwise they can stall this nomination and watch Conservative America rush to the Presidents side.

[Gemini Cricket]

Bring on the fillibuster......and watch Bush poll numbers climb higher and higher:)
Well, that's why he nominated this guy isn't it? My theory on this one is that I think Bush wants this one to be filibustered. I think there's another candidate after Alito in the works. I don't know who that is, but I have a feeling that it's part of the plan.

[sleepyjeff]

^You could be right. Then again this kinda puts the whole Bush is an idiot thing in the trash can if true;)

[scaeagles]

I would suggest that conservative America will already be rushing to his side. This is what Bush promised when he was campaigning - conservative justices should he have the opportunity to nominate. He came through with Roberts. Miers was an extraordinary letdown (just because I had no idea what she thought about anything and there were so many more choices available). This is what I expected when he nominated Miers. This should have been who he picked instead of Miers in the first place.

This man has been through two prior confirmations, and was confirmed in the Senate both times by 100-0. He was educated at Harvard and Yale (or maybe one of those was princeton - I forget exactly what I read). He has an abundance of experience and a track record for all to see.

Contrary to what GC has suggested, Miers was not vilified by the right because of her policies. It was because no one had any idea what she stood for and was clearly not the best nor most qualified for the job. I would suggest it would be difficult to find anyone more qualified by Alito.

And to talk about using Parks for political purposes....funny. Schumer came out and compared Alito and the seat on the SC to Parks and and the seat on the bus. Will he use the seat to change the world for good? Is that solely for political purposes? Maybe, but who cares? It is politics. Parks is in the news, as she should be. If Alito doesn't go pay his respects, he is criticized for not caring. He goes, so it's criticized as a photo op. Yawn.

So it will come down, as it did widely with support for Roberts, as to if someone thinks that Alito will do what they think is correct. Not if he is qualified to hold the position, but if he will vote on cases the way someone thinks he should. I will again point out Ginsburg - I don't agree with much if anything she has ever said or written (that I am familiar with), but she was qualified for the seat, and was rightly confirmed.

If the left does not like this nomination, a nomination of someone apparently very qualified to hold the position, then I would suggest they win the Presidency. Presidents nominate. Does this make me a hypocrit for being less than excited about Miers? I don't think so. She was not what Bush had promised during his campaign.

I will say one thing - it does concern me that he did not recuse himself on the first case involving Vanguard since he had investments with them. That could be cause for concern, so I will be curious to learn more about it.

[Gemini Cricket]

^You could be right. Then again this kinda puts the whole Bush is an idiot thing in the trash can if true;)
I'm sure someone had to give him the idea, you know, with hand motions and finger puppets.
;)

[Nephythys]

More info:

Source (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13041264.htm)
Her husband's permission?!
:rolleyes:

yup- cause heaven forbid a man know his wife is killing his kid. :rolleyes:

In the finance world husbands and wives have to sign off on all kinds of things- from beneficiaries down to a distribution from an account- but it's a horror when someone expects a man to be notified that his wife plans to off their kid?

I'm going to enjoy this-I do wonder if Miers was some sort of test- to see if the conservative base was as fired up as they used to be about this issue. Once that had been settled she bowed out- as planned. I wonder-

[€uroMeinke]

In the finance world husbands and wives have to sign off on all kinds of things- from beneficiaries down to a distribution from an account- but it's a horror when someone expects a man to be notified that his wife plans to off their kid?

Of course, this presumes the "kid" is her husbands...

[scaeagles]

All that does is highlight the inherent ridiculousness of current abortion/paternity law.

If it is the sole choice of the woman whether to allow the "unviable tissue mass" to enter the world as a human being, then it should be her complete and total financial responsibility. Her choice, her responsibility.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I am not suggesting that men should not be financially responsible for the children they sire. I am simply pointing out what I consider to be inconsistent.

[Not Afraid]

I'm waiting for legislation requring rapists to need to give permission for aborting a pregnancy they caused.

[Nephythys]

Of course, this presumes the "kid" is her husbands...


well- yes...that is the basic assumption I made.

[€uroMeinke]

All that does is highlight the inherent ridiculousness of current abortion/paternity law.

If it is the sole choice of the woman whether to allow the "unviable tissue mass" to enter the world as a human being, then it should be her complete and total financial responsibility. Her choice, her responsibility.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I am not suggesting that men should not be financially responsible for the children they sire. I am simply pointing out what I consider to be inconsistent.

I don't necessarily see this as inconsistent, the man's choice just comes a bit earlier when deciding to participate in the procreative act - there are always risks invovlved, I don't think it too far a stretch to make men responsible for the risks they take.

[Gemini Cricket]

Contrary to what GC has suggested, Miers was not vilified by the right because of her policies. It was because no one had any idea what she stood for and was clearly not the best nor most qualified for the job. I would suggest it would be difficult to find anyone more qualified by Alito.
(from Concerned Women for America's website) “Harriet Miers has shown respect for Christian values by attending an Evangelical church. But her professional and civic life leaves us questioning whether she chooses to reflect and advance the views of the group she’s with at the moment. Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family,” said Wendy Wright. “This drives us to rely upon her actions, her deeds, her words as opposed to the endorsements of those who have worked with and known her."
This is making a clear judgement on Miers for her actions, her policies. To me this says: She wasn't radically conservative enough for us. Withdraw her.
If Alito doesn't go pay his respects, he is criticized for not caring. He goes, so it's criticized as a photo op. Yawn.
He was with Frist (who has problems of his own) and it was clearly a photo-op. He's exploiting the body of a dead woman for positive press.

And what does Alito care about civil rights anyway?
Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

[scaeagles]

I'm waiting for legislation requring rapists to need to give permission for aborting a pregnancy they caused.

I believe that might be considered an extreme example. I don't know the complete statistics regarding abortions performed in the country, but I don't think anywhere close to a decent percentage are due to rape.

I could be mistaken - like I said, I don't know the numbers.

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.

I didn't think so.

[scaeagles]

I don't necessarily see this as inconsistent, the man's choice just comes a bit earlier when deciding to participate in the procreative act - there are always risks invovlved, I don't think it too far a stretch to make men responsible for the risks they take.

Well, the woman is involved procreative process as well, right? If they are both responsible before the act, and they are both responsible financially after the borth, shouldn't they both have a say in whether the child comes into the world or not?

[Not Afraid]

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.




Well, you can complain all you want and don't get anybody pregnant you don't want to have a child with. I won't complain when the government interveins with values that are not held my everyone in the country and legislate decisions that should be made my a medical professional qualified to make these decisions.

[scaeagles]

This is making a clear judgement on Miers for her actions, her policies. To me this says: She wasn't radically conservative enough for us. Withdraw her.

Of course there are groups who say that. Ever heard of planned parenthood? They go a little bit in the other direction - as in don't bother nominating anyone who isn't fully for abortion on demand. Can you imagine if Clinton had nominated a pro-lifer?

He was with Frist (who has problems of his own) and it was clearly a photo-op. He's exploiting the body of a dead woman for positive press.

Yawn. Like I said, no matter what was done he'd be criticized for it. It has no bearing on the man himself.

And what does Alito care about civil rights anyway?

Funny. I'll again go through my favorite confirmation hearing story ever. Ginsburg being questioned by Hatch. Hatch descirbes an employer with 30 employees, all of whom were white. He asked her if that employer could be considered as racially discriminatory under the law. She said yes. He pointed out that this was the exact employment situation of her staff. Was Ginsburg a racist? I doubt it. I would suspect that Alito isn't either.

[Gemini Cricket]

But Clinton, but Ginsberg, but Clinton, but Ginsberg...

Are conservatives borrowing Dubya's echo chamber?

:D

[scaeagles]

Well, you can complain all you want and don't get anybody pregnant you don't want to have a child with. I won't complain when the government interveins with values that are not held my everyone in the country and legislate decisions that should be made my a medical professional qualified to make these decisions.

I'm not saying a word about the pratice of abortion. For this argument, anyway. I'm just saying if it's the woman's decision, then it is the woman's decision and therefore her responsibility. I can understand why you wouldn't want the government to be involved. Fine. But if it's your choice, it's your responsibility.

What if the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't? She can still abort. Even though he was part of the process, he has no rights should she choose to abort. So, if the man doesn't want the kid and cannot force the woman to abort, why should he be finanacially responsible?

Again, my argument is completely rhetorical. I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.

[€uroMeinke]

Well, the woman is involved procreative process as well, right? If they are both responsible before the act, and they are both responsible financially after the borth, shouldn't they both have a say in whether the child comes into the world or not?

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well. There are lots of things a potential mother can do that might end the pregnancy whether or not they seek a medical abortion.

Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink? Can a husband order his wife to have a pregnancy test, to determine if her behaviors are endangering a potential fetus? If a woman denied the man to be the father, could he require a fetal paternity test to establish his legal rights?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

[scaeagles]

But Clinton, but Ginsberg, but Clinton, but Ginsberg...

Are conservatives borrowing Dubya's echo chamber?

:D

I don't think that the most recent nominations to the court are irrelevant to the current confirmation process at all.

[scaeagles]

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well.
Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink?

Making my point for me? Since the man has no control over how the woman treats the child she's carrying, which could be abusive, why should he be expected to bear the increased financial burden of caring for an ill child because the woman was irresponsibile?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision. Yes, I realize he participated in getting her pregnant, but so did she (of course, so no one jumps on me, this excludes rape).

[wendybeth]

I believe that might be considered an extreme example. I don't know the complete statistics regarding abortions performed in the country, but I don't think anywhere close to a decent percentage are due to rape.

I could be mistaken - like I said, I don't know the numbers.

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.

I didn't think so.

Fine. I'll agree with your deal if you agree to mine: no bitching about Welfare or any of the programs that will be needed to help these women take care of these babies, especially since males will be off the hook for paying child support. ( House votes to cut programs (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/congress.budgetcuts.ap/index.html) ).

[€uroMeinke]

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision.

I can see your point, and wouldn't object if the laws changed to reflect this position, but I can also see how the economic consequences might be used as another deterent to what's generally viewed as "immoral" behavior (added to the list of accidental pregnancy, disease, or aquiring a psycho-stalker).

I'm curious if you'd make the same argument for a married couple - Should a husband be allowed to withold finacial support of a child he didn't want with his wife - what would that situation look like? Or would the presumption be, divorce would be result of this situation?

[Gemini Cricket]

I don't think that the most recent nominations to the court are irrelevant to the current confirmation process at all.
Not irrelevant but easy to dismiss when someone argues that Clinton is to blame for everything this administration does wrong.

[wendybeth]

Perhaps only rapists should be forced to pay child support?

Scaeagles, there are lots of instances where birth control is used, and it fails. Why should the woman be the only one who pays? I guess because that's how it's alway been, eh?

[Not Afraid]

I guess the matter of choice goes like this.....when man chooses to have sex, little cash registers should go off in his head at that time, if he doesn't mind the sound and the implication, then he can continue. If he does mind, then he should probably switch to masturbation.

[Name]

Make something illegal, and it is only going to drive it underground..... while morally, it would probably be better to include all partners in the decision making process of such things as abortion, however reality is that it just isn't going to happen except in a perfect world. Make something illegal, and those that think that the money is more important then following the law will continue to perform the procedures, probably with a lot more risk to all...

To think that we ever have control of another person, and what they will or will not do is, in my opinion, an absurd idea.

[scaeagles]

Not irrelevant but easy to dismiss when someone argues that Clinton is to blame for everything this administration does wrong.

Is that something I have done here?

[scaeagles]

Scaeagles, there are lots of instances where birth control is used, and it fails. Why should the woman be the only one who pays? I guess because that's how it's alway been, eh?

Why should the woman be the only one with a say about if the child is born?

[€uroMeinke]

To think that we ever have control of another person, and what they will or will not do is, in my opinion, an absurd idea.

I certainly agree with you - but isn't that what laws are all about? Creating consequences intended to control our behavior? Of course, we always can decide to take those consequences.

[wendybeth]

Why should the woman be the only one with a say about if the child is born?


Because she'll be the one raising them.

[scaeagles]

I'm curious if you'd make the same argument for a married couple - Should a husband be allowed to withold finacial support of a child he didn't want with his wife - what would that situation look like? Or would the presumption be, divorce would be result of this situation?

Hmmm....I haven't much thought about it. An interesting conundrum that I will have to consider.

My first thought is that a marriage is a contract, of sorts, in the law. Upon divorce, the assets are split up by a court because there has been a legal agreement entered into. This, I suppose, then changes the situaiton a bit. In marriage, there is a legal agreement, and therefore a larger degree of responsibility on the part of the male.

I do need to think about that a bit more.

[Name]

I certainly agree with you - but isn't that what laws are all about? Creating consequences intended to control our behavior? Of course, we always can decide to take those consequences.exactly, we can, and do, choose to take the consequences of whether we want to follow the law. Its a social contract, you either agree with the law, and follow it, or you don't and either get away with it, or pay the consequences. Making things illegal, have never stopped those activities, they have only created criminals.

[Not Afraid]

You know, I just have to say that I love the way we tend to discuss things here. There is a lot of thoughtful, open discussion with different options being presented for consideration. I llove you guys!

[Name]

In marriage, there is a legal agreement, and therefore a larger degree of responsibility on the part of the male.huh??? how is there a difference in the level of responsibility in a legal agreement between the sexes?? Or did I read it wrong??

[scaeagles]

huh??? how is there a difference in the level of responsibility in a legal agreement between the sexes?? Or did I read it wrong??

I wasn't very clear. What I mean is that since there is a legal agreement in a a marriage, the male has a larger responsibility than if there was no legal agreement - as in there is no marriage. I did not mean that the male has more responsibility than the female.

[Name]

I wasn't very clear. What I mean is that since there is a legal agreement in a a marriage, the male has a larger responsibility than if there was no legal agreement - as in there is no marriage. I did not mean that the male has more responsibility than the female.ahh, ok, then I can agree with that.... figured if I read it wrong, someone else probably did too....

[scaeagles]

I guess the matter of choice goes like this.....when man chooses to have sex, little cash registers should go off in his head at that time, if he doesn't mind the sound and the implication, then he can continue. If he does mind, then he should probably switch to masturbation.

Yes. I agree. But shouldn't the woman be hearing the pitter patter of little feet or the cash register as well? Except that she can choose to abort if she is irresponsible (or b.c fails) and the man cannot. The man has no say.

[Alex]

I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.

Because the right to financial support attaches to the child. It is not the right of the adults to decide whether they wish to assume this responsibility. For the most part, it is impossible for biological parents to sever financial responsibility regardless of the means, methods, or machinations involved in producing said child unless they can first provide a surrogate for that responsibility (generally through adoption). This right of support attached to the child is so strong that even non-biological caretakers can become ensnared in it (for example, if you raise a child as your own for 10 years and then learn that the milkman was actually the father you'll likely still be on the financial hook for raising the child; though the milkman will now be on the hook as well).

Personally, I am in favor of requiring spousal notification just as I am for requiring parental nofication if the woman in question is a non-emancipated minor. It is important that in both cases there be a means for showing cause for exception. In no situation should anybody be forced to have an abortion or to carry a baby to term against their wishes.

It is easy to say "if you're a man, think of the dollar signs before sticking your ding-a-ling in any hoochies." Turning it around, it is just as appropriate to say that if you're a woman, and you're about to let your hoo-hah feel the exquisite pain of someone's love muscle but you don't think you could discuss an eventual abortion with them, you might want to close your legs.

As an aside, in the case of a test tube baby, where there is no "my body, my decision" issue should both parents be required to agree on termination? I have no idea what is actually required now for such.

[Prudence]

I'd like to go down a different avenue -- scaeagles mentioned earlier that he wouldn't object to abortion to save the life of the mother. Who would get to make that assessment? Would death have to be certain? What if death were 90% certain? Or 20% certain? What if the woman's doctor said it was an 80% risk of death but another doctor said it was only a 15% risk? And isn't there always some small risk? If so, then to effect a ban wouldn't that require drawing a line in the sand? 50%? And isn't one of the criticisms of medical malpractice cases that you can always find a medical expert to support one side or the other? What if she wouldn't die, but would suffer certain, permanent, and drastically debilitating injury? What if the pregnancy wouldn't kill her, but the chemotherapy she needs to stop the spread of cancer would terminate the pregnancy? Should she be required to wait? And in any of these cases, should the spouse's permission still be granted? Should spouses be put in the position of choosing their wife or their potential child?

Anyhow, that's a big laundry list of reasons I don't like the abortion debate becoming the focus of judicial nomination sessions. And why is it the focus? Because each side is just chomping at the bit to get the issue back into court. Any case. Doesn't matter which one -- each side wants "their representatives" in place so they can appeal the next possible case up the ladder. You want to talk about judicial activism -- *that's* judicial activism -- manupulating the courts into taking cases that promote a particular philosophy. And don't get me wrong -- both sides are equally culpable in this particular mess.

And frankly, I think this question doesn't belong in the courts at all, much less over and over as it has in much of recent history. My personal view? On the one hand, I *don't* think that a woman should have unilateral authority to terminate conception, any more than I think a woman should have total financial responsibility for the results of conception. I don't think it's "fair."

On the other hand, I don't know how to answer the questions I asked above. I don't anticipate, without miraculous developments in medical science, that I will ever have answers to those questions. I don't think it's my business to answer those questions. I hope and pray that I am never in a situation where I have to answer those questions, either for myself or someone else. If I ever do have to answer those questions for myself, I hope and pray that I will be permitted to do so.

I haven't found a way to be "fair" and still address my laundry list of questions. I haven't heard a solution from anyone else, either -- not from pundits, senators, special interest group spokesflunkies, or judicial candidates. And I wish this debate would step out of the spotlight already. I don't doubt that the newest nominee is fully qualified. (Although seriously, can one Supreme Court handle more than one "Scalia"?) But I hate the feeling that what makes him *most* qualified, from the conservative side, is his alleged stance on abortion. I hate feeling like the qualification checklist has, instead of professional accomplishments, little boxes next to terms like "affirmative action," "gay rights," "death penalty" -- with the AG in the wings ready to pounce as soon as all the pawns are in place. I hate feeling like the "independent judiciary" is a myth, and that the supreme court is like any other executive branch appointment, responding to that particular President and his (or her) whims -- only the appointees are for life.

But possibly this is all because I'm sick and cranky.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bra that needs burning and a social order to overthrow.

[wendybeth]

Need a match, Prudence?

:snap:Great post!:snap:

[scaeagles]

Because the right to financial support attaches to the child.

True. But if there is an abortion, there is no child. The woman is the sole decision maker as to whether or not to give birth or abort. Therefore, she is the one who is directly responsible for the child being there. After all, prior to abortion, it's just an unviable tissue mass, right? So getting rid of it is no big deal.

As a reminder, my arguments are solely rhetorical. I do not regard the unborn fetus as an unviable tissue mass, nor do I think that the contributin male should have no responsibility.

[tracilicious]

And what is it that makes him so extreme that a filibuster would be required?

I am personally very excited about this pick. While I don't know a ton about him, he is often referred to as "Scalia-lite" or "ScAlito", but with a more low key temperament than the brilliant (whether you agree with him or not) Scalia.

My guess is that he will perform as well as Roberts in hearings and will make the inquisitors on the judiciary committee, once again, look like the mental midgets that they are.


This is where we find out that the "sca" in Scaeagles actually stands for Scalito and he will now be moving to DC, to be the first Swanky SC Justice. :evil:

[Name]

True. But if there is an abortion, there is no child. The woman is the sole decision maker as to whether or not to give birth or abort. Therefore, she is the one who is directly responsible for the child being there. After all, prior to abortion, it's just an unviable tissue mass, right? So getting rid of it is no big deal.

As a reminder, my arguments are solely rhetorical. I do not regard the unborn fetus as an unviable tissue mass, nor do I think that the contributin male should have no responsibility.
Why of course we men should have no responsibility.... after all, we shoot out millions of the little swimming guys undiscriminately with every ejaculation experience.... One may be able to argue that such disregard is reckless abandonment......

[scaeagles]

after all, we shoot out millions of the little swimming guys undiscriminately

Which reminds me of the classic -

What do lawyers and sperm have in common?

Each has about a one in a million shot of becoming human. (ba-da bum)

[Prudence]

I would like to state, for the record, that seeing the terms "hoo-hah" and "love muscle" in a post from Alex has officially made my day.

[scaeagles]

This is where we find out that the "sca" in Scaeagles actually stands for Scalito and he will now be moving to DC, to be the first Swanky SC Justice. :evil:

I have my sights set higher - nothing short being the supreme ruler of the world will suffice.

[Prudence]

Why of course we men should have no responsibility.... after all, we shoot out millions of the little swimming guys undiscriminately with every ejaculation experience.... One may be able to argue that such disregard is reckless abandonment......

wendybeth -- isn't this your cue?

[scaeagles]

I would like to state, for the record, that seeing the terms "hoo-hah" and "love muscle" in a post from Alex has officially made my day.

I read on Amazon that he is now authoring Harlequinn romance novels.

[Alex]

But my point scaeagles is that you are conflating separate issues:

1) The right of a woman to control her own body.
2) Financial responsibility for offspring.

You said:

I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.

My, I'd like to think logical, response is that just because the former can impact the need for the latter does negate the independent existence of the latter. But I also fail to see how showing that you would be burdened if the baby is carried to term would give you the right to insist on being so burdened.

I too think life begins at conception. I just don't think that life gains the rights of a human being until quite a bit later in the process and until they turn 21 they slowly accrue them.

Another side question, if the issue for the pro-choice side is, at root, the right of a woman to control her own body, what should be done if technology were created to allow removal and ex utero development at any stage of pregnancy. Sex would still bring with it the emotional and financial risk of parenthood for the mother (as it currently does for the father) but not the bodily risk or change of carrying a baby to term.

[wendybeth]

wendybeth -- isn't this your cue?


Thank you, Prudence.

(Ahem...)

Title: Every Sperm Is Sacred
From: Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
Transcribed By: unknown


There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
there are Hindus and Mormons and then
there are those that follow Mohammed -but-
I've never been one of them.
I am a Roman Catholic
and have been since before I was born,
and the one thing they say about Catholics is
they'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on, you're
a Catholic the moment dad came
...Because...
Every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate. (2x)
Let the heathens spill theirs,
on the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted,
every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed,
in your neighborhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
spill theirs just anywhere
but God loves those who treat their
semen with more care.
(misc choruses)
Every sperm is useful,
every sperm is fine.
God needs everybodies,
mine, and mine, and mine.
Let the pagans spill theirs
on mountain hill and plain.
God shall strike them down for
each sperm that's spilled in vain.
(misc. choruses and finale)

[Alex]

Per the other thread, I've stated that judgement is generally a personal thing.

Therefore I will not comment on the quoting of Monty Python.

[wendybeth]

Per the other thread, I've stated that judgement is generally a personal thing.

Therefore I will not comment on the quoting of Monty Python.

Oh, so you're a picture type of guy?

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/life/i-2-spm2.jpg

[Alex]

Sure, especially since I have no idea what that is a picture of.

[SacTown Chronic]

It's a picture of a class-action lawsuit aimed at an incompetent abortion doctor.

[wendybeth]

Sure, especially since I have no idea what that is a picture of.

A Catholic's man rather large brood.

[Alex]

It's a picture of a class-action lawsuit aimed at an incompetent abortion doctor.

Well, that explains the forcep scars on each of their foreheads.

[Name]

Thank you, Prudence.

(Ahem...)

Title: Every Sperm Is Sacred
From: Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
Transcribed By: unknown


There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
there are Hindus and Mormons and then
there are those that follow Mohammed -but-
I've never been one of them.
I am a Roman Catholic
and have been since before I was born,
and the one thing they say about Catholics is
they'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on, you're
a Catholic the moment dad came
...Because...
Every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate. (2x)
Let the heathens spill theirs,
on the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted,
every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed,
in your neighborhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
spill theirs just anywhere
but God loves those who treat their
semen with more care.
(misc choruses)
Every sperm is useful,
every sperm is fine.
God needs everybodies,
mine, and mine, and mine.
Let the pagans spill theirs
on mountain hill and plain.
God shall strike them down for
each sperm that's spilled in vain.
(misc. choruses and finale)

hee hee hee

[scaeagles]

But my point scaeagles is that you are conflating separate issues:

1) The right of a woman to control her own body.
2) Financial responsibility for offspring.

My, I'd like to think logical, response is that just because the former can impact the need for the latter does negate the independent existence of the latter.

I do not see them as separate whatsoever.

IF the item growing inside her is an unviable tissue mass, and IF she can remove it at her discretion and no one elses, or allow it to grow and be born at her discretion and no one elses, then it is her responsibility alone. She made the decision to bring it into the world.

No birth, no offspring. The birth is the complete decision of the woman. The man has no legal standing in making a determination as to if the tissue will be permitted to grow and be born.

edited: deleted a really poor analogy.

[Alex]

Put another way, conflating what I see as two issues is the same logic that results in laws requiring people to wear helmets and seatbelts. Or laws that outlaw smoking, or laws that limit personal choices due the costs those choices can cause to others (i.e., since if you don't wear a helmet it increases the chances that you'll end up in ICU on the public's dime, we collectively gain the right to force you to wear a helmet or face punishment).

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that on most such issues, you would take the position that either this is the cross to bear when allowing personal freedoms. Besides, you didn't ask for a logical argument that you would agree with, just a logical argument. Disagreements with my initial axiom does not render the resulting points illogical.

Your point would not argue that the father should be required to approve an abortion but rather that the father should be more easily able to sever parental responsibility for a child. That is not an abortion issue but rather simple social poilcy.

You have not shown how being financially impacted by the absense of abortion gives a right to prohibit the abortion (it is kind of like saying "since you not wearing a motorcycle helmet could cost me money, I have the right to require that you not wear a motorcycle helmet). If this financial burden creates a right to involvement in abortion decisions, at most it would give the right to require an abortion (that is, a right to avoid enburdenment, but not a right to be enburdened).

So, in conclusion gentleman of the jury, I think I have given a logical argument for why abortion decisions can ultimately reside solely with the woman without simultaneously diminishing the male responsibility for support. In response I think you have given a logical argument for why either family responsibility should be weakened (alloweing easier severance of paternal responsibility) or male projenitors should be able to force abortion on unwilling women.

Arguing that there exists a fetal right to life that trumps a woman's right to bodily control is yet another separate argument, which also has no bearing on the father's burden to support. It is also an argument at the point of axiom and axioms can not be proven within the framework of the argument but only assumed to establish a framework. In other words, there is no way to empiricly prove when a fetus gains rights that trump other rights, we each have to decide where we will assume that line is (conception, first trimester, second trimester, birth, weaning, proof of lack of serious defect, etc.). Rational people can easily reach different conclusions.

And that is why the legality of abortion should not be a judicial matter, but a legislative one (and that is why Roe v. Wade was wrong, not because of the conclusion it reached but because it wasn't a conclusion that the judiciary should be reaching).

So long winded I am today.

[Gemini Cricket]

I thought this was funny:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/alitofam.gif
The family of Judge Samuel Alito, daughter Laura (L),
son Philip (C) and wife Martha (R), stand underneath a
portrait of former president Bill Clinton as they watch
President Bush nominate Alito to the Supreme Court in
the White House, October 31, 2005. (Reuters)

[scaeagles]

More info:

Source (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13041264.htm)
Her husband's permission?!
:rolleyes:

I've looked into this a bit.

Actually, what his opinion was was that there was no constitutional prohibition to a law that required such. I beleive the way the article was written was done in such a way as to make it sound as if he supported such a law. His opinion says nothing about whether he thinks it is a good idea or not. He ruled on the constitutionality of the law, which is what I suppose he is supposed to do.

Here is the opinion in question:
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1764#comment-62642
It is extraordinarily lengthy.

I am wondering if anyone knows what the case was all about.

The spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions (like can't find the hubby, he might beat her up, etc.).

The key quote from his decision, I beleive, is the following -
"Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."

So, this is far from how it is being portrayed by some. In no way did Alito support a law requiring a woman to to get a husbands permission for an abortion. It is notification and notification only. Reading his opinion (while long and tedious, most certainly), I saw nothing even close to unreasoned or inflamatory.

[scaeagles]

I thought this was funny

Maybe Clinton is the father?

(it's a joke - relax - not intended to impune Mrs. Alito, but to poke at Clinton's playboy image.)

[Gemini Cricket]

Maybe Clinton is the father?

(it's a joke - relax - not intended to impune Mrs. Alito, but to poke at Clinton's playboy image.)
lol! :D

[wendybeth]

Maybe Clinton is the father?

(it's a joke - relax - not intended to impune Mrs. Alito, but to poke at Clinton's playboy image.)

You know, the tall kid does look a bit like him....

[scaeagles]

Just as a follow up on the abortion/Alito issue, I found this to be very interesting. Alito has had the opportunity to rule on four abortion cases, and ruled with the pro-choice side on three of them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html

Now, it was widely publicized how Alito's mom said in an interview that "of course he opposes abortion." So even though he opposes it personally, it appears as if he puts those feelings aside and rules on the law and constitutional issues.

This is a far cry from the spin (which I posted on earlier to show that what was being publicized was certainly not the truth) that he is a pro-life extremist who voted to require women to get permission from their husbands to get an abortion.

This is exactly what judges are supposed to do - put personal feelings aside and rule on the law and the constitutionality thereof. While I am pro-life, I am encouraged by these rulings because it shows what type of justice he will be.

[wendybeth]

That is encouraging- I think the whole abortion issue has become a political red herring, but it seems that he has a good record (from what I've read so far) on adjudicating. Kudos to you for quoting from a good journalistic source there, Scaeagles!

[scaeagles]

Kudos to you for quoting from a good journalistic source there, Scaeagles!

Would this be an implication that I typically get information from sources that you do not consider reliable? I am shocked, WB! Shocked, I say!

[wendybeth]

Would this be an implication that I typically get information from sources that you do not consider reliable? I am shocked, WB! Shocked, I say!

Not half as shocked as I was to see the source of your story.;)

[Alex]

Well, I don't think it was quite that telling.

The 2000 case, if you read his decision does not really take a position on the law it simply says "The Supreme Court just ruled on an essentially identical case so our opinion is irrelevant." This happened to be on the pro-choice side. There was an opinion issued that actually ruled in favor of the pro-choice side for legal reasons and Alito refused to sign that, instead issuing his non-opinion opinion.

The 1995 case was not really a ruling on abortion but rather a victim's rights case (can criminal victims be required to report the fact) that just happened into involve abortion. To say that a rape victim can not be forced to identify the rapist is not a pro-abortion stance.

So he has two more clear-cut abortion decisions and came down on opposite sides.

[scaeagles]

Alex, while I can agree with you on the 1995 case, the 2000 case shows respect for precedent regardless of personal beliefs that abortion is wrong. It would have been possible and even completely within his judicial boundaries to rule differently in hopes the case would go the SC and they would rule differently.

[jdramj]

I thought this was funny:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/alitofam.gif
The family of Judge Samuel Alito, daughter Laura (L),
son Philip (C) and wife Martha (R), stand underneath a
portrait of former president Bill Clinton as they watch
President Bush nominate Alito to the Supreme Court in
the White House, October 31, 2005. (Reuters)


I was wondering what Clinton was doing to Alito's son to make him make that face :eek:

just kidding (I know it is just a portrait)! hehehehe

[jdramj]

Alex, while I can agree with you on the 1995 case, the 2000 case shows respect for precedent regardless of personal beliefs that abortion is wrong. It would have been possible and even completely within his judicial boundaries to rule differently in hopes the case would go the SC and they would rule differently.


I am in complete agreement here with scaeagles here (shocking I know). I think he has shown great restraint in setting aside his personal beliefs. I would much rather have a candidate with this type of track record than no record at all or one that totally supports his or her own personal cause to the point that the law is theirs for the changing, which ever way their political view point swings.

[Prudence]

A side note unrelated to any individual nominee or current justice: someone pointed out to me that all the current justices and the current nominee (and the two who have just left) were educated in the Ivy League schools of the northeast. Now, I haven't independently verified this claim against individual CVs, so it's merely an allegation. Assuming it's true, the contention was that this shows a lack of educational diversity. I could understand a focus on elite schools, but heck, no Stanford? There are other top law schools outside the Ivy League. Wouldn't a range of educational backgrounds or environments better represent a diverse nation?

Just a thought. It was getting way too lovey-dovey in here, all this agreeing and crap.

[scaeagles]

I am in complete agreement here with scaeagles here (shocking I know).

Why is it that whenever anyone agrees with me they need to include a disclaimer about how it is so unusual to do so?????? :)

[scaeagles]

Wouldn't a range of educational backgrounds or environments better represent a diverse nation?

Interpretation of the Constitution should have nothing to do with diversity. The Constitution is the Constitution and where one was educated (assuming it was a school/schools that is/are respected - don't really need a nominee with a mail order degree) should not make a difference.

[Alex]

I disagree scaeagles. It isn't like the Supreme Court had rules on a simliar case five years ago and he could dissent hoping that something had changed.

The Supreme Court ruled on essentially an identical case in between the time his court started writing its opinion and when the opinion was issued. There was no way he could have ruled other than he did without completely rebuffing the supreme court.

But regardless, at no point in that case did he rule on the merits and it certainly gives no indication of how he would have ruled if he had been on the Supreme Court rather than a lower court.

I don't think a refusal to bluntly say "**** you" to the Supreme Court shows much restraint.

[Prudence]

Interpretation of the Constitution should have nothing to do with diversity. The Constitution is the Constitution and where one was educated (assuming it was a school/schools that is/are respected - don't really need a nominee with a mail order degree) should not make a difference.

I disagree. Interpretation isn't done in a vacuum. If there was one magic answer, we wouldn't need a panel of 9. Heck, we wouldn't need a panel at all. Life experiences color our reasoning process. All schools have a certain character to them and that's bound to rub off on students, at least a little bit. East coast and west coast social environments are very different, and while education on both coasts might be substantively equivalent, my own experience meeting people from the other coast tells me that there are differences. (My dad likes to use the phrase "subtle but significant.") Aren't some political candidates criticised for being too "blue blood" and therefore insufficiently representative of the nation as a whole? Do we want a blue blood court.

Or, to put it another way, do you really think the school doesn't matter? Or if someone from a well-respected -- but not Ivy League -- school was nominated, would you think a little less of their academic preparation?

Eh, what do I really care. I'm just bitter today.

[Alex]

To me, the school that a Supreme Court nominee goes to is not all that important in evaluating them for the Supreme Court any more than I care what school the presidential or congressional candidates went to. (Or when doing my own hiring what school the applicants went to unless they are applying straight out of school).

By the time somone is nominated for the Supreme Court they are at least a quarter century (and potentially much longer) removed from their schooling. What has happened in between dwarfs the importance of the school to near insignificance.

And the fact that Ginsburg and Scalia both came from the same narrow category of school would tend to argue against that being a stifling factor. To the degree it is significant I think it shows how going to an Ivy League school puts you in range of contacts that eases the slide toward prominence.

[Stan4dSteph]

As far as schools, not all the justices went to Ivy League schools. Several have Stanford affiliations, for their undergrad or grad degrees.

[Not Afraid]

I so love that avatar. It makes me think everything you say is shocking.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Dragging this back up, now that the deed is done. Sigh.

By way of picking up the somewhat controvertial stance I took earlier, saying essentially that, since I disagree with the way Alito interprets the Constitution, I think he's unqualified and would vote against him, I've got an analogy for y'all to chew on.

Michael Eisner.

Michael Eisner is an eminently qualified CEO. He held high positions at a successful tv network and a movie studio. He helped save one of the most recognizeable companies from the brink of ruin, with strong financial growth through his entire 2 decades at the helm. Even amidst the controversy, on paper and from an investor's perspective, Eisner was a successful and experienced CEO. He is by all account an ethical man, and seemingly even friendly, in a "I'm so rich I've lost touch with reality" kind of way.

So with all that, but with what you know about the way he interperets how Disney should be run, would you cast a vote that says "Yes, this man is qualified to run Disney"?

[scaeagles]

I found the politics of this to be interesting. Those on the left with aspirations of the democratic nod for President in 08 were put in a position of having to support a failed filibuster. Kerry called for it, and so Clinton had to go along with it to have the support of the left in primaries. No support of filibuster, no support of the left wingers in primaries. I believe it was also an effort to stall confirmation until after the SOTU to prevent Alito from being seated with the SCOTUS.

But, back to the issue at hand.....I couldn't be happier the man was confirmed.

GD....interesting analogy. What would the board have done then? All you can do is look at the qualifications of the individual. No one has a crystal ball (example: David Souter, the worst justice on the court, IMO).

Would you consider Scalia unqualified? The man is brilliant, though if you disagree with Alito, I would guess you disagree with Scalia's take on the Constitution.

What scares me about your view point is that you dismiss intelligent people who disagree with you. I disagree with Ginsburg in just about every way, but she is intelligent and qualified. To dismiss intelligent people who disagree with you is to eliminate debate. I find that disturbing.

[Gemini Cricket]

I don't think the filibuster attempt was a total failure. It didn't suceed, but it sent a strong message to Bush that there are many who disagree with his choice. In that regard, I'm glad it was done. I'd be even happier if it worked, but oh well.

[scaeagles]

Politically speaking, an attempt to filibuster that garners only 25 votes of support is a failure.

There was no attempt to send a message to Bush. Bush doesn't know there are people of the left who oppose him???? It was an attempt by the dems who want to be nominated for President to their left leaning supporters.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yes, the attempt was symbolic. I'd rather them do this than do nothing or say nothing.

I think the Democrats should make their voice heard to the president whenever they get a chance. The man's in his own world. They need to speak louder, it's hard to hear when you live in a bubble.

The vote for Alito is a vote against our privacy and a woman's right to choose. I even doubt his stance on civil rights issues...

Our Supreme Court Justices need to support our Constitution and not make decisions based on religious ideology, partisan politics and allegiances with high powered politicians. ie. Duck hunting, anyone?

[Ghoulish Delight]

GD....interesting analogy. What would the board have done then? All you can do is look at the qualifications of the individual. No one has a crystal ball (example: David Souter, the worst justice on the court, IMO). Perhaps my final question should have better been, "Having left Disney and applying for the CEO postition of your entertainment company, would you vote to approve him." There's no crystal ball necessary, we know Alito's track record.

To dismiss intelligent people who disagree with you is to eliminate debate. I find that disturbing.
But that's why 99 other people vote. That's where the debate is. What disturbs me is the Republicans saying that Dean was "politicking" by encouraging others to vote the way he was voting. Umm, isn't that the point of the Senate debates? Aren't the Senators obligated to vote the way they feel is right and attempt to convince others of the same?

As an individual, were my vote to count, I could not in good conscience vote for someone who's interpretation of the Constitution is so fundamentally different from mine. I'm not talking about a case or two, or a disagreement on a phrase here and there. I'm talking about a complete disconnect between how I think the document should be applied and how they do.

[scaeagles]

There's no crystal ball necessary, we know Alito's track record.

Yes. We do. And I guess we view it differently.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes. We do. And I guess we view it differently.Yup. You love Eisner. I love Disney. I'm glad we've come that that understanding. ;)

[scaeagles]

Yup. You love Eisner. I love Disney. I'm glad we've come that that understanding. ;)

Hmmm....once again, you have proven your ability to misinterpret what's right before you.:)

[SacTown Chronic]

I'm tickled pink at his confirmation.

Maybe now all these uppity American women will be put in their place -- we know what's best for their bodies. Better recognize, beyotch.

And that ass kicker GWB will now have all the presidential power he could want. I cannot think of another person in American history who is more qualified to handle unchecked power. Just look at his life's work! He succeeds even when he fails. Baddass to the max, baby!

Fvcking A!

I'm so excited I think I'll go down to the 7-11 and beat the **** out of the slurpee Indian behind the counter. Terrorist sympathizer ain't fooling anybody with his reasonably priced snacks and cold beer. He loves America so much, why he selling Citgo gas in his parking lot? Feeding our addiction to foreign oil, that's what! (And anybody who has the nerve to point out that if it wasn't for big oil, Barbara Bush would have been forced to suck dick to come up with the money to pay the Bush family mortgage is just a hater)

God (not Allah, you mother****er) bless the USA!!!!

[scaeagles]

Having a bad day, Sac?

[Alex]

It depends on what the alternatives were but if presented with the opportunity to hire Eisner to run my entertainment conglomerate I'd be heavily inclined to do so.

I don't support Alito's political views on many issues but can't think of a good reason to oppose his appointment. Heck, one of the architects of the Japanese internment during World War II and a strick law-and-order man was appointed chief justice by a Republican and immediately produced Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda, and a slew of decisions viewed as the most liberal (and activist) in the court's history.

I've said before that while I support access to abortion I don't support Roe v. Wade and think the federal and state legislatures are the appropriate venue for settling the issue so I'm not particularly bothered by the thought of Wade being overtly overturned, though I do think it unlikely that it will be.

I am concerned about overly broad interpretation of executive power but I also think that executive power has been overbroad since FDR and during time of war since the very beginning (the major concern here is that war is currently being defined in a way that makes it perpetual not periodic).

[innerSpaceman]

Nail on head there. The Court may rule that the president has unlimited power in wartime, and the President may declare that wartime is permanent. Dictatorship achieved in 5 easy steps.

[The Shadoe]

It looks like Alito has split with Conservatives on his first day: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGN8509.html