Alito

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

More info:

Source
Her husband's permission?!

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

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

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

^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.

[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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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.

[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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.