“Judge,” Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said to U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Monday, “this may be one of the most significant or consequential nominations that the Senate will vote on since I’ve been here in the last three decades.” Biden may be correct, given the likelihood that the high court will tip to the right if Alito is confirmed. But other than partisans on the right and left edges, there seems to be little public interest in the Senate hearings. Maybe most people are like me, and think that the bickering is mostly political theater. And barring some unforeseen revelation, we already know how this play will end: Alito will be confirmed.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
81 Comments
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is the worst possible thing which could happen to America besides George W. Bush.
Abortions will still happen only the tool will be coat-hangers instead of doctors. There will still be doctors who will brave the task, but they will wind-up in jail.
If “life” begins in a petre-dish then why is your date of birth the standard for everything to do with your chronological age?
Presidential powers with become dictatorial and the constitution will become just that G-d piece of paper, as Bush seems to think it is, with this self-styled Nazi on the SCOTUS.
Why else would Bush pick him? Or worse yet, the puppeteers who pull Bush’s strings?
Democrats need to filibuster the Alito nomination and stop Karl Rove and his gang from capturing the Supreme Court. As a practical matter they now own the military and the White House.
Karl Rove has a declared war running against the People of the United States. Those members of congress still loyal to these United States need to take the fight back to that Nazi SOB, and his gang now lodged in the White House.
Like anybody really has the time to watch it. They only know the short clips they play on the Evening News.
Alito will be confirmed, by party vote most likely, but he will be our next Sepreme Court Justice.
I, for one, have been listening. The high point–or low point, depending on how you see it–has been Alito’s ‘the dog ate my homework’ inability to recall why he claimed to be a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an organization that opposed the admission of women and minorities to Princeton.
It was quite a performance. The fact that he’s still being taken seriously doesn’t speak well for the credibility of the Republican Party.
People who thumb their noses at the Judiciary Committee should be filibustered. This ought to happen. I think it could. Whether it will or not, we’ll see.
I think people seem not to care because they know that thanks to the christian taliban and the tyranny of the mindless majority, Alito is a slam dunk. The loyal opposition is dying, not with a bang but a wimper. Long live the king.
To the victor go the spoils. Freedom loving Americans are paying the price for Dems being unable to win elections. We elected these bastards, now we have to live with the consequenses.
I find myself agreeing with Grover about strangling and drowning the government. Especially if the R’s continue to control all three branches.
Hopefully the dems will try and filibuster. That will show the people exactly what empty pant loads they really are.
Imagine, answering questions about your character from Kennedy or Biden!
If you ever wonder why the Democrats can’t win election, because people like you leftist are a minority in this country. Better get use to it. You are way out of the mainstream.
Hey, we tried to warn you democrats that your party was marching steadfastly into the tar pits. If you people would let go of the gun issue, I’d be on your side.
CF
Alito was a member of the ROTC. Princeton was talking about booting the ROTC. One of the issues the the Concerned Alumni of Princeton was concerned with was keeping the ROTC. He paid dues.
Todd–
Republicans take your jobs but they let you keep your guns.
But seriously, I got a closet full of guns and I’m one of the most leftist post-ers on this blog.
Yes, Clinton signed an so-called “assault weapons ban” that split hairs over whether the rifle/weapon had a flash suppressor or not.
Probably didn’t have much effect on gun violence either way.
Because the Democrats are ever-so-slightly more inclined to regulate firearms than Republicans, you vote for the Bush crazies?
Ed–
I’ve got to disagree with you on the abortion issue.
The Republicans would lose a huge wedge issue if they criminalized abortion.
Their religious right base votes on this single issue more than any other. The catholics as well, who used to be soldily Democratic, have been brought into the Republican fold based on opposing “baby killing.”
Republicans can’t afford to actually DELIVER on their promise to criminalize abortion. What they do is to continue to make abortions much more difficult. They’ve already passed law after law regulating women who seek abortions–they have to endure a “waiting and counselling period,” the clinics are subject to harassing “inspections,” women under a certain age must seek consent from their parents, etc. etc.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult for women to find a legal abortion provider which is why so many come to Tiller’s clinic in Wichita.
Heckler,
Yes, indeed, that’s the spin being given on National Review, Captain’s Quarter, Hugh Hewitt, and elsewhere. I hear they all met with Ken Mehlman yesterday evening to get their talking points.
So, explain this to me: Alito says he CAN’T remember what was in his mind when he listed his membership in CAP, but if he COULD remember, it might have something to do with Princeton’s decision to disallow the ROTC from campus participation. To call this disingenous would be to do a disservice to disingenuousness itself.
I think the real reason for his membership in CAP was given in his opening statement:
“It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn’t help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.”
Alito didn’t like those dirty hippies and their cultural legacy. The way to express this, and the way for a child of immigrants to ingratiate himself with the WASP old money at Princeton, was to join the CAP.
The CAP, and its accompanying magazine, Prospect, appears to be one of those things that folks like Alito would hope to consign to the rat-holes of history. But it is really quite a watershed, particulalry because it was the venue for Dinesh D’Souza to begin his strident campus attack politics back in the 1980’s.
Here are a couple of clippings regarding a fracas at the magazine back in 1984 that ran in the NYT. Both of them refer to a story, written by D’Souza, that named a female Princeton freshman and discussed details of her sex life.
http://www.isthatlegal.org/images/cap3.pdf
http://www.isthatlegal.org/images/cap2.pdf
What’s interesting for our purposes, Heckler, is that these stories ran in the NYT in 1984, and garnered bad press for the CAP. But evidently, Alito was either unaware or unconcerned, because it was in the next year, 1985, that he listed his membership in CAP on a job application for the Reagan Administration.
The fact that he’s trying to backpedal now doesn’t testify positively to his integrity. Big time weasel.
Galahad,
Indeed–shooting guns is fun. Good times.
Ditto Galahad :) It is a requirement to live in western ks that you own guns. I think I own six right now, and I know how to use them.
I understand why you equate progressives with more gov, more taxes, etc. That is not universal. It is said that conservatives want the government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom, and liberals want the gov out of the bedroom and into the boardroom.
The difference is, despite what Taliban Terry says, what I do in my bedroom doesnt hurt or help you, but what you do in the boardroom certainly hurts me, my land, my water, my healthcare, etc.
I dont think conservatives want less tax. They just want someone else to pay them. Sooner or later, the debt comes due, and it can only be paid by more tax collection. And conservatives seem to want to keep deficit spending going. Why, so the next generation pays and not your generation? Give me a break on the less taxes mantra.
This is one progressive that doesnt want more government, given its current incompetence. I just want better government, or even good and fair and responsible government. Which party will give us that? Neither as far as I can tell.
Some of you would vote D if it werent for gun control…or abortion…or gay marriage…or whatever. I hear that as, “I would vote D if they were just the same as R.” Well hell, I’d vote R too if they were just like the D’s. I know you right wingers hate choice and are anti-choice, so you should love the next election between R and R lite.
Does it really matter what party you vote for if they have the same distain for good government?
Did Alito serve in the military? I thought that was a requirement on graduating after going through the ROTC program . . .
CF
You are expending way to much energy on Alito. He’s qualified, his judicial decisions are reasoned, and he will be confirmed.
The days of Democrats Borking conservatives are over, the American people have to many sources of information today, and they’ve seen the playbook, over and over and over.
The CAP business would make a difference if his judicial record reflected that type of mindset, but is doesnt. Game over.
“Some of you would vote D if it werent for gun control…or abortion…or gay marriage…or whatever. I hear that as, “I would vote D if they were just the same as R.” Well hell, I’d vote R too if they were just like the D’s. I know you right wingers hate choice and are anti-choice, so you should love the next election between R and R lite.”
Gun control is not in any way linked to the other issues you speak of. My unabridged right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Not a word is contained therein dealing with gay marriage or abortion (two issues I couldn’t care less about, BTW).
And Galahad – Your comments about Republicans taking jobs from us are quite ironic, considering who signed NAFTA and GATT into law.
Thank God we kept Bork out, thanks for reminding me.
If it were up to Bork, Nixon would still be in the White House running for a tenth term . . .
(see his involvement in Watergate)
CF Galahad ksfarmgrrl
Sorry for going off topic, but why don’t you all call The Governess and urge her to sign a Concealed Carry bill this year when it gets to her.
Todd–
“Unabridged right?” What’s an “unabridged right?”
Does the right to free speech protected by the first amendment mean that an exhibitionist can expose himself at a kindergarten?
Does the right to be “secure in our person and possessions” in the fourth amendment mean that suspected terrorists cannot be patted down for evidence?
There are no “unabridged” rights in The Constitution anymore than one can exercise total freedom in real life.
Galahad – How is my right to own whatever firearm I choose harmful to society as the other examples you give are? You are really reaching, my friend.
Heckler,
Getting a bit testy, aren’t we?
As long as there is still a Constitution, and as long as there are still hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alito’s candidacy needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb.
Moreover, listening to Kennedy’s questions right now in the hearings, something occurs to me: I receive alumni magazines from all the universities I’ve attended, and I read them. I also read the publications from the organizations of which I’ve been a member. By contrast, Alito admits to having paid dues to CAP, but claims not to have read any of the alumni publications? I don’t find this credible.
Qualifications aside, Heckler, do you believe in admitting perjurers to the Supreme Court?
Oh, and I don’t support concealed carry.
Bork or Clarence Thomas? Thomas is about as useful as a bag of rocks. If I had my choice, it would have been Bork. At least he has a modicum of intelligence. In my opinion, “Borking” Bork got Clarence Thomas. Wow!
CF
Again, his rulings don’t reflect the type of mindset you seem to be concerned about.
Unlike you when I get something in the mail from my alumni organization I pitch it without opening it. All they ever seem to want is money.
LOL Heckler, the last time I tried, the gov wasnt taking my calls. Go figure. And like Galahad, I support your right to own and carry guns, but I dont support concealed carry. I lived in Tx for 16 years. How did that law workout there?
If I recall correctly, one of the greatest judges to ever sit on the Supreme Court was nominated by a Republican President. It was thought that he would swing things toward the right, due to some of his past decisions. He died, and the one thing he wanted put on his tombstone was “I did my best.”
Anybody remember him? Who knows, Alito could turn out to be alright. Being a part of the last stand for justice in this land can change people in ways that can either make them great, or another Clarence Thomas.
Ooops, cf not galahad. Sorry.
ksfarmgrrl,
I read these blogs and don’t respond often. I agree about wanting a govt that is good fair and as equal as can be. One of my fears abotu progressive govt is the choice arguement. It all depends when you define teh choice. I see abortion and for me teh choice is not to have sex if you can’t support or don’t want a baby. Everyone knows birth control is not a hundred percent effective. I would even concede that there may be times when abortion is needed, unfortunately is being used more as a birth control method and lessa s a lifesaver for my taste.
Choice doesn’t mean easy. choise is just that choice. Sometimes the right choice is the hard. Many choices we have to make are for the betterment of society. Funding public education is a hard choice that is better for country, not allowing live sex shows as an exercise of freedom is a choice that is better for the country. Unfortunately those shows are being allowed in Oregon and i have a hard time seeing any good in that.I’m an independent who probably leans to the conservative side. This is because i beleieve that we need some limits on what we do for the betterment of our society. To me when we allow things on tv that can be detrimental to kids or basic cultural values it hurts society in the long run as it desensitizes us to what is right and wrong.
Make no mistake there is right and wrong people just don’t want to own uo to their mistakes and so we color it gray.
I hope we can a more civil discourse on these blogs and quit pointing fingers or throwing insults. Doesn’t help find solutions and it degrades evrybody here. Sorry for the long and many tangented rant
Just reread my post. sorry about the typing it sucks and I was in a hurry
I agree that the bickering is mostly kabuki theater stuff (i.e., think fundraising).
Have you read any of Thomas Friedmans’s stuff lately, esp. his “US foreign policy and ’tilt theory’” as applied to the Middle East?
Well, Friedman’s “tilt theory” applies to the US as well as it does to the Middle East. With Alito confirmed the USSC will definitely tilt right, and will very likely tilt right long enough to support the raising of at least one American generation.
Given Friedman’s theory as a truth, then maybe the US benefits most when the USSC is tilting to the right of voters. This is as opposed to what we’ve seen over the last generation: a USSC tilting to the left of voters.
At any rate, I agree: Alito is in.
flike,I have two questions. 1) How do you see the past generation USSC as left of voters? Polls consistently indicate that the majority of people are in favor of retaining a right to an abortion (they seem to want it used infrequently though, and that is where Repub’s come in). I assume you’re talking about some other area.
2) What is the anticipated benefit of having a USSC right of the voters? Fewer individual rights and more corporate rights do not seem like good ideas to me.
Thanks.
Scott, I am glad for your response, including the typing :)
I agree to some extent about your thoughts on choice. Choice is the hardest, not the easiest responsibility. I think that is why we hate choice in this country. We are too lazy to be responsible for our choices, so lets just make a law and let someone else make the choice. That way we are blameless and free to worry about the speck in our brother’s eye, right?
Choice is a high level way of being. Choice also requires information and education. Agreed about when choices are made regarding sex and abortion. (BTW, I dont know anyone who is pro abortion, but I do know pro choice people.) But teaching abstinance only without ALL relevent information doesnt allow for reasonable choice. It only invites rebellion.
When the government takes away my choices, it is telling me I am too stupid to make those choices. I dont mean to be insulting Scott, but I think Fox News is bad for children too. You dont hear me advocating to ban it. I think living with a drunk is bad for children too, but I am not calling for alcohol to be illegal. I think the hate espoused by Terry Fox and Fred Phelps is bad for children, but people have a right to follow their teachings, no matter how heinous I find them. In turn, I have a right not to listen or follow these nutcases.
Who gets to decide what is bad for children? Usually the parents, and with channel blockers, etc. you could just prevent chilren from watching. Parents can also prevent their children from attending sex shows, right? Or do you want to limit my choice because parents cant parent? Maybe we should take away their right to raise children since their parenting styles dont suit my “taste”. Should they have the choice to raise children if they rely on the law to control them and raise them?
You are entitled to your “taste”, but so am I. When something is banned, there is no choice. When something is allowed, like the sex shows you reference in Oregon, no matter what the law, you have the right to choose not to attend. But if you ban it, I dont have a right TO attend. Where did you get the moral authority to make that choice for me?
I do sincerely apologize if my comments offend you. However, I look at it as “calling a spade a bloody shovel”. It does make people uncomfortable when the truth is unvarnished.
I guess you could always choose to not read my posts. I will continue to choose to read yours though. I am not afraid of or offended by words that dont agree with mine. I might find them hysterically funny, but I am not going to say you have no right to speak your truth. Just respect the truth of my life as well.
Todd–we should really save the gun issue for another day, but do you think you have a constitutional right to own a nuclear bomb, a bazooka, a howitzer, or a grenade?
(Because after all, nuclear bombs don’t kill people, people kill people.)
If you don’t, then we’re basically on the same side . . .
Scott,As a volunteer at a local women’s clinic, I can tell you that very few women use abortion as a primary means of birth control. At $400 a pop, it’s way too expensive for that.While you are within your rights to have sex only when you want to reproduce, others have found other reasons to have it, and don’t intend to have lots of babies they can’t support. They use whatever birth control means their doctors recommend, and sometimes those means fail. Others are pregnant by choice, and for various reasons are told by their doctors that they must discontinue their pregnancy. Still others are victims of rape or molestation who were not sexually active, and weren’t using birth control. Some lost their jobs and/or medical coverage after becoming pregnant, and could no longer afford the delivery and all the attendant costs. Contrary to myth, most of the women who have abortions are married and already have children, and have the support of their husbands and family.Abortion, legal or illegal, whether you like it or not, has been a fact of life for thousands of years. Banning it solves nothing; it just drives it underground, where it can’t be properly regulated. I’m old enough to remember the times before Roe v. Wade, and we really don’t want to return to the days of coathangers and back-alley abortions that killed women and ruined lives.
Wow, good post, Jed.
Those who say that women “make a choice when they have sex” don’t understand that such a “choice” may not be entirely voluntary.
I think date rape happens a lot more than we’d like to think it does. Then there are women who’ve been abused, who have low self-esteem, who get more drunk than they should, who self-medicate with drugs for mental problems, run-aways with few resources easily preyed upon.
We cannot look into someone’s heart and background to determine their motivations and circumstances.
And finally, think of how many MEN would be having abortions if they could get pregnant. In fact, I’ll venture to say it wouldn’t even be an issue if men could get pregnant.
Ah ha, it turns out that Mr. ROTC did serve in the military . . .
He served the way Bush served, in the National Guard, which is kind of a funny place to go when you really, really believe in fighting communism hand to hand.
Another tough-talking Chickenhawk . . . where do they find these guys?
Ksfrmgrrl
Thanks for the reply. i guess I would say when do we make a choice not a choice. Seat Belt laws, gun restrictions, Helmet laws all take away choice. i don’t want govt taking all our choices away either but somewhere in there common sense and decency need to ring true. live sex shows would one for me. Parental notification for teenage abortion would be another. Its hard for me to believe one is a choice and the other is being taken away.
On FOX news we disagree. i believe it gives me a truer picture. I like Bill O’reilly because at least he will ask hard questions. Don’t always agree with him about 50 / 50 but i like how issues are presented
Jed,
1st off don’t be condescending, I wasn’t that way to you. i enjoy sex as much as the next person not just to reproduce.
2nd. I don’t necessarily want abortion outlawed but I would like it safe legal and rare. i just think everyone knows what can happen and yet are suprised when it does. Whether it is a human at conception as I believe or a mass of cells that becomes a child it still is just that, life that becmes a child.It say something about our country that we have such a cavalier attitude about a childs life or forming life. To me it still comes down to many times its inconvenient or it will make my life harder so I don’t want it.i think that is a sad commentary on teh human race in general. Sorry if that offends you wasn’t meant to, its just how I see it.
By far the most effective questions (and the creepiest answers) came from the exchanges between Leahy and Alito.
Alito has long endorsed the theory of the “unitary executive.” Here’s a political science’s professor’s description of (one part) of that, written in 2004:
http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/2004/09/unitary-executive.html.(There are long PDF files out there too–I’m being merciful).
“The unitary executive thesis rests upon the ‘Oath’ and the ‘Take Care’ clauses of Article II of the Constitution. In the first, the president upholds an oath to defend the Constitution, which has meant that a president is not obligated to defend or enforce sections of law that he determines, independently, violate the Constitution of the United States.”
Leahy tried to get Alito to answer, generally, if the president could unilaterally take actions which were in violation of the law. Alito responded that, no, he couldn’t, SO LONG AS THE LAW WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. Leahy immediately caught that, and asked Alito if he thought the President could, on his own, determine whether a law was constitutional. Alito didn’t answer. He eventually said “The Courts would have the last word”, but he never answered the question.
The “unitary executive” is nothing more that what was called “the imperial presidency” during the Nixon years. Whether secretly authorizing torture, detaining people forever with no due process, or determining illegal wiretapping to be legit (again in secret), Bush and his people plainly want no accountability and no oversight.
AND ALITO AGREES.
Leahy also nailed him on the issue of Doe vs. Groody (the warrantless strip search of a 10-year-old girl and her mother).
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024532p.pdf
The police submitted an affadavit requesting a search warrant for the home and all persons within the home. However, the warrant, as approved by the judge and sign by the same officer, named only the suspect (the father).
“[T]he face sheet specifically referred to the typed affidavit of probable cause attached to the warrant. But in answering the question ‘[s]pecific description of premises and/or persons to be searched,’ the attached typed affidavit was not mentioned. Rather, the form contained a typewritten entry naming only John Doe, giving his description, date of birth and social security number and identifying and describing John Doe’s residence.
The printed warrant and affidavit face sheet was signed by the same police officer and ‘issuing authority’ who had signed the underlying typed affidavit. ”
The majority opinion, by Judge Michael Chertoff (yes, that one), stated, not surprisingly, that the warrant did not authorize the searches–because it didn’t! Alito, incredibly, despite the fact that face sheet referred to the affavidit for probable cause purposes, but NOT as a list of who was to be searched, argued the they must have just screwed up: “It seems quite clear that the magistrate intended to authorize a search of all occupants of the premises. ” Alito gives no evidence for this conclusion, other than the argument of the police.
One of the chief reasons we have a Fourth Amendment in the first place was the “odious” practice of “general warrants,” where “the name of the citizen to be arrested was left blank. . .”
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=426108
Our resident “Dubya”’s rants may get tiresome, but “Dubya” is right: We are under the reign of King George III.
AND ALITO AGREES.
In Viet Nam:”We had to destroy the village to save it.”
Bush (who did not go to V.N.):”We have to destroy the Constitution to save it.”
Scott,Yes, it should be safe, legal and rare. The way to make it so is not by passing more and more restrictive laws, but by attacking the conditions that make it necessary, such as poverty, medical expenses and sexual inequality.How hard does it have to be before you cease to call it an inconvenience? Does it have to damage a woman’s health? Does it have to deprive the other children in a family of needed resources? Does it have to put an already struggling family deeper in debt? Does it have to ensure a life of poverty? Does it mean that a woman has to bear the child of her rapist or molester?The people who think they have the right to tell a woman what hardships she has to bear are not the people who have to bear them. They don’t know her particular set of circumstances, nor do they care to know. Their brand of morality doesn’t care about such things, only about what perceived biblical laws might be transgressed.If you want to solve the problem of abortion, you’ll have to start with root causes, not just pass laws or close clinics to make it harder to get. Until you are willing to address those issues, please shut the hell up!
Galahad, You’re assuming that W. is sane, and therefore might behave in a rational manner. He’s not and he won’t.
Karl Rove is a pseudo intellectual and not mentality balanced. Rove knows he has set a disastrous course, but he just doesn’t care.
Rove is acting-out anger, something he’s really not aware of, or where all this is going.
Forgot to mention Alito’s disingenuous non-sequitur: something that “We can’t argue that it’s never permissible to search a 10-year-old girl.” Leahy was outraged, but Alito’s answer didn’t have anything to do with his objections.
Scott: As long as pro-choicers are able to frame the debate in terms of how the right to an abortion affects the woman, they have the strongest arguments. Only when the unborn child as a human victim is emphasized, as it should, does the argument turn pro-life.
I don’t believe that abortion will ever be able to be eliminated, nor should it be. There are always those extra-ordinary circumstances that Jed mentioned . (Rape etc.. But it should be strongly restricted.
In too many cases, it is economic or convenience factors that are determining if a child lives or dies, and that is plain wrong. And Jed, don’t give me that lame argument about solving root causes. A human life should not be ballast that you can just toss overboard when times are tough.
I say this as an adoptive parent of a child who was to be aborted, but whose mother changed her mind at the last minute. She will be the first to tell you that was the best choice she ever made. As you can imagine, I am passionate about the subject, as the father of a precious one who I almost never got to hold.
Jed,
did i touch a nerve. Why do i have to shut up because you don’t agree with my opinion. Maybe its attitudes like that which keep us from solving the problem
I never said anything about passing more laws, I said its about making good decisions and working thru the tough ones. Family Planning, getting an education, are choices that can help one.
Now you said this so I’m going to address it. Is it better to have an abortion than grow up in poverty. I hope you don’t believe that because it seem to say that people can’t achieve because they are poor and I certainly don’t believe that.
I’ll ask you the question then. How do we deprive the prospective life its prospective opportunity?Maybe that life has something to teach us or by knowing it will make us better people.
I never brought morals into this, But what does it say about our society if we value prospective life so little that we won’t even consider that it shouldn’t be terminated unless under the direst of circumstances. Makes us a little less human and I feel for those people who have to make that decision
Scott,If it’s about good decisions, my daughter didn’t choose to be dragged into a van, beaten and raped and dumped naked on a country road. She did decide that she wasn’t about to bring another one of him into the world. That was the decision she was left with. If the antis had their way, she wouldn’t have had even that!I did not imply that poor people can’t achieve; I was commenting on the expense of raising a child, which is considerable, and often devastating to those who have children before they are financially and educationally prepared. If you don’t believe it, go listen to a few poor and single parent families.Some years ago, I met a 15 year-old girl with 1-1/2 year-old twin boys fathered by her stepfather. She lived on welfare, was not in school, and had no idea how to care for her children. As a result of improper nutrition and care, her children already suffered irreversable brain damage, and at that young age were doomed to institutionalization at best, and more likely far worse. As was she. Are you saying such a life is preferable to an abortion that would have allowed her to finish school and have a career before starting a family?As far as prospective life is concerned, with 6 billion of us and counting, I really don’t think we have too much to worry about from abortion. There’s plenty of prospective life. We can now worry more about the quality of the lives of those we currently have than on the sheer numbers needed for survival.I have listened to your arguments, as well as those of many other anti-choice fanatics, and I have yet to hear a rational thought among them. If you come up with one, let me know. Until then, you are just repeating the same tired slogans that add nothing to the argument. We don’t need any more of that!
Out,I appreciate that you are an adoptive parent. That’s a good thing to be. But there are already thousands of kids in the foster care system that will never have a chance to be in a stable home environment. Shouldn’t parents who wish to adopt give them a home first? When they all have homes, then you can worry about the ones that might be aborted.And yes, I am concerned more about the women. When you screw up their chances, you also screw up the chances of their children, and their children’s children! You say that solving root causes isn’t important, but by neglecting them, you effectively toss whole families overboard.You seem to think that making restrictive laws will solve the problem of abortion, but we had laws as restrictive as possible before Roe v. Wade, and the best figures I can find show that there are fewer abortions now than in the 1940’s and ’50’s. The difference is that then, many women died from illegal procedures. Now, abortion is safer for women than childbirth! I certainly don’t want to go back to those times, and truth to be told, you most likely don’t either!
As I thought, this blog about alito has turned into a debate about abortion and choice.
We want women to have a choice concerning birth, but we are slowly eroding choices we as citizens should have. John Stossel calls it the Nanny state”: Seat belts, air bags, tinted windows, medicines, smoking, the list goes on and on. Government knows whays best for us, because we are too stupid to figure out what’s best for ourselves.
That, in my opinion, far outways abortion rights. Where does Alito stand on limiting governments ability to take away what should be our right to think for ourselves?
Jed,
I’m sorry for your daughter and I never said take it all away and it would do no good if we did. But its way to easy now. We are becoming a lets do whats convenient society and it worries me
Ps I have heard that either Bach Or Mozart was the product of a rape. Makes one think even if its not true. Hope You have a good day and try not to take blogs personal or we get nowhere.
Well, Walker, some might argue that government control of one’s womb might be a tad more intrusive than, say, seat belts. Your rant against seat belts, air bags, tinted windows (I like that!) etc. is limitless in its logical application (inconsistent, too: government doesn’t fine you for not using your air bag, and smoking is perfectly legal). Under the same logic, it’s a terrible attack on freedom to license drivers (Hey, I know how to drive! Gimme a break! How dare the government think for me!).
And by the way, people who install windshields that are too dark to see clearly CAN’T be trusted to think for themselves.
And “medicines”? Huh?
What can I expect from someone cites an obvious moron like Stoessel. That man almost makes Geraldo look intelligent.
Steven E., actually I think abortion is the one area in which the USSC is furthest left of the electorate.
One way of thinking about Roe v. Wade is that the court ruled a citizen’s right to privacy outweighed the state’s right to know, even in the case of abortion.
Another way to think about R v W is to see it as a judicial lawmaking. Through judicial review the USSC made obsolete many state laws regulating abortion. Overnight many states, especially in the South, found their laws made nil, outflanked by the USSC.
Since Roe Americans have consistently elected candidates who wish to limit the impact of Roe on states’ rights, to curb any extra-constitutional American right to privacy (as defined by USSC judicial review in Roe), and who wish to further incorporate religion into government.
For these reasons, plus more (maybe; if I had time ;)) I think that, in the case of abortion, the American electorate is to the right of the USSC (another reason: stare decisis, which has kept the court at Roe for the past generation; in effect, stare decisis has kept the court anchored left of the electorate).
The theory about when the US is best off is less defensible (by me, anyway).
I think if Roe v Wade is overturned, women should just stop having sex with men until safe abortions are legal again in all 50 states. That would get the law changed quicker than anything and show just how committed the country is to protecting the rights of fetuses.
Easy for you to say! ;-)
LOL rage, yes it is. Who knows how many toaster ovens I might get if women stopped having sex with men?
Flike, your point about time is well-taken. These posts take away from my work. Some brief comments.
I don’t buy the argument that Roe (or other controversial decisions) are “legislating from the bench.” Courts can interpret laws and strike them down. They can order remedies. That’s their job. Some judges–notably, Alito–ignore the facts and invent doctrines out of whole cloth, and that’s wrong, but it’s still not “making law”–other than caselaw, which isn’t what the critics mean.
Roe was a fairly awkardly-written decision–Blackmun was not known for great intellect or eloquence. It’s been noted that the most reluctant judge in the majority is usually assigned the opinion, and Blackmun worked hard to produce a workable framework.
As for courts being to the “left” of the public, well that may have been true at one point (it’s not now), but you’re missing the point. One role of the courts is the check the excesses of majoritarian government, and protect individual rights. You know, checks and balances? In many instances the courts have been ahead of the public (civil rights in the 60’s) and, tragically, also behind. . .
Hey Farm Gal,What about us guys that are fighting our damnedest for you to have those rights?
A sincere thank you jed and I know there are more of you. I had hoped my proposed solution might give you all additional encouragement to help your more closed minded bretheren see the light, so to speak. :)
Really jed, thank you and the other men who agree with you for your stand(s) for freedom from tyranny and equality for all.
“The president would be bound to obey those laws, unless it’s unconstituional, in which case he would not.”
That’s a paraphrase, as heard it a few minutes ago. Incredible.
How many blind Alito supporters condemned Gavin Newsom for defying Calfornia law and performing gay marriages, on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional?
flike,Thanks for your reply.
Outlander,You say:”In too many cases, it is economic or convenience factors that are determining if a child lives or dies, and that is plain wrong”
So, do I correctly assume that I can mark you down as one against Bush’s policies and his culture of life agenda? Since Bush began his reign, abortions have increased rather than decreased. The opposite trend has been effect for jobs and policies for the poor.
“has been in effect”
Scott,It really isn’t anything like easy for a woman to come to a clinic and have an abortion. I know; I’ve spent many hours sitting with them and listening to their stories and trying to comfort them. It’s hard! And the good christians outside who call them whores and murderers, and take pictures of them don’t make it any easier! Some of them have come a long ways, and it doesn’t help that the law says they have to make the trip twice. It’s not in any way convenient, but the women come anyway. That should give you some idea of how important this right is to them. Before Roe v. Wade, women risked their lives getting abortions, but they did anyway. No, it’s not easy!Ps. According to some stories, Hitler was the product of a rape. That should make one think too.
Rage,Obviously, you missed my point. Let’s look at medicine: It takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years to get a new drug on the market. Why? Well, one would think that it’s because the FDA cares about us and is making sure the medicines don’t harm us in any way.
But there’s a problem there: Fen-phen for one, others too numerous to mention. So why exactly does it take so long? Because the FDA, while starting out as a consumer protector agency, has blossomed into a mega-monster, with so many regs and tests, that it takes a minimum if $500 million to get these drugs on the market. And you wonder why drugs are so expensive? And we blame the pharmaceutical companies? Blame an inefficient and ineffective FDA.
Government over the top, your right to chose down the drain again. The same goes for smoking, seat belts, air bags, and yes, tinted windows: all in the name of protecting ourselves from ourselves. Someone needs to put a stop to this, and I wonder where Alito stands on that issue.
You may not think it’s important that these issues are limiting our choices, but I do. I think a woman’s right to chose is important, but I also think our right to chose in many other areas has been abridged, and I personally don’t care for it. Suppose the Supreme Court were to back Bush’s decision to use any means necessary to spy on people in this country, how would you feel about your right to privacy being shot to hell? Your choice to be a private person would be gone. What next? Mandatory computer inspections by the fatherland? Limits on fat content at McDonalds? Limits on caffeine content on coffee? All in the name of “We are helping you be a better person”?
Steven E,That abortions have increased since Bush too office is more a rumor than fact. Can you provide a qualified report on this? Not that I would blame anybody for not wanting to bring a child into Bushville, but I don’t think the facts support it.
Walker,
I thought it was accepted fact that abortions were up under Bush.This link contends that:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/HoustonChronicle.com-Why-abortion-rate-is-up-in-Bush-years.pdf
However, this link contends that the above data were cherry-picked (represented data from 16 states and not the nation):
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/HoustonChronicle.com-Why-abortion-rate-is-up-in-Bush-years.pdfThis article contends that abortions, nationally, have continued their downward trend under Bush.
Disaraeli, the former prime minister of England, said”there are liars, damned liars and statisticians”
I am a stat dweeb, so I hate that quote. Statistics is an amoral technology that is sometimes badly used by people. I hate being in this latter category and apologize for that.
JM,I don’t have any figures regarding an increase in abortion since Bush, but as near as I can figure it, it’s down by more than a third since the 1950’s, mostly because of the availability of birth control, sex education and advances in womens rights.
Not a good day for me . . . below is the link to the article that is critical of the original source that said abortions were up under Bush. Both Kerry and Hillary Clinton were guilty of passing on this erroneous information.
http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html
Amazing how the talk is about the increase in abortions under Bush, but isn’t it the Democrats/Progressives and other brain dead liberals who have been supporting the murder of 45 million citizens. One of their chief spokesman, Splash Kennedy, killed an adult so what is an infant to him. Democrats in general are only a little above whale turd, correction, whale turd would be a step up for them. Democrats are the chief terrorist organization in the world so the military should be loosed on them.
rr,Gee, that must have taken all three of your little gray cells to come up with! You need to take some r&r before they overheat.
Steven E,As always, I respect your opinions, even if I may not always agree. Gracias, for the update amigo.
RR–how many died before abortion was legal?
Moms as well?
The more I see and hear of Alito the more I like him.
Carl F. Horowitz, American Spectator Online, Jan. 12, 2006
{snip}
MALDEF, as its name implies, files lawsuits—lots of them. And the last thing the group’s leaders want to see is someone sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court predisposed toward making deportations easier, striking down mandatory bilingual education, or preventing issuance of driver’s licenses as IDs to illegal immigrants—in other words, opposing the sorts of things MALDEF advocates.
In Judge Samuel A. Alito, now facing long-awaited Senate confirmation hearings, MALDEF has such an opponent. Alito, having served 15 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, has left a modest-sized paper trail suggesting as much.
MALDEF, let us understand, plays to win. And win it often does. Over the years the organization has filed successful suits to mandate affirmative-action hiring in Denver public schools, force employers to refrain from requiring Hispanic employees to speak English on the job, and require Virginia public colleges and universities to accept illegal immigrant students at in-state tuition.
Alito’s presence on the Supreme Court could derail some of these victories. Let’s take a brief look at his track record.
IN 1994, IN Tipu v. INS, two fellow Circuit judges threw out a deportation order against a Pakistani immigrant convicted on a drug conspiracy charge. The plaintiff, they reasoned, had played only a minor role in the crime, and had earned a high school diploma while serving a light prison sentence. Alito dissented, arguing the immigration review board did not act arbitrarily.
Another 1994 Third Circuit ruling, Pemberthy v. Beyer, particularly sticks in MALDEF’s craw. Judge Alito, writing for the majority, upheld the state prosecution’s peremptory challenges to five Spanish-speaking jurors. In that case, two men, Gabriel Pemberthy and Rigoberto Moncada, had been under investigation by New Jersey authorities for involvement in Colombian cocaine trafficking. They subsequently were convicted, and lost on appeal.
Pemberthy and Moncada then petitioned for a federal review, arguing that dismissing Latino jurors for being fluent in Spanish was tantamount to treating ethnicity as an illegal classification under the Equal Protection Clause. A U.S. District Court agreed, and overturned the decision.
Alito in turn voted to reverse that ruling. He understood that an ability to speak Spanish per se is no basis for exclusion. But this was an unusual case. Wiretapped evidence, in Spanish and of a highly cryptic nature, had been gathered by Spanish-speaking law enforcement officers. Alito believed that the stricken jurors, in this instance, could be prone to willfully misinterpreting tapes played back in court. As the prosecution had not violated the Equal Protection Clause, the appeals court restored the convictions.
The wording of Alito’s majority opinion made clear race was not at issue. He wrote: “A challenger’s decision to strike jurors based on language ability is subject to rational basis review if and only if the challenger’s concerns have to do with language rather than ethnicity. The dispositive question is the factual question of subjective intent.”
No matter—this decision, among others, has prompted MALDEF’s president and general counsel, Ann Marie Tallman, to denounce Alito’s nomination. His views, she states, reveal “a disturbing pattern of insensitivity toward Latinos’ lives and a pattern of legal opinions that would … dismantle fundamental constitutional protections currently enjoyed by Latinos and all Americans.” His opinions would “roll back the clock on civil rights protections available to Latinos.”
Her group accuses Alito of hostility toward immigrants. That’s an odd claim to direct at someone whose late father, Samuel Alito, Sr., was an Italian immigrant.
Let’s cut through the multicultural pieties. Judge Alito’s “insensitivity” is rooted in a sound belief that anyone who resides in America must do so legally, that an ability to speak English is essential to a person’s daily functioning here.
{snip}
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/anheuserbusch_v_alito.php
V.L.R.B!!!
rr,Actually abortions were at their highest rate at the beginning of the Reagan administration. Nearly 30 per 1,000 woman between the ages of 15 and 44.
See this link -http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html Same one cited above.
Steven E:
“Outlander,You say:”In too many cases, it is economic or convenience factors that are determining if a child lives or dies, and that is plain wrong”
So, do I correctly assume that I can mark you down as one against Bush’s policies and his culture of life agenda? Since Bush began his reign, abortions have increased rather than decreased. The opposite trend has been effect for jobs and policies for the poor.”
Steven, I’ve seen other posts that you have made where you can actually see a line of logic so I know that you’re not stupid. I can only conclude that you are trying to twist words and take them out of context. For what purpose is not clear from your post.
To clarify, the jist of my post(and you know it) was that it is unquestionably wrong when economic or especially convenience factors are used as an excuse to terminate a human life.
Outlander
You may want to check out the Phelps thread. There’s a link there to data that says the study claiming abortions have gone up is bogus.
Outlander,Heckler has got it wrong; the links to the abortion stories were posted by me on this thread.
The first here is the one claiming that abortions under Bush have gone up.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/HoustonChronicle.com-Why-abortion-rate-is-up-in-Bush-years.pdfThe problem with this analysis is that he only checked the rates in 16 states. It is possible he cherry-picked the data.
This story (linked below), and data, discuss the failings of the one above and what the real picture is: Under Bush, the abortion rate has continued to fall.
http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I had assumed it was established fact that abortion had gone up under Bush. After all Dean, H. Clinton, and Kerry said it had. They were all relying on the first study above, which had some major methodological problems.
I apologize if my earlier post offended you. My remarks were made in the context of data about abortions that were not correct.
I have liberal leanings, but I value truth to a greater extent than rhetoric; I hope to someday see a similar prioritazation by your president.
“prioritization”
Actually, Walker,I got the point right away–I’ve heard some form of the “nanny government” rant over and over over the past 20 years or so, and I’m thoroughly sick of it, because it’s usually championed by the same people (e.g. Ronald Reagan) who in fact have deliberately and openly promoted the most obnoxious, overbearing government “nanny government” possible–only the nanny was a mixture of Nurse Ratchet and Marquis de Sade. I acknowledge that care about other issues.
What exactly is the “issue” you want to know about? You want Alito to strike air bags regulations as unconstitutional? Don’t hold your breath.
Rage,I understand that what you are saying is that “choice” is something you think should be a government responsibility, and not an individual one, unless it is sanctified by the Liberal left. I am happy to know that you are in keeping with the Liberal motto, “It takes a village (idiot).”
Bullshit. You obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Rage,Good answer. Or as good a one as can be expected.
Walker & Rage,
I think the autonomy vs. nanny government is an important topic in our culture. I think extreme positions on either side are not particularly useful.
One of my revenue streams comes from writing about ethics. Well-off middle-aged white men usually belong to professional organizations which require them to document continuing education annually & an ethics requirement is usually part of that. I do business with a woman who owns an internet CEU company in California.
Forgive the digression . . . but usually autonomy (self governance) is an important ethical value held by most professional healing organizations. I think free-market libertarians mistakenly contend that autonomy is the highest ranking consideration and maybe even an absolute right. I disagree with that ranking and contention. The (cut and pasted) post below was concerning letting free-market solutions prevail when it comes to second-hand smoke. The problem with this line of reasoning is that second-hand smoke is a threat to my health that I have a right to avoid.
“Ray & Damoon,
I think that people who tout market forces solutions for most things rank the value of personal autonomy above all other values. Over the years the disciplines of moral philosophy and ethics have tended to see it differently.
“Most ethicists do not regard autonomy (self-governance) as an absolute right. The line is typically drawn at the point where one’s autonomous actions infringe on the rights of others.
“I have a right to health that second-hand smoke clearly violates. I think it is okay for government to be concerned with the rights of non-smokers and believe there is adequate justification for the same. Protecting the health of citizens is not paternalistic to my way of thinking.”
I think whenever it is reasonable (and differing views on “reasonable” is where the rub comes in) autonomous choices should be allowed to prevail. But, that is not say that autonomy is an absolute right and should always be ranked above all other considerations/values.
I think the FDA was created to help ensure the health of our citizens. True, it is neither perfect nor efficient. I would favor seeing both its efficiency and mandate improve. Another revenue stream I have is doing work for a research company that investigates for pharmaceutical companies the efficacy of their drugs. On average pharmaceutical companies make 35% profit; I believe I am correct in asserting that that return rate is only outdone by Bill Gates and Microsoft. My point here is that the high cost of medicines is not due soley to costs forced on them by the FDA. I think one’s sympathies could be better distributed.
my $0.02, as one of our friends says
Walker, my point was that, aside from a handful of powerless libertarians who MIGHT really mean it, the people who decry “nanny government” (including, unfortunately many registered Libertarians I’ve known) are all to happy to suck at the teat of the corporate state and sacrifice their freedom, if it serves their immediate poltical or financial interest. Reagan was a perfect example of a politician who mouthed the rhetoric, but gave us numerous appalling laws, and judges hostility to liberty. When I was 18, I could buy beer legally, but thanks to Reagan, the drinking age rose each year with mine (my younger friends, of course, could still be trusted as cannon fodder).
I understand the argument about “protecting us from ourselves” and ,arguably, that might support sustained auto safety education instead of, say, mandatory belt seat belt laws. As I’ve said earlier, I certainly don’t support causing people real hardship over it.
I will be glad to have a extended discussion on individual autonomy and government power at a later time. My point is and was that the rhetoric doesn’t always match the reality. Steven E. has said it better, here and elsewhere, than I probably can.
Personally, if it’s necessary to get you to recognize the dangers of this man Alito, then I’m quite willing to forgo any regulations on seat belts, air bags, motorcycle helmets, or in general any regulation that theoretically only affects the individual. Hell, you can paint your windshield black, if you’re willing to face the consequences of the subsequent accident. I’ll look up the studies on new drugs myself, and hope that that I’m not permanently maimed by unregulated “snake oil” medicine. That’s how seriously I take the current threat represented by a monarchist executive, a “yup, boss” Congress, and a judiciary that increasingly defers to executive, corporate, military and police power, consistently at the expense of individual rights.
I do, however, make a distinction between that which proscribes the conduct of individuals (e.g. drug laws, or “regulating the fat content at McDonalds”), and those which plainly affect the health and safety of large groups of people.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0007FD7D-BBA0-101E-B40D83414B7F0000