Again, you are missing the issue, Jon.
Alito was nominated precisely because the right wants to up-end settled law. Wong-Sun, Brown, Griswold, Miranda, the Civil Rights cases, Loving v. Virginia, Roe, Casey, etc. As I stated before, society has a relied on these decisions, built institutions around them, made investments based on them, entered contractual and other kinds of relationships based on them, etc. Alito literally wants to destroy the foundation on which our society is built. These sre the so-called supreprecedents the NYT talked about on Sunday. Indeed, to up-end these foundational cases is exactly the reason why he was nominated.
By contrast, Ginsburg and Breyer were and are no threat to settled, bedrock, constitutional cases. They didn’t threaten radical change - the kind of change that has unforseen and destabilzing consequences. I don’t think you understand this.
In this context, comparing Alito to Breyer and Ginsburg is comparing apples and oranges.
My sense is that you just don’t get it, Jon. You don’t grasp the implications. You are still caught in Limbaugh land - where getting your boy on the court is part of some political tit for tat. We are way beyond that with Alito, however. Way beyond ideology.
Now, you may say Altio does not stand for that kind of radical change. BS. That’s why he was nominated. To bring about that kind of radical change.
And I believe that his nomination should be rejected for precisely this reason. Yes, there have been radical changes in the law brought about by the Supreme Court. But not so many all at once. Alito is of a different breed. He should be rejected for precisely this reason - his is literally dangerous.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
Damn MK, did you have that all written out with a blank space where the name of the nominee should be?
I find your overheated rhetoric boring and factully lacking. Please use a different set of talking points next time.
PS- He’s getting confirmed, so suffer. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
No Shark - Roberts didn’t threaten this kind of change. That’s why 22 Dems voted for him.
As for getting confirmed, I imagine you said the same thing about Miers. We’ll see.
As I have said before, when the GOP overturns Roe, they will seal their fate as a minority party. The day the GOP has to run politically on the abortion issue, their screwed. My concern, though, is for the young women who will have to use the "hanger" or "GOP" method to get an abortion.
As for factually lacking Shark, you are one to talk. Your posts have no facts. You are the Glenn Reynolds of Q and O. "This is interesting." "Scary, if true."
You get the idea. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
Even today’s New York Times editorial flatly misrepresents the facts in Planned Parenthood V Casey, claiming it would require "a woman show that she had notified her spouse". In fact, the law required the woman to "show" no such thing, merely to "sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband". Alito even pointed this out, noting that the law "would be difficult to enforce and easy to evade", and that the law "[did] not require a woman to provide any proof of notification other than her own unnotarized statement". Jon - what a party to a court proceeding is required to "show" depends on the rquirements of the law. The NYT used the term correctly. In this instance, the showing a woman must make is to provide a signed statement that she did a cetain thing. It may be a mininmal showing in your eyes - but it is still a showing.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
Alito literally wants to destroy the foundation on which our society is built. Does anyone remember the skit from MAD TV where the man and woman would sit and ridicule the people and activities around them by constantly using the term "literally" before a really obnoxious statement? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
It’s perhaps worth remembering that when Clinton nominated Ginsberg he had quite a bit less than a majority of the nation’s voters behind him. Perot and all that—arguably the ONLY reason the current court is as liberal as it might be is that the conservatives split in 1992 between fiscal-conservatives for Perot and Rockerfeller-Republican moderate conservatives for the Elder Bush.
Ginsberg "repaid" the Perot voters by helping rule the Gringrich "line item veto" law unconstitutional ... (6-3 Stevens for the majority, joined by
Souter, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and ... Clarence Thomas? )
|
| |
Written By:
pouncer
URL:
http://
|
The day the GOP has to run politically on the abortion issue, their screwed. My concern, though, is for the young women who will have to use the "hanger" or "GOP" method to get an abortion. MK - Rove v Wade could be struck down tomorrow and your ’concern’ would be unfounded. States would still have the option to vote on and allow abortions.
That aside, your over the top rhetoric is humorous. Sad and somewhat frightening, but humourous.
|
| |
Written By:
meagain
URL:
http://
|
FYI
In the "Planned Parenthood V Casey" case the woman had been abandoned by her husband while she was pregnant. She already had there kids. She was having a difficult pregnancy as well.
The law requiring her to notify him was not a courtesy, it was a real burden.
|
| |
Written By:
cindy
URL:
http://
|
MK - Rove v Wade could be struck down tomorrow and your ’concern’ would be unfounded. States would still have the option to vote on and allow abortions.
That aside, your over the top rhetoric is humorous. Sad and somewhat frightening, but humourous. Duh - and if you think that the Bible Belt states wouldn’t outlaw abortion in a New York minute, then you are dreaming.
As for over the top rhetoric, why don’t you sit down and talk to the women who got abortions in the pre-Roe era. I wonder if you would find such a discussion "humorous." Sadly, and frighteningly, I imagine you would. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
You are the Glenn Reynolds of Q and O.
That may be the best compliment I get all week...but I decline to accept. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
As I have said before, when the GOP overturns Roe, they will seal their fate as a minority party
I actually hope Roe stays in effect, as very convincing evidence of the "Roe effect" shows that you blue-state types are aborting yourselves into permanent minority status.
And as a matter of record, I don’t give a rats ass about Roe anyway. Kelo concerns me much more. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
In the "Planned Parenthood V Casey" case the woman had been abandoned by her husband while she was pregnant. She already had there kids. She was having a difficult pregnancy as well. Then she had an exemption. The law gave exceptions, including one if the father "cannot be found after diligent effort". |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Duh - and if you think that the Bible Belt states wouldn’t outlaw abortion in a New York minute, then you are dreaming. You’d see maybe 5 states making abortion illegal, though I doubt it would be that many, and none of them very populous.
It’s not like people can’t drive to a different state...or move to a different state if they don’t like the law. I really don’t care what the voters in Utah enact; it’s their state, they can run it any way they see fit.
|
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://steverino.journalspace.com
|
mkultra :
When courts lean left and create "rights" out of thin air, they suddenly have this sparkled aura of "settled law."
This coming from the same folks who want a "living Constitution" which would magically bend, twist, and turn for the political fad of the hour.
You cannot have both.
|
| |
Written By:
Mark
URL:
www.marknicodemo.mu.nu
|
|
I’d wonder about even those five states, Steverino. If I remember correctly, when you actually ask people what their attitudes are about specific abortion practices (e.g. first trimester abortions, abortions in the case of rape or incest, partial birth abortions), you see a remarkable similarity between most "pro-choice" and "pro-life" people. I’d suspect that every state (including Utah, where I live) would allow, at the very least, first trimester abortions in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s health (with health being determined by a doctor and possibly including mental health). |
| |
Written By:
Wacky Hermit
URL:
http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
|
Settled law my a##. The constitution IS SETTLED LAW, but liberals don’t see it that way. They have illegally and dishonestly changed the constitution. I can understand the temptation for one person to become blinded and usurp power illegitametly. What is horrifying is the huge number of liberals willing to subvert the constitution to have their agenda enacted.
If, by definition liberals are allowed to rule America from the courts, then it is time for the "well regulated malitia" to take these traitors out and restore the republic. |
| |
Written By:
RA
URL:
http://
|
I thought Andrew Napolitano’s views deserved to be looked at...
(via reason.com)"Sam Alito is just what George Bush is looking for: a big government conservative who will almost always side with the government against the individual, and the federal government against the state," Napolitano said. |
| |
Written By:
PogueMahone
URL:
http://
|
If I remember correctly, when you actually ask people what their attitudes are about specific abortion practices (e.g. first trimester abortions, abortions in the case of rape or incest, partial birth abortions), you see a remarkable similarity between most "pro-choice" and "pro-life" people. I’d suspect that every state (including Utah, where I live) would allow, at the very least, first trimester abortions in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s health (with health being determined by a doctor and possibly including mental health
You know, you’re probably close to right. Hardcore religious people aside, I don’t think the problem is with abortion per se. The issue as I see it is the pro-abortion side is so creepy in the way they keep pushing and pushing for abortions in every instance. They won’t even entertain the idea of an alternative such as adoption in a lot of cases. Their goal seems to be to crate as many abortions as possible. I think the majority of the people have no real beef against abortion being legal, but would want to see it used much less frequently. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
The New York Times editorial on Alito says:Anyone wondering whether the almost endless setbacks and embarrassments the White House has suffered over the last year would cause Mr. Bush to fix his style of governing should realize that the answer is: no. This is a great example of liberal circular logic. Bush has suffered "endless setbacks and embarassments" over the last year because liberals say that he has. The last year has seen the the inauguration of his second term, the successful election of an Iraqi interim government, the ratification of the Iraqi Constitution, the successful election of a national assembly in Afghanistan, the victory in Tal Afar waged by a force comprised of mostly Iraqi forces, third quarter GDP growth of 7.2%, 5.1% unemployment, 16 straight quarters of economic growth, the confirmation of John Roberts to the SCOTUS, the indictment of only one individual in the Plame investigation, etc., etc.
Yes, Katrina was an "embarassment" but as was clearly shown on this blog, that was primarily because liberals in the media decided it was all Bush’s fault regardless of the facts. Miers certainlly fills the bill, but all in all, the "embarrassments and set backs" Bush has suffered have been on the pages of the New York Times and in liberal fantasyland. |
| |
Written By:
Jt007
URL:
http://
|
|
I wonder if MK is even aware that far more women die of botched abortions each year under the Roe regime than died in 1972. I also wonder if he really believes his ridiculous claim that "Ginsburg and Breyer were and are no threat to settled, bedrock, constitutional cases"—I’d say Lawrence v. Texas by itself is enough to put that claim to bed. |
| |
Written By:
The Ancient Mariner
URL:
http://
|
|
I wonder if MK is even aware that far more women die of botched abortions each year under the Roe regime than died in 1972. I also wonder if he really believes his ridiculous claim that "Ginsburg and Breyer were and are no threat to settled, bedrock, constitutional cases"—I’d say Lawrence v. Texas by itself is enough to put that claim to bed. |
| |
Written By:
The Ancient Mariner
URL:
http://
|
