Democrats & Liberals Archives

Scalito, the Extremist

Reacting to extreme-Right-Wing unhappiness with Miers, President Bush appointed its darling, Samuel Alito, who is an activist catering to angry white men, an extremist in the mode of Justice Antonin Scalia, which is why he is called Scalito. Like Scalia, Alito is an originalist; in practical terms it means he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, cut back civil rights and environmental regulations and usher in an era of laissez faire. Scalia is not a mainstream coservative. He is a far-, far-Right conservative - a dangerous extremist.

It's a pretty sure bet that Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that protects a woman who has an abortion. Alito was one of 3 judges in the 3rd Circuit, which heard Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands. Alito was the lone dissenter.

Why inform? This would give her husband the right to prevent the abortion from happening. It's another way of having the wife seek or beg for permission. It is a recognition of the old conservative idea that the husband is boss. Like many angry white men, Alito apparently feels feminism has gone too far and must be reined in.

Luckily, the case went on to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in a 6-3 decision. The 3 dissenters were the 3 far-Right Justices Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist.

Judge Luttig, another far-Right conservative who competed for the judicial nomination, later referred to this Supreme Court decision as

"a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy."

This means that he would not have voted as Alito did because he thinks Roe vs. Wade is too big a precedent.

Alito's stance on abortion shows that he is not an originalist nor a strict constructionist. He wants to take "settled law" and get rid of it. Where does he find anything in the Constitution that states that abortion should be illegal? The establishment clause says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Some religions forbid abortion. Some religions allow abortion. A strict constructionist would say that it's unconstitutional for the government to say anything about abortion.

Alito is an activist judge.

Abortion is not the only thing Alito would change. He is against the Family and Medical Leave Act. He ruled in favor of race-based discrimination. He ruled that Congress has no right to regulate machine guns. He is a member of the "Constitution in Exile," which is described this way by Cass R. Sunstein:

"'Constitution in Exile'--the Constitution as it existed in 1932, before President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Under this Constitution, the powers of the national government were sharply limited. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would have been impermissible. Under the Constitution in Exile, rights to have recourse against discrimination, and to protection of privacy, were minimal. A far more significant right was freedom of contract, which threw minimum-wage legislation into constitutional doubt. The Supreme Court tends to move slowly, and under a second Bush term, it would not adopt the Constitution of 1932; but it would probably move in that direction."

Alito is more of an extremist than Scalia. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley says so:

"There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court."

Scalito is an extremist to be shunned.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 31, 2005 5:49 PM
Comments
Comment #89222
Where does he find anything in the Constitution that states that abortion should be illegal? The establishment clause says
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Some religions forbid abortion. Some religions allow abortion. A strict constructionist would say that it’s unconstitutional for the government to say anything about abortion.

So if religion has anything to say about a topic, a strict constructionalist should invoke the establishment clause? Huh?

How about murder? Most if not all religions forbid murder, so is it a violation of the US Consitution to make murder illegal?

Posted by: sanger at October 31, 2005 6:19 PM
Comment #89226

Paul:
“Scalito is an extremist to be shunned.”

Indeed, he is.

But just to give you a chuckle, check out this picture of his family, which seems intended to remind us of better days when we had a competent president.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2005 6:42 PM
Comment #89228

Adrienne, it reminds us of 1983 how?

Sanger, it is actually not a federal crime in the us to kill someone. That is a state issue, which is why many feel that abortion should be a state issue also.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 31, 2005 6:56 PM
Comment #89234

Sanger & Rhinehold:

Most religions forbid murder. But not all forbid abortion.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 31, 2005 7:22 PM
Comment #89236

Paul,

I don’t believe I mentioned religion at all…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 31, 2005 7:35 PM
Comment #89256

Sigh…here we go again..I’d ask that people please, please, please, read the actual court cases rather than relying on small blurbs that they believe make their point.

That is not why Alito dissented when it came to spousal notification and if you had bothered to read the dissent? You’d know that. He is a conservative but whoever said you cannot go more right than him is wrong.

There are more conservative judges out there that Bush could have selected. Alito voted that the partial birth abortion ban was unconsitutional because it did not have the required clause concerning the life of the mother.

You guys wanted someone with more experience than Miers…someone with a paper record…well? There he is.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 31, 2005 8:49 PM
Comment #89262
Adrienne, it reminds us of 1983 how?

“I do not recall”

Posted by: Taylor at October 31, 2005 9:23 PM
Comment #89264

Lisa Renee,

I DID read the full text of Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991). For anyone who is interested in investing a lot of reading and re-reading time, here is a website where you can find it: http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1764#comment-62642.

Alito seems to agree with rather than try to chip away at O’Connor’s “undue burden” test. He cites, more than once, the statute’s allowing a woman to claim an exception if she believes that notifying her husband will pose a risk her safety, and without requiring anything more than her word. He also seems to have no objection to that provision.

I noticed that he based his dissent on the lack of hard evidence offered by the plaintiffs that a significant number or married women actually would face the kind of undue burden that O’Connor envisioned. That seems like a rational argument to me.

At this point, I still have grave misgivings about Alito, but they are based more on the enthusiasm with which the extreme right has welcomed his nomination than on any of his opinions that I have read. If Gary Bauer calls him a mainstream conservative, then I suspect he is anything but.

Bob Benjamin

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at October 31, 2005 9:42 PM
Comment #89268

monkey hear…monkey repeat

It’s like listening to Schumer today. Was it live OR was it memorex?

If a woman is in a good marriage with a husband who respects her she won’t have to worry about telling him she just doesn’t want another baby. Chances are that he already knew.
If a woman is being beaten by her husband or he is a drunk or she knows he is a lousy father to their other 6 children … let her get an abortion without telling him.
Sounds more like Alito wanted to remind married people that they need to respect each other’s views on an issue as important as ending a pregnancy.
That makes him an activist?
He also knew that his opinion would gain more attention if he were the only one to dissent.

Let’s try and discuss more than the talking points. We surely can be more grown up about this than our politicians. Can’t we?

Posted by: bugcrazy at October 31, 2005 10:04 PM
Comment #89271

I have been reading more of Alito’s opinions and suspect that the Right’s enthusiasm and our worries may both be misplaced.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at October 31, 2005 10:17 PM
Comment #89283

Rhinehold:
“Adrienne, it reminds us of 1983 how?”
Taylor:
“I do not recall”

:^) California, Uber Alles!
Actually, I do remember those days.
In fact, I’m somewhat nostalgic, because we really had no idea how bad things were going to get…

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2005 11:06 PM
Comment #89286

Paul:

Wow, you are emotioally charged on this nomination.

Just a couple of points.

1. Where was the left in supporting Meiers? Where were the Democrats in demanding that she get a fair hearing? The left’s cry has been “George Bush is wrong no matter what.” If the Democratic party would have been as strong in supporting Meiers at least to get her in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as you are now, you might be looking at a Meiers appointment instead of Scalito.

One of the lessons of Meiers is that if you nominate a moderate, no one supports you, because the Democrats are going to be against everything.

2. If he is such a radical right wing wacko, why did every Democrat in the Senate in 1990 vote for him? More Democrats voted for him than voted for the first Iraqi war.

David Brooks is right. The extreme paranoia and conspiracy like thinking presented says more about the left than it does about Bush. Bush presents a moderate, Democrats attack. Bush presents a conservative, Democrats attack. You have decided that anything Bush does, you will oppose because of the left’s hatred of him.

At least if Bush nominates conservatives he will get some support.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 31, 2005 11:22 PM
Comment #89302

Craig:
Democrats opposed Miers and oppose Alito because both are radical rightwingers who pose a serious threat to the civil rights and liberties of the American people.

The opposition is not about Bush personally; rather, the opposition is about what Bush stands for and his nominations show— the GOPs desire for a country where only the powerful have rights and Federal judges who refuse to do their jobs: to determine whether legislative and executive actions do not diminish the rights and liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

There was nothing moderate about Meirs. There is nothing conservative about Alito. Bush would not have named either unless he believed they would be judicial activists on the Supreme Court dedicated to the distruction of civil rights and liberties.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at November 1, 2005 12:29 AM
Comment #89327

Isn’t it odd that Republicans swear up and down about their belief of limited government, yet when a law is inconvenient for their ideology, will raise heaven and earth to force MORE government on us? And if a judge rules different from what THEY believe, that judge is an activist.

ie..
Terry Shaivo
Anything to do with abortion
Reforming marijuana laws
Public dollars going to faith organizations (who are now legally allowed to discriminate)
Immigration

Just a thought……

Posted by: MyPetGoat at November 1, 2005 6:34 AM
Comment #89330
Bush presents a moderate, Democrats attack. Bush presents a conservative, Democrats attack. You have decided that anything Bush does, you will oppose because of the lefts hatred of him.

It was conservative Republicans who stopped Miers, not Democrats. They obviously “hate Bush”. :>

As for Alito, I don’t see how paranoia figures into it. His record is there for all to see.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2005 7:00 AM
Comment #89333
Sanger, it is actually not a federal crime in the us to kill someone. That is a state issue, which is why many feel that abortion should be a state issue also.

Rhinehold, do me a favor and go check 18 USC Sec. 1111 - there you will find the pertinent statute provisions. But you’re a huge genius and probably already knew that…

Posted by: Kevin Daniel at November 1, 2005 7:39 AM
Comment #89335

I should remark, however, that the statute only applies to crimes committed within the general or maritime jurisdiction of the United States. For example, if someone is killed in a federal park (like say the National Mall) - they would be charged under 18 USC Sec 1111 by the U.S. Park Police, not turned over to the DC police for prosecution under DC law.

Posted by: Kevin Daniel at November 1, 2005 7:44 AM
Comment #89338

The conservatives got what they want but may come to regret it.
Miers would have been an automatic vote for them. Alito, as a rare conservative intellectual, will think things through and may on occasion, disappoint his admirers.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at November 1, 2005 8:06 AM
Comment #89340

There is a difference between morality and religion. Many people derive their morality from their religion, which makes them related, but there is still a difference. Even atheists are guided by moral principles.

The Constitution does not forbid Congress from establishing morality through its laws. It DOES forbid Congress from establishing religion, however. But neither Congress nor any State would not be violating the Establishment clause by banning abortion UNLESS it did so for religious reasons. (Whether it would be in violation of other clauses is still up for debate, however.)

There are several laws on the books based on morality that are not unconstitutional. We have banned murder, theft, rape, drug use, prostitution, etc., all for moral reasons. While some people’s opinions may originate in their religious beliefs, that does not, Constitutionally speaking, make abortion a religious issue. The decision whether or not to ban abortions is a moral one, whether or not an individual also considers it a religious one.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 8:23 AM
Comment #89342

Here is a link to Scalia’s view on the Constitution and after reading most of the post here I would like to ask everyone a question. How does Alito differ from where Scalia rule from? My personal question that I would like to ask both of them is their view on Society and the Spirit of the Law (i.e Who or What rules America and Humanity’s Civilization). According to the article, Scalia said “”It may well be stupid, but if it’s stupid, pass a law!” he said. “Don’t think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That’s flexibility.”

Although I can understand why his personal view gets him in trouble some times, I do respect the man’s reasoning and logic. Now can Alito convince us that he supports that same ideology? More important can he show us that he knows and understands those supporters of the “living Constitution” who believe that all Laws should be equally applied throughout the Nation in just one way?

You know some day our political leaders will figure out that by Human Nature, Americans do live many different lifestyles and that as long as the Spirit of the National Laws are followed, each Local and State Citizens need to be free enough to build our communities the way we want them. Because is it me or just every American that enjoys that about every 150 miles or so everyday life changes just a little bit? And having the ability to enjoy this type of freedom is a legacy we should pass on to those generations of the 22nd Century.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 1, 2005 8:36 AM
Comment #89350

It’s a pretty sure bet that Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that protects a woman who has an abortion.

This is precisely why Roe vs. Wade is a bad decision; why should a ruling from a court be the authority for protecting women? Laws protect citizens.

Rove vs. Wade settled nothing and gave us 30 years of political divide instead. Had the legislatures been able to act during this period we would, in all likelihood, had a consensus agreement on abortion.

Posted by: George in SC at November 1, 2005 8:56 AM
Comment #89358
This is precisely why Roe vs. Wade is a bad decision; why should a ruling from a court be the authority for protecting women? Laws protect citizens.

Laws don’t always protect citizens. In many cases, citizens need to be protected FROM laws, as Congress has a tendency to take power away from the people whenever possible. Hence the need for a Bill of Rights.

I do agree, for different reasons, that RvW was a bad decision. I agree with the sentiment of the decision, and I would support abortion rights at a STATE level, but I don’t believe that the Constitution gives the Federal government ANY jurisdiction over the issue.

I also think that it takes a strong case to overcome precident, and, as this is a borderline issue, it will be VERY hard to build a strong enough case to topple RvW.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 9:21 AM
Comment #89361

Does anyone know of Alito’s rulings regarding the second amendment? I would hope that his adherence to strict constructionism, might actually require him to continue reading to the “…well regulated militia” section that the freaks so blithely ignore.

Posted by: roger at November 1, 2005 9:38 AM
Comment #89364

Rob

You are pointing out that the Supreme Court is part of the important balance called checks and balances, and I agree. But the court has overemphasized its role in cases like Roe.

Let’s not continue to make the exception the rule.

Posted by: George in SC at November 1, 2005 9:42 AM
Comment #89365

I believe Paul (the buzzards circle again) Siegel had this written 5 years ago and was just waiting.

It is amazing to me how Ginsburg was approved by the senate, she was a nominee with the same credentials and a far left ideology, yet republicans approved her. They did not expect anything different coming from Clinton.

Not so here…
The only prevailing veiwpoint allowed is liberal. Anything else will not be TOLERATED. Liberals should take their political cravings to the people (at the state levels) not the courts.

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 9:50 AM
Comment #89369
The conservatives got what they want but may come to regret it. Miers would have been an automatic vote for them. Alito, as a rare conservative intellectual, will think things through and may on occasion, disappoint his admirers.

This is a misconception. The reason conservatives rejected Miers is because her legal experience does not point to an ability to improve the content of written opinions; to shape the legal arguments of this nation and to articluate, in constitutional law, opinions that break new ground and advance the knowledge base of the judiciary. She may be easily confused in discussions she is not prepared for and after a few years would lose sight of what is or is not originalist, consitutional thinking.

That is why Alito is such a great pick. You will not find a judge with more experience in Constitutional law.

Conservatives don’t want a results based court that consider’s thier vote to be that of a legislature. It’s the left of this country that wants the results-based court. If you don’t believe me, look who are the ones that cannot look past the “vote” role of a supreme court justice and don’t even mention the qualifications of the appointee.

It is the left that have the obsession with the RvW litmus test.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 1, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #89374

Alito may be merely the last big shot fired from a sinking conservative ship. These postings show that our Bush-enabling friends are reacting with obvious dismay at their ever-shrinking significance in public discourse, and are using the Alito nomination as another excuse to sputter inanely. It’s kinda sad that they think they should be TOLERATED (sic) in the first place.

When the adults regain control over the levers of the US government - and we will - the right’s arbitrarily applied notions of states rights, judicial activism and strict constructionism will go from carrying little weight, to carrying none at all. If Alito gets on the court liberals, moderates and other people of intelligence will have the opportunity to render him and the Scalia/Thomas American cabal (assuming he does in fact turn out to be of the American Taliban - I’m not yet convinced of that) moot through legislation.

Gotta go, the idiot-in-chief is talking about bird flu and how he plans to make the problem even worse. Guess his 9/11 exploitation isn’t working so well anymore and he needs something new to scare Americans.

Posted by: roger at November 1, 2005 10:19 AM
Comment #89376

George in SC:

Had the legislatures been able to act during this period we would, in all likelihood, had a consensus agreement on abortion.

Oh really? What would that concensus be?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 1, 2005 10:28 AM
Comment #89378

Roger,

I think you sadly under-estimate your real opponent. FYI - It’s not Bush.

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 10:32 AM
Comment #89379

Dr Poshek:
“There was nothing moderate about Meirs. There is nothing conservative about Alito. Bush would not have named either unless he believed they would be judicial activists on the Supreme Court dedicated to the distruction of civil rights and liberties.”

I agree 100%.

My Pet Goat:
“Isn’t it odd that Republicans swear up and down about their belief of limited government, yet when a law is inconvenient for their ideology, will raise heaven and earth to force MORE government on us?”

It isn’t odd for Neocon Republican’s. Since Raygun, they’ve been all about more govt rather than less — all on behalf of their ideologies.

“And if a judge rules different from what THEY believe, that judge is an activist.”

Whatever else we say about them, we must admit that they’ve been masters at propagandized speech that can sway the masses. Unfortunately, the Left hasn’t been determined or assertive enough to counter that propaganda with equally effective words.

Woody:
“It was conservative Republicans who stopped Miers, not Democrats.”

Yeah, why were they being so obstructionist? Couldn’t they have just given her an up or down vote? ;^/

“They obviously “hate Bush”. :>”

Obviously they’re finding it easier to criticize and break goosestep in the lame duck years. And with all his crooked henchmen in one kind of legal jeopardy or another, many of them must be feeling a need to distance themselves real quick-like.

“As for Alito, I don’t see how paranoia figures into it. His record is there for all to see.”

Absolutely.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2005 10:33 AM
Comment #89399
Whatever else we say about them, we must admit that they’ve been masters at propagandized speech that can sway the masses. Unfortunately, the Left hasn’t been determined or assertive enough to counter that propaganda with equally effective words.

This is a hilarious argument and I’ve heard it before. The democrats think that thier lack of content can be masked by phrasing it better. The reality is that the only thing the left ever says is “Bush sucks.” I havn’t heard a single idea from them.

It was conservative Republicans who stopped Miers, not Democrats.”

That is evidence that the masses are conservative. It is a group committed to an ideology, not a person, which is a much stronger position to take.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 1, 2005 11:31 AM
Comment #89400

Do Liberals or Conservative Justices ‘legislate more from the bench?’

Or: What type of justice truly represents the American opinion and shows respect to the elected officials (Congress)? What flavor (conservative or liberal) has been more prone to ‘legislating from the bench’ - basically, who is more prone to overturning laws made by Congress?

Just curious about opinions - and I could paste #s here if anyone is interested, but didn’t want to taint the discussion…

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #89401

jacktruth,

If you haven’t heard a single idea from the Democrats, then you haven’t been listening to them. I’ve heard more ideas from the Democrats than I have the Republicans. They most definitely don’t have a “lack of content”.

Actually, that’s their biggest problem. The Democrats have so many ideas that the party can’t agree on most of them. And, when the do agree on one, they push it to such an extreme that they drive away the moderate voters, like they have with the issue of abortion.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #89403

“Does anyone know of Alito’s rulings regarding the second amendment?”

Judging by how much liberals are crying about his appointment, I would guess that he believes in the 2nd Amendment and rules in support of an individuals right to bear arms.
Great question Rog and thanks for bringing it up, I’ll see if I can find some info on that.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2005 11:55 AM
Comment #89405

Thank you kctim, but if I read your post correctly, you are a right-wing apologist. Frankly, if that is the case, then I can’t take your answer seriously and would rather wait to hear about Alito’s 2nd amendment rulings from someone to whom the truth matters.

Posted by: roger at November 1, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #89408
Does anyone know of Alito’s rulings regarding the second amendment? I would hope that his adherence to strict constructionism, might actually require him to continue reading to the “…well regulated militia” section that the freaks so blithely ignore.

I sure hope so, cuz if the neocons keep it up, we’re all gonna need guns, lots and lots of guns.

Posted by: willis at November 1, 2005 12:11 PM
Comment #89417

Rog
Apologist? Hardly. In fact, many of the “conspiracy” theories I believe in are now being supported by liberals. Oh well I guess.
But I understand you wanting to wait and be told what to believe concerning Alito and his 2nd Amendment beliefs. Disregarding facts because they do not support your views, seriously, is hard to do.
No problem though, I’m sure I can find some good “liberal only” material that will address this subject.

Willis
Why would you say that?
Guns are evil.
Couldnt we just sit back and rely on the National Guard or Reserves to fight the evil neocons for us? Oh, wait, they are part of the neocon govt too arent they.
Maybe you are right and that we all need guns, not that it will matter much since the evil neocon govt knows who has them and where to get them.
I guess your only option is to just march together and ask the evil neocons to give us our rights back?
Second Amendment? Bah, who needs it!

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #89418

Tony,

Or: What type of justice truly represents the American opinion (emphasis discerner) and shows respect to the elected officials (Congress)? What flavor (conservative or liberal) has been more prone to ‘legislating from the bench’ - basically, who is more prone to overturning laws made by Congress?

This is specifically the problem today. Our opinions should not direct the law. That is the major problem of the day and why there is so much political turmoil.

Unfortunately, the right and the left believe that their opinion, is LAW…

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #89419
Actually, that’s their biggest problem. The Democrats have so many ideas that the party can’t agree on most of them. And, when the do agree on one, they push it to such an extreme that they drive away the moderate voters, like they have with the issue of abortion.

That’s the point! Politics is about leading the people where those people want to go. The democrats fail to understand the majority of this country. In your original post, you said that it was because they didn’t use the right language, now you are saying that it is because they aren’t putting the right ideas forward. I agree with you, they aren’t putting the right ideas forward. But the choice of what ideas they put forward IS the role of a political party. Therefore, the democratic party is currently not a party of good
ideas, or at least winning ideas.

If they have ideas, they don’t have competent enough leadership to identify the ideas that can be sold to the public.

Either way, they are going to have to do a lot more than reframe thier existing ideas. They are going to have to do a lot more than pick another leader that relies on the same, tired ideas.

And that is going to require the party leadership to pick something to run on besides “Bush sucks.”

Posted by: jacktruth at November 1, 2005 12:50 PM
Comment #89421
I would guess that he believes in the 2nd Amendment and rules in support of an individuals right to bear arms.

The second amendment does not support the right of an INDIVIDUAL to bear arms. It supports the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Posted by: bobo at November 1, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #89428

Sadly, I seem to have at least part of my answer from today’s NYT editorial. Perhaps more will be forthcoming, but given this it does not bode awfully well.

…At least as worrisome are Judge Alito’s frequent rulings to undermine the federal government’s authority to address momentous national problems. Dissenting in a 1996 gun control case, he declared that Washington could not regulate the sale of fully automatic machine guns.

Bobo - you’re an intelligent person. You should know you can’t argue with those whose arguments are merely empty rhetoric. Of course you’re right but they’ll never acknowledge that no matter how obvious it is. They confuse propaganda for leadership. They rely on fear, ignorance and hatred to make people listen to their verbal excrement, then call it a majority. Well, if the past couple of months are any indication, the people have shown they are getting sick of the reactionary bullshit and are willing again to listen to truth and reason. Our side is ascendent in America and the right wingers simply can’t handle it. Let them whine and moan and lie. By virtue of their track record, they’ve rendered themselves completely irrelevant.

Posted by: roger at November 1, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #89431

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


My reading of the second Amendment would indicate that the right to bear arms is tied to a well regulated militia. Funny that the first half of the amendment is almost never mentioned…


Posted by: vague at November 1, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #89432

vague,

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I read it like this.
A militia is necessary for the security of a free state, but the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed….

Posted by: jimf at November 1, 2005 1:39 PM
Comment #89433

Absolutely right Bobo, I’m with ya.
I can’t believe some people actually think words like “the people” would mean THE PEOPLE throughout the BOR.

“By virtue of their track record, they’ve rendered themselves completely irrelevant”

Damn right they have.
But how can you be irrelevant but still control all three branches of our govt?
Weird.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2005 1:40 PM
Comment #89435

well I’m not a grammarian but I think the essence is:
A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

These clauses just add details:
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Posted by: vague at November 1, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #89436

Or another interpertation:

A militia is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed…

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 1, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #89437

Yikes, its the end of the world as we know it… and I don’t feel fine.

Posted by: Selim at November 1, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #89439

But which state? The whole of the US or for each state?

Posted by: vague at November 1, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #89445

which originalist interpretation do you follow? the federalists or antifederalists?

Posted by: vague at November 1, 2005 1:56 PM
Comment #89450

Womanmarine-

We’ll never know will we?

I’ll say, however, that given the Democrats controlled most of the State legislatures during the 70’s it certainly would have been some compromise that leaned towards a woman’s right to choose. That’s probably where the majority of people are on the subject anyway (abortion with restrictions).

Posted by: George in SC at November 1, 2005 2:07 PM
Comment #89454

For the abortion discussion above;

My read on Roe v Wade is the support of individual privacy (of which the right of a woman to choose is just a small part.) Are people ready to sacrifice their personal rights to privacy?

Also - for the argument that public opinion should not be considered law: how do you explain the various state laws against gay marriage and the federal ‘Marriage Protection Act’? There’s nothing in those trite POS laws other than opinion.

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 2:10 PM
Comment #89456

Vague,

If you’re asking me, I assume “free state” means the nation itself. That is my guess as to the “original intent” based on the usual meaning of “state”.

Individual states do have militias, though. Of course, they are “well regulated” to the point of actually being a federal orginazation…

This is tricky, isn’t it? Guess that’s why we have judges… ;-)

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 1, 2005 2:14 PM
Comment #89458

discerner:

I was just wondering: Congress makes laws, and the judicial branch interprets those laws…right? Congress is guided by public opinions and wills. As long as these laws are governed by our Constitution, that all seems the proper way to go. However, I hear a lot about ‘activist judges’ that ‘legislate from the bench.’ It’s the conservatives that make this argument - yet it’s the conservative Justices that consistently go against Congress. Seems to be a problem with either their argument or their judicial nominees.

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 2:16 PM
Comment #89461

Let’s look into the future on this one. Alito is nominated for Supreme Court. Gang of 14 disbands. Fillibuster is only option to keep Alito off Supreme Court.Republicans pass Anti-fillibuster measure. Republicans lose majority hold on Congress and Oval Office. New political leadership appoints liberal to judicial post. Republicans gag and vomit on having “up or down vote” shoved down their throats.

Posted by: Marko at November 1, 2005 2:26 PM
Comment #89469

jacktruth,

In your original post, you said that it was because they didn’t use the right language…

That wasn’t my post. That was Adrienne’s post.

If they have ideas, they don’t have competent enough leadership to identify the ideas that can be sold to the public.

Exactly my point! The Democrats choose the wrong arguments, and the wrong leaders to support those arguments. Most moderates that I know would LOVE to vote Democrat, but aren’t willing to support most of the boneheads the Democrats put forward. I supported Clinton, but he’s the only Democratic nominee in the past 20+ years (since Carter) that I would be willing to support.

There are plenty of Democrats with good ideas, personal integrity, records of good judgement, etc. Unfortunately, the DNC seems to filter them out of the nomination process, and select men like Kerry instead.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 2:57 PM
Comment #89471

It seems that for time immemorial there has not been unchallenged and/or universal bi-partisan agreement on a Supreme Court Justice nomination.

Given present government policy and main party political practice,individuals who are nominated and/or appointed to their positions will be subject to microscopic analysis and, at the end of the day, still found wanting by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Recent examples include Bolton, Brown, Roberts, Miers and now Alito.

Why is there such controversy. The obvious of course is the to be expected political differences and power struggle of the two main parties. Most in question is the arguable truth that appointments are motivated by the need to repay debts or political promises, currying the favor of certain groups (religious, wealthy individuals and/or corporations, etc.)

The citizenry of this country is experiencing poor living conditions. An inequitible tax structure, increasing national debt, uncertain homeland security issues, a government which has become increasingly translucent rather than transparent, just to mention a few.

“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” is not a term that would describe the current state of government and politics.

We need politicians who upon taking office are willing to accept the challenge of restoring government to it’s rightful and intended purpose to be OF the people BY the people and FOR the people.

Getting to that point begins in the voting booth where we can send a strong message regarding our support for positive action and reform by casting ballots for non-incumbants. We repeat this process at every opportunity until the objective is accomplished.

A growing and committed group has organized to champion this cause. Information can be found at
VoidNow.org

Posted by: steve smith at November 1, 2005 3:08 PM
Comment #89472

just a point about ‘bonehead’ Kerry:

Can anyone honestly say that they feel better about having Bush in office… now… after 5 years of incompetence and dishonesty?

Seriously?

Yea - I agree, we could put forth better people than Kerry … but the above post seems to suggest that Bush is a better option…

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #89476

The Miers appointment failed for one reason and one reason only - she wasn’t extreme enough for the far Right.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 1, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #89481

tony,

I would say, as I did during the election, that Kerry was a better choice than Bush, but for one reason only — the reestablishment of checks and balances. Bush has proven that a Republican president with a Republican House and a Republican Senate can spend more than any Democrat ever could alone. Both were bad choices, but Congress would have kept Kerry in line, while they’ve let Bush run wild.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #89483

andrienne


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A sore loser Dem no doubt

Posted by: vam at November 1, 2005 3:34 PM
Comment #89485

Marko,

Republicans gag and vomit on having “up or down vote” shoved down their throats.

When was the last time that the Republicans threatened to filibuster a judicial nominee?

Republicans accept the “up or down vote” as the time honored pratice and will not invoke it, however, with the Dems current track record, who knows.

Posted by: Discerner at November 1, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #89487

Marko,

Republicans gag and vomit on having “up or down vote” shoved down their throats.

When was the last time that the Republicans threatened to filibuster a judicial nominee?

Republicans accept the “up or down vote” as the time honored pratice and will not invoke it, however, with the Dems current track record, who knows.

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 3:47 PM
Comment #89488

discerner,

I have two words for you: Abe Fortas.

Posted by: EllliottBay at November 1, 2005 3:52 PM
Comment #89489

Senate Dems - you do have a spine! We’re behind you all the way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051101/ap_on_go_co/senate_iraq

As to the sidebar about recent Democratic candidates - Michael Dukakis was a good man, a solid executive, and a center-left moderate. Lee Atwater (Rove’s slime mentor - see “just desserts” for his fate) successfully hung the disgusting Willie Horton albatross on this good man’s neck and so began the Bushes’ assault on America. Al Gore’s problem was that he refused to kiss the media’s ass. So when the reactionary smear machine hit him for lack of an honest agenda, the media didn’t stand up for the truth and let the crap fester - ie. the myth spun about the “creating the internet” quote. Idiot-in-chief subsequently stole the first of two elections thereby continuing the Bush assault on America.

Posted by: roger at November 1, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #89493

Why inform? This would give her husband the right to prevent the abortion from happening.

IT’S HIS BABY TOO! But then that don’t matter to yaall because yaall want to do away with the family and ANY role the father has in raising children. Except for the part where he pays for their raising.
The wife cann’t sell a car or any real estate that belongs to the both of them without his permission. She also shouldn’t be allowed to kill the baby that belongs to BOTH of them without his permissiion.


Alito apparently feels feminism has gone too far and must be reined in.

If he does I’m in 200% agreement with him.
I’m ALL for women recieving equal pay WHEN THEY DO EQUAL WORK. But too many want the job with the men but then don’t want to do the same amount of work.
I’m also for promoting women that are qualifide for the position. But NOT just because someone thinks that a women should be in the position.

The establishment clause says

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Geesh! Yaall never quit trying to twist the Constitution to make it say what suites you do you?
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTIOIN as abortion IS NOT a religion. People may have religous belifs against abortion, or may try to use religion in support of abortion. But ABORTIONS IS NOT A REGLION!

The bigest problem the Left has with Alito is he won’t march in lock step with them. They want ONLY those in complete aggrement with them on the Supreme Court. Anyone else is to be shunned like the plege.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 4:03 PM
Comment #89495

Marko,

I stand corrected…
However, please read below.
The guy was Johnson’s “snake-in-the-grass”.
There are no comparisons to todays issues of ideology. Fortas had lost his integrity.

US Senate.gov website


Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 4:23 PM
Comment #89496

Sorry,
Somehow the link above did not work…

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 4:25 PM
Comment #89498

Ron Brown…

I’m assuming you’re just venting… no idea what kind of response you would want from the above post…

- You rant on about us on the left who ” never quit trying to twist the Constitution to make it say what suites you do you?” - yet you are quilty of the same twisting.

- Yes, it’s the man and woman’s child, but it is only the woman’s body… so, you could hardly expect equal consideration in the pregnacy

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 4:31 PM
Comment #89500

Adrienne
It does seem strange that they would pose for that picture in front of the second most incompetent President we’ve ever had. LBJ being the most incompentent.


Ms Schwamp
Alito, as a rare conservative intellectual, will think things through and may on occasion, disappoint his admirers.

I hope he DOES think things through. I’d have a lot more respect for him for that even if I dissagree with him than I do for the knee jerk Judges we currantly have.


kctim
Oh, wait, they are part of the neocon govt too arent they.
Maybe you are right and that we all need guns, not that it will matter much since the evil neocon govt knows who has them and where to get them.

And it was the evil neo-libs that passed the laws that gives the govt the information.

vague
well I’m not a grammarian but I think the essence is:
A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

These clauses just add details:
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

There’s the problem. The left reads out of or into the Constitution in order to make it say what THEY want it to say.
THE PEOPLE MEANS THE PEOPLE. Not a military organization.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 4:38 PM
Comment #89503

You’re a Good Man Ron Brown

Posted by: discerner at November 1, 2005 4:52 PM
Comment #89504

Alito seems to have the appropriate qualifications to the position. As to his views, they certainly seem very conservative and perhaps he would indeed vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but who knows. Many justices have “surprised” us over time. Frankfurter and White got more conservative in their views over time. Warren, Blackmun, Souter, move more to the liberal view of things. Most of these folks in my view are committed professionals who are are committed to the law more than ideology. I think if the gentlemen is qualified, then give him an up or down vote and if confirmed, let’s see. Miers in my view was not qualified and I was more concerned about the “Fortas factor” with her in that she was so closely tied to the White House.

Posted by: Dennis at November 1, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #89505

tony,

Yes, the mother should have the final say over what happens to their body during pregnancy, but the father still deserves to know and let the mother know his feelings on the matter.

This is of course ignoring my belief that the child’s right to life supercedes all but the mother’s right to life.

Posted by: SirisC at November 1, 2005 5:01 PM
Comment #89508

I don’t see the big deal about informing the Father about having an abortion.
It doesn’t give him control or the last word.
The final word rests with the woman (as it should, IMO).

There’s a lot of hypocrisy surrounding this issue.
Rather than criminalizing women, we should try to create a society where women don’t often feel that is their only choice. The root problem goes much deeper. Doing nothing but changing the law won’t resolve this problem. Women, if they want to, will still find a way to have an abortion. Are we going to start putting them all under surveillance? Are we going to start giving them tests when they leave the country, and then return? No, none of that will work. The only real way to nearly eliminate it is to provide all women shelter, food, money, resources during pregnancy, and promise to be there after they are born, to help care for them, and to completely remove the stigma and negative connotations, and truly respect life, and be willing to pay for it too…not just hypocritically sit in judgement without being willing to step forward and fund pregnancies to full term, and also care and provide funds for the children after birth too. Especially, when some of these women aren’t even suitable mothers.

And that is the crux of the problem. Other people don’t want to foot the bill, or take on the responsibility of other peoples’ children. They don’t want women to have abortions, but they also don’t really care what happens to them after they’re born. So, some think a law can change all that ? It won’t. It will make a sad situation worse.

Honestly, I wonder about the hypocrisy and motives for some that so adamantly want to change the law, but aren’t willing to lift a finger or spend one red cent to bring all the would-be abortions to full term, and then take care of them after birth, or adopt them themselves, or pay for the womens living expenses until up to the time of birth. Many of these people are hypocrites too. Sure, abortion is sad, and may even be morally wrong, but I seriously question some of these people that are so quick to sit in judgement of others, change and force the law on others, and simultaneously refuse to really show any real concern for the hardship in bringing it to full term, or care for it after birth. These people are just as immoral (maybe more).

Note: I’m not justifying abortion, but I’m not yet ready to criminalize it either. We should first work on other solutions. A law that can’t even be enforced, that can’t legislate morals, can not improve the situation.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 1, 2005 5:15 PM
Comment #89511

tony
-You rant on about us on the left who ” never quit trying to twist the Constitution to make it say what suites you do you?” - yet you are quilty of the same twisting.

I’m not trying to twist the Constitution. I let it say want it says. Even if I don’t like it.

- Yes, it’s the man and woman’s child, but it is only the woman’s body… so, you could hardly expect equal consideration in the pregnacy

O YES I DO!
I’m personally against abortion, but sense it is legal the husband has the same say as the wife.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 5:22 PM
Comment #89514

I believe that while it is wrong to get an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened, criminalizing abortions would only cause more harm than good. Since there is no guaruntee of sanitary, safe conditions when a medical procedure is done illegally, it would only cause more disease and death in the long run. I’m not sure who proposed it, but I like the idea of using social and educational programs to eliminate most of the reasons people get abortions. (It is because of views like this that I no longer claim to be Republican, but I still consider myself conservative)

Posted by: SirisC at November 1, 2005 5:30 PM
Comment #89518
- Yes, it’s the man and woman’s child, but it is only the woman’s body… so, you could hardly expect equal consideration in the pregnacy

O YES I DO!
I’m personally against abortion, but sense it is legal the husband has the same say as the wife.

That makes little sense, Ron. Abortion is legal because of a precident that puts the woman’s right to make decisions about her own body above any rights the fetus may or may not have under the Constitution. (I’m not sure I agree with the precident, but that is the legal basis.) It is not a right to determine whether or not she wants the CHILD, but simply whether or not she wants the PREGNANCY. (If it were the former, “abortion” would still be legal after birth, which it thankfully isn’t.)

Yes, the CHILD is both the father’s and the mother’s. But the PREGNANCY is all hers. Despite all the feel-good PC rhetoric about “we’re pregnant”, pregnancy is a medical condition that the woman experiences, not the man. The decision is all about her right to decide whether or not to be PREGNANT. Once the pregnancy ends (via birth, for example), the decision is off the table.

If a man gets testicular cancer, for example, should he have to get his wife’s permission to have it treated? Or should his medical conditions be his alone to deal with?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #89519
It does seem strange that they would pose for that picture in front of the second most incompetent President we’ve ever had. LBJ being the most incompentent.

Ron…. Everyone knows the most incompetent president in American history is in office now, and the 2nd is Hoover (by a very close margin).

Posted by: Taylor at November 1, 2005 6:02 PM
Comment #89527

I suspect NONE of the men posting about the father’s right to know is familiar with abusive relationships?

Of course that’s probably the woman’s fault too.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 1, 2005 6:27 PM
Comment #89528

Rob Cottrell
It is not a right to determine whether or not she wants the CHILD, but simply whether or not she wants the PREGNANCY. (If it were the former, “abortion” would still be legal after birth, which it thankfully isn’t.)

If she dosen’t want the Pregnacy then some form of bith control should be practiced.
It’s STILL both the husbands AND wifeS child and the HUSBAND HAS THE RIGHT TO HELP DECIDE!

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 6:32 PM
Comment #89530

Dr Poshek:

Democrats opposed Miers and oppose Alito because both are radical rightwingers who pose a serious threat to the civil rights and liberties of the American people.

So let me get this right. Radical rightwingers opposed Miers because she was a radical rightwinger.

Even though Alito was confirmed by 100 senators in 1990, he is a “serious threat”. Of course the follow up question is why did the democratic party confirm a radical extremist?

Baloney. This is just politics.

The only thing I can figure is that your views are left wing, and that makes them look right wing.

For instance:

1. Do you support partial birth abortion?

2. Are you angry with Hillary for not backing Cindy Sheahan more?

3. Do you have a favorable opinion of michael moore?

4. Do you think we should pull out of Iraq immediately?

5. Do you support gay marriage?

6. Do you think Bush planned on invading Iraq before 2000?

My favorite diet is to stand by someone fatter than I am, because then I look slim.

If you answer yes to three of the above, then I can understand why you think they are extreme. But you are saying as much about yourself as about the court nominees. Moderates look conservative to the left.

Your answers say as much about you as they do about Bush’s appointments.

Craig



Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 1, 2005 6:43 PM
Comment #89532

womanmarine
I suspect NONE of the men posting about the father’s right to know is familiar with abusive relationships?

While I didn’t grow up in a home with an abusive relationship between my parents, and I don’t abuse my wife, I DO know about abusive relationships.
One of my sisters married an abusive asshole. There was more nights than I care to remember that I’ve spent in the emergency room with her because he beat her up. And the number of times I’ve kicked his ass because of it.
He finally cause her to miscarry because of his abuse. This was what finally made her leave him.
Even then he abused her. And I kicked his ass. The restraining order only worked when he was in jail for violating it. These kind of Bastards never learn.
He’s in prison now for murder. He ended up killing his second wife.


Of course that’s probably the woman’s fault too.

There is NEVER as reason to abuse your wife, or anyone else. While some (very few) women seem to invite abuse, MOST WOMEN DO NOT! So in I would say 99.99% of the cases IT IS NOT THE WOMENS FAULT. And anyone who thinks it’s the womens fault every case is an ABUSIVE BASTARD themselves.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 6:54 PM
Comment #89533

womanmarine
I suspect NONE of the men posting about the father’s right to know is familiar with abusive relationships?

While I didn’t grow up in a home with an abusive relationship between my parents, and I don’t abuse my wife, I DO know about abusive relationships.
One of my sisters married an abusive asshole. There was more nights than I care to remember that I’ve spent in the emergency room with her because he beat her up. And the number of times I’ve kicked his ass because of it.
He finally cause her to miscarry because of his abuse. This was what finally made her leave him.
Even then he abused her. And I kicked his ass. The restraining order only worked when he was in jail for violating it. These kind of Bastards never learn.
He’s in prison now for murder. He ended up killing his second wife.


Of course that’s probably the woman’s fault too.

There is NEVER as reason to abuse your wife, or anyone else. While some (very few) women seem to invite abuse, MOST WOMEN DO NOT! So in I would say 99.99% of the cases IT IS NOT THE WOMENS FAULT. And anyone who thinks it’s the womens fault every case is an ABUSIVE BASTARD themselves.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 6:55 PM
Comment #89534

I Don’t know how this got double posted. Sorry.

Watchblog Editor, If you can delete one of these I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 6:57 PM
Comment #89535

Does anyone think it is absurd to say conservatism has some elements of facism?

Posted by: hmm at November 1, 2005 7:03 PM
Comment #89539

So Ron brown:

I guess you missed my point. There are sometimes very good reasons not to tell the husband.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 1, 2005 7:38 PM
Comment #89541

See what happens when we bother to answer the idiotic right? Now we’re stuck in an abortion debate with these fools. Damn there’s a lot of ‘em here today. Did I miss the memo about it being “take a dumbass to liberal forum day” or something?

Dan, it’s nice to see someone take an honest and nuanced approach to this - the aforementioned fools in here could learn a thing or two from you if they had any learning capabilities to start with.

Although your post has true merit, it’s hard to agree 100%. The husband has a right to be informed, but without some sort of easy judicial override for a woman who is stuck in an abusive relationship or other such situation, it’s a non-starter. It’s a tough call, but one I agree must yield to the woman’s final decision.

Posted by: roger at November 1, 2005 7:43 PM
Comment #89542

hmmm…

OK - let’s say you have a restraining order against the violent husband, but you are pregnant and the best option for you is an abortion. The law would make you beak the law of the restraining order to follow the law?

What will you ask the husband to do? Sign a waiver? What if he refuses out of spite? What are the criminal actions against the mother if she fails to tell the husband? Jail? Criminal record?

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 7:46 PM
Comment #89543

sorry - that should be break the law (not beak it…)

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 7:47 PM
Comment #89555

Tony,
In the case you showed above, the wife would simply have to request a hearing in front of a Judge and ask for a waiver of the law due to obvious reasons.

What you fail to see is the Intent of the Law. Imagine being a “Perfect Husband” (I know women that will never happen) who has always wanted a child and the woman you married got an abortion because she, on her own, decided that she wasn’t ready for whatever reason. Since marriage is a working relationship, would you, the husband, feel that your rights have been violated? That was the Intent of the Law; however, our legal eagles wanted to play with it to include or exclude those conditions in which the women clearly was within her own rights to do so.

Be it right/wrong/ or indifferent, as long as the law respects both parties interests while leaving all judgment cals up to the courts than how can it be considered wrong? The reason this law got declared unconstitutional later was that it narrowed that gap to tight to protect a woman’s right.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 1, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #89561

I see the Intent of this Law very clearly - another attempt to prevent women from a very personal choice. We do not mandate that the fathers take full responsibility for their offspring…

It goes both ways. You can’t have it all if you’re not going to go 100%.

Posted by: tony at November 1, 2005 8:35 PM
Comment #89565
If she dosen’t want the Pregnacy then some form of bith control should be practiced. It’s STILL both the husbands AND wifeS child and the HUSBAND HAS THE RIGHT TO HELP DECIDE!

Ok… let me put this another way. The abortion debate (no matter which side of it you are on) is ultimately a debate as to whether the woman’s right to her own body is more important than the child’s right to life. Some say yes; some say no. But if the legal system determines that the child’s rights can’t trump the woman’s rights, why do you think the father’s rights should?

I can’t think of ANY scenario in which the father’s rights would be more important than those of the child. If the woman’s rights are determined to be greater than those of the child (which is the real debate), then the father is at best third in this equation. It’s basic math — if A > B and B > C, then A > C.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 8:46 PM
Comment #89570

Rob Cottrell
I can’t think of ANY scenario in which the father’s rights would be more important than those of the child. If the woman’s rights are determined to be greater than those of the child (which is the real debate), then the father is at best third in this equation. It’s basic math — if A > B and B > C, then A > C.

And thats just one of many reasons that abortion is wrong. If the childs rights are more important than the fathers. Then the childs rights are more important than the mothers also.
In that case the women has NO right to choose to kill her baby. It’s NOT about the womens right to choose. It’s ALL ABOUT the right of the child to be born.
If a women doesn’t want a child she has choises to prevent it. Once she concieves she has run out of choises.
Everyone worries about the rights of a women that made the choise to get pregant by NOT using messures to prevent it MORE than the rights of a child. That child IS a human being after all.
And everyone wonders why the empire is on the decline.
Why is it the only time liberials worry about the vaule of human life is when a murder or worse is about to be executed? That is about the only time I’ve ever heard one say it’s wrong to kill.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 9:20 PM
Comment #89573

womanmarine
I guess you missed my point. There are sometimes very good reasons not to tell the husband.

Maybe I did, like Henry said, in cases like that a judge would most likey issue a court order permitting the women to go ahead with the abortion.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 9:23 PM
Comment #89575

tony
I see the Intent of this Law very clearly - another attempt to prevent women from a very personal choice. We do not mandate that the fathers take full responsibility for their offspring…

It goes both ways. You can’t have it all if you’re not going to go 100%.

I take it you’ve never been late on or refused to pay child support.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 9:26 PM
Comment #89577

1. Do you support partial birth abortion?

No, which is why I won’t have one.

2. Are you angry with Hillary for not backing Cindy Sheahan more?

Hillary who?

3. Do you have a favorable opinion of michael moore?

Michael Moore is a true American hero, in a time when not many heros are left.

4. Do you think we should pull out of Iraq immediately?

Of course not, a plan, however, would be a good thing to start thinking about.

5. Do you support gay marriage?

Of course. I also support black marriage, jewish marriage, persons with disabilities’ marriages, and war veterans’ marriage. Since when did two people loving one another become a bad thing for the world?

6. Do you think Bush planned on invading Iraq before 2000?

Absolutely.

Posted by: Taylor at November 1, 2005 9:34 PM
Comment #89579
If a women doesn’t want a child she has choises to prevent it. Once she concieves she has run out of choises.

Do you hold this belief even in cases where the woman didn’t choose to conceive (i.e. rape)?

Why is it the only time liberials worry about the vaule of human life is when a murder or worse is about to be executed? That is about the only time I’ve ever heard one say it’s wrong to kill.

I’ve often wondered about that. I’ve also wondered why the only time conservatives are worried about the value of human life is when it hasn’t been born yet. Between the NRA, the death penalty, and preemptive war, the philosophy seems to be that once you’ve passed out of the birth canal, it’s open season.

Just once, I’d like to see a viable presidential candidate with a consistent view on the value of life. Even if it’s a “kill’em all and let God sort’em out” view, it would be refreshing compared to the confusion we have now.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 9:36 PM
Comment #89583
Even though Alito was confirmed by 100 senators in 1990, he is a “serious threat”. Of course the follow up question is why did the democratic party confirm a radical extremist?

1990 was a different political landscape, and a swing seat in the supreme court wasn’t the confirmation in question.

Posted by: Taylor at November 1, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #89603

Taylor:


1990 was a different political landscape, and a swing seat in the supreme court wasn’t the confirmation in question.

So Alito he is a right extremist because a swing seat in the supreme court is in question. I actually think you are stating the truth. He must be villified or else the left is shown for the polititians that they are. Otherwise there is no justification for the Left’s behavior.

The criticism of Alito says as much about the left as it does about Alito.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 1, 2005 11:16 PM
Comment #89633

Ron,
Your idea that the Child Rights overrides the Parents Rights is not exactly true for several reasons. To put it any other way would give “The Child” rule over their parents without recourse. This idea would not make “Common Sense” in everyday life and has in fact allowed many of our social problems to flower.

Although I am one of those children that benifitted greatly by being able to question my elders, to say that my parents did not have final say over my rights as a child would of put me at greater risk. What is next, a child having more rights than a Judge? Than who will teach them right from wrong? No, equal rights must protect a females right to choice and while I do understand a husband’s right to be consoled, even his word should not be the final one when the freedom of freewill is left up to the individual and done within the limits of common sense and the law.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 2:24 AM
Comment #89653

FYI. Acording to the parlance at the time of the writing “well regulated” meant well armed.Nothing more.Nothing less.
The anti gun arguement that the National Gard was the” militia” has been shown to be falacious. Where are they now? the Gard is clearly an adjunct to the standing army.

Another 2nd amendment yellow dog Dem and there are more than a few of us.

Posted by: Bill at November 2, 2005 6:21 AM
Comment #89660

RvsW is not really that hard to understand. If you do not have a uterus it is none of your business. If you do ,yours is the only one of your concern. Real conservatives like Goldwater understood this. The neo-cons could care less except it is a tool to build a power base for their real adgenda. If they were actually pro life they would oppose the death penalty and war as the Catholic Church does. The point is power

Posted by: Bill at November 2, 2005 6:49 AM
Comment #89674

Bill,
I like your spin on RvsW; however, can you explian to me why none of the anti-gun people want to talk about regulating the sale of bullets. Surely, the Founding Fathers meant that which makes up ammo was to be sold through our commerce. Now, all we have to do is to stop selling bullets to criminals because reloading is most likely out of their hands.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 8:03 AM
Comment #89681

Here’s a different perspective. Suppose a husband and wife opt for in vitro fertilization. After the egg is fertilized, but before it is implanted, the wife changes her mind. But the egg is already fertiziled, and A HUMAN LIFE HAS BEEN CREATED. Should the husband have any right to force the process to continue, or is her word alone sufficient to stop the process? After all, as you said above, “It’s STILL both the husbands AND wifeS child and the HUSBAND HAS THE RIGHT TO HELP DECIDE!”

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 2, 2005 8:39 AM
Comment #89686

Rob,
Although I would like to see both sides willing to talk about it and come to a mutaul agreement, the right squarely falls to the wife. Otherwise it would be ok for a husband to rape his wife and we know that to be wrong.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 8:57 AM
Comment #89688

Ron Brown,
Is it I who “reads out of or into the Constitution in order to make it say what THEY want it to say.” you, the NRA and many others think gun ownership should not be regulated. You take two clauses out of a sentence that has four clauses and hold it up as whole and complete.
I’m not against gun ownership, I just think something as powerful and deadly as assault rifles, given the killing capacity, should have some limitations. Growing up in MA, if you wanted to buy a rifle you needed a firearm ID card. I got mine at the police department, it took a week to get but I could then walk into a gun store and buy any rifle there. It was a one time background check. I did not think that unreasonable, or an undo burden. Imagine what a group of terrorists, each armed with an AK-47 or AR-15 could do in a packed mall around christmas. This is just, or should, be common sense.

Posted by: vague at November 2, 2005 9:04 AM
Comment #89690

Henry Schlatman,

Although I would like to see both sides willing to talk about it and come to a mutaul agreement, the right squarely falls to the wife. Otherwise it would be ok for a husband to rape his wife and we know that to be wrong.

Agreed. In my ideal world, abortions would be like tickets to a Cleveland Browns game — they’d be legal, but nobody would want one. ;-) Unfortunately, my ideal world doesn’t exist….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 2, 2005 9:20 AM
Comment #89691

“Another 2nd amendment yellow dog Dem and there are more than a few of us”

They don’t care my friend, they just don’t care.
Rather than taking the 2nd Amendment for what it is, they would rather throw away millions of votes and keep losing elections.
The 2nd Amendment does not comply with their agenda so it is wrong and must be changed as they see fit.
They know whats best for everyone and they don’t want our votes if we disagree.
Good ol Roger is a typical example of a liberal.
Rather than respecting our views and trying to reach common ground, they choose to ignore us and shout grade school insults.
Millions of election deciding votes and they still choose to have the “our way or no way” attitude.

Good post Bill!

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2005 9:36 AM
Comment #89692

—-
I take it you’ve never been late on or refused to pay child support.
—-

Ya got me there - guess I’ll try to do better.

(Sorry for the sarcasm) but child support is hardly 100% dedication or responsibility for your children. You are at best making a bad situation slightly less bad.

To this point: If the husband and wife share equal decision power for the birth of a child, then they both should be legally bound together until the child is an adult. Marriage is a legal requirement, making it work is as much a legal responsibility as paying taxes, and divorce should be a criminal offense. Adultery is also illegal and should carry a mandatory jail sentence…

Of course the above is just an excessive bunch of crap… just wanted to point out that physically having a child does not end either person’s responsibility and should not end a community’s concern for the well being of that child. Unless we are all ready to go 100% into each child’s live - then we don’t get the option of making key decisions.

Posted by: tony at November 2, 2005 9:40 AM
Comment #89696
The 2nd Amendment does not comply with their agenda so it is wrong and must be changed as they see fit.

I’m quite surprised that it’s the Democrats attacking the 2nd Amendment. With the Republicans constantly redefining “terrorist” to mean whoever their current enemy is, I can’t help but think that the Democrats are going to need those guns before long….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 2, 2005 9:58 AM
Comment #89701

Rob
Surprised? Read who mainly comes up with and sponsors anti 2nd legislation.
Millions of much needed pro-2nd votes are thrown away by the “Democratic” party each election. Would it not be in their best interest to listen to the people?

“I can’t help but think that the Democrats are going to need those guns before long….”

Ironic isn’t it. The party who wants to dimantle the 2nd Amendment, now thinks they may need it.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2005 10:25 AM
Comment #89711

Rob Cottrell
Just once, I’d like to see a viable presidential candidate with a consistent view on the value of life. Even if it’s a “kill’em all and let God sort’em out” view, it would be refreshing compared to the confusion we have now.

I’d just once like to see one that’s consistent on anything.

Henry Schlatman
Your idea that the Child Rights overrides the Parents Rights is not exactly true for several reasons. To put it any other way would give “The Child” rule over their parents without recourse. This idea would not make “Common Sense” in everyday life and has in fact allowed many of our social problems to flower.

The child once concieved has EVERY right to be born. EVEN OVER THE WISHES OF THE PARENTS.
The parents DONOT have the right to kill their children after they’re born. The childs right to life overrides the parents rights. The same is true for the unborn child. The child’s right to life overrides the rights of the parents.
The right to life in NO WAY give the child rule over the parents.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #89713

—-
The right to life in NO WAY give the child rule over the parents.
—-
You need to look into the reality of this statement.

Posted by: tony at November 2, 2005 10:58 AM
Comment #89718

vague
Imagine what a group of terrorists, each armed with an AK-47 or AR-15 could do in a packed mall around christmas. This is just, or should, be common sense.

Do you really think that terrorist or criminals are going to buy fairarms from a gun dealer?
Every state in the union has laws porhibiting exfelons from owning or even pocessing fire arms.
This means they cann’t walk into a gun store and buy a gun. But take a look around. There a several exfelons that use guns to committ crimes everyday. Several are aressted every year for pocessing a gun.
That being said, I’ve never said that aasault rifles should be sold over the counter. They’re ARE some weapons that SHOULD NOT be sold to the public. I would hate to see some nut in a fully opperational A1 Abrams in downtown Atlanta during rush hour. Then again it might make drivers a little more courtious.
Also I believe that anyone wanting to buy a gun (speicially 1st time buyers) should be required to pass a gun safty coarse.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2005 11:14 AM
Comment #89721

So, Ron, you believe in gun control.

Posted by: Dave at November 2, 2005 11:32 AM
Comment #89731

Ron Brown,
“Do you really think that terrorist or criminals are going to buy fairarms from a gun dealer?”
When it is perfectly legal for them to do so, why not? Were any of the terrorists from 9-11 ex-felons? What would stop a potential terrorist who is here legally, who becomes a citizen, from buying assault rifles?

besides Dave is right you do believe in some control…

Posted by: vague at November 2, 2005 11:46 AM
Comment #89733

Ron,
You said “The child once concieved has EVERY right to be born. EVEN OVER THE WISHES OF THE PARENTS.” Have you ever heard of the statement “In for a penny, in for a pound?” Because if you accept your statement than every child has the right to tell their parents what to do regardless of the parents wishes. No more spanking a child. No more telling your child no they can’t have that. In fact, a parent would become a slave to the child’s demands under your “Common Sense” approach. Now that is Liberal.

Sorry, as a society we must draw the line somewhere and for better or worse IMO that means the adult must stay in control over those who have not yet learned the knowledge and wisdom over right and wrong. Do you not agree? BTW this same argument was attempted by the Democrats some 40 years ago so don’t be surprised about the outcome based on your logic.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #89735

Ron,
That is why I suggest regulating the sell of bullets and ammo accessories. Without ammo doesn’t any gun just become another club? Some people do not ever learn to control their rage; however, forbidding the sell of ammo to them keeps the issue out of conflict with the Constitution.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #89740

Henry, the right to bear arms would include the right to purchase ammo, without it the right to bear the arms would be empty. like the right to privacy this would eminate from the penumbras of the Constitution.

Posted by: vague at November 2, 2005 12:07 PM
Comment #89755

“Good ‘ol roger” is under no obligation to give creedence to views he sees as either being, or supporting those who are: stupid, corrupt, evil or downright dangerous. No matter how reasoned those views try to be, they’re not part of the solution, so they’re part of the problem. If my friends on the right don’t like that, feel free to ignore me as well - your responses do nothing but give me laughs and reason to believe even more that I’m correct.

To my moderate and liberal fellow-thinkers: you may or may not agree with my tactics. That’s fair and I completely respect your opinions. But I will not back down in my all-out defense of our shared values especially in light our own relegation over the past five years, and what I know we all believe is dire danger to our American democracy at its core. If the extreme left wing of our side was in power and acting like the extreme right wing is now - believe me I’d be as loud and as angry, and I’d sure as hell not be providing them the kind of support that the posters in here provide to the American Taliban.

Posted by: roger at November 2, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #89756

Henry,

The child has the right to live, that has nothing to do with the rights of a parent to raise their kid. (So long as that parent isn’t abusive) I can see no logical way to come to the conclusion that to allow the child’s right to life to supercede the parent’s right to choose to translate into the child’s other rights superceding the parent’s rights.

Posted by: SirisC at November 2, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #89766

“No matter how reasoned those views try to be, they’re not part of the solution, so they’re part of the problem”

Kind of like we are either with you or against you huh.
Good attitude to have, its worked so well at the polls now hasn’t it?
Thats the kind of thinking that has given the liberals all the power they have today.
Good luck in ‘06 and ‘08, you guys are going to need it.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2005 12:53 PM
Comment #89786

SirisC,
A child as defined as when Life begins (i.e. Brith) has a natural right to life; however, if we have learned anything over the last forty years it should be that parents need their rights entacted so that they can raise their children to grow up and know right from wrong.

Look at how parenting has changed over the last 40 years due to the presumption of what is a child’s right. Spanking (the proper way) is now considered abuse. If a child is at home and Mom or Dad yell at them, all they have to do is call 911 and have their parents arrested for abuse. Shot, I’m waiting for a child to seek relief in the Courts because their parents make them go to school everyday. Oh wait! Wasn’t that right covered when the State gave a 16 year old the right to quit High School without their parents signature?

What more rights of a parent and community should we give away because “We the People” can not tell “We the State” what the legal word Life and Death or more to the point Brain-dead By introducing a Bill that would declare Life to begin at brain activity the two laws which govern Life and Death naturally coexist. Thus, since Brain-dead is the curent medical standard used today (Heartbeat & Breathing being before that standard in America ans elsewhere) they would be able to allow our medical field study and make findings as they learn more and more about the Human body. As long as a mother’s rights were upheld to take precedent, the “Self of an Individual” would still remain free with all Natural Rights endowed to them by their “Creator”.

Besides, that law would protect society from taking the cells of a dead Human and seek to clone them. Remember Evil? I think that is a good enough reason to draw the line of Life and Death at Brain Activity for now.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 2:04 PM
Comment #89822

Vague,
You have the right to purchase the gun powder, lead, and cotton balls through commerce. Can you name me one good reason why our Founding Fathers would not reserve that right for The State? Did the North allow the sales of arms and ammo to the South because it would of been profitable? No, National Security would dictate that the sell of ammo be regulated under “Common Sense.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #89859

Roger,

As part of the moderate, but currently right-leaning voter block that rejected Kerry and supported Bush, I would think that some courtship might be in order to help end the “Taliban’s” reign.

The distance idealogically between you and me is less than it is between me and Ron, but that’s not important to you. Instead, you continue to berate me as part of the problem and to clearly draw a line between me and you. The more distinct that line, and the more names you call me, the less likely I am to cross it.

You are more inconsiderate of competing ideas as you accuse the Republican Party of being.

Posted by: Rob at November 2, 2005 4:52 PM
Comment #89862

Rob
Done tried that approach my friend. They do not care. They are right, we are wrong. It is up to us to conform to their beliefs, not for them to accept ours.
The funny things is, like you, I bet he and I agree on alot more things than he believes we do.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #89878

kctim, Rob:

Not all liberals are as divisive as Roger, but unfortunately a great many are. They assume that left-leaning is left-leaning, no matter how far to the left one chooses to lean. Paul’s recent “Moderates are Really Liberals” article demonstrated that nicely.

I’m a left-leaning moderate, but I probably have more in common with the other Rob above (who claims to be a right-leaning moderate) than with those firmly on the Left. I abhor extremes, as do many voters. The sooner the Democrats learn that, the sooner they will start winning elections.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 2, 2005 6:50 PM
Comment #89886

Mr Alito has benn confirmed not once but twice with all 100 SENATORS confirming him so in your ear with that. Just so your Obtuse mind can grasp this that includes the ultra Liberal ted Kennedy. So how will you oppose the very Senators that voted for him in the past and not look like fools in the process. He will be cinfirmed again!

Posted by: CAD at November 2, 2005 7:33 PM
Comment #89931

Dave
So, Ron, you believe in gun control.

Yeah, I believe in gun control. Gun control is hitting exactly what your aiming at.
I beleive that the sale of guns should be regulated in that ex-felons, children, the mentally incompentent and unnstable should not be able to buy guns.
As far as assault rifles go, given the nature of them, they should be and are very hard to buy legally. And always have been.
In order to buy one you have to have a Federal firearms permit. Beleive me they DONOT make these things easy to get. You have to fill out an application about as thick as a small book, and send $1500 to the ATF. Then they put you through a background check that makes a military top secret clearence background check look like a walk in the park. If they find anylittle thing that doesn’t look like they want it, you don’t get the permit. And you loose your $1500. If you get the permit then it cost you $1500 a year to keep it. And given the nature of the weapons this is as it should be.
So I believe some regulation is necessary.
But I’m NOT in favor of gun control as liberials define it.
The COMPLETE banning and confiscation of ALL GUNS.
THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
No amount of banning or confiscation of firearms will stop the criminal from getting them as they don’t buy them leagally. And it won’t slow them down either. It will no doubt make it more expensive.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2005 10:30 PM
Comment #89934

Henry Schlatman
Sorry, as a society we must draw the line somewhere and for better or worse IMO that means the adult must stay in control over those who have not yet learned the knowledge and wisdom over right and wrong. Do you not agree?

I’m not saying that parents should not have control over their children. THEY SHOULD!
I’m saying that the childs right to life is more important than the parents right to kill that child.
If a parent was to kill their 12 or 13 year-old I’m sure you would say they DIDNOT have a right to do that and that they committed murder. Why then DO you think it is the right of parents to kill their unborn child. It’s murder just the same. BOTH ARE HUMAN BEINGS!

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2005 10:40 PM
Comment #89939

vague
Henry, the right to bear arms would include the right to purchase ammo, without it the right to bear the arms would be empty. like the right to privacy this would eminate from the penumbras of the Constitution.

That’s what the liberials want.
And so do ALL politicians. They’re affraid of the citizens owning guns because it makes it harder to control them.

BE SCARED OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS SCARED OF YOUR GUNS!

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2005 10:49 PM
Comment #89943

Ron,
The taking of life should never become automatic nor without just cause; however, the right of the Individual Freewill must remain paramount in our society. That is why I suggest that we aim to define Life in the same manner that we define death. Where exactly is that point in time were a cell or group of sells becomes a Human by the legal term “Brain Activity” than becomes a matter of medical fact and can change with time as our knowledge grows over this next century or so.

With the invention of fertile tests on the market, we can hopefully teach our youth that there are times that a cold shower is the better course of action. Stopping the act from taking place is something we can influence as a society. Otherwise you risk the State passing a law hat could regulate the male reproductive system. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 11:01 PM
Comment #90001

Just to be clear. IAM A LIBERAL.I am an active Democrat in the bluest region of a very blue state. I also believe the 2nd amendment means what it says and Americans have the right to own firearms.Of course the Bill of rights is not a suicide pact. Fully automatic weapons have been outlawed since the 30ies.
I hope the Democratic Party will take a real look at why we lose national elections. Gun control is one reason. There are millions of law abiding,decent people out there that vote Republican for that single issue. It is just not worth it. These folks face the same problems we all do.Their kids are stuck in underfunded schools. Outragious health care cost are eating them alive. They are working harder and earning less. The list goes on but the point is they should be voting Democrat.We know how to fix these problems but can’t without their support.

Posted by: Bill at November 3, 2005 6:29 AM
Comment #90011

CAD,

Mr Alito has benn confirmed not once but twice with all 100 SENATORS confirming him so in your ear with that. Just so your Obtuse mind can grasp this that includes the ultra Liberal ted Kennedy. So how will you oppose the very Senators that voted for him in the past and not look like fools in the process. He will be cinfirmed again!

Confirming someone for a lower court and confirming them for the Supreme Court are entirely different matters. A judge who is “activist” in 1% of his cases, for example, would make a good lower court judge, as those 1% could be overturned in higher courts. He would be a poor SC judge, though, as there is no higher authority to overturn those poor decisions.

The other factor to consider is that the Senate gets hundreds of lower-court appointments to confirm — I’m sure they don’t read every single one of them. In most cases, unless there’s a glaring reason not to, they just confirm them and move on.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying that I think Alito shouldn’t be confirmed. From what I’ve seen so far, I think he should be. But it’s not just partisan bickering that is going to make this confirmation different than his last two. It’s the fact that we do (and should) hold Supreme Court Justices to a much higher standard than we do any other judicial post.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 3, 2005 8:18 AM
Comment #90023

Rob C.
“The sooner the Democrats learn that, the sooner they will start winning elections”

That is what many of us have been saying on here but most liberals believe we should shut up and mind our own business.
They say they aren’t liberal enough.

Bill
“Just to be clear. I AM A LIBERAL”

And you have a message that makes sense. Now, are you beliefs trivial and undeserving of respect by your own party as good ol Roger says? Or should they maybe listen to what you have to say and actually learn?

“I hope the Democratic Party will take a real look at why we lose national elections. Gun control is one reason”

It is a HUGE reason why they lose elections. IF they could just honor the 2nd Amendment for what it means and was intended, they would get alot more votes. Probably enough to win.


Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2005 9:39 AM
Comment #90070

Good morning Bill. Nice, thoughtful post. As a liberal I wrestle with second amendment issues. I have a strong libertarian streak (as did the an influential wing of the Republican party before the Reaganites took it over) which makes it hard for me to completely decry gun ownership. I do think that law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns, but I also think it’s just insane not to have some sort of control over that ownership. We have a right to free speech but cannot legally yell “fire” in a crowded room. We have a right to free assembly, but not on someone’s private property.

I hardly think that by opposing the sale of assault weapons, having background checks or requiring safety locks, etc. is or even should be a reason why the democrats lose. The NRA, by virtue of its inflexible positions on such common sense issues has inflamed the debate unnecessarily and created a straw dog about gun owners’ rights being trampled. This is simply not the case and I think you might agree to some extent even if some of the morons in here can’t see it. I believe that the NRA is quickly becoming a cancer on our society because of this inflexibility.

PS. I’m a gun owner myself.

Posted by: roger at November 3, 2005 11:51 AM
Comment #90122

Careful, roger… you’re dangerously close to becoming a moderate. ;-)

In your post above, you are expressing a moderate’s viewpoint on gun control. The NRA represents the extremist viewpoint — what you call “inflexible positions on common sense issues”. The same could be said about the Left’s position on partial-birth abortions. I would certainly say that their position has “inflamed the debate unnecessarily and created a straw dog about…rights being trampled”, wouldn’t you?

Most of us moderates are looking for what I will call a “sane amount of freedom”. Too many people fighting for “civil rights” seem to lose their sanity in the process. I think it’s a requirement to become a politician, actually. ;-)

As for the debate on the 2nd Amendment and what it means, I interpret it as such — In order to remain Free, the People must retain the ability to organize themselves for defense. It is not enough for the People to rely on the Government to provide armies to defend them, as there are times (1776, 1861, etc.) when the Government is the one the People are defending AGAINST.

Keeping guns in the hands of the People keeps Revolution in the hands of the People, which keeps Government beholden to the People. Even Democracies can turn bad — look at pre-WWII Germany. If they do, the People have a responsibility to replace them.

The 2nd Amendment uses the phrase “well regulated Militia”. The army and navy are the Government’s military. The “Militia” is the People’s military. When you consider that, when the Constitution was written, the militias in the Colonies had just risen up against their Government to create a free and secure State, these words mean a little more:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 3, 2005 2:29 PM
Comment #90376

Rob, I’ve always been left leaning moderate. While my views have been refined, they’ve not really changed. When the country moved right I stayed where I was and became a de facto liberal.

All in all, although there have certainly been a few on the far left of the abortion debate that make me want to hide in the corner, I don’t think they’re nearly as bad or as dangerous as the NRA (just look at their recent racist exploitation of the Katrina aftermath). I don’t think it’s even close.

Regardless of what a milita means now or then, I think the words “well regulated” are obvious. The goverment has clear constitutional authority to regulate gun ownership. It is what it is.

I think life begins at birth. I think abortion should only be available up until fetal viability outside the womb and I think exceptions should be allowed after that for the health and life of the mother. If I believed that abortion was murder I’d be pissed to, so I don’t begrudge you your feelings. Even if I did though, I still like to believe that I wouldn’t want to impose those beliefs on someone else.

I’m a libertarian at heart. I’d fight to protect a person’s right to their religion, but I’m damn sure not going to sit down and let them cram their religion down my throat either. I’m for complete decriminalization of most drugs too. I won’t let anyone tell my daughter what to do with her body.

Posted by: roger at November 3, 2005 11:23 PM
Comment #90378

re: my previous post - my daughter’s control over her body and drugs are two completely separate issues! That reads bad.

And Rob, someday, when the troglodytes no longer control the levers of government, people like you and I can sit down and find common ground. I look forward to that day.

Posted by: roger at November 3, 2005 11:29 PM
Post a comment