Third Party & Independents Archives

Alito is a Slam Dunk to be Confirmed

Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito is obviously among the numerous candidates that fulfills the President’s pledge to nominate someone in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas- the only question now is whether he will be confirmed. I think he answer to that is a slam-dunk- yes. During the Miers nomination debacle, many on the right blamed the Republicans in the gang of 14 for the choice, saying they made the nomination of a qualified conservative impossible. I think the Alito nomination will show that I was right to defend those reasonable Republicans that helped save the filibuster, and right wing defenders of the president were wrong to try to blame the terrible Miers nomination on the moderate Republicans in the Senate.

Senator Mike DeWine (R) was on TV today (one of the gang of 14), saying that Alito is nowhere close to extraordinary circumstances. I expect John McCain and the rest of those who worked well with Democrats to save the filibuster for truly extraordinary circumstances will issue similar statements in the next couple of days. The Democrats will see the writing on the wall for any attempt at a filibuster, not want to lose the option for truly extraordinary circumstances, and back down after a bunch of posturing. Alito will be confirmed with over 60 votes, and the filibuster deal will be established as not something to be used as a litmus test, but rather as a last ditch measure for when the process goes really wrong.

This is a very good day for the American judiciary. The country has avoided the shame of an unqualified crony getting on the Supreme Court, and will instead get a great judge that will add to the depth, clarity and progress of American law. The only serious objection you will hear in the upcoming days will be ideological. Given Bush's pledge to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia, that attack will accomplish nothing more than helping some left wing organizations raise some money. In the end, Alito will be easily confirmed and the Supreme Court will be the better for it.

Posted by Misha Tseytlin at November 1, 2005 12:25 AM
Comments
Comment #89304

err, not sure why this double posted… please respond to this version of the post.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 1, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #89314

I hope you’re right. This has been dragged on long enough.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 1, 2005 2:24 AM
Comment #89372

Misha,

Why do you post in third column? Alito, from my limited understanding, is an extremist judicial activist. We will “be better off for it” only if you think there is no right to privacy, no national interest in civil rights, etc… Unlike Miers, he seems intellectually qualified. Being smart, however, does make a right choice for this nation. Einstein was smart, I don’t think he would have been a good judge.

Posted by: Dave at November 1, 2005 10:11 AM
Comment #89377

I post in the third column because I am a libertarian on most issues. I have written several posts on this thread critizing Bush- and I voted libertarian in the last presidential election. Should the indepedent column be reserved only for those on the left/green party?

Also, use of buzz words like “extreme judicial activist” without any reference to actual decisions or even a coherent definition of that phrase is completley unhelpful and just rhetoric.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 1, 2005 10:29 AM
Comment #89382

You’ve got to love statements like Dave’s—so uninformed but so willing to recite the talking points:

“Alito, from my limited understanding, is an extremist judicial activist.”

Classic liberal stuff, that.

Posted by: sanger at November 1, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #89387

Misha,

The extreme right and left should put their crystal balls away and wait and see what happens.
It’s one of many government processes that have become down-right embarassing.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 1, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #89394
Why do you post in third column?

This may surprise you, Dave, but the middle column is not just for people who are undecided on everything. We tend to agree with the right sometimes, and with the left at other times, and with neither fairly often.

In the case of Alito, he is definitely a conservative, but I’ve seen no reason to call him an extremist. Strict-constructionism does not an extremist make.

As for the right to privacy, where in the Constitution is that right guaranteed? I’ve never been able to find it….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 11:12 AM
Comment #89404

To you “commentors”
It was a simple question for Misha, she gave a direct answer. My comment re: “Alito, from my limited understanding, is an extremist judicial activist” seems pretty clear. I know little about him at this point and was wondering why she seemed to think he was a good choice.

Misha;
Libertarians tend to prefer limited gov’t, yet the current social conservative, including Alito’s, wants the exact opposite (i.e. gov’t control over individual behavior). Why support that?

As for sanger; typical conservative sheep comment. (how’s that tripe tit-for-tat?) And how do you define “originalists” or “constructionists”? As conservative’s with no interest in changing precedents or as activists with extremist views? See Black’s Law Dictionary.

As for cottrell & privacy; oh come on! That’s too naive for further comment.

Posted by: Dave at November 1, 2005 11:58 AM
Comment #89410

Dave:

First of all, last I checked (figuratively of course), Misha is a man.

Secondly, Einstein was brilliant, IN HIS FIELD. Since his field was not the law, he wouldn’t be qualified to be a lawyer, judge etc. Nor would he necessarily be qualified to be a quarterback, a novelist, a policeman, a salesman etc.

Alito has the requisite qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. His entire background serves as an ideal resume for the position. His experience qualifies him. The only thing I can see as a DISqualification is his conservative leanings, and that works only for those on the left. They seem happy when a “liberal” like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (former director for the ACLU) is nominated, but unhappy when a more conservative person is nominated.

Problem is that the nomination process is designed to reflect the leanings of the president at the time. Were Kerry president, someone of Alito’s ideology would not be chosen. In this manner, the will of the voters is extended to the SCOTUS, since voters were well aware that SCOTUS appointments would most likely be made within this 4 year presidential term.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2005 12:19 PM
Comment #89415

Rob Cotrell:
“In the case of Alito, he is definitely a conservative, but I’ve seen no reason to call him an extremist. Strict-constructionism does not an extremist make.”

In my opinion, there is no legitimate value on the terms “strict-contstuctionalist” or “originalist” because it is foolish to pretend that there is a rational basis for either of them. There isn’t.
They are mere catchphrases, (rhetoric over actual content) about the methodology of making law. All those terms actually boil down to is conservative Republican judges trying to sound credible when parsing the wording of laws to suit their own beliefs, and because they want to exercise full power and control over every American’s life according to the conservative viewpoint.
The truth is, times change — and the idea that Constitution must be strictly interpreted in the original sense forever is utterly absurd, and mindlessly regressive. But it is just the way one might obliterate many decades of laws that have been passed in America that by necessity needed to depart from the original meanings found in the Constitution to deal with new or evolving circumstances.
Roe vs. Wade was one such case, and all “strict-constructionalist” or “originalist” means in that context is that conservative judges and the people who agree with them thought those cases were decided wrongly.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2005 12:40 PM
Comment #89425

Adrienne:

I understand that what you wrote above is what you believe, but it shows an unwillingness or inability to see what others believe. Or at least to accept it.

Face it, there are viewpoints that can be ideologically at odds, yet both can have validity. There are times when I’m more on the liberal side of something, despite generally being conservative. And though some in my family run to the very liberal side of many issues, I can still understand their viewpoint, their logic, and their mindset, even if I disagree on the specific issue. And they can see mine as well.

I’d suspect from your comments that you believe Roe v Wade to be settled law, and that it should not be revisited. But if so, then how does that reconcile with “times changing”. Based on your “times change” comment, you should not have a problem with Roe being reconsidered, unless of course (gasp) you only accept those changes that YOU want.

It might help if you’d define for me at what point change should stop happening. Based on your comments, one could assume that no law is ever settled, due to changing times.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2005 1:08 PM
Comment #89451
As for the right to privacy, where in the Constitution is that right guaranteed? I’ve never been able to find it….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 11:12 AM

Rob,
The ninth amendment to the Constitution says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So although privacy isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of the “others retained by the people” covered by the ninth amendment.


Posted by: ElliottBay at November 1, 2005 2:07 PM
Comment #89464

jbod:
“I understand that what you wrote above is what you believe, but it shows an unwillingness or inability to see what others believe. Or at least to accept it.”

Thats true. I am unwilling and unable to accept that the SC must interpret the law strictly according to what the framers of our Constitution thought back in the summer of 1787.
The specific issues that the terms “strict-constructionist” and “originalist” always seem to come down to whether morality is to be legislated from a judges bench. I happen to reject that idea. Indeed I believe that the American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - true freedom - automatically precludes the idea that one strict code of morality would ever be legislated or imposed upon us by our courts. I think the framers made it very clear that this country was to be governed by the idea of natural law, rather than positive law, and it seems very obvious that what “strict-constuctionists” have been attempting to do is the latter.

“I’d suspect from your comments that you believe Roe v Wade to be settled law, and that it should not be revisited.”

It is not that I think that laws should never be revisted, especially if there are serious problems with them. What I must admit to being baffled and/or outraged by is the idea that science (including a medically safe, highly personal proceedure like abortion), or the evolution of our cultural modes of thought (such as the current focus on the legal and civil rights of gay people, including their ability to legally marry) should ever allow our courts the power to preemptively or regressively outlaw or thwart any form of progress upon the American people, either in groups, or individually.

“Based on your “times change” comment, you should not have a problem with Roe being reconsidered, unless of course (gasp) you only accept those changes that YOU want.”

Clearly Roe is going to be reconsidered because of changes that conservatives want, therefore, it has been in their best interest to claim that there are problems with a law that has already stood for thirty years. It isn’t enough for such people to personally reject abortion, they must insist upon it being outlawed for everyone according to their beliefs. I consider that the opposite of freedom, and it is that kind of change I will fight to my dying day.

As for the disappearance of legal abortion, I agreed with David in his reply in a previous article below that it may be time to for abortion be voted upon by the people in an Amendment to the Constitution. Especially since the courts are going to be stacked for many, many years to come with judges who have been selected precisely to do the bidding of conservative politicans.

“It might help if you’d define for me at what point change should stop happening.”

There is no end to times changing, and no one and nothing can stop change from happening.

“Based on your comments, one could assume that no law is ever settled, due to changing times.”

If laws are based upon natural law, they can usually remain settled, because most people can agree with them. But when people cannot agree over laws — usually because they have to do with personal morality, they are bound to remain unsettled and in permanent dispute.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2005 2:32 PM
Comment #89473

Adrienne:

Well, if I get it correct, you accept change, but only so far as it goes along with your idea of what is acceptable. We all have lines that we draw, and we all draw them in different places. If Kerry were president, liberals would be demanding that the court be made more liberal. With Bush as president, conservatives want it more conservative. That’s what elections are for, in part, in that they grant the president the right to nominate to the SCOTUS.

You miss a simple issue on the abortion topic. I’m in favor of freedom of choice, but I believe the child should have a choice too. I believe an unborn child is a still a child, and that ending its life is a bad thing. Therefore, where you see legal abortion giving freedom of choice to the woman, I see it as denying that very same freedom to the child. Nearly everyone has some limits to freedom of the woman ( you wouldn’t allow a woman to abort 10 minutes before giving birth would you?). My belief is not unreasonable, nor is yours—-they are simply different.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #89474

JBOD —

“I’d suspect from your comments that you believe Roe v Wade to be settled law, and that it should not be revisited. But if so, then how does that reconcile with “times changing”. Based on your “times change” comment, you should not have a problem with Roe being reconsidered, unless of course (gasp) you only accept those changes that YOU want.”

Interesting comment. Indeed, it seems intuitive to say that the whole notion of stare decisis would seem to be at variance with the general progressive approach to jurisprudence.

As Misha and I discussed in a previous thread, though, the SC has laid down a test for when stare decisis should hold true and when it shouldn’t. I’m sure he can recite it better than I can, seeing as how I’m shirking work for a brief moment right now and don’t have time to really dig into it.

The parts I think I remember from law school:
- have the factual underpinnings of the decision changed?
- has the decision proved workable?
- is there some segment of society that has come to rely on the law as it currently exists?

To me, Roe still holds water and should be viewed as settled according to these criteria, although admittedly I’m forgetting a few of them.

I still think jurisprudence should not be ruled by the dead hand and irrelevant perspectives of 2 centuries ago, so originalism is fairly useless. The Constitution should be understood to enshrine general principles that are capable of fresh interpretation as times change.

That’s all I have time for now.

Posted by: ken at November 1, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #89502

“Well, if I get it correct, you accept change, but only so far as it goes along with your idea of what is acceptable.”

No, Joe. But that is what many conservatives seem to be saying. You see, I don’t have to agree with everything that others do, yet I’m able to see that they have the right to live their life as they see fit. Conservatives don’t seem able to do the same.
Since they don’t agree with the separation of church and state, or legal abortion, or legal protections for personal privacy, or equal legal rights for gays, or legal gay marriage, or stem cell research to cure diseases, etc., than they want no one to have those things.

“If Kerry were president, liberals would be demanding that the court be made more liberal. With Bush as president, conservatives want it more conservative. That’s what elections are for, in part, in that they grant the president the right to nominate to the SCOTUS.”

Unfortunately that is true. The president, due to the results of a single election is now able to see that it is his personal morality and beliefs that will dictate what rights and freedoms people will have for many years to come.

“You miss a simple issue on the abortion topic.”

And you are missing one too. People don’t have agree over who has more rights between the woman and the child. People should be equally free to hold to their respective beliefs, for or against abortion. However, the side against shouldn’t be free to control the other side by trying to deny them a safe, santitary, extremely personal and private medical proceedure according to those beliefs.
The truth is, abortion is nothing new. It’s been around for as long as men and women have been making babies. It used to be dangerous, then thanks to doctors who cared, they made it into a safe medical procedure. Due to Roe, it became cleaner and safer than it had ever been before. Now, we may be forced to watch while the clock is turned backward. Back to desperate do-it-yourself coat hanger abortions and bleeding to death, or dirty back alleys and septic shock, or permanent sterility due to either.
And you know what the really galling thing about this is? The wives and daughters of the judges and politicians who are all for this return to the nasty old days of yore, are among the lucky rich who’ve always managed to gain access to the safest and most private abortions possible, whether it was legal or not. So once again, it will be the women of the middle classes and the poor who’ll be forced to take their lives in their hands, and/or risk going to jail, when deciding to seek an abortion.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2005 4:50 PM
Comment #89507

Rob Cottrell
As for the right to privacy, where in the Constitution is that right guaranteed? I’ve never been able to find it….

I haven’t either, But then there seems to be a lot of other so- called ‘rights’ that aren’t in the Consitiution. But that doesn’t stop those that want to destroy the Constitution from putting them there.

I believe that Alito will make a good Justice. I also think that he might supprise both the Left and the Right.
I also think that he is the person that Bush REALLY wanted when he nominated Miers. He’s forced BOTH sides to vote for Alito to keep from looking like fools just before 1/3 of the Senate goes up for relection. Thae problem there is they ALREADY look like fools.


Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #89509

Everyone seems to forget that if the supreme court reverses Roe v Wade, it does not make abortion illegal - it returns the issue like most crimes to each state to define. So states like California - which already have laws protecting abortion will see little to no change.

I think the real federal debate is whether a woman’s ability to choose whether to abort or not is part of natural law and the unenumerated rights guaranteed by the 9th ammendement. Is that choice a personal decision (as it is in nature - animals destroy their nests every day), or is it morally wrong act. If one believes it’s a morally wrong act, is the government and rule of law the correct place to try to combat this problem? The decision to commit adultry is morally wrong, but we do not criminalize it. Drug use is seen by many as a bad thing, but the government criminalizing has had debatable results in combating it. If the goal is to reduce abortions - whether or not the supreme court interpets the constitution to protect it or not would seem to have little effect on whether women will get an abortion based on past history and the existence of drugs like RU486 today.

In my opinion, that’s the beauty of the consitution, it makes it clear that individual rights trump popular opinion in this country - and that certain rights aren’t up politicians to decide.

Posted by: JT at November 1, 2005 5:15 PM
Comment #89510

Adrienne:

Since they don’t agree with the separation of church and state, or legal abortion, or legal protections for personal privacy, or equal legal rights for gays, or legal gay marriage, or stem cell research to cure diseases, etc., than they want no one to have those things.

You see, this statement of yours entirely misses the point and mischaracterizes conservative thought. Its a GREAT strawman argument, and as such, is very easy to beat. But it isn’t accurate, which is why its so easy to beat.

I could paint you in the same boat by saying that just cuz you are against murder, that should not infringe on my right to commit murder. Pretty ludicrous thought. But the abortion and stem cell issue are just that—-some people think you are ending a life by aborting it. Its not about your personal freedoms—its about whether you should have the right to end someone else’s life. You HAVE to be able to understand the issue from that perspective in order to really understand it at all.

I’ll repeat: the abortion issue is NOT about the right to privacy, as I see it. Its about whether someone should have the right to end another person’s life. It revolves around whether a fetus is a life or not, and there are varying medical opinions on this. You can bring the class struggle issue (rich women vs poor women) into it, but that too is a strawman. Its not about money—-its about life. THAT is the issue.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2005 5:20 PM
Comment #89512

Adrienne:

As I feared, we’ve gone into the abortion issue, which I had resolved not to do. My apologies. Were I slower with the “post” button, I’d have deleted my last post.

With respect, if you wish to have a last say on this, I’ll read what you have to say. But I don’t want to continue on the topic.

The topic is really Alito and his credentials. While you might disagree with his ideology, I think you’d have to say that he is quite qualified for the position. I doubt either side will be truly happy when the other side gets to nominate someone to the Court, but in this case, its Bush’s constitutional right to do so, and Congress’s constitutional right to approve it. I think he’ll get approved, but of course there will be the requisite fight.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at November 1, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #89522

joebagodonuts
I’ll repeat: the abortion issue is NOT about the right to privacy, as I see it. Its about whether someone should have the right to end another person’s life. It revolves around whether a fetus is a life or not, and there are varying medical opinions on this. You can bring the class struggle issue (rich women vs poor women) into it, but that too is a strawman. Its not about money—-its about life. THAT is the issue.

100% RIGHT

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2005 6:10 PM
Comment #89531

JT:
“Everyone seems to forget that if the supreme court reverses Roe v Wade, it does not make abortion illegal - it returns the issue like most crimes to each state to define. So states like California - which already have laws protecting abortion will see little to no change.”

True. But middle class and poor women who find themselves stuck in the middle of conservative “red” states that outlaw abortion may not have the resources to cross state lines where they could legally get one. This is unfair, and once again brings up the issue of class in the abortion debate.

“I could paint you in the same boat by saying that just cuz you are against murder, that should not infringe on my right to commit murder. Pretty ludicrous thought.”

It is a ludicrous thought because Murder is something that falls under the natural laws I spoke of earlier — one where most American’s can manage to agree. But look at the controversy over the death penalty — there again we have a situation where moral questions become conflicts between what people feel is right and wrong.

“But the abortion and stem cell issue are just that—-some people think you are ending a life by aborting it. Its not about your personal freedoms—its about whether you should have the right to end someone else’s life.”

It is about personal freedom, and it always has been. In fact, it is so personal that even before it was safe and legal, legions of women have been willing to risk their lives, or even die over that decision. Furthermore, you must understand that outlawing legal abortions will never end abortions, it will only make them more dangerous. So, we will end up with MORE lives being lost. Not just the lives of the children who are aborted, but the lives of the women as well — some of whom will be mothers with children who need them.

“You can bring the class struggle issue (rich women vs poor women) into it, but that too is a strawman.”

No sir, it is not. It has always been part and parcel of this topic, not simply because wealthy women have always had access to abortion whether it was legal or not, but because when abortion was illegal, women were forced to get only the best abortion they could afford to have, which sometimes meant death. And because having children when you really cannot afford them makes a huge impact on peoples lives in the financial sense.

“As I feared, we’ve gone into the abortion issue, which I had resolved not to do. My apologies.”

No problem, Joe. Its been awhile since I’ve put my feet up in the stirrups for an abortion debate. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #89551

Adrienne,

The truth is, times change — and the idea that Constitution must be strictly interpreted in the original sense forever is utterly absurd, and mindlessly regressive.

Only if you assume that interpreting the Constitution is the only way to change things. There is an AMENDMENT process for a reason. Roe v. Wade was based upon Constitutional clauses that were never meant to refer to abortion. I would fully support a constitutional amendment that protected a woman’s rights to her own body, but I do not support manufactured Constitutional arguments where there are none. In such cases, the ends don’t justify the means.

We have an unfortunate precident in this country of ignoring the Constitution out of convenience. For example, the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish an Army and a Navy. It doesn’t mention anything about an Air Force. We could easily amend the Constitution to add “Air Force”, but instead we’ve “interpreted” a reference that doesn’t actually exist.

Our Founding Fathers knew that times would change, and they built a process by which the Constitution could change with them. WHY DON’T WE USE IT?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 1, 2005 8:07 PM
Comment #89591

Adrienne:

True. But middle class and poor women who find themselves stuck in the middle of conservative “red” states that outlaw abortion may not have the resources to cross state lines where they could legally get one. This is unfair, and once again brings up the issue of class in the abortion debate.

I would think liberals would contribute funds to help them cross boarders.

I think the value would be deciding the issue in a way that I believe to be constitutional, instead of an unconstitutional means.

It is obvious the left doesn’t have the votes, or they would just pass a constitutional amendment. Then there is no problem at all.

The division is caused by the Supreme Court doing what voters should have. We feel about Roe v Wade like you do about the 2000 election.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 1, 2005 10:24 PM
Comment #89630

Ron said: I’ll repeat: the abortion issue is NOT about the right to privacy, as I see it. Its about whether someone should have the right to end another person’s life.”

Where in the Constitution, Ron, does it define a fetus as a person? Couldn’t find it. It defines citizens and non-citizens in terms of where they were born, but, it doesn’t seem to acknowledge any particular status upon the unborn. And that is the flaw in your argument.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2005 1:57 AM
Comment #89669

Adrienne:

I’m sorry that you simply won’t or can’t even understand a viewpoint other than your own. But thanks for the discussion, nonetheless.

David:

Where in the Constitution is the right to privacy defined? What??? its not??? I’m shocked, shocked, I say.

In medical terms, the definition of fetus is “The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth.” By your logic then, a woman should have the right to abort a fetus at any time until the actual moment of birth, since the fetus is not yet a person.

I’d be interested in knowoing how I could come up with any other logical conclusion from what you said. I’m not willing to advocate the right to abort a healthy “fetus” at 8 3/4 months, and neither is the vastest of majorities of people in the world. Yet that is where your logic leads us. Let us hope that your ‘logic’ isnt the logic that is used.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at November 2, 2005 7:40 AM
Comment #89677

joebagofdonuts,

David’s argument doesn’t necessarily support 8-3/4 month abortions. It simply establishes that the Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of the fetus. That doesn’t mean that those rights cannot be protected elsewhere, so long as they don’t contradict the Constitution by violating rights that ARE protected by it.

Once the fetus is viable outside the womb, there is no reason for abortion, as there is no reason for the mother to have to continue to “host” it within her own body. The alternative to abortion at that point is induced labor, followed by adoption.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 2, 2005 8:26 AM
Comment #89783

Craig:
“I would think liberals would contribute funds to help them cross boarders.”

I think that may be exactly what will happen if RvW is struck down. Sad state of affairs, but no doubt it’ll be necessary.

David:
“Where in the Constitution, Ron, does it define a fetus as a person? Couldn’t find it. It defines citizens and non-citizens in terms of where they were born, but, it doesn’t seem to acknowledge any particular status upon the unborn. And that is the flaw in your argument.”

Yes, indeed. And just one of many places where the term “strict-constructionist” is exposed as being totally devoid of meaning.
Personally, I think that if the founders HAD been given the chance to weigh in on the idea of safe, sanitary, medically performed abortions, they’d have looked on them very favorably. Because in their day one out of every 8 women died in childbirth. Their women also had on average five to eight children — and three out of every ten children died before the age of five. While extremely tragic, this must also have made their society quite used to the idea of infant mortality. Take Cotton Mather for instance (one of the original signers of the Declaration), the guy had three wives, two of which died in childbirth — and fifteen children, eight of which died before reaching the age of two.
So, I’m almost certain that the founders would have looked very favorably upon all advances in birth control, in safe, legal abortions, and on things like RU486, and they’d have been very grateful for all the scientic advancements that have raised an infants chances for survival.

jbod:
“I’m sorry that you simply won’t or can’t even understand a viewpoint other than your own. But thanks for the discussion, nonetheless.”

Right back at you, Joe. On both counts! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #89813

BTW, Misha, I agree with you on the title. I too think after some hoopla show for constituents, Alito will be a slam dunk. Regrettably. I say that because I believe Alito will attempt to give rebirth to the past when Henry Ford was lord, and workers rioted in Dearborn, and back alley abortions gone bad become common headlines, and Civil Rights returns to the meaning that one can discriminate against anyone for any reason. I just can’t see a nation making progress when it is hell bent on regression.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #89815

Rob said: “That doesn’t mean that those rights cannot be protected elsewhere, so long as they don’t contradict the Constitution by violating rights that ARE protected by it.”

Smack that nail on the head, Rob! Whack it resoundingly!!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2005 3:05 PM
Comment #89842

“Where in the Constitution is the right to privacy defined? What??? its not??? I’m shocked, shocked, I say.”

The Constitution makes it clear that the enumerated rights in ammendements are not the limits of the rights protected. The Consititution was drafted to establish a LIMITED Government - meaning people are free to do what they want unless parts of the government legally restrict them from doing so. The federal government has strictly enumerated powers - those are what have to be written in the Costitution to be legal, not the rights of the individual. So yes you have a right to privacy and women have a right to abortion - unless government passes laws to deny them that right and it found not to violate the protections of the Consitution.

The founding fathers knew they could not enumerate all of the rights that individuals have and that government can’t deny - that’s why they wrote the Consitution the way they did and put enumerated limits on the power of the government - not the other way around.

“Conservatives” which is a misnomer for republicans that want to limit people’s rights that don’t agree with them - really miss this mark. “Social Conservative” is probably a better description - because when it comes to interpreting law, these judges are anything but conservative. The consitituion is a “Socially liberal” document and unless it’s ammended to start taking rights away from people (which the “social conservatives” often suggest), it should be treated as such.

As I see it, Roe v Wade isn’t necessarily a liberal decision (affirming an unenumerated right), things like using the interstate commerce clause to deny califonians the right to medical marajuana is a much more liberal decision (widening the scope of an enumerated power) since it uneccessarily restricts the freedom of a state and the individuals living there from federal interference.

Posted by: JT at November 2, 2005 3:59 PM
Comment #89992

Rob Cottrell,

“Once the fetus is viable outside the womb, there is no reason for abortion, as there is no reason for the mother to have to continue to “host” it within her own body. The alternative to abortion at that point is induced labor, followed by adoption.”

Where in the Constitution does it say that women have the right to choose not to “host” their own off-spring? I couldn’t find that either.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 3, 2005 1:59 AM
Comment #89993

Why is the argument made by the pro-choicers that people would get hurt breaking the law if there was a law against abortion supposed to be convincing? If they’re going to get hurt killing a baby, then maybe they shouldn’t do it!!! The point of anti-abortion law isn’t to force these “poor women” into back-alley abortions, the point is DO NOT KILL YOUR BABY!

Posted by: Stephanie at November 3, 2005 2:04 AM
Comment #90108

I thought this was a third party site???

Posted by: cory at November 3, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #90135

“Why is the argument made by the pro-choicers that people would get hurt breaking the law if there was a law against abortion supposed to be convincing?”

Because some of us realize that humans are fallible, and that sh*t happens.
Things as simple as a condom breaking, or getting pregnant while on birth control pills when one already has too many mouths to feed. Or being so young and naive that you actually think it won’t happen to you, and when it does, being too afraid to tell your wildly unreasonable, or drunken, or abusive parent(s).
Or more complex things like not wanting to have the baby of the man that has been beating or cheating on you, because then he will always be a part of your life forever. Or the fact that you have small children and a parent with Altzheimers you’re already taking care of, and the very last thing you can deal with at that moment is to be pregnant. That kind of sh*t. Happens all the time.
The law seems completely beside the point to some women facing those situations. It always has, and it always will.

Now, you may not think that abortion is morally right and therefore, no one should care whether those women die because they’re still going to find a way to have one whether it is legal or not. But not everyone shares that same belief.
Some of us know that humans aren’t perfect, that life isn’t always fair or easy, and that sometimes being a responsible person takes making tough, even morally questionable decisions and actions. And that is why we continue to make the argument, and ask for Mercy from our fellow citizens — who for some unknown reason, really don’t seem to care about anything more than forcing everyone live by their own set of moral standards.

cory:
“I thought this was a third party site???”

It’s an everybody site, cory. The articles you’ll see in this center column are written by people who are independent or third party supporters, but in the comments that follow, everyone takes part. So, feel free to read the articles in this one and the other two columns and add some of your own whenever you’ve got something to say.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2005 3:22 PM
Comment #90143

Stephanie,

Where in the Constitution does it say that women have the right to choose not to “host” their own off-spring? I couldn’t find that either.

It doesn’t say so expicitly. Roe v. Wade interprets such a meaning from the Constitution, but it obviously stretches the intent to do so.

The point is that, if the Constitution supports either side — the mother’s or the child’s — and not the other, that side wins. Period. But if the Constitution doesn’t support either side, then it falls to Congress and the States to determine the issue.

Now I have a question for the “life begins at conception” crowd…

Suppose a woman decides to become pregnant via in-vitro fertilization. Her eggs are extracted and fertilized, and then she changes her mind before they are implanted. Should the government, through anti-abortion-style legislation, be able to force her to have these eggs implanted? After all, conception has already occured, and a HUMAN LIFE has been created. If the law can force a woman to STAY pregnant in order to save a baby’s life, should it be able to force her to BECOME pregnant to do the same? If not, what’s the difference?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 3, 2005 3:37 PM
Comment #90398

Adrienne,

“That kind of sh*t. Happens all the time.”

I’m well aware of that. However, I don’t accept it as a justification for murder.

“The law seems completely beside the point to some women facing those situations. It always has, and it always will.”

The law seems completely beside the point to the man who catches his wife cheating on him with his best friend and shoots them both, but does that make it right to kill them?

“Now, you may not think that abortion is morally right…”

You are correct. I don’t think murder is morally right.

“…and therefore, no one should care whether those women die because they’re still going to find a way to have one whether it is legal or not.”

You’re wrong. I think education and assistance is the solution, not murder. We’re arguably the richest nation in the world, and yet we somehow can’t help these people? Instead of helping them, we offer them the CHOICE to murder their child, and claim it doesn’t really matter because it isn’t illegal. We won’t help them, not because we can’t, but because we’re fighting over the wrong things, so women can spend the rest of their lives regretting their CHOICE. Ah, what a wonderful nation we have.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 4, 2005 1:18 AM
Comment #90399

Rob Cottrell,

“Roe v. Wade interprets such a meaning from the Constitution, but it obviously stretches the intent to do so.”

Yes, and I reject RvW because it does a piss-poor job of it.

“But if the Constitution doesn’t support either side, then it falls to Congress and the States to determine the issue.”

The Constitution does NOT support either side. That’s my point. It should fall to Congress and the Senate, which is what will happen WHEN RvW is over-turned. It might not happen within my lifetime, but it will eventually happen.

“Suppose a woman decides to become pregnant via in-vitro fertilization.”

Personally, I don’t support in-vitro fertilization as a good thing at all. The rates of success are dismal, parents go bankrupt trying this route, and all along there are many, many children without permanent homes that would LOVE for one of these caring couples to take them home and raise them. And yes, in-vitro fertilization involves the waste of human life, because it involves creating many lives, knowing one or none are the mostly likely to survive the procedure. This, to me, is an example of science moving in the wrong direction. I mean, honestly, if a couple wants children that badly, why does it have to be their own genetic child?

Posted by: Stephanie at November 4, 2005 1:29 AM
Comment #90472

“I don’t accept it as a justification for murder.”

And I don’t accept your non-acceptance of ending potential life as justification to force motherhood on women who don’t want it. Nor do I think that the overwhelmingly rightwing desire to send women back to the days where they took their lives in their hands to avoid having no choice in the matter is valid, simply because THEY WANT TO CHOOSE what is right for everyone.

“You’re wrong. I think education and assistance is the solution, not murder.”

You’re wrong. No amount of education and assistance is going to end women seeking abortions. When women don’t want to have a child, they will always find a way, whether it is legal or not to have one — even when and if, it goes back to the days where they might die as a result.

“women can spend the rest of their lives regretting their CHOICE.”

Some might, sure, while some won’t regret it at all. In fact, there are some women who had abortions before legalization who have worked hard trying to ensure that women wouldn’t have to return to those bad old days.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2005 11:55 AM
Comment #90688

Adrienne,

Why have laws at all? People are going to break them anyway. Why protect life at all? People are going to end it anyway. That’s the basis of your argument.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 5, 2005 1:21 PM
Comment #90695

Stephanie:
“Why have laws at all? People are going to break them anyway. Why protect life at all? People are going to end it anyway. That’s the basis of your argument.”

Does our society seem perfect with all the laws we have? No, it is far from perfect. My arguments are based on reality, while yours it seems, are based only on what you personally think should be.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 2:18 PM
Comment #90755

Adrienne,

My arguments are based on reality, too. The reality that abortion kills human beings.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 6, 2005 12:37 AM
Comment #90756

Adrienne,

There’s something you need to understand. You can’t tell me that these young, desperate women just need choices. I’ve been young (14), pregnant and desperate and abortion was the furthest thing from my mind, other than wanting to avoid the circumstance where my father would force me to have one. I was worried about exactly two things.

1) Getting the hell away from the violent bas***d who raped me.

2) Not letting my parents find out.

My plan was simple. Stupid, but simple. My friend and I were going to run away to Texas from Nebraska (in the dead of winter, no less) with what little money we had and what we could carry, we would get waitressing jobs, and raise the baby ourselves.

However, one of the many things we didn’t account for in the midst of our youthful foolery was that I needed medical attention. I miscarried the baby before we’d even got our buss tickets. It wasn’t until I was pregnant with my first (live-born) son, that I got any medical attention for the miscarriage and that made all three of my later pregnancies very difficult.

I wish I had known about a safe place I could go, but I didn’t. I didn’t know until years later that my mother would have stood up for me with my father. I didn’t know that my friends’ mother would shelter me if necessary. I didn’t realize how many loving adults surrounded me. All I knew was that I was scared. And that the only place in town that was targetted to people like me was Planned Parenthood and that they’d just want to kill my baby.

I wasn’t even pro-life then. I believed in the right to choose, as y’all call it, I just wasn’t willing to make that choice. It wasn’t until I saw my first ultra-sound that I changed my stance. I was one month pregnant, still early in the first-trimester, and other than being absolutely tiny, my son already looked like a little person.

And that’s why I cannot accept your argument. It’s not that I don’t care about desperate women. I do and I know that they need help, just as I did. I also know that for far too many, Planned Parenthood isn’t the help they would choose for themselves, because they’re so biased against life.

The reason I cannot accept you’re argument, is because I’ve seen the ultra-sounds of many babies. I have felt life growing inside my body. And I know that cutting that life out of someone is murder. A fetus isn’t some piece of malignant tissue, some cancer growing inside you, it’s a human life that’s just trying to survive and to end that life is murder.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 6, 2005 1:17 AM
Post a comment