President nominates Alito to Supreme Court
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/...co/bush_scotus

He's known as polite and even-tempered, but also compared by some lawyers to Justice Scalia. This should be an interesting nomination fight.

who cares about the nominee. lets talk about his daughter. did you see her when the camera was focused on the kids while thanking them? she is a hottie!

on a side note, i was watching some news channel early this morning and a girl calls in to ask if he was in the same fraternity as bush and his father was at yale. she went on about how she is a tri-delt and that the views of the fraternity and sorority was different. the host of the show turned the phone off right after and did not make a comment.

looks to be a long hard fight.

This will be interesting.

It's my understanding that Alito feels that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

The politics here could get real ugly.

If the polls that say a majority of Americans believe in Pro-Choice, and if this really is a country where majority rules, what will it say if Judge Alito is confirmed by the Senate which is supposed to act as the "people" who elected them dictate.

I know that's way to simplistic, but this is an interesting test of democracy -- namely, what's more important, the people's will or politics?

I saw this in the gym this morning, but I don't know much about him... I suppose we shall see what happens.

DA, I haven't heard that assessment of his views on Roe until now. It seems like he's in favor of restricting the rule rather than expanding it, but the same could be said about any judge of Alito's philosophy looking at any other decision -- not just Roe.

I was hoping for a John XXIII style nomination and to get Judge Posner in, but I don't think that's going to happen now :(

If you're really worried about abortions disappearing, you should look into an over-the-counter medicine that costs $5 and provides an effective abortion.

And the people elected someone to represent them. If they didn't vote to be represented, they were stupid. Those senators that vote, vote for the people.

-Rudey

That was on NPR this morning.

Rudey, conversly, doesn't that mean that they should vote the will of the people who elected them? I thought that was how democracy is supposed to work.

I don't particularly like abortions, but I support a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps not.

People vote for a candidate knowing they support a group of issues that are bundled together.

You can't ask to buy one twinkie if it comes in a package of two. These voters already purchased both twinkies.

Edited to add this example: Those male love not war hippies that love Howard Dean and vote for him should know that he was endorsed by the NRA 8 times. They know that before they buy into him and if they don't, then they have no right to complain.

Women will always have the right to choose. Science has made it that easy. This judge has opposed late term abortions while acknowledging medical concerns as an exception. This judge also voted so a spouse is notified if a woman gets an abortion. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem like he's killing a woman's right to choose but giving men the rights they deserve.

-Rudey

I understand your logic, but I would think that with a "hot button" issue abortion and those issues around it, people would weight that heavily in their vote.

NPR: another part of the MWODP - probably the worst part since they take our money.

All broadcasters, cablecasters and print media take your money. It's called advertising.

NPR (and PBS for that matter) get very little money from the government.

That's why we have to put up with all of those insipid pledge drives.

Stepping back from this issue a bit... Why in the hell do we consider this single issue a threshold requirement for our approval/disapproval of judicial nominees?

Is it because simple folk need something that they can latch onto when otherwise, most judges have a body of work that resembles a logical clusterfuck? -- I think probably, yes.

Whether a judge is pro-life or pro-choice shouldn't enter into it at all. Most judges have their own personal views on subjects. Most judges also have the sense not to allow personal biases to predicably influence the outcome of their decisions, especially in matters of settled law.

I'd be more interested in his tendancy to overturn existing law, his tendancy to expand the meaning of statutes vs. contracting them, his tendancies (if any) on certain subject matters, his special knowledge and experience that might set him apart from other nominees (like military experience), things of that nature.

Simply because that's the test that the Senate seems to put on it.

It's generally the lead on everything you see, hear or read on nominations.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp.../10/alito.html

As to abortion, here's a hellabiased article about the fella from Planned Parenthood:

[/quote]
Bush Nominates Samuel Alito
Planned Parenthood Opposes Nomination of Samuel Alito to U.S. Supreme Court
Confirmation Would Place Women's Health and Safety in Grave Danger

October 31, 2005 CONTACT:
Erin Kiernon (202) 973-4975
Gustavo Suarez (212) 261-4339


WASHINGTON, DC — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today called for the Senate to reject President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Judge Alito would undermine basic reproductive rights, and Planned Parenthood will oppose his confirmation," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA. "It is outrageous that President Bush would replace a moderate conservative like Justice O'Connor with a conservative hardliner. There is no room on the court for someone with a judicial philosophy that places at risk the rights, freedoms, and liberties that Americans hold dear."

Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey when the case was before the Third Circuit, voting to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of battered women who would be affected by the statute, Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito grudgingly applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute while refusing to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case.

"Samuel Alito's record is deeply troubling to Americans, who overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose," said Pearl. "His confirmation would radically transform the Supreme Court and create a direct threat to the health and safety of American women."

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood at the end of November spotlights the urgency of the threat to reproductive freedom. In this high-stakes case, the justices are expected to rule on whether a woman's health will remain the paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access. The ruling may have an immediate impact on women's health across the nation and will determine whether a fundamental principle established in Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land.

###

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 850 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.
[/quote]

I don't see with this limited record what they're really basing their objection on considering that he has upheld Roe in the past, but whatever, they're entitled.

As to the issue that would most likely make him choose to overturn Roe vs. keep it, would it not be more productive to see how he actually interprets the law? In other words, is he an "activist judge" as they call it? Or does he respect settled law?

Wow -- that was strange...

I started to quote your last post at the same time you posted the edited version -- I didn't know where all of those words came from.

The first link, and one from there to another article on him were interesting.

Thanks for the link.

If you were married and your wife was getting an abortion, wouldn't you like to know? I know I would. But maybe, men have no rights and no freedom according to liberals?

You can't kill 2 birds with one stone. If there is spousal abuse, address that. If there is abortion notification, address that. Evidently, Planned Parenthood lacks the ability to separate the issues.

-Rudey


Bush Nominates Samuel Alito
Planned Parenthood Opposes Nomination of Samuel Alito to U.S. Supreme Court
Confirmation Would Place Women's Health and Safety in Grave Danger

October 31, 2005 CONTACT:
Erin Kiernon (202) 973-4975
Gustavo Suarez (212) 261-4339


WASHINGTON, DC — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today called for the Senate to reject President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Judge Alito would undermine basic reproductive rights, and Planned Parenthood will oppose his confirmation," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA. "It is outrageous that President Bush would replace a moderate conservative like Justice O'Connor with a conservative hardliner. There is no room on the court for someone with a judicial philosophy that places at risk the rights, freedoms, and liberties that Americans hold dear."

Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey when the case was before the Third Circuit, voting to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of battered women who would be affected by the statute, Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito grudgingly applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute while refusing to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case.

"Samuel Alito's record is deeply troubling to Americans, who overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose," said Pearl. "His confirmation would radically transform the Supreme Court and create a direct threat to the health and safety of American women."

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood at the end of November spotlights the urgency of the threat to reproductive freedom. In this high-stakes case, the justices are expected to rule on whether a woman's health will remain the paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access. The ruling may have an immediate impact on women's health across the nation and will determine whether a fundamental principle established in Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land.

###

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 850 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.
[/quote]

I don't see with this limited record what they're really basing their objection on considering that he has upheld Roe in the past, but whatever, they're entitled.

As to the issue that would most likely make him choose to overturn Roe vs. keep it, would it not be more productive to see how he actually interprets the law? In other words, is he an "activist judge" as they call it? Or does he respect settled law? [/QUOTE]

I think his mom needs a punch in the face for her "He's Catholic, of course he's pro-life" statement. Has she talked to every Catholic in the country? I guess I must have missed her call.

You must have because my ex's all got the call.

-Rudey

:p

It just bothers me when people make blanket statements.

At least he's qualified.

Qualifications are in the eye of the Beholder!

If I belevieve that a Women has the Right to abort does that make Me a Monster?

There are and be many reasons for this to be done. Now, whose responsibility is it to decide?

Ted Kennedy?:o

No Matter who G Bush Jr. Nominates, The Dem. will fight it!

Why? Do any of You Really Think They Give a Damn About Us? Dem. or Rep!

Get a Friggen Life!;)


Watch Out For Sam Brownback!!!!

Never listen to Elders!:(

Hellsyeah I'd like to know. You're right, I have no rights or freedom according to liberals. I guess it's more of a philosophical question as to what the marriage contract entails exactly. Do I think it should at minimum involve cooperative decision making or at least spousal notification in matters of reproduction? Yes. As a matter of public policy, is it a good idea for husbands to know that wives are aborting babies that they didn't know about? Again, I think yes.

The 3rd circuit is just out of step with us Rudey. A pox on them.

Planned Parenthood was just looking for something -- ANYTHING to object about with this judge. If this is all they have, then there's not much to go on except his mother's comments.

His mother's comments are dismissable though because a judge's personal views on abortion will not necessarily enter into his judicial decision making. The Democratic Party may try to make a big deal out of these things, but truthfully, there's nothing there.

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Samuel Alito's record is deeply troubling to Americans, who overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose," said Pearl. "His confirmation would radically transform the Supreme Court and create a direct threat to the health and safety of American women."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Just four thoughts to keep the topic going:

1 - if Americans really 'overwwhelmingly support' this, let's vote. Or let's let the Congress debate and vote. A few judges have taken away the people's voice and the Congress' voice, and have MADE LAW. That's not their job.

2 - the one really facing a "direct threat" is the unborn child.

3 - almost no one opposes abortion to preserve the life of the mother.

4 - studies I respect show that likely Democrats - minorities and poor - get the most abortions, and higher numbers occur in the Blue States. Thus the populations of the blue states and blue-state type voters aren't growing as fast.

Eh? Link please.

How do you know there's nothing there? Have you read the Casey opinion? Have you read the Farmer opinion?

But let's assume for a minute that you're not a reasonable, stand-up guy. Let us say that you are a complete a@*hole who abuses his wife and potententially his other children. Your wife would probably be scared to tell you that she's pregnant because she is afraid of the physical and emotional repercussions and she might seek an abortion without your knowledge. So is this really a good "public policy" if it could put certain vulnerable members of the public at an increased risk of harm?

Maybe even better.

NPR, who some folks here thing is just to the Left of -- well, pick your favorite Liberal -- had a most interesting piece on this morning questioning liberal friends of Alito's, and they were highly complimentary and supportive.

In the best of all possible worlds, the High Court would not be swayed by liberal/conservative ideology, but would decide cases on what is best for the country, the population and the government -- using the Constitution as a guide.

I think that those of us who feel that we are somewhere close to the middle of that spectrum would like someone like that -- but it's obviously too much to ask.

Don't confuse two separate issues.

If you want to deal with spousal abuse, deal with it.

If you want to deal with males knowing when their females got an abortion, deal with it.

And if you really want to delve into the subject of public policy, there is quite a bit of discussion on how to separate such problems instead of bundling them together.

-Rudey

Let's say that this is the case. I believe that women that allow themselves and their kids to be abused in such a way taking no action against the "complete asshole" share some blame.

A woman in such a position can have hubbie served with a temporary restraining order, divorce papers, and notification of the impending abortion all at once. The law didn't require the husband's consent, just his notification.

How about this one: husband is completely loving and faithful, wife is a complete hoebag (unbeknownst to him). She screws around on him, putting him at risk for STD's among other things, and gets pregnant. By not being notified, he's being placed in a vulerable position, and at an increased risk of harm.

-- honesty and disclosure are almost always the best options for public policy.

The Casey opinion is one that I agree with, the Farmer opinion simply upholds a law that restricts prison inmates access to pornography. Nothing wrong with that either.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...case&no=995272

That is the Farmer case we are talking about. It has nothing to do with pornography.

Just because you're married doesn't mean you give up your right to make independent medical decisions. You think this covers "reproduction." Does that mean if you have a vasectomy your wife should be informed beforehand? or what if your wife wants to buy birth control pills? Should the pharmacist have to call you before he dispenses the pills? or what if you want to buy condoms? or viagra for that matter? Where does it stop? Being married does not mean you are the other person's keeper. You don't have the right to be notified of or to approve of your spouses medical choices.
Everyone has the right to make individual choices about their own medical care, even if their spouse doesn't agree with it. Do you want your wife to be able to supersede your decision not to have life saving medical treatment?
Obviously, it is the ideal that all couples would discuss their medical treatment and choices with each other regarless of whether it concerns reproduction or life saving treatment. But the fact is it is not the GOVERNMENT's place to force that discussion.
That is what all this stuff is about. Roe doesn't say abortion is good or morally right. It says the government shouldn't decide for a woman whether she should have one.

A vasectomy, a condom, viagra, and birth control are all prior to the act of creating a baby.

That is such a silly argument that I can't believe it's endorsed by Sanrio.

Men have rights too. You liberals need to stop taking away our rights.

-Rudey

They are all matters of "reproduction," the term used by ntsnake. And a zygote or fetus does not equal a baby.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006618

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005843

Matters of reproduction then must include a bed, food and water. Wonderful thought.

And you can define a baby in any way you want and I can define it as I want. But of course you can't deal with a discussion on the topic of informing a co-creator so now you've tried to move it into some gray land discussion of what a baby is.

-Rudey

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3500603.pdf

Try again.

This Farmer case does:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=992200p

-- your citation was somewhat ambiguous :)

As to the 2nd Farmer case, he didn't really comment on "abortion = bad" so much as he showed respect for stare decisis. He said that the law was unconstitutional just as the previous one that SCOTUS had struck down for the same reasons. As far as the majority opinion concerning Roe, I've argued that all along -- the whole viability standard, and at that point, you're talking only about 1% or so of abortions that occur in this country.

Actually I think the problem is in your definition of a co-creator. When two people conceive you haven't created anything other than an expectancy. You may believe, rightly, that a child is eventually going to be born but that doesn't mean a child will be born. Until the child is born, your rights don't vest. Your rights in an expectancy which hasn't vested can't supersede the rights of the mother, whether she is your wife or not, to individual autonomy.

Given that I was discussing a previous PP case, it was hardly unambigious, particularly since it was mentioned earlier in the PP press release.

He wrote a concurring opinion becase he refused to endorse the policy of the Supreme Court, only to uphold it.

Again, you have difficulty in addressing the issue so you keep moving to the gray zone of what a baby is.

That child would not be born without the father. The father is creating, conceiving, and making.

Whether it is a baby, a microwave, or an idea of a microwave, it is being created, conceived, and made.

Given that there is something being created, conceived, and made by two parties, it's something we have a right to know.

If there is no child coming, there is no need for an abortion. You can go home and watch cartoons.

-Rudey