President nominates Alito to Supreme Court

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by ktsnake
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp.../10/alito.html

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

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]

[GeekyPenguin]

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
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

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by Rudey
You must have because my ex's all got the call.

-Rudey

It just bothers me when people make blanket statements.

At least he's qualified.

[Tom Earp]

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?

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!

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Rudey
[B]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.

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.

[hoosier]

------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by hoosier
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.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

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

[alphaxikt]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

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?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
At least he's qualified.

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by alphaxikt
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?

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

[Kevin]

Originally posted by alphaxikt
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?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
How do you know there's nothing there? Have you read the Casey opinion? Have you read the Farmer opinion?

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.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.