Shrub Poised to Pick Court Nominee Tomorrow

[dissention]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000910.html

President Bush appears poised to announce a new Supreme Court nomination today, moving quickly after a weekend of consultations to put forward a replacement for the ill-fated choice of Harriet Miers in hopes of recapturing political momentum, according to Republicans close to the White House.

Judging by the names the White House floated by political allies in recent days, Bush seems ready to pick a candidate with a long track record of conservative jurisprudence -- one who would mollify the Republican base, whose opposition to Miers's nomination helped scuttle her chances. Several GOP strategists said the most likely choice seemed to be federal appeals judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., with judges J. Michael Luttig and Alice M. Batchelder also in the running.

Any of the three would draw support from many conservative activists, lawyers and columnists who vigorously attacked Miers as an underqualified presidential crony. At the same time, the three have years of court rulings that liberals could use against them. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that he has already warned the White House that nominating Alito -- who is often compared to Justice Antonin Scalia -- would "create a lot of problems."

Republican lawmakers and strategists said a swift nomination with a consolidated party behind Bush would represent an important first step for the president in a strategy to pull out himself of a political ditch. With the withdrawal Thursday of Miers's nomination, the mounting death toll in Iraq and the indictment Friday of top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Bush has hit an all-time low in public approval ratings and wants to start a new chapter in his troubled second term.

[strandinthewind]

and the D's will block it and the R's will accuse them of not giving adequate consideration and abusing the nominal advice and consent clause, never mins that that is exactly what the R's did to Meirs - hypocrites.

[DavidMn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000910.html

President Bush appears poised to announce a new Supreme Court nomination today, moving quickly after a weekend of consultations to put forward a replacement for the ill-fated choice of Harriet Miers in hopes of recapturing political momentum, according to Republicans close to the White House.

Judging by the names the White House floated by political allies in recent days, Bush seems ready to pick a candidate with a long track record of conservative jurisprudence -- one who would mollify the Republican base, whose opposition to Miers's nomination helped scuttle her chances. Several GOP strategists said the most likely choice seemed to be federal appeals judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., with judges J. Michael Luttig and Alice M. Batchelder also in the running.

Any of the three would draw support from many conservative activists, lawyers and columnists who vigorously attacked Miers as an underqualified presidential crony. At the same time, the three have years of court rulings that liberals could use against them. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that he has already warned the White House that nominating Alito -- who is often compared to Justice Antonin Scalia -- would "create a lot of problems."

Republican lawmakers and strategists said a swift nomination with a consolidated party behind Bush would represent an important first step for the president in a strategy to pull out himself of a political ditch. With the withdrawal Thursday of Miers's nomination, the mounting death toll in Iraq and the indictment Friday of top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Bush has hit an all-time low in public approval ratings and wants to start a new chapter in his troubled second term.Good luck to him....:lol:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

We can only hope for Janice

[dissention]

We can only hope for Janice

Never gonna happen, but hold on to your silly dream if it helps you sleep well for one more night.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Never gonna happen, but hold on to your silly dream if it helps you sleep well for one more night.

I hope tomorrow he announces her....that would be funny as hell!

[dissention]

I hope tomorrow he announces her....that would be funny as hell!

Dream on, silly dreamer. :laugh: It will most likely be Batchelder.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Dream on, silly dreamer. :laugh:

as Amy Grant sings...

"Believe, miracles can happen just imagine..." :p

[Jyqm]

We can only hope for Janice

Sorry kid. Looks like it's going to be Alito.

I have to say, I know nothing about this guy, though I'm anxious to learn.

I hope that the Democrats take the high road and give this guy a thorough but fair examination, as opposed to just trying to tear him apart because he's a conservative nominee.

I mean, I'm not counting on it. But I hope.

[irishgrl]

Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that he has already warned the White House that nominating Alito -- who is often compared to Justice Antonin Scalia -- would "create a lot of problems."
so guess who he picks.........what an ASS. Words cant describe how much I hate him.

[irishgrl]

Sorry kid. Looks like it's going to be Alito.

I have to say, I know nothing about this guy, though I'm anxious to learn.

I hope that the Democrats take the high road and give this guy a thorough but fair examination, as opposed to just trying to tear him apart because he's a conservative nominee.

I mean, I'm not counting on it. But I hope.

he's probably anti-choice which will cause a furor of itself....

[Jyqm]

he's probably anti-choice which will cause a furor of itself....

Well yes. I believe he is a liberal, activist judge when it comes to those types of issues - as most "conservatives" tend to be.

I think he upheld a law at one point requiring women to tell their husbands if they are getting an abortion.

[irishgrl]

Well yes. I believe he is a liberal, activist judge when it comes to those types of issues - as most "conservatives" tend to be.

I think he upheld a law at one point requiring women to tell their husbands if they are getting an abortion.
dont get me started.....Im so glad A) Im single B) I live in CA.

[strandinthewind]

Well yes. I believe he is a liberal, activist judge when it comes to those types of issues - as most "conservatives" tend to be.

I think he upheld a law at one point requiring women to tell their husbands if they are getting an abortion.

LOL - I love how the words liberal, activist judge fits only the opposition when bioth sides take advantage of the effects of that and the effects have been only positive regarding human rights when the D's use it. For example, the right to privacy is how the D's use it. The R's use it to put care free gun ownership in the Const. when none is there (and mind you I have guns) - override countless state court decisions in the Terri Schiavo case, and get W elected in 2000. So, who has the fairer and more human track record of using so called acitivist judges, which I submit is a BS buzz word anyway - or at least since like 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I hope that the Democrats take the high road and give this guy a thorough but fair examination, as opposed to just trying to tear him apart because he's a conservative nominee . . . .

As opposed to how the R's gave Miers the same courtesy :rolleyes: In the end, the R's are far more hypocritical than the highly hypocritical D's as far as I am concerned.

[strandinthewind]

For those who do not know about Marbury v. Madison:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Just as George Washington helped shape the actual form that the executive branch would take, so the third chief justice, John Marshall, shaped the role that the courts would play.

Under the administrations of Washington and his successor, John Adams, only members of the ruling Federalist Party were appointed to the bench, and under the terms of the Constitution, they held office for life during "good behavior." Thus, when the opposing Republicans won the election of 1800, the Jeffersonians found that while they controlled the presidency and Congress, the Federalists still dominated the judiciary. One of the first acts of the new administration was to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created a number of new judgeships. Although President Adams had attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, a number of commissions had not been delivered, and one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Secretary of State James Madison to force him to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.

The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law.

Marshall's decision in this case has been hailed as a judicial tour de force. In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians and yet not create a situation in which a court order would be flouted.

The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.

The Court would not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual rights. (See Part V.)

For further reading: George L. Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson, Foundations of Power: John Marshall, 1801-1815 (1981); Donald O. Dewey, Marshall v. Jefferson: The Political Background of Marbury v. Madison (1970).

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

[strandinthewind]

Also -

Bush nominates Alito to Supreme Court
Choice named after a week of political difficulty over Harriet Miers

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Moving quickly to pick a Supreme Court nominee after his last selection withdrew her name, President Bush on Monday nominated Circuit Court Judge Samuel Alito -- a favorite of conservatives -- to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Judge Alito's reputation has only grown over the span of his service," Bush said from the White House, with Alito by his side. "He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion."

Alito, a former U.S. attorney who has been a judge for 15 years, said while on the bench he has kept in mind what he called a "solemn responsibility." (Watch Bush call Alito 'fair-minded and principled' -- 4:15)

"Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system," he said.

"And I pledge that, if confirmed, I will do everything within my power to fulfill that responsibility." (Samuel Alito accepts with reverence and thanks -- 4:15)

Sen. Charles Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold a hearing on the nomination, panned Bush's choice.

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us," the New York Democrat said.

Bush called for Alito to be confirmed as associate justice by the end of the year. His first pick to replace O'Connor was Judge John Roberts. After Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in September, however, Roberts was re-nominated and confirmed to fill that position.

His second nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers, withdrew from the process Thursday after weeks of opposition from liberals and conservatives, who questioned her qualifications and record.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said an Alito appointment would narrow the high court's view, making it less diverse.

"This appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court," the Nevada Democrat said. "The president has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, one of only two women on the court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the court."

'Scalito'
Legal experts consider the 55-year-old Alito so ideologically similar to Justice Antonin Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito." (Profile of his legal resume)

In 1991, in one of his more well-known decisions, he was the only dissenting voice in a 3rd Circuit ruling striking down a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands if they planned to get an abortion.

He also wrote the opinion in 1999 in a case that said a Christmas display on city property did not violate separation of church and state doctrines because it included a large plastic Santa Claus as well as religious symbols.

Alito was put on the circuit court bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 after his service as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. (Biography)

He also served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee from 1981 to 1985, where he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court.

He was deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese from 1985 to 1987.

A Trenton, New Jersey, native, Alito graduated from Princeton in 1972 and earned his law degree from Yale in 1975.

Monday's announcement returns focus to the Supreme Court after a week of political difficulty for the White House and Republicans, with Miers' withdrawal coming a day before a grand jury indicted Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff on charges including perjury and obstruction of justice. (Full story)

Confirmation could be tough battle
Reid said the Senate would give Alito "an especially long hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers."

"Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them," he said. "Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday he is "very worried" that Democrats could filibuster a candidate they perceive as an extreme right-wing jurist.

The topic that "dominates the discussion," Specter said, is abortion.

Both sides of the debate want to know in advance how a nominee will vote on the issue, but that is an answer that "no one is entitled to," he said.

Bush nominated Miers on October 3 to replace O'Connor, often a moderate swing vote, on the high court.

O'Connor, who has announced her retirement, will stay on the court until the Senate confirms her replacement.

CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this story.

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

________________________________________________________

The D's will ikely prey on W's continued failing strength and growing weakness and oppose this Scalia clone who is merely a cipher for those wanting to extinguish the right to privacy and establish a fundamintalist Christian nation, which is their goal.

[Jyqm]

As opposed to how the R's gave Miers the same courtesy :rolleyes: In the end, the R's are far more hypocritical than the highly hypocritical D's as far as I am concerned.

At the moment, though, I really couldn't care less how hypocritical the Republicans are. They're a bunch of assholes, great. They've amply proved that many times over in recent months. But that doesn't mean anything if the Democrats and others don't rise above that level of politics and start treating the political process with respect - in addition to actually coming up with a solid platform and a plan of how to raise the US out of the muck and mire that has been created in the past five years.

We've got Fitzgerald to take care of the finger-pointing now. Everybody should start focusing on doing something positive rather than complaining. This administration has been brought to its knees in the past week - it's time to start preparing the final blows.

[strandinthewind]

At the moment, though, I really couldn't care less how hypocritical the Republicans are. They're a bunch of assholes, great. They've amply proved that many times over in recent months. But that doesn't mean anything if the Democrats and others don't rise above that level of politics and start treating the political process with respect - in addition to actually coming up with a solid platform and a plan of how to raise the US out of the muck and mire that has been created in the past five years.

We've got Fitzgerald to take care of the finger-pointing now. Everybody should start focusing on doing something positive rather than complaining. This administration has been brought to its knees in the past week - it's time to start preparing the final blows.

I agree with you. I was pointing out that none of them treat the process with respect. Personally, I think politics is all about the five second soundbyte than can be run over and over on the 24 hour news channel.

But, yes, the D's need to get a plan and not be scared to bite back hard when Rove unleashes the attack dogs. For instance, I think if Kerry had come back with "at least I was there you coward" to the whole Vietnam schpeel the R's masterfully played - people would have had newfound respect for him. But, he just could never seem to do that with any success.

Also, Kerry and D's just bitch and complain, but never seem to have a plan they can sell to the American people - thus, your point, which I agree with - though I really despise both parites and think there are few relevant differences between them.

[irishgrl]

LOL - I love how the words liberal, activist judge fits only the opposition when bioth sides take advantage of the effects of that and the effects have been only positive regarding human rights when the D's use it. For example, the right to privacy is how the D's use it. The R's use it to put care free gun ownership in the Const. when none is there (and mind you I have guns) - override countless state court decisions in the Terri Schiavo case, and get W elected in 2000. So, who has the fairer and more human track record of using so called acitivist judges, which I submit is a BS buzz word anyway - or at least since like 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison.
Jason, I wonder if you wouldnt mind elaborating? Im not sure what your point is, maybe my cold medicine is fogging my brain........(yeah, thats it!)

[irishgrl]

I agree with you. I was pointing out that none of them treat the process with respect. Personally, I think politics is all about the five second soundbyte than can be run over and over on the 24 hour news channel.

But, yes, the D's need to get a plan and not be scared to bite back hard when Rove unleashes the attack dogs. For instance, I think if Kerry had come back with "at least I was there you coward" to the whole Vietnam schpeel the R's masterfully played - people would have had newfound respect for him. But, he just could never seem to do that with any success.

Also, Kerry and D's just bitch and complain, but never seem to have a plan they can sell to the American people - thus, your point, which I agree with - though I really despise both parites and think there are few relevant differences between them.

with all due respect, I dont see how the Dems can sell any "plan" if the numbers are against them? I know what I stand for but I hear plenty of people interviewed that have completely different views, and tho I wonder how they got to that point, I know that I cant change their minds...

[strandinthewind]

In the 1803 decision of Marbury v. Madison, the Ct. formed its status in our three rings of govt. Essentially, the Court is the watchdog of Congress and the Pres., which is why we have three rings of govt. People from all sides may not like that position, but they will use it to their advantage. The more open minded people realize the legis. makes cr*ppy laws like segregation. So, they sue under the Const. to rid us of that problem. Similarly, the close minded people use the Court to advance their religious extremism such as Terri Schaivo, no right to privacy, etc. In sum, both sides like the Court's so called activism when it suits them.

On edit - the right to privacy is not in the Const. It is a judicially created event. Thus, judge;'s are called activists for using it. I am unsure though that you do not get that point. I think you think the right to privacy is in the Const. the same as the actual text, which is factually incorrect no matter how good the effects of the right to privacy are.

[strandinthewind]

with all due respect, I dont see how the Dems can sell any "plan" if the numbers are against them? I know what I stand for but I hear plenty of people interviewed that have completely different views, and tho I wonder how they got to that point, I know that I cant change their minds...

Well, they better learn how because they will not win without one. I mean what was one significant thing Kerry would have done significantly different than W. What was one thing Kerry offered as a solution to Iraq - which he voted for. Thus, people saw that and saw no clear distinction between the two. Clinton won essentially because Bush I raised taxes and Clonton liad out a plan to get us out of the hole - that is about the only reason along with his natural charisma, which he has plenty of.

[dissention]

He nominated a nutbag. No surprise.

[strandinthewind]

He nominated a nutbag. No surprise.

The D's have the power to block it. I wonder if they will. I think W and Rove are betting on the tired horse of calling D's obstructionists for blocking nominations. They are hoping that such an act by the D's, which traditionally has made the D's look bad in this admin. - will bring W into better standing. I think that strategy will fail because the religious conservatives used the exact same tactic to block Miers :shrug:

[irishgrl]

On edit - the right to privacy is not in the Const. It is a judicially created event. Thus, judge;'s are called activists for using it. I am unsure though that you do not get that point. I think you think the right to privacy is in the Const. the same as the actual text, which is factually incorrect no matter how good the effects of the right to privacy are.
I always thot the right to privacy was implied in the right of a person to be secure in their persons papers and effects?
or how about this:
Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I believe this is the rule of law relied on in Roe. To wit:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).


We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.


We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights. Abele v. Markle, 342 F.Supp. 800 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730; Doe v. Bolton, 319 F.Supp. 1048 (ND Ga. 1970), appeal decided today, post, p. 179; Doe v. Scott, 321 F.Supp. 1385 (ND Ill. 1971), appeal docketed, No. 70-105; Poe v. Menghini, 339 F.Supp. 986 (Kan. 1972); YWCA v. Kugler, 342 F.Supp. 1048 (NJ 1972); Babbitz v. McCann, 310 F.Supp. 293 (ED Wis. 1970), appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 1 (1970); People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 458 P. 2d 194 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970); State v. Barquet, 262 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1972).

[dissention]

I hope that the Democrats take the high road and give this guy a thorough but fair examination, as opposed to just trying to tear him apart because he's a conservative nominee.

Wait until the issue of "partial-birth abortions" is brought up. The fundies will be in an uproar over his nomination.

[strandinthewind]

I always thot the right to privacy was implied in the right to a person to be secure in their persons papers and effects?

It very well may be, but it is not written in the Const. and certainly the thought of abortion and gay sex or heterosexual non-missionary postion sex was not contemplated as being protected by those terms. Thus, the judges created the right to privacy, albeit out of necessity.

[dissention]

The D's have the power to block it. I wonder if they will.

I'll bet my car that they'll block him. :nod:

I think W and Rove are betting on the tired horse of calling D's obstructionists for blocking nominations. They are hoping that such an act by the D's, which traditionally has made the D's look bad in this admin. - will bring W into better standing. I think that strategy will fail because the religious conservatives used the exact same tactic to block Miers :shrug:

It'll fail because he concurred that laws banning "partial-birth abortions" were unconstitutional in New Jersey. No way in hell will they be able to spin it and the fundies will go absolutely nuts.

[Jyqm]

with all due respect, I dont see how the Dems can sell any "plan" if the numbers are against them?

Bush's approval ratings continue to hover around the 40% range, with the actively disapproving still well over 50%. A good sized majority of the US does not think that Bush is performing his job adequately. If you don't see those numbers as a huge opportunity for the Democrats and everybody who opposes this administration to get out there and affect some change, well, then you're part of the problem. Check the defeatism at the door, 'cause it ain't helping nobody.

People disapprove of Bush in his handling of almost everything: the war, immigration, education, not to mention his rampant cronyism. The Democrats need to create solutions to all this bungling, and they need to get out there and convince the public that their solutions will work. People are more than ready for a big change - they just need an alternative offered to them.

[strandinthewind]

I always thot the right to privacy was implied in the right of a person to be secure in their persons papers and effects?
or how about this:
Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I believe this is the rule of law relied on in Roe.

No - Roe balanced the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn fetus against the right of the mother's privacy. The Court in Roe found that because the fetus was not viable outside of the womb until the second trimester, the state's right in protecting the fetus did not outweigh the woman's right to privacy. To reach this decision and give the mother that right to privacy, the Court created lang. not directly stated in the Const. no matter how much we all tend to think the Const. heavily implies it. Again, the thought of allowing an abortion to be a protected right under the Const. was almost certainly not on the minds of the framers :shrug:

Here is a cool history of Roe and its expansion of the phantom right to privacy:

The Supreme Court's decision

The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority voting to strike down the law and Byron White and William Rehnquist dissenting. On the same day, the same 7-2 majority invalidated a Georgia abortion law in the lesser-known case of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), involving Georgia's abortion laws.

Abortion

The opinion of the Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, states that "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage" with criminalization of abortion mostly occurring from law enacted in the latter half of the 19th century. Section VI of the opinion was devoted to an analysis of historical attitudes, including those of the Persian Empire, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Hippocratic Oath, common law, English statutory law, American law, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American Bar Association.

State laws outlawing abortion were set aside by the Court, permitting abortions during the first three months of pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to safeguard the woman's health. The Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional all but the least restrictive state statutes. Noting that induced early abortions had become safer than childbirth and holding that the word person in the Constitution of the United States "does not include the unborn," the court defined, within each of the three stages of pregnancy, the reciprocal limits of state power and individual freedom: (a) During the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) After the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgement, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. In 1980, however, the Court refused to apply this ruling to require the federal government to bear the cost of abortions for women who could not afford them.

Without finding a historical basis for the laws, the Court identified three justifications in Section VII of the opinion to explain the criminalization of abortion: (1) women who can receive an abortion are more likely to engage in "illicit sexual conduct", (2) the medical procedure was extremely risky prior to the development of antibiotics and, even with modern medical techniques, is still risky in late stages of pregnancy, and (3) the state has an interest in protecting prenatal life. As to the first, "no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously" and the statute failed to "distinguish between married and unwed mothers." However, according to the Court, the second and third constitute valid state interests. In Section X, the Court reiterated, "[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutional rights granted to individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power. Even though the "Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy" the court found support for a constitutional right of privacy in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment. The court found this "right of privacy" to be "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

However, the Court determined that "arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive." The Court declared, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

When weighing the competing interests the Court also noted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, given the relatively recent nature of abortion criminalization, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not include the unborn. It should be noted that the Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy Constitutional protection is separate from the notion of when life begins. To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.

Justiciability

An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court's disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions (those stating what the law would be in some hypothetical circumstance). Instead, there must be an actual "case or controversy", including particularly a plaintiff who is aggrieved and seeks relief. In the Roe case, "Jane Roe," who began the litigation in March 1970, had already given birth by the time the case was argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971. By the traditional rules, therefore, there was an argument that Roe's appeal was moot because she would not be affected by the ruling, and also that she lacked standing to assert the rights of pregnant women (other than herself) seeking an abortion. The Court concluded, however, that the case came within an established exception to the rule, one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Justice Blackmun's opinion noted that human pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process. "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied." Such a ruling was critical to the Supreme Court's power to review the case, since the Supreme Court dismissed the physician James Hubert Hallford's intervention and affirmed the dismissal of John and Mary Doe.

Dissent

Byron White, joined by William Rehnquist, vigorously dissented, calling the Court's decision "an exercise of raw judicial power." He wrote, "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand."

Controversy over Roe

The Roe decision sparked nationwide protest, including a massive letter-writing campaign to the Supreme Court. Many Americans, including many Catholics and evangelical Protestants, believe that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Others believe that life begins upon conception, and thus the right to life of the fetus trumps any other rights. Widespread protest over the decision resulted in the creation of the Pro-Life Movement, which organized large protest rallies outside the Supreme Court. Pro-life protesters frequently picket abortion clinics, distribute literature and other forms of persuasion to women considering abortion, and have promoted adoption efforts to steer women away from abortion. More extreme variants of the movement have also developed; abortion doctors have been the targets of harassment and even murder by individuals who claim that by taking the life of an abortion doctor they are actually saving the lives of many fetuses. However, activists who advocate or practice violence against abortion providers or recipients are consistently denounced by virtually all prominent pro-life groups. Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer, and Texas has enacted a law requiring literature advancing this theory be distributed to women considering abortion; more credibly, abortion has been linked to some psychological problems, and to a higher risk of future infertility. Every year on the anniversary of the decision, protesters continue to demonstrate outside the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

In response to Roe v. Wade, several states enacted laws limiting the right of abortion, including laws requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal consent laws, spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws barring state funding for abortions, laws banning most intact dilation and extraction procedures (colloquially referred to as partial-birth abortions), laws requiring waiting periods before abortion, laws mandating that women read certain types of literature before choosing an abortion, and many more. The United States Congress in the 1970s passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding for abortion. Abortions are currently prohibited in overseas military hospitals, and the U.S. is barred from aiding international family planning organizations that might advise abortions. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but consistently upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).

Some academics also criticized the decision. In his 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, "The Wages of Crying Wolf," Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as Massachusetts congressman John F. Tierney and editorial writer Michael Kinsley, have criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.

Some academics supported the decision, including Judith Jarvis Thomson, who before the decision had offered an influential defense of abortion in "A Defense of Abortion," printed in Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (1971), pp. 47-66. Several groups have also emerged dedicated to Roe's defense. Many Americans vigorously support abortion rights as necessary to women's equality and personal liberty. Most prominent is the National Abortion Rights Action League, as well as EMILY's List, a pro-choice Political Action Committee. During his lifetime, Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe opinion, also was a determined advocate for the decision, making speeches across the country praising Roe as essential to women's equality and reproductive freedom. During the 1980s and 1990s, pressure grew from these groups for the Democratic Party to take a unified stand in favor of Roe.

Fueled by the intensity of feelings in both its supporters and critics, the controversy over "Roe" shows no sign of abating. Justice Stephen Breyer delineated the positions of the two camps in his opinion for the Court in 2000's Stenberg v. Carhart:

"Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception and consequently that an abortion is akin to causing the death of an innocent child; they recoil at the thought of a law that would permit it. Other millions fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity, depriving them of equal liberty and leading those with least resources to undergo illegal abortions with the attendant risks of death and suffering."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[dissention]

People disapprove of Bush in his handling of almost everything: the war, immigration, education, not to mention his rampant cronyism. The Democrats need to create solutions to all this bungling, and they need to get out there and convince the public that their solutions will work. People are more than ready for a big change - they just need an alternative offered to them.

The problem the Democrat's have is that they've been lazy. They certainly demonstrated that during the last election; the base was fired up, but the politicians of the party were lazy fools who couldn't find their balls with both hands. Their thinking is that people will automatically flock to them once they see this administration for the joke that it is and consider them the greatest alternative. Unfortunately, they haven't done anything of significance to show why they're a better alternative. They voted for his tax cuts, they voted for his war, etc. They're simply relying on the fact that they aren't the Republicans and they actually believe that's all they need. It's a loser strategy and explains why they're the minority at the moment. Not being the party of Bush is not enough.

[DavidMn]

I wonder if this wasnt all a set up from the beginning? I mean, seeing all this CIA suuf coming down the pike, maybe this Miers thing was all a charade, the pick this guy and watch republicans come back into better standing by portraying democrats as obstructionists? It's all making me very cynical:distress:

[dissention]

I wonder if this wasnt all a set up from the beginning? I mean, seeing all this CIA suuf coming down the pike, maybe this Miers thing was all a charade, the pick this guy and watch republicans come back into better standing by portraying democrats as obstructionists? It's all making me very cynical:distress:

The Democrats are the ones who punked Bush with Harriet Miers (most notably Harry Reid); they recommended her and were the first to hail her nomination. They played Bush and his wingnuts like a piano concerto.

[irishgrl]

Bush's approval ratings continue to hover around the 40% range, with the actively disapproving still well over 50%. A good sized majority of the US does not think that Bush is performing his job adequately. If you don't see those numbers as a huge opportunity for the Democrats and everybody who opposes this administration to get out there and affect some change, well, then you're part of the problem. Check the defeatism at the door, 'cause it ain't helping nobody.

People disapprove of Bush in his handling of almost everything: the war, immigration, education, not to mention his rampant cronyism. The Democrats need to create solutions to all this bungling, and they need to get out there and convince the public that their solutions will work. People are more than ready for a big change - they just need an alternative offered to them.
well, once he's out of office, the GOP will figure "problem solved" and its a new day and we're right back to square one..............

[strandinthewind]

The Democrats are the ones who punked Bush with Harriet Miers (most notably Harry Reid); they recommended her and were the first to hail her nomination. They played Bush and his wingnuts like a piano concerto.

Yes they did - maybe they are learning FINALLY :eek:

The thing about Rove and his ilk is they know how to attack without any merit to the attacks and Fox will sell it for them. So, the D's have to overcome that.

[DavidMn]

The Democrats are the ones who punked Bush with Harriet Miers (most notably Harry Reid); they recommended her and were the first to hail her nomination. They played Bush and his wingnuts like a piano concerto.I hadnt really thought of it that way, but I see what youre saying. I liked the punked reference.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Jyqm]

The problem the Democrat's have is that they've been lazy. They certainly demonstrated that during the last election; the base was fired up, but the politicians of the party were lazy fools who couldn't find their balls with both hands. Their thinking is that people will automatically flock to them once they see this administration for the joke that it is and consider them the greatest alternative. Unfortunately, they haven't done anything of significance to show why they're a better alternative. They voted for his tax cuts, they voted for his war, etc. They're simply relying on the fact that they aren't the Republicans and they actually believe that's all they need. It's a loser strategy and explains why they're the minority at the moment. Not being the party of Bush is not enough.

Absolutely, but as with everything else lately, things may be reaching a breaking point soon. Enough critics have blasted the Democrats for this same reason in the past year that they know this isn't going to be a functioning strategy for them. They still haven't done anything to turn it around yet... but I remain hopeful. If they screw it up again... well, f*** it, I give up, i'm staying over here.

[irishgrl]

No - Roe balanced the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn fetus against the right of the mother's privacy. The Court in Roe found that because the fetus was not viable outside of the womb until the second trimester, the state's right in protecting the fetus did not outweigh the woman's right to privacy. To reach this decision and give the mother that right to privacy, the Court created lang. not directly stated in the Const. no matter how much we all tend to think the Const. heavily implies it. Again, the thought of allowing an abortion to be a protected right under the Const. was almost certainly not on the minds of the framers :shrug:

That was ONE issue but we were discussing the "privacy" roots, which you said was "created" and I said it had its genesis in the 14th Amendment. I quoted right from Roe.

RE: State Interest the Court had this to say:
Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460, 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result).

[strandinthewind]

That was ONE issue but we were discussing the "privacy" roots, which you said was "created" and I said it had its genesis in the 14th Amendment. I quoted right from Roe.

That was the only issue in Roe - to wit: does the state's interest in protecting the rights of the unborn outweigh the mother's interest in her right to privacy. Any other discussion is merely how they resoved that one main issue.

RE: State Interest the Court had this to say:
Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460, 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result).

You are misunderstanding Const. Law - The right to privacy was never applied like that prior to then though the strict scrutiny and progeny tests had been applied before and in other areas, esp. after footnote four in Carolene Products, which created the term "suspect class" for the Equal Protection Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection

But, the Court in Roe essentially recreated it or expanded the right to provacy far beyond its other origins so that it was something new, which it was. That site I posted goes into that in detail. That is why Roe is such a landmark case.

[Jyqm]

Well, the Democrats have wasted no time in coming up with some truly idiotic comments:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said an Alito appointment would narrow the high court's view, making it less diverse.

"This appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court," the Nevada Democrat said. "The president has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, one of only two women on the court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the court."

Who let this guy be Minority Leader?

[strandinthewind]

Well, the Democrats have wasted no time in coming up with some truly idiotic comments:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said an Alito appointment would narrow the high court's view, making it less diverse.

"This appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court," the Nevada Democrat said. "The president has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, one of only two women on the court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the court."

Who let this guy be Minority Leader?

How and why is that so bad. I think he is correct :shrug: Also, he makes no comment on the ideology of the nominee.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

The Democrats are the ones who punked Bush with Harriet Miers (most notably Harry Reid); they recommended her and were the first to hail her nomination. They played Bush and his wingnuts like a piano concerto.

Well look who is playing who now. Harry Reid isn't so happy anymore!! :D So one has to wonder...so apparently he was "playing us" to no avail.

[strandinthewind]

Well look who is playing who now. Harry Reid isn't so happy anymore!! :D So one has to wonder...so apparently he was "playing us" to no avail.

Well, if he was doing that, he succeeded because the withdrawal of Miers further weakened W and the chance for any Scalia clone to get on the Court, which goes against what you believe, though why you would want someone who will not only allow the state to outlaw your sexual life but actively promote that is beyond me.

[Jyqm]

How and why is that so bad. I think he is correct :shrug: Also, he makes no comment on the ideology of the nominee.

I think Alito's ideology is quite a bit more important than his penis or his bloodline. Bush should - and did - choose a nominee based on qualifications, and qualifications alone. Is this not the lesson we learned from the Miers fiasco? Race and gender are largely non-issues here, and criticizing Bush's choice on that kind of basis is ridiculous and pointless when there are so many other important issues at stake here, especially when Bush has been so prominently "progressive" in appointing not-white-males to many other important positions.

[irishgrl]

Jason, Im at work now or I'd spend more time responding to your posts. in a nutshell, the way I understand Roe is that the Court used the 14th amendment privacy language to include a womans right to autonomy over her own body and that it outweighed a State's compelling interest in the life of the unborn. I dont think we actually are disagreeing on the ruling, only on what we were previously discussing, which if you'll go back a few pages started with the origins of the Court's "privacy" finding. you are engaging in too many arguments if you think I am saying any more than that.
All I said was the court didnt make up its ruling out of whole cloth, it clarified (using case precedent I might add) the scope of "privacy".

[strandinthewind]

I think Alito's ideology is quite a bit more important than his penis or his bloodline. Bush should - and did - choose a nominee based on qualifications, and qualifications alone. Is this not the lesson we learned from the Miers fiasco? Race and gender are largely non-issues here, and criticizing Bush's choice on that kind of basis is ridiculous and pointless when there are so many other important issues at stake here, especially when Bush has been so prominently "progressive" in appointing not-white-males to many other important positions.

I get all of that - but that was one thing said by HR and it is true, esp. if the Court is to reemble the make of of American society, which most think it should :shrug: Also, that HR did not comment on the qualifications does not mean that will not do so later. So, I do not see HR's comments as inappropriate at all.

[irishgrl]

I think Alito's ideology is quite a bit more important than his penis or his bloodline. Bush should - and did - choose a nominee based on qualifications, and qualifications alone. Is this not the lesson we learned from the Miers fiasco? Race and gender are largely non-issues here, and criticizing Bush's choice on that kind of basis is ridiculous and pointless when there are so many other important issues at stake here, especially when Bush has been so prominently "progressive" in appointing not-white-males to many other important positions.
Personally I believe Bush very MUCH considers a nominee's ideology or they dont make the short list. It is a virtual requirement that any nominee Bush puts forward is anti-choice. So as a woman who is PRO choice, that concerns me greatly.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, Im at work now or I'd spend more time responding to your posts. in a nutshell, the way I understand Roe is that the Court used the 14th amendment privacy language to include a womans right to autonomy over her own body and that it outweighed a State's compelling interest in the life of the unborn. I dont think we actually are disagreeing on the ruling, only on what we were previously discussing, which if you'll go back a few pages started with the origins of the Court's "privacy" finding. you are engaging in too many arguments if you think I am saying any more than that.
All I said was the court didnt make up its ruling out of whole cloth, it clarified (using case precedent I might add) the scope of "privacy".

Yes, you are correct in the sense that the right to privacy was essentially established in Griswold (At issue in this case was a Connecticut law that, in an attempt to discourage married people from engaging in sex without the intention to procreate, criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut - though in Griswold, the Court cited to no specific Constitutional lang. specifically outlining that right. The Court reasoned that according to precedent, the Bill of Rights guaranteed not only those rights which it specifically enumerated, but also unenumerated rights that were contained in the "penumbras" of the enumerated rights. So, Roe and Griswold are the same from that point of view.

But, my point is most scholars readily admit Roe greatly expanded that concept so that it really was not the same thing in that innocent parties were being harmed. In other words, Griswold did not use the right to privacy to jusitify the killing of a fetus, which many believe is a life once initially formed. That is a huge difference from mere contraception. Roe even recognizes this issue when Justice Blackmun refuses to define when life begins. Thus, Roe did recreate the right to privacy and vastly broaden it. Note - I make no comment on when life begins or anything like that. I am just saying that the Court in Roe recognized that the State had an intertest in protecting the fetus throughout the pregnancy, but the woman's right to privacy outweighed that state's right in the first trimester because the fetus was not viable outside of the mother.

[dissention]

Well look who is playing who now. Harry Reid isn't so happy anymore!! :D So one has to wonder...so apparently he was "playing us" to no avail.

You don't seem to get what is going on. They effectively weakened this administration when it comes to the USSC nomination. They've made it obvious that the White House is going to nominate a wingnut (who found outlawing "partial-birth abortions" to be unconstitutional :eek: ), public support won't be there, Senate support won't be there, and he'll never be confirmed. Pick number three, Mr. Bush.

[irishgrl]

Yes, you are correct in the sense that the right to privacy was essentially established in Griswold (At issue in this case was a Connecticut law that, in an attempt to discourage married people from engaging in sex without the intention to procreate, criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut - though in Griswold, the Court cited to no specific Constitutional lang. specifically outlining that right. The Court reasoned that according to precedent, the Bill of Rights guaranteed not only those rights which it specifically enumerated, but also unenumerated rights that were contained in the "penumbras" of the enumerated rights. So, Roe and Griswold are the same from that point of view.

But, my point is most scholars readily admit Roe greatly expanded that concept so that it really was not the same thing in that innocent parties were being harmed. In other words, Griswold did not use the right to privacy to jusitify the killing of a fetus, which many believe is a life once initially formed. That is a huge difference from mere contraception. Roe even recognizes this issue when Justice Blackmun refuses to define when life begins. Thus, Roe did recreate the right to privacy and vastly broaden it. Note - I make no comment on when life begins or anything like that. I am just saying that the Court in Roe recognized that the State had an intertest in protecting the fetus throughout the pregnancy, but the woman's right to privacy outweighed that state's right in the first trimester because the fetus was not viable outside of the mother.
which is actually what I already posted, so we (you and I) have no argument.
you just like arguing with me you silly man!

[Jyqm]

I get all of that - but that was one thing said by HR and it is true, esp. if the Court is to reemble the make of of American society, which most think it should :shrug:

That's just ridiculous. Why on earth should the court "resemble the make of American society"? And on what criteria should this "resemblance" be based? Race and gender only? Why not age? Why not level of education? Why not sexual orientation? Why not geography? Why not annual income? Why not favorite type of music? Why not religion? I demand that there be at least one vegetarian on the court!

Is it nice to see an ethnic minority or a woman nominated to the court? Sure. But any nomination should be based on qualifications, and nothing but. We're appointing people to the Supreme Court here, not casting The Real World. What's important is that the candidates who are nominated are the ones who are the most qualified, and any argument for or against a nominee should be based only on that person's credentials and track record.

Did Mr. Reid raise these same concerns when Clinton nominated Breyer in 1994?

[strandinthewind]

That's just ridiculous. Why on earth should the court "resemble the make of American society"? . . .

I'll just let that one rest on its own merit :laugh:

and - of course they should be qualified and I never said anything different than that.

[skcin]

I enjoyed how Bush specifically pointed out that Alito has judicial experience. I felt like I was watching Saturday Night Live & that he was going to wink at someone at any moment.

[irishgrl]

State by State projected analysis if Roe Fell:
http://www.crlp.org/images/map_ifroefell_imgmap.gif
http://www.crlp.org/images/map_ifroefell_key.gif

[Jyqm]

I'll just let that one rest on its own merit :laugh:

You sure? Or do you just not have an answer to the questions I asked? I'll ask the main one again in a different way:

If the court ought to "resemble the make of American society," what criteria should be used to create this resemblance, and why?

[strandinthewind]

You sure? Or do you just not have an answer to the questions I asked?

My my - was that an attempt to call me out on some magic carpet :rolleyes:

I'll ask the main one again in a different way:

If the court ought to "resemble the make of American society," what criteria should be used to create this resemblance, and why?

No matter how much you ask that question, the answer is the same and you already know it. The answer is well qualified examples exist in all make ups of people and if the Court is all white men, that hardly seems fair. But, if you are okay with the Court being all qualified white men - so be it.

[Jyqm]

No matter how much you ask that question, the answer is the same and you already know it. The answer is well qualified examples exist in all make ups of people and if the Court is all white men, that hardly seems fair. But, if you are okay with the Court being all qualified white men - so be it.

So what would be "fair"? Should the court ideally feature five women and four men? One Hispanic, one black, the torso of an Asian? Eight Christians and a Jew? One who's gay? Should we be seeking georgraphic diversity? Economic diversity? Should we put a twenty-five year old in there to get a younger, hipper perspective? Or a blue-collar laborer to represent the lower classes? Should we make sure to have a few fat people on there? Lots of Americans are overweight. I guess Scalia and Thomas are a little chubby.

I'm not saying that qualified candidates don't come in all different sizes, shapes and colors. I'm saying that the idea that physical diversity is a primary goal that we should be seeking to achieve on the court is stupid. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Bush's choice of Alito, but the fact that Alito lacks a vagina and a significant amount of melanin is not one of them.

And yes, I'm okay with the court being all white men. I'm okay with it being all black women, too. I don't care, because skin color and genitalia are not what's important here. If they're qualified, I don't care what their physical characteristics are.

The field of the best qualified candidates changes all the time. And Bush's short list this time around featured both men and women. In the end he apparently felt that Alito was better qualified than those women, so he chose him. I don't think his rationale was, "Well, I'd rather have this white man on the court than these women or minorities." He chose Alito because his goal is a Supreme Court that more closely reflects his belief of how constitutional law should be applied, not a Supreme Court that more closely matches up with the physical characteristics of a random sampling of the population.

[irishgrl]

So what would be "fair"? Should the court ideally feature five women and four men? One Hispanic, one black, the torso of an Asian? Eight Christians and a Jew? One who's gay? Should we be seeking georgraphic diversity? Economic diversity? Should we put a twenty-five year old in there to get a younger, hipper perspective? Or a blue-collar laborer to represent the lower classes? Should we make sure to have a few fat people on there? Lots of Americans are overweight. I guess Scalia and Thomas are a little chubby.

I'm not saying that qualified candidates don't come in all different sizes, shapes and colors. I'm saying that the idea that physical diversity is a primary goal that we should be seeking to achieve on the court is stupid. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Bush's choice of Alito, but the fact that Alito lacks a vagina and a significant amount of melanin is not one of them.

And yes, I'm okay with the court being all white men. I'm okay with it being all black women, too. I don't care, because skin color and genitalia are not what's important here. If they're qualified, I don't care what their physical characteristics are.

The field of the best qualified candidates changes all the time. And Bush's short list this time around featured both men and women. In the end he apparently felt that Alito was better qualified than those women, so he chose him. I don't think his rationale was, "Well, I'd rather have this white man on the court than these women or minorities." He chose Alito because his goal is a Supreme Court that more closely reflects his belief of how constitutional law should be applied, not a Supreme Court that more closely matches up with the physical characteristics of a random sampling of the population.

I submit that Bush's picks for the Supreme Court all have one qualification in common: that they be anti-abortion and as such, are NOT in sync with the majority of Americans, tho the pro-lifers would have you believe otherwise.
And since that is the hot button issue that is REALLY at stake here, lets please get off of a discussion of color/gender/race because to my mind, that doesnt seem to be a sticking point for Bush since he's chosen from minorities and also women candidates.

[strandinthewind]

I submit that Bush's picks for the Supreme Court all have one qualification in common: that they be anti-abortion and as such, are NOT in sync with the majority of Americans, tho the pro-lifers would have you believe otherwise.
And since that is the hot button issue that is REALLY at stake here, lets please get off of a discussion of color/gender/race because to my mind, that doesnt seem to be a sticking point for Bush since he's chosen from minorities and also women candidates.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and it is not just abortion, it is all of the right to privacy and the reason for that is they want a Christian Nation.

[dissention]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and it is not just abortion, it is all of the right to privacy and the reason for that is they want a Christian Nation.

Why has NO ONE replied even once about Alito and "partial-birth abortions"? Am I the only one who finds it shocking that Bush nominated him with that under his belt?

[Jyqm]

lets please get off of a discussion of color/gender/race because to my mind, that doesnt seem to be a sticking point for Bush since he's chosen from minorities and also women candidates.

I think that was my point. There are innumerable actual issues to discuss here, and Reid sounded like an idiot whining about the fact that the guy has freckles and testicles.

[strandinthewind]

Why has NO ONE replied even once about Alito and "partial-birth abortions"? Am I the only one who finds it shocking that Bush nominated him with that under his belt?

He was apllying the law as he should have done. He has no such retraints at the Court level. Maybe that is why.

[dissention]

He was apllying the law as he should have done. He has no such retraints at the Court level. Maybe that is why.

I realize that, but it does not matter to the fundies. They'll see "partial-birth abortions" and ejaculate over it because it'll give them a new crusade: opposing Alito.

[Jyqm]

I realize that, but it does not matter to the fundies. They'll see "partial-birth abortions" and ejaculate over it because it'll give them a new crusade: opposing Alito.

Sounds good to me. As long as Bush's own whackjob party keeps shutting him down, we're in good shape. Time to make move, Dems. What have you got?

[irishgrl]

Why has NO ONE replied even once about Alito and "partial-birth abortions"? Am I the only one who finds it shocking that Bush nominated him with that under his belt?

I am not familiar with Alito's record re: partial birth. However since you bring it up, I think that most Americans dont approve of that, including myself. I find very FEW reasons to attempt an abortion past the first trimester and I think the only time a third trimester abortion be performed is ONLY if either the mother or baby would most certainly die if the pregnancy continued. Even at that, I believe it requires every possible effort to AVOID partial birth abortion.

as for Alito and partial birth, would you care to elaborate?

[strandinthewind]

I am not familiar with Alito's record re: partial birth. However since you bring it up, I think that most Americans dont approve of that, including myself. I find very FEW reasons to attempt an abortion past the first trimester and I think the only time a third trimester abortion be performed is ONLY if either the mother or baby would most certainly die if the pregnancy continued. Even at that, I believe it requires every possible effort to AVOID partial birth abortion.

as for Alito and partial birth, would you care to elaborate?

that is why the statute was struck down as Unconstitutional - there was no exception for a medical opinion regarding the health and safety of the mother - if memory serves me correctly.

[irishgrl]

I think that was my point. There are innumerable actual issues to discuss here, and Reid sounded like an idiot whining about the fact that the guy has freckles and testicles.

well I didnt hear/read about that, but it DOES sound idiotic. Having said THAT, however, I think a case can be made that a MAN has no real empathy for the issue of a woman's choice. Maybe that was Reid's point? I dont know, but I can tell you that you are only talking in the abstract unless you've actually BEEN pregnant and had to face the prospect of being responsible for a child. There are many possibilitys that SEEM to be available but none of us can speak for the ONE of us that is actually facing the issue. And that is just it. Not one of you would appreciate MY version of morality being forced down your throat and I sure as heck wouldnt appreciate another persons morality being forced down MY throat. That just isnt what America stands for. at least, it hasnt until now......

[irishgrl]

that is why the statute was struck down as Unconstitutional - there was no exception for a medical opinion regarding the health and safety of the mother - if memory serves me correctly.


any time you have language that is too vague and broad, it is unconstitutional. similarly, any time you have language that denies due process it is unconstitutional. Many of these statues that are passed in one state and another fail to include that language. The far right hopes that they can get Justices in that will ignore precedent, and undo a basic right (and it is a right!)
Again I will say, men dont have to fight for autonomy over their own bodies why should women? Its just sickening how patriarchal this country still is~
We are actually going backward in terms of enlightenment. soon, if the bible thumpers have their way, the planets will all revolve around the earth again.
I tell you, if this continues, then I will pray most earnestly for the fall of the Church. yes. Christianity. which is NOTHING like what Christ taught.

[irishgrl]

Sounds good to me. As long as Bush's own whackjob party keeps shutting him down, we're in good shape. Time to make move, Dems. What have you got?
AHEM: you've got ME :]

[strandinthewind]

any time you have language that is too vague and broad, it is unconstitutional. similarly, any time you have language that denies due process it is unconstitutional. Many of these statues that are passed in one state and another fail to include that language. The far right hopes that they can get Justices in that will ignore precedent, and undo a basic right (and it is a right!) . . . .


Well, not any time - trust me on that one :laugh:

Also, I believe the one in question was the Fed. one - but I could be wrong.

[Jyqm]

well I didnt hear/read about that, but it DOES sound idiotic. Having said THAT, however, I think a case can be made that a MAN has no real empathy for the issue of a woman's choice. Maybe that was Reid's point?

How could Reid possibly be making that point, being a man?

And please don't pull the empathy argument. It's ridiculously spruious and totally unnecessary when there are so many better reasons for keeping abortion legal.

[irishgrl]

How could Reid possibly be making that point, being a man?

And please don't pull the empathy argument. It's ridiculously spruious and totally unnecessary when there are so many better reasons for keeping abortion legal.
Im not sure what you mean by "empathy argument?"
I firmly believe that a woman will appreciate the URGENCY of this issue better than a man because it AFFECTS women! Maybe Reid's point was that a WOMAN would have been a better pick simply because she is a fellow female?
why does that concept escape you? What if there was a law requiring mandatory male sterilization after a certain age? how do you suppose the MEN would like that? What if the issue hung in the balance based on the possible makeup of the Supreme Court (say 5 females and 4 males)? Would you be vitally concerned then? I submit, if you wanted to keep your reproductive options open, you WOULD.
and YES there are other arguments for keeping abortion legal but I wouldnt presume to say they are better or worse. I think they all have relative merit.

[Jyqm]

Im not sure what you mean by "empathy argument?"

I mean the argument that men just can't fully understand or appreciate the issue of abortion because they themselves cannot have an abortion. I assure you, there are millions upon millions of men in the world who believe very strongly in a woman's right to have an abortion and are willing to fight to preserve that right because they do understand the importance of the issue.

I firmly believe that a woman will appreciate the URGENCY of this issue better than a man because it AFFECTS women! Maybe Reid's point was that a WOMAN would have been a better pick simply because she is a fellow female?

Reid's comments had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. He was just whining that Bush chose a white male because the court won't be "diverse" enough now if he's approved.

why does that concept escape you? What if there was a law requiring mandatory male sterilization after a certain age? how do you suppose the MEN would like that? What if the issue hung in the balance based on the possible makeup of the Supreme Court (say 5 females and 4 males)? Would you be vitally concerned then? I submit, if you wanted to keep your reproductive options open, you WOULD.

I'm sorry, but where on earth do you get the impression that I somehow oppose abortion or don't care whether or not Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Neither is remotely true.

and YES there are other arguments for keeping abortion legal but I wouldnt presume to say they are better or worse. I think they all have relative merit.

No, quite frankly, they don't. I'll say right now that your argument has no merit whatsoever. If you really want to imply, "Men stay away, only women really understand abortion and only women should decide the issue," go right ahead, but you're being ridiculously foolish and cutting yourself off from the millions of men who very strongly support legalized abortion.

You might as well say, "Well, billionaires appreciate the URGENCY of abolishing the estate tax better than poor people people because it AFFECTS them. What if there was a law that took away half of your inheritance even if it was only a hundred dollars? How do you suppose POOR PEOPLE would like that?" There's just no logic there.

Again, when there are so many other good reasons to keep abortion legal, and so many men who strongly support a woman's right to have one, it just seems very silly to say, "No, this a woman's issue only and only women truly understand it."

[irishgrl]

I mean the argument that men just can't fully understand or appreciate the issue of abortion because they themselves cannot have an abortion. I assure you, there are millions upon millions of men in the world who believe very strongly in a woman's right to have an abortion and are willing to fight to preserve that right because they do understand the importance of the issue
Thats all well and good but the most earnest male on the planet cant want it more than a female whose right is about to be taken away. I applaud all men who see this for what it is and I appreciate their voices being added to ours. I just believe, that since we have more to lose, we are more invested.
Reid's comments had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. He was just whining that Bush chose a white male because the court won't be "diverse" enough now if he's approved.
well, that sounds a bit weak doesnt it?

I'm sorry, but where on earth do you get the impression that I somehow oppose abortion or don't care whether or not Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Neither is remotely true.
I defy you to show me where I said anything REMOTELY resembling that.

No, quite frankly, they don't. I'll say right now that your argument has no merit whatsoever. If you really want to imply, "Men stay away, only women really understand abortion and only women should decide the issue," go right ahead, but you're being ridiculously foolish and cutting yourself off from the millions of men who very strongly support legalized abortion
You are wrong about the merit, and I never said I didnt appreciate the men who are also willing to fight for this. See my first comment.

You might as well say, "Well, billionaires appreciate the URGENCY of abolishing the estate tax better than poor people people because it AFFECTS them. What if there was a law that took away half of your inheritance even if it was only a hundred dollars?
Um, it sounds logical to me, especially when you consider how hard they lobbied in that area! puh leez! My point in my "enforced sterilization" argument was to point out that this sort of Government interference in a person's autonomy over their own body is only happening to women~ why is that? I'll tell you why, because this country is under the grip of patriarchal maniacs who cant stand a woman having any independence or education or equality. They want women barefoot and at HOME not mucking up the workplace or the classrooms. what better way to ensure that than to keep them tied to kids until they are too old to compete?

Look, here's another example: I sympathize with the plight of the Gay community to achieve equality in the most basic of areas, but, I am not Gay, and I cannot, no matter how earnest I am, really know the nuances of what Gays have to go thru. I will add my voice to theirs, and my vote too. I will write my Representatives and sign petitions. But I have never been told I couldnt marry someone or have them named on my insurance. I have never been told I couldnt adopt a child based on my sexual preference, because my sexual preference isnt an issue. Dont you see?

Again, when there are so many other good reasons to keep abortion legal, and so many men who strongly support a woman's right to have one, it just seems very silly to say, "No, this a woman's issue only and only women truly understand it."
again, you are putting words in my mouth. not a good idea.

[GypsySorcerer]

Apparently, NOW is petitioning O'Connor not to retire until Bush's term is over.

http://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00210.html

[irishgrl]

Apparently, NOW is petitioning O'Connor not to retire until Bush's term is over.

http://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00210.html
which would be a perfect end run around the forces of evil. I PRAY she listens to them.

PS. I signed the petition.

[GypsySorcerer]

which would be a perfect end run around the forces of evil. I PRAY she listens to them.

PS. I signed the petition.
I signed too, but I don't think it's realistic. Worth a shot, I suppose.

[sparky]

What if there was a law requiring mandatory male sterilization after a certain age?

I would support a similar law requiring male sterilization at BIRTH and the requirement of a fee being paid and having to pass stringent tests and endure rigorous education to have it reversed.

I am sure you think I am kidding, but I am as serious as a Florida recount.

[strandinthewind]

I would support a similar law requiring male sterilization at BIRTH and the requirement of a fee being paid and having to pass stringent tests and endure rigorous education to have it reversed.

I am sure you think I am kidding, but I am as serious as a Florida recount.


I think they shopuld put Norplants under every female arm betwen the ages of 12 and 21 - and I am totally serious. Talk about your plumetting abortion rate :wavey:

[irishgrl]

I think they shopuld put Norplants under every female arm betwen the ages of 12 and 21 - and I am totally serious. Talk about your plumetting abortion rate :wavey:
wasnt there a movie, sci fi movie where people went voluntarily to their deaths when a jewel in their hand turned color...

had Farrah Fawcett in it, arrgh! cant remember title.

btw Jason I had Brendan at 42 so us old farts can still have babies too...everything still works ya know :lol:

[irishgrl]

I am as serious as a Florida recount.
ah shucks, ya had me til ya said that Sparks my man.......

[strandinthewind]

wasnt there a movie, sci fi movie where people went voluntarily to their deaths

had Farrah Fawcett in it, arrgh! cant remember title.

Logan's Run

btw Jason I had Brendan at 42 so I old farts can still have babies too...everything still works ya know :lol:

True - but hopefully by 21, they will have enough sense to know how not to get preggers and hopefully, they will keep the Norplant in their arm until they are ready. Again, talk about the abortion rate falling by like 95% and the govt. should pay for it.

[irishgrl]

Logan's Run



True - but hopefully by 21, they will have enough sense to know how not to get preggers and hopefully, they will keep the Norplant in their arm until they are ready. Again, talk about the abortion rate falling by like 95% and the govt. should pay for it.

Logan's run! thats IT! you watch an unGODLY amount of TV young man!

as for your idea: it might make sense on one level but it is still Government interference, and it is another example of why the Gov needs to butt OUT. no matter how reasonable an idea may SEEM to you or me...its still interfering with our personal choices.

[sparky]

ah shucks, ya had me til ya said that Sparks my man.......


I AM serious, I just didn't want to retread the heart attack line. Okay, I am as serious as .....Roe V. Wade !

No ?

How about Renal Failure ?

[dissention]

How about Renal Failure ?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Jyqm]

Apparently, NOW is petitioning O'Connor not to retire until Bush's term is over.

http://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00210.html

That's awful. The woman wants to retire, let her retire. She's one of the most respected justices on that court because she always put a faithful interpretation of the law over engaging in these kinds of shameless politics. It's not her fault that Bush didn't pick a woman for his second choice, and it's not her fault that the woman he picked as his first choice was ridden out of town on a rail. I feel bad enough for her that she's had to stick around this long as a result of Rehnquist's death, when she'd probably love to be relaxing at home or taking a cruise or something.

[Jyqm]

again, you are putting words in my mouth. not a good idea.

No, I'm just telling you what you were implying. If you didn't mean to imply it, that's fine, but that's what came across. All of the sudden out of nowhere you were talking about how men can't have enough empathy when it comes to abortion; I'm not sure where that came from, whether it was confusion over Reid's comments or what.

[irishgrl]

No, I'm just telling you what you were implying. If you didn't mean to imply it, that's fine, but that's what came across. All of the sudden out of nowhere you were talking about how men can't have enough empathy when it comes to abortion; I'm not sure where that came from, whether it was confusion over Reid's comments or what.
I cant help what you thot I implied, but what I said was a bit different. I said women are more INVESTED. This naturally impacts women to a greater degree than it does men. Thats not to say men dont sympathize and I never said that. I know there are plenty of people, (women AND men) who dont want to see abortion criminalized. But lets face it, no man is going to be getting an abortion any time soon. (or turned away from requesting one)

[gldstwmn]

Apparently, NOW is petitioning O'Connor not to retire until Bush's term is over.

http://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00210.html

Good for them.