Shrub Poised to Pick Court Nominee Tomorrow

[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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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 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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well look who is playing who now. Harry Reid isn't so happy anymore!! 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 ), public support won't be there, Senate support won't be there, and he'll never be confirmed. Pick number three, Mr. Bush.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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

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:

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.