Judge Alito nominated for supreme court

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Any other thoughts?

IF it sounds like an idealog and quacks like an idealog

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10039261/
Alito documents suggest strong abortion stand
Court nominee proud of work to show no constitutional right to abortion


WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote back in 1985 that he was proud of his Reagan-era work helping the government argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion,” documents showed Monday.
Alito wrote that he believed “very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values.”

[ReBirth 0]

I'm pro choice, but that IS a correct assessment. The constitution does not provide a right to an abortion. It provides a right to privacy when dealing with medical issues. That right was seen as encompassing the gov't attempt to make abortion illegal. How do you criminalize something that the gov't should never have the ability to know is taking place?

[Amazon 7]

I guess we need to all start singing

http://taboo-breaker.org/religion/sperm.htm

Every Sperm is Sacred


From: The Meaning Of Life
by the Monty Python Team


There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

He has held that women have to notify their husbands before they can have an abortion, a case which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in the Casey decision, with O'Connor writing the majority opinion and as the 5th vote again.

Did you read the article that I posted? It goes to this very question. As does the quote I pulled from that article which you replied to.

The bottom line from the article: Just because Alito voted to uphold a law does not mean he has to agree with it. He may or he may not. His dissent is devoid of emotional opinion. And just because it was overturned means nothing. There are probably very few judges around who have never had a decision overturned at one point.

The bigger point is that he made the decision he thought was correct UNDER THE LAW...and he did it by using the existing decision from Roe vs Wade. Later, SC overturned that, but no one bats 1000.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brierebecca 0]

I disagree that he ruled the way he did because that was what the law dictated. O'Connor's undue burden threshold has been discussed by many scholars, and is generally thought to be overly vague. He ruled the way he did because he thinks the Belotti bypass option (the option allowing children to petition the court to avoid having to notify their parents that they are having an abortion) applies to women. In short, he equates WOMEN to CHILDREN. Read the Casey and Belotti opinions and you'll see what I mean.

The problem with the Belotti bypass option is that some states which want to disallow abortion have made their Belotti bypass option so complicated that it is virtually impossible for a person who is not legally educated to navigate the system. Therefore, low-income women who are more subject to spousal abuse, who would be less able to obtain the information and expertise to obtain a bypass, would be subject to the abuse because they can't navigate the system.

There are several cases pending in courts of appeals about the constitutionality of the Belotti bypasses in Texas and other strict states.

Also, I have trouble believing that Alito strictly construed the law in this case, simply because of his track record concerning the supremacy of the familial structure in general. Take a look at his immigration cases to see evidence of this.

It's pretty clear that he's not the judical conservative many republicans are asserting he is. Just because an opinion is devoid of passion doesn't mean the writer is, too. In fact, in my experience, judges who assert radical political agendas try VERY HARD to ground their assertions in case law, so they look like they're being conservative. It's a protective mechanism.

Also, it's true that most judges get overturned at one point or another. But this dissent was the lone dissent in a notable case, and it largely held to be a very radical opinion, despite the fact that he thinks it's not an undue burden.


Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[rasmack 0]

Quote

He has a track record of discriminating against unmarried people when it comes to asylum in the US, which is troubling considering the amount of civil rights and gay rights legislation coming up for consideration this term.

In all fairness I think you are putting a bit much spin on this one. He held that marriage was an acknowledged legal institution whereas many other relations were not. This is true and does not in itself amount to discrimination.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Rebecca 0]

WARNING: This post is NOT serious.

Dude. Your new avatar = HOT.

Also, does anyone else think of Rob Schneider's annoying office dude from SNL when Alito comes up? I do.

"Hey, it's Judge-alito, makin' copies. Judge-o-rama, Judge-arooney, the Judgeinator!"

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

WARNING: This post is NOT serious.

Dude. Your new avatar = HOT.

Thanks. .

Even with the new foil hat? Its stylish.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

WARNING: This post is NOT serious.

Dude. Your new avatar = HOT.

Thanks. .

Even with the new foil hat? Its stylish.

What? Are my glasses giving up?
Where is that new stylish foil hat?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

WARNING: This post is NOT serious.

Dude. Your new avatar = HOT.

Thanks. .

Even with the new foil hat? Its stylish.

Yes, even with the hat. Especially with the hat.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

WARNING: This post is NOT serious.

Dude. Your new avatar = HOT.

Thanks. .

Even with the new foil hat? Its stylish.

Yes, even with the hat. Especially with the hat.

I don't like the . It makes me think you are mocking me.

HA! This hat is making me paranoid!!!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[ReBirth 0]

She is mocking you, but only because she hates you.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WARNING: This post is NOT serious.

Dude. Your new avatar = HOT.

Thanks. .

Even with the new foil hat? Its stylish.

Yes, even with the hat. Especially with the hat.

I don't like the . It makes me think you are mocking me.

HA! This hat is making me paranoid!!!

Well, the first meant I was being matter-of-fact.

The second meant I was mocking you.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Yeah, I would hate me to if I knew me. But since I don't, I don't.

confused? Me too.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

She is mocking you, but only because she hates you.

Ah but I only mock in love, dear AfterBirth.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

disagree that he ruled the way he did because that was what the law dictated.

Quote

He ruled the way he did because he thinks the Belotti bypass option (the option allowing children to petition the court to avoid having to notify their parents that they are having an abortion) applies to women.

have you read the opinion of which you are speaking?

Quote

Also, I have trouble believing that Alito strictly construed the law in this case, simply because of his track record concerning the supremacy of the familial structure in general. Take a look at his immigration cases to see evidence of this.

Have you read these cases? Point to some specifics.

I'm sorry to pick on you with this but I have higher expectations of a law student. While yours is fine for a political science-type response, I'd like you to cite your facts and apply them to your rules.

The problem is that your response is just like the venom directed at Janice Rogers Brown. Remember how she was accused of being "against restricting cigarette sales to minors" and that she "dissented from a majority opinion that admonished an employee who used racial slurs in the workplace and the employer who permitted it." (these are taken from a post here that posted an article by sfgate.com.)

Meanwhile, anyone who read these opinions would have realized that she voted to strike down a prior restraint of free speech in the tobacco case (it was about a law that restrained commercial speech) and that, in the Aguilar case, she dissented from a plurality opinion (she was joined by highly regarded civil libertaran Ronald George, who wrote his own dissent (but he's white, so it's okay for him to think independently)) she found that a court drafting a list of banned words amounted to government censorship in prior restraint of free speech. Oh yeah, she also said that instead of enjoining the racist speech, the complaining parties should sue the living hell out of Avis. She believes that a company won't tolerate racist comments once it costs the company a few million dollars.)

Let's stop with the puffery and grandstanding and move on to your citation of his statements and opinions, and then let's talk about what you have a problem with.

Your positions right now are not supportable, which also makes them non-defensible. Of course, that's what politics is about. The thought has been planted, and the bell has been rung, and good luck unringing it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

YAY!! Just as a note, I think your eye is pretty hot too.

I mean, damn, that is a sweet eyeball.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,112]

>Just because Alito voted to uphold a law does not mean he has to
>agree with it.

Agreed. Thus it becomes important to see what he says outside his judicial decisions:

-----------------------
Alito rejected abortion as a right
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
------------------------

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

"the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion"

As I said above, he's right, it doesn't.

Quote

it becomes important to see what he says outside his judicial decisions

Why? If the man has demonstrated the ability to rule based on the law, why do his personal opinions matter?

I'm prochoice but I think democrats are reaching with this one. I haven't seen anything that indicates he has an ambition to overturn RvW.

[brierebecca 0]

actually, I purposely didn't include specifics because I was trying to start more of a conversation. I'm sure you can see from my earlier posts that I have a good grasp of con law (I actually booked con law one and two), and I understand what is needed to make a constitutional argument. I wasn't looking to make one here, just start a conversation on the issues. I have found that including specifics on the law stops the conversation on this forum.

However, if you want specifics, take a look at US v. Fatin, the immigation case, where a woman was seeking asylum because her country would make her have an abortion. Her boyfriend, with whom she had been living for 20 years, was not allowed the same asylum because they weren't married. Alito then turned around and allowed another pregant woman's husband in the country, even though it was demonstrated that they married just for this purpose, and had only been married for 3 months. Now what happens when gay married couples try to gain asylum when we don't recognize gay marriage in our federal law?

As for the Belotti bypass, take a look at Hodgson v. MN, wherein the Belotti bypass applies to parental notification, despite the fact that the system is very cumbersome.

in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito DIRECTLY analogized the harms the legislature contemplated with the Belotti bypass with the parts of section 3209 of the statute, which he determined were not an undue burden. The definition of undue burden, I'm sure you'll agree, is very much up for debate. He construes a system which would require women to navigate a complicated court system in order to not have to notify their husbands is not an undue burden. This is the same system which would require minors to do the same thing. Here's the quote, since you seem to require it:

""the minor may confront physical or emotional abuse, withdrawal of financial support or actual obstruction of the abortion decision." These harms are almost identical to those that the majority in this case attributes to Section 3209. See majority opin. at 711-12. See also Planned Parenthood Association v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 505, 103 S.Ct. 2517, 2532, 76 L.Ed.2d 733 (1983) (O'Connor concurring and dissenting) (statute requiring parental consent or judicial authorization "imposes no undue burden").
"

He made a lot of assumptions in that opinion about what O'Connor meant about undue burden, and he was obviously wrong, because she overturned him. The fact that he thinks that this kind of notification is not an undue burden is what troubles me, especially if you look at some of the bypasses available to minors these days.

Despite the fact that you are not one of my professors, I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to solidify my opinions on this matter. It's very clear in the Casey opinion that alito analogizes women to children, but you had to treat me like one to get me to take a better stand.

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why? If the man has demonstrated the ability to rule based on the law, why do his personal opinions matter?

thank you

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Your two statements contradict each other. If you agree that when a judge upholds a law it does not necessarily mean they agree with it, why then must we look to outside their court opinions?

Lawyers OFTEN defend those they do not like or agree with. If that were untrue, the public defender would not even exist. In the same token, a good judge will make decisions based on precedence and the law, not their personal views, no matter what those views are. Is it possible to have the judicial view colored by the personal? Sure. But I do not think that is so in this case.

Like Rebirth said (see Rebirth, credit), abortion is NOT in the constitution. As lawrocket pointed out, the SC did not make Roe v Wade based upon the 14th.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,112]

>Why? If the man has demonstrated the ability to rule based on the
>law, why do his personal opinions matter?

Because he is being nominated to one of the most important positions in the US. I don't think his feelings on abortion/religion/affirmative action etc are a primary issue here, but they are AN issue.

[ReBirth 0]

A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention. Basically she had to tell the doctor that she informed her husband.

That is the undue burden you are referring to. As I've said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see that as an undue burden.

The finding that "A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely." is flawed IMO. I don't see how asking a woman if she told her husband would be likely to prevent her from obtaining an abortion.

IMO, the following is more on target.
"The undue burden standard adopted by the joint opinion of JUSTICES O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER has no basis in constitutional law, and will not result in the sort of simple limitation, easily applied, which the opinion anticipates. To evaluate abortion regulations under that standard, judges will have to make the subjective, unguided determination whether the regulations place "substantial obstacles" in the path of a woman seeking an abortion, undoubtedly engendering a variety of conflicting views."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

Of course, one must view this basd upon a timeline. The Webster decision in 1989 and the Casey decision in 1992 could possibly have swayed his thinking in the last 20 years. I know that I think differently than 20 years ago. I imagine that I will think differently yeat again when I am in my fifties.

My wife is hotter than your wife.