Bush nominates Judge Alito for Supreme Court

[The Postmaster General]

Bush nominates conservative Judge
Samuel Alito to U.S. Supreme Court

Canadian Press

Monday, October 31, 2005


WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a bid to reshape the U.S. Supreme Court and mollify his political base.

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America," the president said in announcing Alito's selection Monday. "He's got a mastery of the law and a deep commitment to justice."

The choice was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed Thursday by Bush's conservative allies, Alito faces opposition from Democrats.

"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nevada).




LET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMBLE!

[JohnTheHenchman]

Alito rules.

[EVILxxx]

I hope he gets on. This is a much better nomination than Miers.

[MacReady]

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld.

Oh goody.

[Jon Lyrik]

Yay to Proto-Fascism.

[JohnTheHenchman]

MacReady, what was his reason for why it should be upheld?

And how the hell is he a fascist?

[MacReady]

"[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." while also adding some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her."

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
And how the hell is he a fascist?

Proto-fascism is difference, but I was being about 3/4ths sarcastic.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Oh lol, I was gonna say he actually believes in the right to privacy and stuff.

[MacReady]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito#Abortion

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by MacReady


If you wouldn't mind could you link me to the entire decision you got that from. I love reading judicial opinions anyway, not that I don't believe you but that just seems to scant for me to decide. Thanks

[JohnTheHenchman]

Thanks.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Basically, you have to tell your husband if he's actually the father and around and isn't a fucking dipshit. I have no problem with a decision like that at least. Last I checked, two people make a child.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Oh lol, I was gonna say he actually believes in the right to privacy and stuff.

As long as you aren't queafing out fetuses, or you aren't a guy fucking other guys...

[Lynn7]

Update: National Italian American Foundation Demands "Scalito" Apology
Mon Oct 31 2005 15:56:42 ET

National Italian American Foundation (NIAF) Statement:

The NIAF is distressed by the attempts of some senators and the media (CNN, CBS) to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito's outstanding record, by frequent reference to his Italian heritage and by the use of the nickname, "Scalito."

Appropriately, no one mentioned that Justice Breyer was Jewish or suggested that he was lock-step ideologically with the other Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it would have been outrageous to do so. We still do not know Justice Robert's ethnicity.

We are justly proud of Justice Alito's Italian heritage and his sterling academic and judicial records as well as his impeccable integrity. However, he should be considered as an individual. In honor of the memory of the just departed Rosa Parks the Senate champions of civil rights should insist that Judge Alito be considered only on his extraordinary merits.

Sincerely,

A. Kenneth Ciongoli
Chairman of the National Italian American Foundation

[Lynn7]

I too beleive that a child is made by two people and that it is incomprehensible to me that a woman can get an abortion without informing her husband. If she has a child that is not the husbands he is still financially responsible for that child's expenses so it stands to reason that if a woman is pregnant with a man's child he should know about it. If I was a man and my wife wanted to abort my child against my wishes then I would not want to remain married to her. It would be my right to make an informed decision on that matter.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I too beleive that a child is made by two people and that it is incomprehensible to me that a woman can get an abortion without informing her husband. If she has a child that is not the husbands he is still financially responsible for that child's expenses so it stands to reason that if a woman is pregnant with a man's child he should know about it. If I was a man and my wife wanted to abort my child against my wishes then I would not want to remain married to her. It would be my right to make an informed decision on that matter.

I'm not going to state that I really even care or bother about this arguement, and I'll say Alito dosen't sound too bad, however it must be said that Roe E. Wade stated that one of the main issues in allowing abortion was that it was an idvidual's (in this case woman's) constitutional right to privacy. Forcing her to reveal her pregnancies is in direct violation of this.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I believe a woman is morally obligated to discuss her decision to have an abortion with her husband, but not legally obligated. It would be nice for couples to discuss things this way, but not everything that is nice should be required to happen by law.

It's the woman's body and the woman's choice and any legal procedure that she undergoes is confidential and she shouldn't be forced to divulge it.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
As long as you aren't queafing out fetuses, or you aren't a guy fucking other guys...

yeah it's a real shame that fathers of the children are entittled to an opinion:rolleyes:

[Scorpio24]

I think he will get confirmed. I can't see the Democrats being able to stop it. His problem with his first pick was that so many Rebulicans had a problem with it. Because he's got controll over both houses of congress I can't see no problem with Rebulicans blocking Judge Alito. leaving him free to getting him confirmed.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
yeah it's a real shame that fathers of the children are entittled to an opinion:rolleyes:

I too feel a little conservative on this.

It is the woman's body, but as Lynn stated, once the baby comes out of the vagina, the man is co-financially responsible. To me, that would mean that all rights to the child are... well.. equal. Whether in the body or out.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I guess it depends on whether you believe the fetus is a living being or not. For the first 20 or so weeks, the fetus is simply a part of the woman's body. You can remove it and try and feed it with all the nutrients a human requires, and it won't survive. To me, that's not a living being. So when a woman has an abortion during the first few weeks, it's nothing more than removing a dead clump of cells from her body. I don't feel she has an obligation to inform anyone what she does with her body during this period just like I don't have to inform anyone when I pick at that scab that developed on my leg last week.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but unless I reading it wrong -- the law states that she is exempt from telling the husband in cases of adultry, sexual assult, estrangement, or she thinks he'll beat the hell out of her.

With that added in, his decision seems pretty fair to me.

I don't agree that a woman should conceive her husbands child, and not tell him about it (generally - see exceptions above) However, I think that there should be the exceptions that there are. I don't think a woman should be forced to tell him if he has a history of abusing her, or if it's not his.

The idea that a baby inside a woman's belly is "hers" stirs me the wrong way --- It's not hers, it is a combination of her genetics and the fathers genetics that she is harboring inside of her. It isn't like you are giving away your sperm, no more than when you put your dick inside does it become hers. Once a man makes the choice to inseminate a woman, it becomes a bit more than just her choice, and hers alone. Her body, okay, I buy that. If she can come up with a way to safely get the baby that's half mine out so I can go about MY rights, then we can start talking.

Of course there are exceptions, and that is what most laws are made for it seems. I highly doubt that any of this would be an issue for a large majority of couples living here.

[BakeTheMooCow]

dead clump of cells
baby

Like I said, one's judgement on the fairness of the law depends on whether that person thinks the fetus is a living being or not.

[JohnTheHenchman]

How is that argument even relevant in this law? Everyone knows the debate between whether it's living or not but that doesn't mean the father shouldn't know.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, because as I stated so, for some men it's just a matter of "my sperm, my right-to-know" - some men want to have kids, and women shouldn't hide that they don't by having abortions. That's just one situation where it has nothing to do with the "where does life start?" arguement. There's lots of other ones I'm sure.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
I guess it depends on whether you believe the fetus is a living being or not. For the first 20 or so weeks, the fetus is simply a part of the woman's body. You can remove it and try and feed it with all the nutrients a human requires, and it won't survive. To me, that's not a living being. So when a woman has an abortion during the first few weeks, it's nothing more than removing a dead clump of cells from her body. I don't feel she has an obligation to inform anyone what she does with her body during this period just like I don't have to inform anyone when I pick at that scab that developed on my leg last week.

I challenge you to watch an ultrasound of a baby at 9 weeks gestation and tell me about clumps of cells as it does somersaults and kicks its little legs. Just cause it can't be felt yet does not mean it is not active and moving about. At 7 weeks gestation my little guy was quite active bending and twisting around even though he was not completely formed at this point. It is an aboslutely amazing thing to see these little babies in action.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I've been working at a hospital for 2 years and seen numerous ultrasounds. Since the fetus cannot survive outside the mother's body, it is not alive in my opinion.

[JohnTheHenchman]

whether it's living or not, has nothing to do with this topic

[The Postmaster General]

Hahaha!

Bake watching THE BOY IN THE PLASTIC BUBBLE and going, "What's the big fucking deal? He's dead anyway!"

It's funnier if you imagine it being done in a packed room of emotional people.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
I've been working at a hospital for 2 years and seen numerous ultrasounds. Since the fetus cannot survive outside the mother's body, it is not alive in my opinion.
and people in nursing homes can't survive without someone to take care of them. and little babies and kids can't survive without someone to bring them food and on and on. It doesnt make them less alive- the babies and kids are still developing for years to come. They can't even talk or walk or obtain their own food. A fetus is not the same as an appendix. And it's not like a pregnancy happens spontaeously- people know that when they have sex there is a good chance a pregnancy could occur.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
whether it's living or not, has nothing to do with this topic

Well it kind of does cause the argument against the new nominee is about whether he will tilt left or right and that means on the one issue this is really about and that is abortion. Personally, I think that it is more important to have a judge who really interprets the laws as being constitutional or not but we know what this fight is really going to be about: ABORTION.

[JohnTheHenchman]

This fight is hardly about abortion. When will people realize that roe v. wade will not be overturned? Brown v. Board of Ed was unpopular given the popular ideology at the time but did it ever get overturned?

It's not about abortion. This man has not ruled on only abortion cases and abortion should not even be an issue anymore. It's legal, it should be legal, and it will stay legal.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by Lynn7
and people in nursing homes can't survive without someone to take care of them. and little babies and kids can't survive without someone to bring them food and on and on. It doesnt make them less alive.

Of course it doesn't. That's not what I said, however. The fetus cannot survive on its own in the first trimester and through some part of the second trimester. This literally means it cannot survive. Whether you feed it and take care of it as much as you possibly can. It will not live. If you feed a healthy baby and take care of it, it will live.

One is alive, one isn't.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Circles!

[Criminal Rock]

I like your avatar Bake...

It’s sad though when you make the accent in your head while reading the lines. It really is.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I like your avatar Bake...

It’s sad though when you make the accent in your head while reading the lines. It really is.

It works better if you imagine him addressing an unborn baby.

[BakeTheMooCow]

You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.

[The Postmaster General]

I agree with Lynn on where life starts, and I agree with John on the legality of abortion; to me it's a smoke a lights thing politicians use to address all voters. Tai is right too -- it was sad once I realized I was using the voice.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Last I checked, two people make a child.

Last time I checked, one person pushes that goddamn hellspawn out of her vagina.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Last time I checked, one person pushes that goddamn hellspawn out of her vagina.


Well, the way I figure it - It isn't like if a woman divorces a man, he can use the defense, "But I worked for all that money!" to get out of paying child support. I don't see why a person should be granted carte blanche in the decision making catagory just because they took upon the more labor-intensive task. A partnership is a partnership and all sums gained through that partnership should merit equal share. Exceptions should be considered though.

It would be wrong for a woman to marry a man for his money under the false pretense that she would help provide an heir, but never go through a pregnancy so that she could continue "milking" him, then be protected by the law to do so - It would be just as wrong for a man who new he was impotent to marry a woman making her believe they would create a family themselves. Both of these things merit fraud and there should not be laws that harbor them.

No one has really explained what is wrong with this particular law Alito used. All of the arguements against it have been on ground that are irrelevant to it, because of provisions that it makes.

I really don't want to like this guy, and so far I haven't heard anything bad about him.

A marriage is a legal binding contract, and to me, that's the one fact that's been ignored in recent times and has led to the breakdown of "sanctity of marrage" -- People treat it like a fucking bet you made on a bar napkin when you were toasted. And let's face it, for many people - that's how they end up married. They should spend less time trying to keep gays from making these contracts and more time keeping lawyers from padding these people's lives into hefty divorce fees - there should be penalties for getting divorced 6 months later. I don't know - maybe you can't get married for a year? Does that seem so bad? I haven't thought too much about any of this, but I think pregnancy is something that is a shared thing, especially in cases of marriage. "better or worse" and all that jive. It doesn't seem right from my perspective.

[JohnTheHenchman]

No Bubba, he was appointed by a republican, must not like him lol!

It's pretty funny that Bush went from nominating someone with no judicial experience, to a nominee who has more experience than anyone in nominated in the last 70 years. So no one can say "No judicial experience plz no confirm" they'll just find whatever they can.

His ruling on that abortion case is not unjust by any means, but since it's about abortion it's so easy to manipulate it.

He'll get confirmed though, and that's a good thing.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
It's pretty funny that Bush went from nominating someone with no judicial experience, to a nominee who has more experience than anyone in nominated in the last 70 years. So no one can say "No judicial experience plz no confirm" they'll just find whatever they can.


I kind of thought of this -- and it seems like political maneuvering to me (?) --- Not only did he first pick someone with no experience, he picked someone who was adored by Liberals ---- Then he goes to opposite direction: Someone who actually seems qualified, but is really conservative.

Personally, I believe that Alito was the person he wanted first, but he picked what's-her-name, because he wanted to prove something. There was no way in hell that anyone really thought she'd get appointed, so all of this seems kind of...

...

..odd.

Conservative/Liberal -- None of that matters so much to me, really. To Bush though - I think it's really important. He can barely make a speech without talking about that "I'm a uniter" stuff, and how he reaches out to both sides.

It seems contrived to me.

[Lynn7]

I think Bush was sincere when he went for Miers- he works closely with her and likes her a lot. He thought she would be a great asset to the court and thought she would be acceptable to both sides cause she used to be a Dem and now is a born again Christian so she would appeal to both.

I['m shocked that this second nomination is a white male- I'm shocked that no one has complained about that. There will only be one woman on the court now and one minority person.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I['m shocked that this second nomination is a white male- I'm shocked that no one has complained about that. There will only be one woman on the court now and one minority person.


I thought you people were against affirmative action.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think Bush was sincere when he went for Miers- he works closely with her and likes her a lot. He thought she would be a great asset to the court and thought she would be acceptable to both sides cause she used to be a Dem and now is a born again Christian so she would appeal to both.

I['m shocked that this second nomination is a white male- I'm shocked that no one has complained about that. There will only be one woman on the court now and one minority person.

I don't buy that for a second. And why is it shocking? If the white male is more capable of the job than the blacktino lesbian with webbed feet who survived the holocaust, I'll take whitey.

[Lynn7]

I find it shocking that Bush went against what was expected of him and then there hasn't been a peep about the fact that he did it. I think that people should be appointed according to how well they would do in a job. It really shouldn't matter in the case of the Supreme Court if there is a diversity of perspectives because the only perspective that should be allowed in this job is the requirement that the Constitution is being adhered to in interpretting the laws.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I find it shocking that Bush went against what was expected of him and then there hasn't been a peep about the fact that he did it.


What do you mean "went against what was expected of him"?

I expected him to name a conservative to the court.

This is probably the only time he's lived up to my expectations.