Scalito Is Not A Mystery

Alito is not another stealth nominee. He has a very clear record of rulings. For starters, he would vote to overturn Roe and Casey. In fact, he already voted to overturn Casey:
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands.
That, in and of itself, should be enough of a reason for every Democratic senator to oppose this nomination. Also, it should be made very clear that the right has openly made such ideological tests acceptable.

Of course, that is not all. Think Progress details Alito's terrible record on civil rights.

Reid and Kennedy have already come out hard in opposition. This is going to be a fight--a big one. Conservatives got their wish.

Rolling updates:

  • Again, for the third nominee in a row, Bush has selected someone with ties to a previous Republican administration. Scalito worked in the SG office during the Reagan administration. This means another argument over documents that should be released. This time, failure to comply should result in Democrats invoking real consequences.

  • You can find Reid's statement here.

  • Nothing like nominating an anti-choice man to replace a pro-choice woman on the Supreme Court. All your bodies are belong to us.

  • Now Bush wants an "up or down vote." I wonder if other conservatives will start to revive that talking point as well, after abandoning it during Miers.

  • Here are some key votes on Alito: Chafee; Collins, Hutchison, Murkowski, Ben Nelson, Snowe, Specter, and Stevens. Obviously, especially Specter, since he is on the judiciary committee.



Display:


Don't Expect Much From Hillary (1.00 / 3)

Don't expect too much from the junior senator from New York.  Disregard for civil rights isn't a problem for Senator Clinton, she let John Roberts pass with an angry press release and a firm talking-to.  There's a serious risk of her "triangulating" our rights back seventy years so long as she's trying to out-Republican the Republicans.
by PAHillary on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:25:34 AM EST

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (3.00 / 1)

Way to help in the fight. Clinton voted against Roberts. You can be certain she will vote no again here.
by Chris Bowers on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (1.00 / 1)

She rolled over, plain and simple.  Anyone who's studied the legislative branch knows that there's a clear difference between opposing something and just voting against it.
by PAHillary on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:28:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (none / 0)

Take your pet project to another thread.
by Chris Bowers on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (1.00 / 1)

I will.  Have fun finding 40 votes to stand up to this guy.  Anti-choice, murky record on civil right...if you're lucky, Senator Clinton'll put out TWO press releases against him.
by PAHillary on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (none / 0)

Hey, instead of lambasting Hillary, why don't you direct your efforts to the continuation of the derailment of the Republican Theocon agenda.  There is a time to go after Hillary and that is in 2007 when the primary season kicks in.  Until then, focus on destroying the GOP not Democrats you don't think are liberal enough.  Perhaps you and Parker need to get together.
by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:09:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (none / 0)

You don't like Scalito so you're bashing Sen. Clinton, who voted against John Roberts and who will most likely vote against Scalito?

Get the fuck out of this thread, troll.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:34:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Expect Much From Hillary (none / 0)

I guarantee Hillary will vote against this nomination.   This is her way to build a bridge to the liberals in the party angry about Iraq.

by fladem on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So what does Chafee do? (3.00 / 1)

Looks to me like he's getting squeezed. If he votes against Alito, he may increase the odds of losing his primary fight. But if he goes along with Alito, he probably reduces the odds of winning a general election.

The only way he gets off the hook is if Democrats aren't united and Alito gets a whole bunch of Dem votes. In that case, we lose big time no matter what else happens.

by Omark on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:34:54 AM EST

Re: So what does Chafee do? (none / 0)

Stevens just got his bridge, he'll follow the Republican caucus to the end of the world.
by PAHillary on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:46:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what does Chafee do? (none / 0)

Now that we can agree with.
by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Scalito (3.00 / 1)

So is this the point where all those rich suburban women wake up and smell the radical right-wing conservatism that is the republican party?

Maybe if this court outlaws birth control they can finally realize that we have a theocracy in the making here.

One question though: How would Kennedy vote on Roe these days?

by adamterando on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:09:48 AM EST

Re: Scalito (3.00 / 1)

Rich suburban women will only smell it this time if a nice smokey fire is lit.  The whole notion of "legislating from the bench" needs to be torn to pieces.  Its a BS argument from people that lost a particular court fight.  They don't like the ruling so they call it legislating from the bench.  Fact is these judges need to be able to make rulings based on their views and interpretations or they may as well be replaced with robots.  The Dems had better press to get those moderate Republican votes and then, if they can't get them, be ready to use/lose the fillibuster.  The filibuster is worthless if it can't be used.  Force Republicans to go all the way with this guy and show their true colors prior to 2006.  The people of this country have to understand that right now Dems have litte if any power in Washington and to get this country back on course requires giving them the power back, power that doesn't require the filibuster.  Its sole purpose is to prevent radical ideas/nominees from getting steamrolled through Congress.  If there is a time to use it this is the kind of nominee (I don't think there is a time when it shouldn't be used myself).  And then once they lose the filibuster, make good on slowing down everything going on up there is Washington.  Do it the right way, with constant communication with the people of this country and Dems can't be blamed for protecting us from this nutjob.  Its not about obstruction its about defending this nation from the radical evangelical right bent on turning this country into a religious state.  In 2006 Dems will win the fight at the ballot box, take back this country, and the Republicans won't have fillibuster capability to help them.  Granted for two years they'll have a President to prevent the cleanup effort but they won't be able to easily stop the investigations into the administration which will help throw out the idea of a Republican President.  And thats what we need in the end.  I don't want full Democratic control in Washington but I recognize its necessary to clean the place up after the games this administration has been playing.
"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:33:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

"They don't like the ruling so they call it legislating from the bench."

Please consider: U.S. Const., Amend. V:.....'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

If YOU can find anything in THAT sentence which supports government taking property (home) from 1 citizen and giving it to some other citizen (hotel chain) so the latter can turn it into resort property, then you're able to `read between the lines' to an extent which would TRULY boggle our founding fathers' collective minds. The tortured 'reasoning' employed in arriving at this absurd result -in light of the plain meaning of the language involved - represents 'legislating from the bench' in the worst way.

BTW: I see you're from Florida, so I assume you do know the city gov't of Riviera Beach (FL) is contemplating condemning (up to) 6,000 homes (mostly of black people, mostly poor) so private developers can have a "make over" of  the city's beachfront.....Thank you, SCOTUS - unless, of course you happen to presently live in Riviera Beach
 

by alwyr on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

I don't give a rats ass about Riviera Beach.  This appointment is not about private property.  Its about abortion.  Don't try to get around it.  

I don't agree that government should take land from one private owner and give it to another.  At the same time I understand that givernment maintains certains rights to make decisions and until legislators choose to make laws to counter them, which they will and are, then those governments can do ias they like.  Thsoe gfovernments can also pay the penalty at the ballot box.

A judge, using his judgment, to read current laws and the constitution and rendering an opinion is not legislating.  He is doing his job so long as he isn't overtly manipulating his judgement purely to cowtow to a point of view or political group.  this appointment is clearly in line to do just that.

The right wingers that suggest otherwise are LIARS!  Including yourself.  Don't try that BS with me.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

jrflorida: "I don't agree that government should take land from one private owner and give it to another." Well, if that's the way you GENUINELY feel, then why don't you criticize this ruling as "legislating from the bench" - which it OBVIOUSLY is.  

You further say "This appointment is not about private property. Its about abortion." I beg to differ. It's about EVERYTHING which SCOTUS is going to be called upon to decide (with abortion being but ONE issue). I don't want ANY justice 'making up the law' as he/she goes along - as obviously happened in the recent condemnation case.

BTW: Just because you (think you) disagree with me on abortion, please don't feel you somehow have the right to call me a "liar" for what I wrote, especially since you agreed with me.

by alwyr on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

Because it isnt legislating from the bench. Its simply a decision I dont agree with.  Hence my point.  I think I was fairly clear on that.  Just because I disagree with a decision doesn't mean I'm going to belittle it as legislating from the bench...which is pure crap.  Something you are full of.  

The only thing the right wing nuts really care about is overturning abortion.  that and religion in society, something else that doesn't belong.  I don't agree with you by the way.  you see you are about taking one thing and twisting it into something else.  its what you spinners and apologists thrive at.  But since I'm not going to buy what your selling, take it elsewhere.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

P.S.  I have the right to call you a liar if I like because I know that beyond the one message you started with I have a really good idea of exactly what you are.  Its not hard to figure out.   You might also note that this board has threads.  It isn't necessary to quote me as if somehow that shows you have some understanding of what I've said, you don't.  

Judges have the right to make decisions that check the powers of Congress, Congress can check judges through advice and consent (which by the way includes filibustering nutjobs that are out of the main stream to protect the minority from the mob rule of the current majority), and Presidents get to check both of those branches of government.  You see its called checks and balances.  Its more complicated than that, but basically the judicial branch is equal to each of the other branches. Judges have the right to make decisions that impact the other two branches of government, that check their powers.  There are rules involved and those rules are being followed by judges to include those decisions you or I or any number of others may not agree with specifically.  Its idiots in power right now that try to turn people against them with talking points, lies, and little spinners like you rolling into groups like this to stir things up that are the ones doing diservice to this country and those voters not smart enough or willing enough to do the research.

I for one believe a judge brings their values and beliefs with them to the bench.  I believe in mainstream judges, of which this person is not.  They make decisions based on the law and their experience with the law.  The Constitution is not something written in stone, nor is it particularly clear on every point.  The 2nd amendment for instance is about giving the people the ability to bear arms not to protect this country but to protect people from this country gone tragically wrong.  something we see more and more of every day Georgie boy sits on his throne.  It was written specifically to be interpreted by coming generations because the founders didn't believe they were perfect.  They understood to keep some things a bit fuzzy.  Changes in that interpretation have yielded great advances over time.  Abolition of slavery, more equal rights and protections for the common man from elitist businessmen, etc.  Interpretation requires individual judgment and yes that judgement may differ from the far right conservative nutjobs out there, or even the far left.  But in general, over time it all works out.  Roe may fall, but then again that can be fixed too in time.  The key is to understand that these are lifetime appointments and they are serious.  This judge is dangerous to womens rights.  A few pieces of private property changing hands here and there is meaningless, a few businesses losing money or not making as much as they'ld like off the backs of others and our environment is meaningless compared to a womans right to have freedom over her own body.  Not just because of what it means to her but what it means to all of us.  I love guns, I want to keep mine.  However, I'll choose a woman's right over my guns any day of the week.  So this judge, this judge gets fought each and every step of the way.  I don't care about private property rights (and I own property), I don't care about guns (I own plenty of them in case you right wingers get ideas in your heads more dangerous than those you've already carried out), I care about our basic rights of freedom and the serious threat they are under by this administration and the cronies it appoints.  This judge may in the end get approval, but its gonna hurt.  Its going to be bloody and in the end the American people are going to see this administration for the danger it truly represents.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

No need to re-write history. SCOTUS did not abolish slavery. If memory serves, C.J. Taney's "creative interpretation" in Dred Scott led to just the opposite. You would do well to keep in mind it required the federal army (plus 387,000 union lives) to physically impose the will (and the laws) of the United States upon the Confederacy. THAT is  what abolished slavery.

I think you'd be MUCH happier taking your claptrap, bumper sticker "talking points" over to the KOS site. As with that crowd, you appear to be the type who so desperately wishes for something to be true that you can't deal with the disappointment when reality raises its ugly head.

In the meantime, you'll just have to steel yourself to the REALITY that Mr. Alito is going to be confirmed. I say that only because the same knee-jerk "arguments" were raised in opposition to C.J. John Roberts by the same losers you call leaders - you know their names - Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, et al. Remember? After all, it was only a few weeks ago. The same thing's going to happen this time around. Again, it's called  reality, a concept with which you seem to be completely out of touch.

by alwyr on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

You idiot, I'm not talking in specific about SCOTUS.  I'm taling about how we as a nation interpret our laws and the Constitution.  

You will have to steel yourself to the rreality that it will cost you dearly even if he is confirmed.  It shows the radical right wing has Bush by the balls.  It shpows mainsteream America, of which Bush is not a member, that he is after their uterus, their bedroom habits, etc.  And by the way, this nomination has to get past all those moderate conservatives that were elected because they were moderate conservatives.  If they fail to vote him down on abortion aloine they face real problems in 2006...which leads to the eventual Democratic takeback of Congress and the investigations of this administration over the coming two years that will yield a new Democratic President.  The radical right has reached too far with this one.  It may very well happen, but it will not be a good thing for the nutjobs like yourself.

Also, considering you have like 3 posts here all of them to me, and Ive been here for a lot longer, I think I'll stay and you can take your desperate talking points and sell them elsewhere.

The confirmation hasn't happened yet BTW and whether it does or not is not up to you or me.  But I won't allow you or anyone else to accept victory until it is truly won.  

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

Actually, it was the 13th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, that ended slavery.

Slavery remained legal in several Union "border states" throughout the war.

by wayward on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scalito (none / 0)

Even if Roe, and Griswold (!) were overturned, abortion and birth control would not be made illegal. Those issues would just go back to the states.

IMHO, that's not a bad place for those issues to be decided. People have different and strongly held beliefs on abortion. This is an issue the people should decide, not the courts. Yes, it probably will be decided differently from state to state. Some states will write very liberal abortion laws, others will ban it. Most will come up with a policy somewhere in the middle.

Even if some states do ban it, there are very few abortion clinics in the states that would in the first place. Mississippi's ONE abortion clinic would probably close. And it's not like people couldn't go to another state. Tattoos were been illegal in South Carolina for years until very recently, yet there have always been plenty of tattooed South Carolinians.

As for birth control, wherever that issue is decided is a moot point. Not only do I not see a single state banning it, I don't even see a single state legislator voting to ban birth control and getting re-elected.

by wayward on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Specter will vote to confirm. (none / 0)

He's known Alito for two decades, and likes him.
by Newsie8200 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:26:43 AM EST

Specter (3.00 / 1)

I know GWB doesn't give a damn about the moderates in the GOP, but only the most politically dense person in the world would not confirm that his nominee would get past the head of the committee.  I assume that they talked with Specter and he agreed to capitulate.  After all, he owes them for helping him last year.  I don't see the monkey's handlers being that dumb...although I agree with Scott that this is a nomination out of weakness and is a miscalculation on the part of Bush...

I always thought he just let the Christian right think they represent a majority in the country and let his true allegiance lie with the corporate ceos.  Now I am firmly convinced he really does think God mandated him for this position and has fooled himself into thinking the theocons represent a large majority of the country.  Derailing this ruling will help us immensely in 2006.  In fact the only way to screw this up is if we give up and don't put up a fight.  The Dems gave the GOP Roberts; this time around will be a different story.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:31:26 AM EST

He will be confirmed, (1.50 / 4)

move on. I recall some people wasting political capital opposing CJ Roberts. Are you going to repeat your error so soon? The Democrats can not conscionably fillibuster for a social issue (abortion) when they were complicit in the Bankruptcy Bill and CAFTA. The Democrats refused to fight from a position of strength and principle; yet they will fall on their swords opposing surefire nominees like Alito? That's the old bait-and-switch, and I'm tired of it.

People want the Democrats to fight all right, but for the middle class, not for the left wing base.

by Paul Goodman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:40:33 AM EST

Re: He will be confirmed, (none / 0)

Uh.....

57% of the country supports abortion in all or most cases. I wish that much of the country was our "left wing base".

by adamterando on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will be confirmed, (none / 0)

People want the Democrats to fight all right, but for the middle class, not for the left wing base.

Did the left-wing base suddenly become non-Democrats?

by Curt Matlock on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Roe is bigger than any trade deal (none / 0)

If you don't see it, you're not much of a liberal.
by Cyt on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:53:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He still has a point. (none / 0)

Completely rolling over on economics and foreign/military policy, and then fighting to the death on social issues?  (Actually, dodging gay rights and capital punishment and guns and religion and ID/evolution... so fighting to the death only on Roe.)  That is a little weird.
by texas dem on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He still has a point. (none / 0)

YOu have to fight sometime.  All the other stuff was not winnable.  In the end they can at least point to how Republicans screwed over regular people with an illegal war and denying them the ability to take back their lives after a financial disaster.  This issue is winnable in the long run, if not the short.  If you don't use your political capital it isn't political capital.
"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:34:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will be confirmed, (none / 0)

He will be confirmed.

Frist has the 50 votes he needs to confirm and the 50 votes he needs to go nuclear.

by wayward on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Phraseology (none / 0)

How could he vote to overturn Casey when it was that case that went to the Supreme Court? In other words, Casey was not settled law at that point.

That being said, here is your reliable 4th vote against Roe. If Stevens kicks in the next two years, there's #5.

by norbizness on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:47:53 AM EST

Can we find something other than abortion? (3.00 / 1)

Because, for example, I don't exactly get why a woman shouldn't notify her husband that she's having an abortion.

For Christ's sake -- it's common decency!

Do leftie Dems even remotely understand how the "preserve marriage" meme is going to resurface because of this?

Does it strike anyone as a little disturbing to laser in on this one issue?

I mean, shit, if he's a so-called Constitutionalist, it sould be pretty easy to ask the most forward question: "Should we rewind the Constitution to before the 13th, 16th or 19th Amendment?"

Dems would be a lot smarter to back of an essentially social issue (abortion) and move harder on the more distrubing broader phenomenon of emerging wannabe "Constitutionalism".

After all, Consitutionalism is an argument for a whole host of things:

  1. Ending religious freedom (would it kill us to toss the religious right a real bone?).

  2. Ending the progressive income tax.

  3. Ending Social Security.

  4. Ending minimum wage.

  5. Ending Affrimative Action, Food Stamps, Head Start, environmental standards.

  6. Pretty much ending everything the two Roosevelts gave this nation.

  7. Pretty much ending everything Ike gave this nation.

8 Pretty much ending everything Clinton gave this nation.

In other words, strike where Americans are most sensetive: THEIR SENSE OF NORMALCY.

Americans do not want things to change.  Ever.

That's where you scare them into siding with you.  Look at gay marriage and gun control

by jcjcjc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:16:52 PM EST

Re: Can we find something other than abortion? (3.00 / 1)

Because it's not his.

Because he's abused her.

Because they're estranged.

In all events, because its her uterus, not his.

This has exactly the same bad rationales as parental notification, except it puts the husband in loco parentis over the wife, who is, last I checked, presumed to be an adult.  Now that's offensive.  But hey, I guess a lot of people in the US crave the return of coverture.

So, just for the slow of mind:  In a good marriages, there is no need to legislate this.  In bad marriages, legislating this is going to get women abused.

I love the "centrists" who want to get back into power by selling out women (and usually, gay people as well.)

by paperwight on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exceptions (1.00 / 1)

FWIW, all the factors cited above were grounds for exceptions to the spousal notification provisions of the statute at issue in Casey.

Furthermore, Chris' statement that Alito "voted to overturn Roe" in his Casey dissent is just plain wrong. Such imprecision isn't going to be difficult to rebut.

For a different take on Alito, from a liberal perspective, try:

http://bluemassgroup.typepad.com/blue_mass_group/2005/10/katherine_kate_.html

by SLinVA on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exceptions (none / 0)

Yeah, forgive me if I'm not sanguine about something which requires a woman to testify that one of those conditions exists and have it be punishable by law if her testimony can be proved untrue.  (If, for example, her estranged husband learns of the abortion and wants to pursue it, with the help of an AG like Phill Kline in Kansas.)

Again, good marriages don't need the law.  Bad marriages shouldn't be made worse.  There's a really strong implicit veto and right of coverture stacked into this kind of law.  And lets not bullshit ourselves -- it's all about scaring women away from abortions.  Anything else is bullshit.  And there will be another cut in the right to choose.  And another.  And another.

by paperwight on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, don't give me shit chief (3.00 / 1)

  1. I'm not a sell-out.  I have been anti-abortion for quite a while.  It isn't about politics.  It's about promoting the right thing.

  2. Don't gay bomb me on this one, slick.  I am very pro-gay marriage.

  3. Could you please explain to me about these abusive controlling marriages where the woman could leave the house long enough to even get an abortion?

Also, why is it OK to kill a fetus because your husband's an abusive prick?  Was the fetus in on the abuse?

Seems like there's a better candidate for killing in this equation.  Y'know, maybe the husband.

Killing babies doesn't empower women one lick.  All it does is add one more goddamn thing on a woman's already weighted conscience in these sort of situations.

by jcjcjc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, don't give me shit chief (1.00 / 1)

Um, I'll give you shit on this one if I want to, "chief".  You're talking about selling out the rights of women in order to get the rest of what you want.  The way you put it was "stop bitching about abortion, and get all the rest of this stuff".  I don't give a shit about whether your anti-choice position is sincere -- you're trying to swing it as a political bargain.  In fact, the hypocrisy might be worse, given that you claim your anti-choice position is sincere.

The question is:  who owns the uterus?  The woman, the husband, or the state?  What does he have to disclose to her under legal threat?  We're not talking about aborting because the husband is the abuser.  We're talking about whether or not the woman is required to notify the abusive husband or else swear that he is an abuser, and if that can be challenged, face a lawsuit.  Of course, as an anti-choicer, you must be a fan of Phil Kline -- I'm sure he'd help an angry estranged husband go after his wife.  That's the kind of consequence we're talking about, not just "a burdened conscience".  That's their conscience, they get to choose.

If you want to make abortion illegal straight up, then just effing say so, and say you're willing to prosecute women for murder if they get an abortion, no matter what -- no exceptions for rape or incest or health of the mother.  At least be consistent.  Don't dick around with the "oh, it's just a notice provision" "oh, it's just a waiting period" "oh, it's just a recordkeeping provision." It's death by a thousand cuts, and we both know it.

And don't pretend that it's not selling women out. Anti-choice means that you value real existing people -- women -- less than you value a blob of cells that nature terminates one time in three.  Period. That's the bottom line.

by paperwight on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:00:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Shrugs . . . ponders . . . shrugs again (3.00 / 1)

"Anti-choice means that you value real existing people -- women -- less than you value a blob of cells that nature terminates one time in three."

So, helping the process along is OK?

By that rationale, it's OK to unleash the plague, because, shit, it's natural anyhow.

Also, by that rational, I have every right to kill every human being on this planet, because 100% of the time those blobs of cells end up terminating, too.

BTW -- since when do you have unlimited rights to never have your body be the subject of the law?

After all, it's MY liver.  So don't tell me how much I should drink!  I should drink as much as a damn well please.

Otherwise, aren't we selling out 300 pound hairy men shaped like bowling balls by allowing blood alcohol limits?

All kinds of things can be justified as fundamental rights under the aegis of privacy.

It's my house.  Don't tell me not to build bombs in my basement.

It's my car.  Don't tell me to not smoke pot while I'm driving.

And face facts: if you're husband might actually fucking kill you, it's probably fair to say that a trip to the doctor isn't the first thing you should be doing.

I'd recommend she either take a trip to the police station, a shelter, or a gunshop.

Just trying to think constructively.

And, yes, as an anti-abortion Democrat I do find it worthwhile to offer it up as a political football.  It seems that's how politics works.  Go figure.

As for selling women out, how about we look at the Democratic Party's complete failure to promote real social programs?

Leaving single mothers in government housing to try to level off the difference between raising their kids with no parents and no money, that's not selling women out at all, is it?

But, then again, the bitch probably should have done the right thing an aborted them while she had the chance.

Abortion: because murder usually is a rung on the great American ladder.

I just happen to believe that any government that doesn't promote a base level of socialism AND allows abortion has a large degree of complicity in those murders.

And there's where I deeply disagree with the right: it is wrong to tell women not to get an abortion, but to instead raise their children in poverty with no hope of ever getting out of it.

Understand where I'm coming from: like most moderates, I picked a party out of lack of choice.  The Dems are wrong to tell women it's OK to get an abortion, and the GOP is wrong to tell them to keep the kid and raise it in abject poverty.

Both sides owe it to their supposedly righteous arguments to find the middle and help young mothers to make the right choice.

by jcjcjc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:51:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shrugs . . . ponders . . . shrugs again (3.00 / 1)

If the best the Democratic Party can offer poor women is abortion, then no wonder they keep losing elections.

No, I do not belive criminalization is the answer. Enforcement of any law against abortion would be spotty and selective at best. Even most abortion opponents oppose prosecuting women (as opposed to prosecuting doctors). I believe that criminalization would likely do more harm than good.

But I do believe abortion is wrong.
Furthermore, it is as wrong to promote abortion as the solution to poverty or abuse or any social problem as it is to promote infanticide for the same reasons. Abortion ends the life of another human being, and we were all that age once.

Abortion may have to be tolerated, but it should not be promoted.

by wayward on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Abortion is a quandry, not a right (none / 0)

That I think is the fundamanetal point most anti-abortion Dems would make.

Just as we would be quick to say we understand something like inner city crime, it doesn't mean we condone it.

The underpinning point, certainly, is that our government does not make a real effort to address the root causes of many problems.

No one on the right has any moral authority on the abortion issue as long as the bastards continue to strip away money for Food Stamps, Head Start, and other programs that allow single mothers to barely stay above water.

That, I think, is why many anti-abortion Dems feel brutalized by the political process: we're simply asking that people do the right damn thing, and somehow both the left and the right have enough piss and vinegar in them to tell us we're wrong.

by jcjcjc on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 08:06:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shrugs . . . ponders . . . shrugs again (none / 0)

Now that was classy.  Dishing out the troll rating after you did that smarmy condescending "chief" and "slick" crap.  All class.

jcjcjc, if you're a "moderate", I don't see you actually doing any of the things you're talking about to really reduce the abortion rate.  See, all of the "moderates" you support won't do any of the things necessary to really help poor women.  You might talk pretty about what the Dems aren't doing, but your alignment with the "moderates" really makes me not believe you.  I might buy it if you were a green, or a socialist.

And all of those analogies you make are just false.  You're weighing the woman's right to her own body at zero.  IOW, you think the state owns her uterus once there's a blastocyte in it.  That's all there is to it.

by paperwight on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can we find something other than abortion? (3.00 / 0)

Because, for example, I don't exactly get why a woman shouldn't notify her husband that she's having an abortion.

That's not the point.  I'm sure most married women seeking an abortion would willingly and gladly discuss the matter with their husbands (or wives, here in MA :) before doing so.

Do you get why a woman shouldn't be forced, under penalty of law, to notify her husband, in those unusual cases where she clearly does not want to notify him?  Might she not have a good reason?  Can't we leave it to her judgement?

by cos on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Abuse + court appearance =bad? (none / 0)

How does that work out poorly for the woman?

If she's being abused that badly, wouldn't a court appearance be her best friend?

by jcjcjc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abuse + court appearance =bad? (none / 0)

Oh, that makes sense.  She's abused, she's trying to seek an abortion without notifying an abusive husband, and she has to go to court to open up her life to complete strangers who will make decisions which affect her life.

Seriously, what do you know about domestic abuse?  Anything?

Give it up.  Just cop to the fact that you believe her husband and the state have more say about what she does with her body than she does.  Period.

by paperwight on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, you're just an ass! (none / 0)

"Give it up."

Yeah, that is the foundation of the Democratic Party, isn't it?

by jcjcjc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What if Hubby Says No? (none / 0)

Hate to pile on but .... if notification for the husband is the law then what happens in cases where he says no? Does the husband get a veto over the abortion?
by Curt Matlock on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why shouldn't he have a veto? (none / 0)

It's his child, too.
by jcjcjc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:37:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why shouldn't he have a veto? (none / 0)

Can he carry it to term?  No?  Well, until he can, it's her decision.
by paperwight on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Hubby Says No? (none / 0)

The law required notification, not consent.

Alito did not consider this an undue burden.

by wayward on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can we find something other than abortion? (none / 0)

For Christ's sake -- it's common decency!

It's not the government's place to legislate morality.

by dblhelix on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 01:58:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey (none / 0)

Let's at least be clear about his rationale for dissenting on Casey. He used O'Connor's reasoning in her opinions as a guide. In other words, he was following the law of the land as set forth in exisitng SCOTUS decisions.
by gsdiner on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:27:41 PM EST

Re: Casey (none / 0)

Well, kinda.  But on the SCOTUS, he doesn't have to follow precedent.  So, kiss women's right to choose buh-bye.
by paperwight on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey (none / 0)

The score is still 5-4 in favor of Roe.

For: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy
Against: Scalia, Thomas
Likely Against: Roberts, Alito

by wayward on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait a second (none / 0)

That is a distillation of White House talking points #s 1.b, d, and e.

And I wonder if this newly registered gsdiner is also this gsdiner, conservatarian talking pointer.

by paperwight on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.