quote:

Originally posted by justin Well, atleat Alito can't be manipulated by the president like Harriet Miers (tHE cRONY)would have been. Maybe, in the president's hasty decision to replace her right away with Alito, Bush was blindsiding the interests of the public to get the real representative of his choice, to the right (corruption). I'm of the opinion that Sandra Day O' connor would be very hard to replace in balancing the votes of the Supreme Court, Alito nor Miers would be suitable in providing that flexible vote that O' Connor was known for. There is definitely many things about Alito that I don't agree with, for insatnce like you mentioned, I doubt he will be in full support of pro choice, which affects a lot of people. Therefore it's not right that their isn't a more unbiased appraisal method before confirming a new Supreme Court Justice because WE ARE ALL AFFECTED... "Balance is Justice" - Ra's Al Ghul

Two things...

- Miers should never have been nominated, but I think the Democrats came up with her as a suggestion just to embarrass W...as if he hasn't done enough on his own. With that said, the president should be able to appoint whoever he/she damn wants to as long as that person is well qualified. If the GOP can let Clinton nominate the general counsel for the ACLU the Democrats should allow nominations even to the right of Alito should that person be well qualified. It's not a matter of bias vs. no bias.

- Of course Alito would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. Roberts would as well. They're still one vote short right now, unless Kennedy has changed his mind..which may have happened.

But I'm tired of this nonsense complaining about Roe v. Wade being overturned as if such a decision is one 'imposed' on the rest of us. Regardless of how you feel about the morality of abortion, Roe v. Wade was one of the most aggregious examples of unrestrained judicial activism ever. The Griswold decision that was supposedly the basis for Roe is shaky enough (the Connecticut law against contraception was dumb, but that doesn't mean that it was unconstitutional). But to imply that a constitutional 'right to privacy' that supposedly exists among the 'penumbras of emanations' of the Constitution and was applied to actions of consenting adults with no potential third party can somehow also be applied out of the bedroom in cases *with* a third party where there is no consent implied among all parties is just plain dumb, and dangerously so (if abortion actually results in the taking of an innocent life).

Abortion laws should never have been decided by the judicial branch of the government, especially on grounds as pathetic as those in Roe v. Wade. The court should stay the hell out of these decisions and give them back to the legislatures.

___________________
research webpage: www.cfa.harvard.edu/~tcurrie