|
'President Bush will nominate U.S. Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to Supreme Court' (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
This is true. Doesn't it drive you nuts? |
Oh yes it does!! Drives me absolutely nuts. Too many "soccer moms" in this country... :( :rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well if the law is going to allow for abortion, should that law not also provide some general guidelines so that we are being as responsible as possible when making such big decisions? Notifying your husband doesn't strike me as a hurdle to the extent that something like bringing in a fresh copy of your credit report would constitue an unecessary hurdle.
And yes, I too don't appreciate the fact that government has grown in recent years when I would prefer it to do the opposite. |
Hey Shakka,
You asked me my opinion on this, and it might surprise you that among all the issues brought up, abortion stuff is something I actually sit on the fence probably the most. In some cases I tend to fall in the pro-life camp. In others, pro-choice. I tend to see both sides - right to privacy on the pro-choice side; right to life, but more importantly, right to personal responsibility on the pro-life side. Occ made a great post a while back that I thought was a pretty compelling case about pro-lifers in general (too lazy to look it up). Essentially saying if they're going to be so gungho about life prior to birth, why aren't they so gungho about life afterwards and take more responsibility to the poverty-stricken children, diseased, foster-care, etc. etc. that's pretty miserable stuff right now. I still find that a pretty compelling case to be made.
On this issue specifically, I kinda swing more towards the right to privacy issue a bit more, though not too much. Although true we can assume certain things to be taking place in a given marriage like communication of pregnancy, we simply can't assume hardly anything when it comes to Constitutional law in the matter. We don't know anything about their relationship in any manner, nor is it the Court's responsibility to know anything about that given relationship between two consenting adults. From what little I've read on the matter, that seems to be the layman's rationale taken up by the SC on it.
It seems to boil down to how far into a person's private life are we allowed to go? If perhaps Roe v Wade WASN'T a Federal law, then perhaps we might be able to probe a bit further into whether or not a woman has a right to tell her husband. It kinda seems to me that Alito somewhat neglected the law of the land in his thinking a little bit, and felt that it was necessary to have some bit of mandated consent between two consenting adults where there is, in fact, none there in our laws. IOW, he seemed to clearly be overstepping his boundaries a bit. Why he did that is another matter to be debated later (and I'm sure it will), but legally it seemed the courts disagreed with his sentiments and interpretations on the matter.
Too busy lately. Just saw the Dems. grow a backbone and demand Phase 2 of the SSCI investigation on my partisan hack Senator Roberts. About ing time. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| So anyway...going back to my original question. Since many in this thread have openly stated that they would hope/assume that any right-minded woman would notify her spouse in the first place...why does the NY Times and other liberal press categorize the opinion as extreme, or right-wing, when the general consensus seems to be that it's a reasonable assumption to begin with? Yeah, no media bias here, move along now. Nothing to see. Do not feed the animals. Promptly collect $200 for passing go and go straight to hell. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So anyway...going back to my original question. Since many in this thread have openly stated that they would hope/assume that any right-minded woman would notify her spouse in the first place...why does the NY Times and other liberal press categorize the opinion as extreme, or right-wing, when the general consensus seems to be that it's a reasonable assumption to begin with? Yeah, no media bias here, move along now. Nothing to see. Do not feed the animals. Promptly collect $200 for passing go and go straight to hell. |
You are making the wrong conclusions! Everyone in this thread agrees that every woman in her right mind would tell her husband, but that it's wrong for the government to force her to (esp according to your laws?). In the same way I don't think the New York Times has ever said that women should not tell their husbands about a possible abortion.
So what the media is going nuts over is that he is using his personal opinion (ie he thinks that a woman should tell her husband if she does an abortion), and using that to enforce it on society as a whole without having enough legal stuff to base that on. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| IDK where alot of this is coming from but in yesterday's Times they were talking about his excellent record and how he always places the law above anything else. How Alito is both strict and fair in virtually all his cases. The Daily News did the same, except add an interview with his mother ( I believe the Times had that as well though I didn't have time to read all of it) and how she said and I quote "Ofcourse he's against abortion". |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
IDK where alot of this is coming from but in yesterday's Times they were talking about his excellent record and how he always places the law above anything else. How Alito is both strict and fair in virtually all his cases. The Daily News did the same, except add an interview with his mother ( I believe the Times had that as well though I didn't have time to read all of it) and how she said and I quote "Ofcourse he's against abortion". |
Maybe his mom is mistaken? Maybe abortion ain't gonna be a good litmus test on this one. Furthermore, abortion. It does nothing for me. It's just a line in the sand for us to argue over. It ain't going anywhere. It would be a mistake to make abortion an outright illegal operation as women would just go get back-alley coathanger abortions which would have far worse ramifications.
Link
| quote: | On abortion, a nuanced stand
In 3 of 4 cases, Supreme Court nominee Alito voted on the side of abortion rights.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - If there was any doubt about where US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito stands on abortion, his 90-year-old mother quickly and decisively put that question to rest.
"Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Hamilton, N.J., home.
Her candid statement may go down in history as the most blunt and honest admission of a Supreme Court nominee's view on the hot-button issue.
But the true test of appeals court judges isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case.
On this issue, legal analysts disagree in their assessments of Judge Alito. Some say he is a conservative ideologue. Others say he is a smart, careful jurist who leaves personal views behind when he dons his black robes.
The best evidence of his work as a judge are his published opinions. They contain a few surprises and some ammunition - for both the left and the right.
For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars.
"That [1995 case] strongly seems to indicate that Alito is not a policy-driven true-believer who's used every possible opportunity to advance one side's preferred outcome, but instead a judge who has indeed come down on both sides, in different cases," says David Garrow, a constitutional historian and expert in reproductive rights cases at the high court.
Senate investigators, legal scholars, and special interest group lawyers are poring over Judge Alito's opinions written during 15-years of work on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. They are looking for clues of what kind of justice Alito might become if confirmed to a life-tenure post on the nation's highest court.
How he may rule in abortion cases is particularly relevant to the inquiry since President Bush has named him to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter and defender of abortion rights.
If Alito holds a different view on that issue, his vote could shift the balance of power on the court. His four abortion cases include:
• A 1991 challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify their husbands before seeking an abortion. The court struck down the restriction. Alito dissented.
• A 1995 challenge to a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking to use Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to report the incident to law enforcement officials and identify the offender. Alito provided the decisive vote striking down the abortion restriction.
• A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.
• A 2000 challenge to New Jersey's ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Alito struck down the law based on a recent Supreme Court decision.
Analysts are divided over the meaning of Alito's votes and his various writings while on the bench.
"I don't think these cases tell us anything about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or not," says James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life. "Nor do they tell us whether he supports pro-life as a value."
But Mr. Bopp says examining Alito's approach to deciding cases can reveal what kind of justice he might become. "In these cases he didn't go beyond the issues that needed to be resolved," he says. "He wasn't trying to create law. He was just carefully following the existing law."
Bopp says Alito's style of judging is likely to carry over to his work on the high court. "He's not a rookie. He's been doing this for 15 years," he says. "That usually doesn't change. He will do the same thing as a justice."
The Alito case receiving the most attention is his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In his 15-page dissent, Alito said that while the provision might impose some limitation on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion it was not so severe as to rise to the level of an "undue burden."
The judge based that conclusion on his study of Justice O'Connor's writings on the issue.
Alito's dissent says that the potential implications on women in abusive relationships were "a matter of grave concern" to him.
But he added that it was for state lawmakers, not judges, to decide the wisdom of such measures. "Whether the legislature's approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide," he wrote. "Our task here is simply to decide whether [the abortion law] meets constitutional standards."
The US Supreme Court took up the case the following year and used the case to broaden the "undue burden" standard, in a way that rejected Alito's analysis.
But his work was not totally cast aside. Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist embraced and quoted the Alito dissent in his own dissent, which was joined by three other members of the court.
Critics say Alito's dissent suggests he is not sensitive enough to the concerns of women. They see it as an example of his personal views on abortion influencing his approach to the law.
Supporters say he made an honest effort to identify and apply O'Connor's "undue burden" standard as it existed at the time.
In the 1995 Medicaid case, Alito cast the deciding vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction. Analysts say it was a close legal question and Alito could have decided the case either way.
"If he has antiabortion philosophical leanings he did not let that warp his judgment in the case," says Seth Kreimer, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-counsel on the winning side in the 1995 case. "But there are a lot more degrees of freedom at the Supreme Court level than at the court of appeals." |
|
|
|
| Lepanto |
| I know that article Shakka and I don't understand what you meant about his mom knowing w/e. My point was that why is he such a bad candidate besides stupid reason like not being a woman or a minority that would supposedly be better for "unitying" the US. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
I know that article Shakka and I don't understand what you meant about his mom knowing w/e. My point was that why is he such a bad candidate besides stupid reason like not being a woman or a minority that would supposedly be better for "unitying" the US. |
I never said he was a bad candidate. On the contrary, I've said nothing more than I don't know a whole lot about him other than this whole abortion/spousal notification issue is ing beat. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Again, I think you're creating hypotheticals that are the exception--not the rule. The vast majority of husbands are probably not wackos. |
Then it's the minority that we are protecting. Alito's argument, as I have seen it portrayed, is basically that since the majority of wives would consult their husbands prior to getting an abortion anyway, it might as well be codified as law to ensure that all wives consult their husbands first, as only a small number of women - essentially - would be affected by the introduction of such a law. I would argue, however, that it is exactly because the overwhelming majority of women, in a healthy marriage, would consult their husbands before undergoing an abortion, that the minority who wouldn't consult their husbands first might actually have a very good reason to not tell their husbands and that they deserve the privacy to manage their own bodies in any way I see fit.
Basically I can think of two reasons why a wife wouldn't first tell her husband:
- Fear of reprisal.
- She's either batty, completely mistrusts her husband for no rational reason or just happens to enjoy the carefree experience of going to a sugeon to have her uterus ripped out of her body from time to time.
If it's the first reason, then the wife deserves to be protected by the law. If it's any of the second reasons, then the marriage is kind of doomed to begin with, is it not?
If a woman has the right to choose, then the right to choose rests with her alone. I don't see any grey area in this issue at all. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
they deserve the privacy to manage their own bodies in any way I see fit. |
That's obviously meant to say "they see fit", but I thought it was a pretty humerous typo under the circumstances so I'm gonna keep it there... :p |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Then it's the minority that we are protecting. Alito's argument, as I have seen it portrayed, is basically that since the majority of wives would consult their husbands prior to getting an abortion anyway, it might as well be codified as law to ensure that all wives consult their husbands first, as only a small number of women - essentially - would be affected by the introduction of such a law. I would argue, however, that it is exactly because the overwhelming majority of women, in a healthy marriage, would consult their husbands before undergoing an abortion, that the minority who wouldn't consult their husbands first might actually have a very good reason to not tell their husbands and that they deserve the privacy to manage their own bodies in any way I see fit.
Basically I can think of two reasons why a wife wouldn't first tell her husband:
- Fear of reprisal.
- She's either batty, completely mistrusts her husband for no rational reason or just happens to enjoy the carefree experience of going to a sugeon to have her uterus ripped out of her body from time to time.
If it's the first reason, then the wife deserves to be protected by the law. If it's any of the second reasons, then the marriage is kind of doomed to begin with, is it not?
If a woman has the right to choose, then the right to choose rests with her alone. I don't see any grey area in this issue at all. |
But is this really an extreme position? Methinks no.
In any event, whether or not she's a battered wife or not, you have completely thrown out the rights of the husband (regardless of his temperament). Given that we're talking about 2 people in a state and church sanctioned union, is it not a complete disregard for the rights of the husband? Remember we're not talking about a single mom notifying the sperm donor--we're talking about a married couple--a single entity in many aspects. Nobody's asking for consent, they're just making sure that all parties involved(and a husband is most certainly intimately involved) are aware of the situation.
I had this discussion with my wife last night and she wholeheartedly agreed with me, regardless of any circumstantial tweaks you want to make in the cases.
I've come to this conclusion. If the woman is indeed a battered woman who fears for her life by notifying her husband, then perhaps there should be an "extenuating circumstance" clause whereby she can be protected. However, in the vast majority of cases, I'd find it morally reprehensible for the husband to be legally kept in the dark. In any event, this conclusion still doesn't sit that easy with me, but at least I'm willing to provide some "legal cushion" given extenuating circumstances that may exist. Of course this could open an entirely different can of worms--i.e. must the woman prove that her life is in danger and what to do about her? Call protective services? Send in the marines?? I feel that the safest thing to do is to err on the side of responsibility, which would be to be sure that all parties involved are aware of what's going on.
Furthermore, do you support a minor having to notify her parents of her plans to get an abortion (let alone get parental consent) when her parents may very well beat the crap out of her for exercising a little youthful indiscretion?
Does a husband have no rights (despite what his character may or may not be like?) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
But is this really an extreme position? Methinks no.
In any event, whether or not she's a battered wife or not, you have completely thrown out the rights of the husband (regardless of his temperament). Given that we're talking about 2 people in a state and church sanctioned union, is it not a complete disregard for the rights of the husband? |
I see what you're saying, so without appealing to my own sentiments on the matter (to which I'm slightly partial to agree with you), how could we legally state as such without breaking Roe v Wade? Granted, the man's decision does seem to be put secondary to the woman's, but is that necessarily unfair really? And I hate to resort to that old "my body" defense, but when was the last time a man carried a child? Until he does I fail to see how we as men can tell a woman what she can do with her body, despite my little contribution of a haploid from my sperm to the equation, without breaking the woman's right to privacy and the right to choose what she wishes to do with her body.
And now we're approaching the actual Roe v. Wade debate itself, which perhaps it is appropriate. When exactly can we tell a woman what to do with her body when it involves the growing fetus/human child? What is our marker? Typically I've found the common measurement is brain wave activity, considering we use that to necessarily end a life. I guess if we were to put any restrictions on a woman's right to choose on a Federal level, that's probably the first place I'd attempt to investigate - something objectively measured biologically.
| quote: | | Remember we're not talking about a single mom notifying the sperm donor--we're talking about a married couple--a single entity in many aspects. Nobody's asking for consent, they're just making sure that all parties involved(and a husband is most certainly intimately involved) are aware of the situation. |
But yet again we're asking to invade into the lives of that couple by stating one party must ask permission AT ALL TIMES to the other party. I just don't see that as very ethical, especially coming from you whom I thought would be a pretty serious advocate for state/individual's rights.
| quote: | I had this discussion with my wife last night and she wholeheartedly agreed with me, regardless of any circumstantial tweaks you want to make in the cases.
I've come to this conclusion. If the woman is indeed a battered woman who fears for her life by notifying her husband, then perhaps there should be an "extenuating circumstance" clause whereby she can be protected. |
That would be some very murky ground to attempt to objectively measure legally, don't you think?
| quote: | | However, in the vast majority of cases, I'd find it morally reprehensible for the husband to be legally kept in the dark. In any event, this conclusion still doesn't sit that easy with me, but at least I'm willing to provide some "legal cushion" given extenuating circumstances that may exist. Of course this could open an entirely different can of worms--i.e. must the woman prove that her life is in danger and what to do about her? Call protective services? Send in the marines?? I feel that the safest thing to do is to err on the side of responsibility, which would be to be sure that all parties involved are aware of what's going on. |
Well by that utilitarian logic, we can conclude a number of things simply because the vast majority cases would prove in favor. Such as:
-Guns should now be illegal for citizens - the vast majority of shooting incidents are accidents by people with guns. An exceptional few are justified, but those minority cases are not good enough.
I'm a little brain dead, so that's just the first thing that comes to mind. I think we can both agree that this would not necessarily be correct.
| quote: | | Furthermore, do you support a minor having to notify her parents of her plans to get an abortion (let alone get parental consent) when her parents may very well beat the crap out of her for exercising a little youthful indiscretion? |
I know this was directed at Renegade, but that's certainly a tough question. Should there be an age limit? What exactly outlines the individual right to privacy for children? I don't know this one.
| quote: | | Does a husband have no rights (despite what his character may or may not be like?) |
If we give him such a right to hold such power on whether or not the woman has a right to an abortion, how would that be much different than breaking Roe v Wade? Giving such power to a man who biologically is nothing more than a sperm donor is just a little more than what can be given legally, though I would hope if God forbid I were put in a situation I would have a bit more say in the matter..... |
|
|
|
|
