A splendid, absolutely right-on post. Thanks for articulating these points so clearly. But for those of us living in blood-red states, writing one's senator is an act of utter futility. Hell, my senators (and I use the term "my" very loosely) both voted to denounce the torture amendment a few weeks ago.
Holy Cow! If that's a "little reading and a little thinking" I don't want to know what you can accomplish if you really work hard for it! Thank you so much for all your research Dr. B!
Ditto Dr. A.
I'm not sure if filibustering is going to work, though (though of course that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried). IMO to stop this nomination, Democrats have to "Bork" Alito, basically.
1. Make sure you get all 45 Dems to vote against. Allow no dissent here; bring as much pressure to bear as is humanly possible on any Dem who threatens to cross party lines. As in, vote against Alito or lose your fucking job.
2. Make it extraordinarily difficult for the handful of moderate GOPers to vote for him. Start a massive public campaign explaining the damage Alito could inflict. Make it clear to women everywhere that their right to their own bodies depends on defeating Alito. And then, highlight those Sens who could stop him: Chafee, Snowe, etc. Make sure every voter in their state realizes what's at stake, and holds their senator accountable if they make the wrong decision.
This could, possibly, produce 51 no votes.
Thanks for all this research, Dr. B. I'll start spreading the word around.
Zap 'em where it counts!
Yes, we must stop Alito at all costs. I have seen it said elsewhere that the Democratics should "stop being partisan" and just go along with Bush because Bush has the right to put his stamp on the Supreme Court.
Funny how they always forget "with the advise and consent of the Senate".
"Some fetuses > some women."
This would probably be one of the few acceptable mathematical/scientific equations to the pro-Gilead wingnuts, if they ever came across it. Alito must never see this-- it would only encourage him.
I really don't think this guy should be on the court, but I'm afraid that it's going to be very tough for the Dems to block him. To sucesfully fillibuster it, they're going to need to keep the entire cacus together- not a historical strength of the Democratic party- and peel off 6 GOP votes. That's gonna be a nifty trick if they can pull it off, but Frist is going to put it all on the line to defeat a Dem filibuster. He badly needs a victory if he's going to compete in the GOP primaries for President.
And not to be frivolous, okay, to be a bit frivolous (but what item of substance could I possibly add to the above post!), Alito also abuses Scotch. The following story was quoted by Timothy Noah and posted over at Slate:
"David Grais '72, who roomed with Alito for three years at Princeton, said they were both 'too studious for [their] good.' But he, too, experienced his roommate's lighter side.
"'One of our other roommates pulled some practical joke on Sam [Alito] , which I do not remember,' Grais said in an email. 'The other guy drank scotch-on-the-rocks every night. Sam retaliated by putting salt in the water used to make ice cubes in the refrigerator in our room. The other guy went through a full bottle of terrible-tasting scotch before realizing that his ice cubes had been sabotaged.'"
Personally, I would never do that to a good scotch, even the scotch of my worst enemy.
In his circuit court opinion denying academic freedom inside the classroom, Alito had incredibly sloppy reasoning. I suspect that, if we delve a bit into the opinions, it'll become clear that the guy is no genius.
Dr. B, this is awesome. I'm spreading the post around. Thank you so much for this!
On the other hand, he did concur in striking down New Jersey's ban on late term abortions because it didn't have an exception for the health of the mother.
Many commentators have placed him in the conservative mainstream--see yesterday's NYTimes op-ed by Ann Althouse, for example, who is a centrist. He's conservative, undoubtedly, but not an originalist and not an ideologue.
If the Dems use the filibuster on Alito, there is a very significant probability that they will lose that weapon altogether. If they lose it, the remaining Bush picks could be genuinely far from the mainstream--including all his future nominations to the Courts of Appeal.
You've characterized Alito's decisions as if he was a legislator. He was a judge. In Casey he said the state legislature had the power to include spousal notification--it also had the power not to include it. The direction of exercise of the power wasn't his choice.
Because he's not really as radical as the left is now painting him, I predict that the Senate Democrats don't pull the trigger on the filibuster. In fact, he will likely pick up a dozen Democrat votes.
B., you work harder than those full time bloggers like Kos and Atrios. And you are a better writer too. 
Sherman Dorn's linked article in comments is really important for academics. This guy looks like David Horowitz in a black robe. So good catch, Sherman.
About writing senators, one thing. Postal mail laters have to be screened for anthrax, which takes a while, while emails are a tad more significant if they don't look like mass-produced spam. I believe the most effective means of reaching these folks is by phone, and you need to call YOUR senator, not that swing vote from another state.
Another important thing we can do is write letters to the editor. Move on has materials to help, and B's work here will guide my letters. Write your local paper but also send copies to campus papers and the big national ones.
This guy is bad news. More than 20 Supreme Court nominees in our history have been defeated without an up or down vote; the most recent of course is Harriet Miers. If we don't filibuster now, when will we?
Sorry to double post, Equality, have you read all the links? I haven't had time to read them all, but this guy is bad news.
Sometimes, this guy has had to rule to uphold Supreme Court rulings. But the neat thing about being a justice is that you get to make up your own precedents.
That scares the heck out of me given this guy's well-documented track record.
Abortion rights really could die the death of a thousand cuts; for a primer on how this worked for the 14th and 15th amendments read about any textbook on the history of the Gilded Age.
Hats off to you, Dr. B! This is a splendid piece of research and the best essay by far that I've read on Alito's track record. Also, beautifully written. I begin to think you're a National Resource.
I've long had trouble deciding if the Bush league is Evil or Clueless. After the implosions over Meiers and generalized Truth Decay over the last week, and now this backward SOB, I think I have made up my mind.
The Bush League is Evil AND Clueless!
"Some fetuses > some women."
Of course! That's because some fetuses are male, duh!
Good luck in opposing him. I doubt DNC has the muscle even for a filibuster.
Your linking talking points w/o analysis. Already I see several points that are exaggerated and misconstrued without even needing research.
Not convincing.
But go ahead and filibuster. It is what extremist activists do. (And it will help with the GOP elections in midterm as well as the nuke option).
Here is your first point:
In this case, we must decide whether Congress validly
abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when
it enacted provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. SS 2601-54, that require a broad
class of employers, including states, to provide their
employees with 12 weeks of leave "[b]ecause of a serious
health condition that makes the employee unable to
perform the functions of the position of such employee" and
that permit employees to sue in federal court for violations
of the Act. We agree with the District Court in this case and
with the other Courts of Appeals that have considered this
question that Congress did not validly abrogate the states'
Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted these
provisions. See Hale v. Mann, No. 99-7326, 2000 WL
675209, at *7 (2d Cir. May 25, 2000); Garrett v. University
of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d
1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted on different
issue, 120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000). We therefore affirm the
decision of the District Court.
Have you read this? Alito is agreeing with the District courts, other appellate courts and is writing for the majority.
This is a federalism issue, not the overbroad characterization you give it. All the state needs to enact laws to allow the suit. You seem to think that state constitutions and the 11th amendment can be ignored--that is activist.
Should I bother with the rest of your unexamined talking points? I don't think it would be worth the effort--I'd be putting in more effort and thought than you are willing to invest yourself.
Oh Paul, if it weren't for such smart and thoughtful trolls like you, how could we ever get across all these bridges to your brave new world?
It must be nice having one of those all expenses paid, live in a hotel at your think tank internships to keep you from the horrors of graduate school or the risk of having a woman boss in the corporate world. (and we all known how those corporate women bosses are ...)
I'm a PhD candidate at Purdue.
You could find that out easily with a tiny bit of research (two clicks).
Pathetic.
Just a small comment. I believe it was husband notification he argued for, not husband consent.
Other than that, great post!
Jake, good point, and thank you.
Paul, yes, I did my reading. And I summarized the effect of Alito's contributions accurately. And if I'm going to argue with someone, I do so without supercilious and transparent attempts to put them down, which is more than I can say for you. Keep it up, I'll be happy to see the back of you.
Paul,
got any slaves?
or is your state not allowed to protect the "right" to own slaves?
I'm sure Paul is very familiar with two clicks ... two clicks of his heels. Sig Heil!
Some fetuses > some women.
Why?
Because: one potential male > all women
Why, you could wind up aborting the next Scalia!
Thanks for the research, Dr. B. I needed that to get me fired up for the fight.
(Though if I have to call my state senators -- Kennedy and Kerry -- to get them to filibuster, the Democratic party is in even worse shape than I thought.)
I'm not sure a filibuster against Alito would be wise. Yes, he certainly seems to tend towards conservative outcomes, but nothing I've read in his work indicates that he is a fire-breathing radical wacko like Scalia or Thomas.
Based on my reading of Casey he probably would not be any friend to pro-choice advocates with respect to the "undue burden" test - and believe me, I do appreciate the real-world importance of the kinds of roadblocks to abortion that states throw up - but I think Roe would be safe. Overturning Roe would be extreme judicial activism because the case and its jurisprudential underpinnings are so well established and have been relied upon for so long. Alito, while surely conservative, does not seem to be that kind of extreme activist. He seems more pragmatic, with a tendency to conservative outcomes. Now, hard as it is to conceive of right now, we're going to get one of our people in the White House again some day, and we're probably going to want somebody like Alito, except a progressive. I think that's something we should think about before turning up the volume too loud in favor of a filibuster because that's a pretty extreme measure and it can cut both ways.
BPhd
Then I think you may not understand the issues involved. This is not a policy decision, it is a matter of who can file what lawsuit under what laws against whom. Your characterization was overbroad. Please read it again (e.g. you say "all state employees").
It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of whether or not someone should have 12 weeks leave (a man) based on childbirth. That was a matter for the people of Pennsylvania to decide. Alito, like all those othere judges, had to be bound by the laws--including the 11th amendment of the constitution.
Now, the interesting thing about this that apparently was not tested was the fact that the 11th Amendment restricts citizens of other states from bringing suit, not the citizen of a state against that state. Since citizens of the US are dual--both citizens of the US and the states in which they reside, then why can't a citizen bring a suit against their own state under a federal law? In other words, there should have been no abrogation issue at all. The 11th amendment clearly implies that the plaintif should have prevailed (my opinion).
Well, I suppose I would have argued the case differently myself. So, if you want to agree with me, then we might fault Alito (and all those other judges). If not, then I just don't see your point yet.
When I argue, I take pains not to misrepresent a position. Those that misrepresent incurr just criticism. Again, your characterization is overbroad.
Correction, (you imply "all state employees)
Alito is cause for alarm. He'll roll back choice; he'll roll back federal regulatory power; and he'll roll forward executive power.
But he's not quite as crazy as your summaries paint him.
For example, in the FMLA case, Alito was applying Supreme Court precedent on the question of when Congress can abrogate the states' 11th Amendment immunity against suits for damages. At the time, that precedent indicated fairly clearly that FMLA did not present the right kind of circumstances. No one, including liberals, was surprised at the 3d Circuit's ruling. EVERYONE, including liberals, were surprised when the Supreme Court essentially reversed its own precedent, and upheld FMLA.
There are other examples. The search of the ten year old girl, for example, was more technical, and close, than your summary would indicate.
Should we filibuster? I don't think so. A filibuster would not play well with the public, thereby hurting our chances in 2006. A filibuster would also be unlikely to prevent Alito from assuming the bench. In my humble opinion, we should make a lot of noise, let him be voted upon, and choose better ground on which to wage the battle.
Andrew said: "In my humble opinion, we should make a lot of noise, let him be voted upon, and choose better ground on which to wage the battle."
Wait, are you offering a reality-based opinion? Please stop 
.
Here's a more expert take on the FMLA decision, lin line w/ Andrew, Paul and Josh, above:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/200...-leave-
act.html
Posner's not getting nominated, folks. We need to get over it.
"Choose better ground"?
Like when? I grow tired of this "not yet" line of argument. This is the Supreme Court we're talking about, people.
And I'm not even going to get into the whole "state's rights" issue w/ regard to federal civil rights legislation. Gimme a break.
My only hope will be that the democrats have enough backbone to stop his nomination. I am hoping it. It looks good from what they have done just recently.
I suppose I see a different role for the appellate courts.
Those judges also swear an oath to the Constitution, not to precedent. SCOTUS precedent is functional, but not a substitute for the plain construction or language of the Constituton itself.
In this case, by the logic that the 11th does not protect the states from suits under federal laws by their own citizens, I would have said that Alito should have violated precedent ant thrown the case up to the SCOTUS--in effect a revolution by the appelate courts against a runaway SCOTUS.
In a sense, that is conservative, in another sense, it is activist. In any case, it is more principled than the rationale being offered here for criticizing Alito.
There are three possible outcomes with attempting the filibuster:
1. It works, and a middle-of-the-conservatie-road Italian American is blocked from SCOTUS. Republicans make hay of this, hold or expand their Senate majority in 2006.
2. It works, but the Republicans successfully invoke the nuclear option. Filibusters are barred for all judicial nominees for the balance of the Bush Presidency, resulting in a wave of ultra-conservative judges at all levels of the federal judiciary. Plus Alito is seated.
3. Fearing both 1 and 2, some Democrats break ranks and the filibuster fails. The party is fractured, infighting ensues.
Josh has the better argument this time. This has all the earmarks of a Rovian trap that you don't want to walk into.
I have $100 riding on the hopes that the Dems will filibuster (the nuke option with Alito is a certainty.)
Otherwise I may have to wait 3 more years.
Please filibuster Alito. Please.......
Paul Deignan is a prolife troll.
It is abortion related threads that attract trolls, and in my experience the trolls always seem to be men. Wonder why that is?
No, Paul Deignan is an arrogant sexist who is determined to show how much smarter he is than the lady professor.
Which pretty much explains why trolls of that sort are always men.
a middle-of-the-conservatie-road Italian American is blocked from SCOTUS
Which nominee would that be? I don't believe we've seen one of those yet.
I think Equality's comment captures the rationale on which we should decline to filibuster, Dr. B. There is no question that Alito is important, and that Alito is bad news. But if
1) a filibuster is going to fail anyway, and
2) in the process further weaken the Democratic position nationally, then
3) we'd be sacrificing progress for the sake of losing on principle if we filibustered.
So you'd have to argue that 1) a filibuster will be successful, and that 2) the gains from a filibuster will outweigh whatever losses will come from it. Just pointing out how bad Alito is won't do it.
Well, I think that if we can make the--truthful--point to the broader public that Alito is an extremist, particularly on choice issues, then a filibuster would be a political advantage to the Dems, just as I think that Reid's move yesterday is a political advantage to the Dems. It makes Frist look like a lying, hypocrticial weasel; it continues to shine a light on the issue of pre-Iraq intelligence and the current quagmire; and it shows spine.
Actually, I am a researcher.
The question of the day, "Can pro-choice activists be drawn out into a rational discussion of the Alito nomination and issues even more to the core?"
The answer goes to determining character and capacity. I have marked the question as answered. Unfortunately, it looks like I will need to wait longer for my bet to come to fruition (fementation?--The $100 was in grape juice).
P.S. "Smart" people don't worry about being called smart or proving smartness. We just think and ask questions with a point. And then we observe and think some more.
If we ask the right questions, then the results speak for themselves. In any case, the fun of it is in the chase.
The answer goes to determining character and capacity.
On the basis of this statement--as well as ridiculous games with comments and email where P.D. claims to be a PhD student in comments, then argues that my alluding to that in an email response to his email shows that I haven't read his email, then claims to be a "researcher"--I'm banning him, as obviously more interested in judging / playing games with "me" than in actually discussing the issues at hand.
My character and/or capacity aren't really the point here.
B., you work harder than those full time bloggers like Kos and Atrios. And you are a better writer too.
Fuck yeah!
Dr. B said: "Well, I think that if we can make the--truthful--point to the broader public that Alito is an extremist, particularly on choice issues, then a filibuster would be a political advantage to the Dems"
If he's so poisonous then the filibuster shouldn't be necessary; republicans in contested states should be lining up to vote against him. Unless the point of the filibuster is to prove that he's poisonous. I'd argue that this could as easily make the dems look reactionary and obstructionist.
"Reid's move yesterday is a political advantage to the Dems."
Yes, kicking the president when he's down is politically good, and might serve as the rationale for a filibuster: look how weak W is, that he can't even get a floor vote on any of his candidates.
Will DNC be able to pull off a filibuster? Can they exploit it if they do, or will their attempt culiminate in the filibuster? Based on past performance I'm not sure they can do either. But let's hear it for Rule 21.
B, I agree that Reid's move yesterday was good, for exactly the reasons you state. However, I think a filibuster on Alito would be a bad move for pretty much the reasons Andrew gives. If there is all-out war on Alito, the Democrats will lose. I think that if the candidate was bad enough - a Bork, say - then he/she might be worth fighting against and losing. I just don't think Alito rises to anywhere near that level of objectionability.
Well, here is what I think--and will say in a later post. I think Alito *is* that objectionable, and that yes, the first line of attack should be to convince pro-choice and moderate Rs to vote against him. Sadly, it looks like Spector (R) and Nelson (D) are already planning to roll, so that may not work.
But the hearings aren't happening yet, and I think there is room to make the case--which is there to be made--that Alito is far more conservative, reactionary even, than the American public will stand. The Rs are already trotting out their strategy: he's actually fairly moderate on abortion (but read the details, e.g., in the case I posted about where he argued against a wrongful death suit for a stillbirth). This is simply untrue, and all one need do is look at the *wording* of that argument, in which he seemed resigned to following a precedent he disagreed with. Once vested with the power to overrule precedent, he will.
And resigning *ourselves* to the belief that he'll automatically get confirmed, or that resisting his confirmation is political suicide, is *exactly* the kind of move that causes the Ds to lose. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is a LOT more to be gained, politically speaking, from a principled fight than there is from a weak abdication based on a foregone conclusion that one can't win. Moreover, such resignation kneecaps the arguments, opposition, and popular outrage needed to convince Ds and moderate Rs to vote against Alito.
And we *should* be outraged. He's a far-right reactionary, supported by far-right reactionaries, and nominated, in part, as a political sop to the far-right reactionaries that objected to the Miers nomination.
Dr. B, I looked up the New Jersey stillbirth case because the way the article described it certainly set off warning bells. Alito's concurrence, in its entirety follows:
"I am in almost complete agreement with the court's opinion, but I write to comment briefly on two points. First, I think that the court's suggestion that there could be "human beings" who are not "constitutional persons" (Maj.Op. 1401-02) is unfortunate. I agree with the essential point that the court is making: that the Supreme Court has held that a fetus is not a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the reference to constitutional non-persons, taken out of context, is capable of misuse.
Second, I think that our substantive due process inquiry must be informed by history. It is therefore significant that at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and for many years thereafter, the right to recover for injury to a stillborn child was not recognized. See Giardina v. Bennett, 111 N.J. 412, 545 A.2d 139, 143 (198
; Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353, 157 A.2d 497, 498 (1960)."
I'm not 100% sure this gibes with how you characterized it, but I'm also not sure it doesn't. His ultra-brief discussion of constitutional non-persons (that is, people who are not protected by the Constitution) is not a paragon of clarity. Is he saying that fetuses should be "constitutional persons"? Maybe. This is something he should be carefully and probingly questioned about, because that would be a radical shift in jurisprudence. However, the second paragraph, in which he uses a, for lack of a better term, "original intent" analysis of the 14th Amendment, suggests that he would not consider a fetus a "constitutional person" even if given the chance to write his own precedent as a Supreme.
These is an issue that needs to be brought up at the hearings and thoroughly discussed.
I think a lot of people are missing a very important point about that abortion ruling; everyone seems to focus on the fact that it would place an undue burden on women seeking a perfectly legitimate medical procedure. To me, the most shocking part of his dissent was actually the fact that he seems to believe that a wife should be treated as a minor under the law-- that is what it basically boils down to.
I am *so* tired of these "keep your powder dry" people. We can only lose and that will hurt us, so let's never fight? Argh! Get a backbone! I suspect some of these folks of being "concerned trolls." Oh, don't be pushy, don't annoy conservatives, save your "political capital," like it is some kind of limited commodity, instead of something you earn by your actions.
And furthermore, it's not true that fighting and losing makes you weaker. Conservatives fight all the time when they are going to lose. It does *not* make them weaker, but stronger.
And I don't buy that we will necessarily lose, either. Yeah, yeah, nuclear option, but will they really do it? I think they won't. It is all too clear that Republican's majority is in some danger, and they will want to be able to filibuster *our* nominees.
Dr. B said: "There is a LOT more to be gained, politically speaking, from a principled fight than there is from a weak abdication based on a foregone conclusion that one can't win."
The only thing that matters in this context is: 1) will opposing Alito, using the filibuster or other methods, net more votes for Dem candidates in 2006. 2) can opposing him actually keep him off the court?
The answer to this is not clear cut, and reasonable people can disagree. A principled fight purely for the sake of fighting is a fantasy ideology.
"Moreover, such resignation kneecaps the arguments, opposition, and popular outrage needed to convince Ds and moderate Rs to vote against Alito."
I'm not seeing much popular outrage at all over Alito. I'm seeing a lot from far left wing dems, but the people on the bus seem to think he's well qualified. Positive feedback within the left blogosphere is not to be mistaken for a survey of the population. If Spector et al. are rolling, they have looked at the political calculus, solved for the ability to stay in office, and found a filibuster worthless.
A long filibuster may, perhaps, possibly arouse the public to think twice and call their senator. It may even put a few GOP seats into D hands. Or it could fail spectacularly.
I trust the people actually in office to solve this problem. The 17% on either margin, because they are fanatical, can be ignored safely.
You have amply made the case that the 17% on the left should oppose this with all their might. How to get the moderates to agree?
Emma Anne, I think conservatives should be annoyed at every opportunity, and if I said anything to the contrary, I take it back.
NoNym, that's what I think the 17% opposition needs to do--to work on *explaining* the basis of their opposition to the general public. So, for instance, Scott Lemieux claims that "the public favor[s] not confirming Alito if he's anti-Roe by a 16-point margin, 60% of independents and even 35% of Republicans would not confirm if he's against Roe." (I've asked Scott for the source for these stats, by the way.) Now, look at the White House talking points, as reported by Kos. Clearly they're intended to softpedal concerns about Roe. In other words, the White House thinks that if people believe Alito to be anti-Roe, there will be a great deal of public opposition to his confirmation.
So what is the 17% to do? Write. Talk about this. Donate to organizations dedicated to getting the word out. Don't roll over on the talking points. THAT'S how the middle voters get convinced. It's a question of amplifying the message. The Rs are VERY good at that, while we waffle around half-swallowing their talking points and wringing our hands.
I didn't mean to suggest that resistance to Alito should be abandoned. By all means, explore all of his opinions, and raise the arguments and counterarguments.
However, Scott's good post on Alito's Casey decision confessed that Alito is competent, principled and usually careful. In short, he's "qualified" as that term would normally be applied to a judicial nomination.
Qualified doesn't guarantee a yes vote. But I do think passing a threshold qualification test means that there should be a vote, and I don't think you'll find that to be a minority or extremist view. That's why I suggest a filibuster be approached with extreme caution.
I've been reading pieces all over the blogosphere, including today's NYTimes, and I just don't see Alito as "reactionary." I see him as far to the right of Dr B and most comenters here, but pretty much in the mainstream of conservative thought today.
BTW, does the phrase "constitutional non-persons" remind anyone else of the status of slaves before the civil war? Perhaps that's why Alito thought the usage was unfortunate.
BTW, does the phrase "constitutional non-persons" remind anyone else of the status of slaves before the civil war? Perhaps that's why Alito thought the usage was unfortunate.
It would raise a huge red flag if Alito thinks there is some equivalence between fetuses and slaves, because that's a bizarro argument used by extreme anti-choicers (and one to which Bush gave a wink and a nod during one of the debates, if I remember correctly, by referring to Dred Scott). He should be asked about this language. Anybody here have a Democratic senator?
The question of whether to filibuster is premature.
Whether we should filibuster, as Josh/Equality/Nym pointed out above, should depend largely on the political gains/losses from doing so. And those gains/losses can't be calculated at this point, because the public hasn't been educated on Alito.
So the next two questions would be: 1) How can we persuade the public that Alito's jurisprudence or temperament would result in harmful restrictions on rights and policies?
2) How can we persuade the public that, Alito's qualifications notwithstanding, those harmful restrictions would be so bad as to merit the use of a parliamentary procedure to prevent a Senate vote on him?
To hazard a guess, I think the second part will be the most difficult. Essentially we're claiming that Alito is SO BAD that we're going to block what a majority of the Senate wants by (mis)using a Senate debate rule. I think that would strike a lot of Americans as simply unfair or as breaking the rules of the political game (such as they are). The matter at hand must be perceived as so important that a little rule-breaking seems laudable.
Sounds like that troll is still under the bridge.
Bitch is a writing professor, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have friends and lovers in digital places. I suggest that ForcedBirthTroll quickly nail down that lame blog with the psychotic mugshot before he finds himself screwed, blued, tatooed and Gitmoed. Not that a loser like him has anybody around to miss him or notice his absence other than with a sigh of relief.
Alito won't help you there.
While reading these comments it occurs to me that the GOP may be engaged in a stealth campaign by having progressive-sounding people argue against the filibuster.
Or, alternatively, it could mean that progressives sometimes actually disagree and discuss their differences. If we didn't do that you couldn't tell us apart from most conservatives.
I agree that Alito should be fiibustered.
But I disagree with your support for school codes against free speech.
The Pennsylvania school's code forbade “any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which offends, denigrates or belittles an individual” because of “race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics.”
It was much broader than harassment as its usually defined.
If a statement "offends" someone, that shouldn't be enough to ban it.
Troll boy is a student of the highly relevant field of mechanical engineering.
The moron is trolling under his real name from a home page which lists the names of his advisors. So I emailed them, as this behavior is thoroughly unprofessional.
BTW, I have a PhD and actual tenure. And I happen to know many profs who work from home, like myself.
I've read some of Dr. B's scholarship and it is superb.
Maybe Paul can come back after finishing HIS dissertation--if he finishes.
Anyway, Paul, I'm going to make an acquaintance with the admin. of your engineering school tomorrow, but I'm logging off for tonight.
Wallace Hettle
Actual Professor
Google Me
University of Northern Iowa
Eric, it offended speech that "has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student's educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment." NOT just speech that is offensive, but speech that "substantially" interferes with education or goes so far as to create a hostile environment. One racist crack doesn't do it; but scrawling racist epithets on lockers for a week obviously would.
I'm as adamantly pro-free-speech as the next person, I think. But I also realize that educational institutions, particularly in the K-12 set (the issue of speech codes on campuses is not one I'm inclined to support, although I sympathize with the reasoning behind them), have an obligation to foster an environment that's conducive to learning. And tolerating harassment of students doesn't do that.
You Rock, Wally!
I am a researcher too. As a researcher and PhD candidate, I have worked extensively with both quantitative and qualitative data.
What I am after here is something called "weight of evidence". We can argue fine points and judicial constraint by laws blah blah blah. What we must remember is that some would say that the Bible also constrains the clergy, but I see Catholic clergy wearing poly-cotton blends on a daily basis because Catholics interpret things different from Amish. Same documents, differing perspectives. The same goes for judges and their interpretations of the law.
Alito's interpretations are wholly anathema to everything I believe about truth, justice, and the American Way. Harriet Miers had no prior record and no evidence of judicial flavoring to weigh. This is not the case with Alito.
The weight of evidence of Alito's prior rulings and reasonings points squarely and firmly to a fasciest who indulges in "ends justifies means" fallacies on a regular basis when reading and interpreting laws. That's fine in the pulpit of your congregation perhaps, but on the SCOTUS, this sort of unAmerican thinking has no place.
He probably wears adulterated polyester blend fabrics and eats shellfish too! (Leviticus)
Not the shellfish!!! God abhors shellfish!!!
Dr. Bitch,
You always assign the best homework. I have done my reading now. I am furious and terrified.
Also, you are my superhero. Seriously. You really are.
Adoringly,
Hissy Cat
Awww.
If only my students would say that after a heavy reading assignment....
Two comments:
1. I cannot believe someone here is going to contact the diss advisor of someone who posted critical comments here, even if it's a troll. Get over it people. I read this whole thread and I didn't see anything in THIS thread to suggest he was behaving in any way unprofessional. He has a point of view, one I disagree with, and I thought he expressed it reasonably. More so that a few of his interlocutors!
2. Substance: B says...
Alito's argument that it's not an undue burden for women to notify their husbands because, while *some* women might be abused, *most* women are not--and requiring women to report their intent to have abortions might, in *some* cases, help them discuss concerns (money, the husband not wanting a baby) with a husband who might help allay those concers.
B - have you read the PA law he was writing on? There are several exceptions to the notification requirement, including that the husband isn't the father and:
"The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.”
Now, perhaps in practice this wouldn't prevent the problem it's designed to (and it's precisely that worry that would lead me to question the "undueness" of the burden), but it not "reactionary" to argue that a provision with so many exceptions does not create an undue burden. If people can't have a civil discussion about the "undueness" of that burden, then we have a bigger problem.
Furthermore, his deference to precdent in the NJ PBA case suggests that he's unlikely to overturn Roe.
Death by a thousand cuts, however, seems a more likely future. No argument there.
FWIW, a think a fillabuster would backfire on the Dems. My two cents.
Bitch,
Are you really going to stand by without comment with respect to Wally's pathetic attempt at intimidating Paul? You're OK with that?
Academic freedom and all that jazz...
I know you're pro-choice, stridently so, but you think the Wallys of the world are right to try to drive those who oppose them out of the academy?
Steve Horwitz is right. I read this thread, and Paul expressed his disagreement in a civil manner. You should immediately distance yourself from Wally's childish threats.
Paul expressed his disagreement in a condescending and "there is no room for my opinion to be wrong you silly thing" manner. While I agree with a couple of his points (that Alito's decisions are more nuanced than a simple description can cover), it is also clear that Alito has base-opinions regarding Federalism and individual sovereignty that are alarming and far outside any mainstream that has flowed since the end of the 1950s. The man's clear alliance with those who have enough money to dodge the undue burdens he'd happily slap on the less well-to-do women of this country, alone, is enough for DrB's level of resistance.
"Dr." Paul's reaction to it was precisely the problem we're speaking of with relation to Alito: it seems okay if you simply read the individual words; but when you consider the overall context, a clear pattern of disrespect emerges and renders all opinions of that man inviable.
I think if Purdue is going to produce PhDs who talk like this guy, they should at least be aware of the tendency to speak in that manner... the reputation of that doctoral college rests upon the graduates it produces. Our prof from Iowa is right to point that out to them. If he's not wrong, it's not a threat.
Oh for Christ's sake.
1. I deleted Paul's comments once they got really obnoxious. So what you've read isn't all there was. Let me simply explain that there was at least one implied threat against me--not that I took it seriously.
2. I've emailed Wally privately about emailing Paul's department. For the record, I would not have done it--and I didn't do it. I'm responsible for what happens on this forum; I can't control what happens out of it.
3. Agreed, however, that inasmuch as this is my forum, I *am* responsible for the impressions given on it. For the record, then: I don't think Wally should contact Paul's department, I do think Paul is an ass, Paul's been banned from commenting on this forum (unless he starts spoofing ips again). That should be an end of it, in my opinion.
Everybody happy now? Good.
I think Wally was right to e-mail Paul's advisors. Regardless of the perspective of his comments, the extensive attack with minutue and the concerted and continued posts smack of pathologic obsession.
Paul's political views are not the issue here - his "stalking" behavior is. That alone is cause for alarm in a dissertation situation. He may very well be having some stress or psycological issues that need to be addressed or monitored, in the interests of a safe work environment and quality scholarship, if not personal concern.
Oh, and one other thing: Paul is FAR from intimidated. He's continued to email me and Wally (again, with an implied threat towards Wally), he's left a trackback to this post (which I shall also delete). He's doing his best to wind things up even further.
Now. I take it the folks complaining about Wally's post want Wally to mind his own business. I can only ask that those who object to Wally's post do the same.
"I deleted Paul's comments once they got really obnoxious. So what you've read isn't all there was. Let me simply explain that there was at least one implied threat against me--not that I took it seriously."
I guess it's pretty to make those accusations when it's "deleted."
Thanks for making where you stand clear. If the deleted comments provide perspective on Wally's behavior, maybe you should restore them.
Almost as pretty as making accusations without evidence and accusing people of lying.
My comment policy is clear, and I publicly noted the moment at which Paul was banned, after which no comments of his remain.
Just to clarify: I contacted Paul's advisers after he sent me threatening email.
I'm not going to link to the guy's blog, but he is clearly behaving in an unprofessional manner over there, just as he did here last night.
What I suggested to P.D.'s advisers was not that they destroy his academic career, but simply that they might want to have a chat about professionalism and civility.
As Paul believes his behavior was on the up and up, he should have nothing to worry about.
That said, I do hope Paul's behavior stops. Graduate students aren't all that professionally accountable because advisers have a stake in their student's success.
But as I can testify, assistant profs are in a highly accountable, indeed vulnerable position. If PD finishes his diss. and gets a real job, (a big if), and continues his obsessive behavior, he won't last long as an academic.
The little squabble over Paul (completely) aside, I couldn't help but chuckle at Wally's comment that an obsessive won't last long in academia... they certainly seem well represented at faculty meetings.
Andrew:
Point taken. I bet my meetings are every bit as bad as yours.
It's the 10-year-old's strip search that should be proclaimed far and wide. Millions who disagree on many other important issues can agree on this.
That was meant to be "pretty easy" not "pretty" btw.
Please characterize or repost Paul's "implied threat" against you, PhDBitch.
This would help clarify the situation. He has given his express permission to post his emails, which you characterize as harrassment, on this blog. You certainly have access to those, and if I were to hazard a guess, I would say there is a way to retrieve the deleted comments as well.
Hans, I am not answerable to you or Paul or anyone else. The matter is closed.
Color me unimpressed. The least you could do is reprint his emails for your readership to see, so they can come to their own conclusions if they constitute harrassment or threats in any way. That is how you have characterized them here. I am sure you are familiar with Libel, right? Maybe it's smart to keep quiet after all.
Why won't you do something so simple?
Paul has posted the emails on his blog, you are free to dispute their accuracy. For those interested in the truth, visit his blog:
http://info-theory.blogspot.com/
Color me unimpressed. - Hans Gruber
Color me unimpressed as well. What perfect microcosms we have here of leftist tolerance and free speech, especially from one who refers to herself as "bitch, phd" and then chastises another with an unfounded blurb such as...
No, Paul Deignan is an arrogant sexist who is determined to show how much smarter he is than the lady professor.
Which pretty much explains why trolls of that sort are always men.
I see no evidence of that. I do see evidence that one has to hang the "phd" label in order to "prove" mental superiority over the uneducated masses. I also see that dissent is not tolerated as well as low brow, strong arm, speech suppression tactics by supposed advocates of free speech and free thought from our towers of higher education(cue Wally). Though that paradigm is but a distant memory ever since the university professoriate has been infiltrated and overrun by true Marxists in image and character.
Ho-hum, onto more meat. I find this statement not only erroneous but outright mendacious.
He argued that it's perfectly constitutional for racists to discriminate if, in keeping with their racist beliefs, they think that the "best" candidate for a job is, by definition, a white candidate.
He did no such thing and I haven't the foggiest idea how one so intelligent can come up with this "conclusion". Affirmative Action is in and of itself UNconstitutional as are hiring practices based solely on race. It appears to our esteemed "bitch" that to have unconstitutional and illegal practices that gravely affect one race, namely whites, to be of no significant consequence. However, a whiff of potential slight directed the other way is "racist". Another fine example of hypocrisy by the educated university Marxist elite who supposedly champion fairness, free speech, and truth above all else. At worst, the black candidate and the white candidate in the case above were EQUAL, yet we MUST pay homage to the God of Affirmative Action. Does this sum up your little "gripe", bitch...oh yes, with a "phd"?
Ok, but back to the decisions....
I'm not at all happy with the likelihood that Alito will win confirmation handily, mostly because I disagree mightily with him on the nature and stature of marriage, and I think women will suffer from his opinions. But the reference to the bias case shocked me, so I went and read the opinion and dissent, and I have to say I do not see a monster, there. I see a judge intent on interpreting both law and evidence more strictly and narrowly than his colleagues do. And while I'm not wild about the outcome of that method in that case, it strikes me as a reasonable-people-can-differ stance from which to rule. There's nothing more general or philosophical in his argument. It seems to me that what he was saying there was "If the legislature meant for this to be interpreted more broadly, it ought to make that plain by writing the law more expansively."
I think we can talk about whether Alito narrows to the point of idiocy, but in the Marriott suit and even in the Casey dissent that so chills me, I see a man following the law and the precedent as written, intent on allowing maximum freedom outside it.
As to Amy's comment, I think the Cass Sustein article in the NYT uses an important technque: trends. Certain of the "horrible" opinions might be acceptable, but at some pt critical mass arises.
As to the Casey opinion, I don't really agree. "Precedent" was rather fuzzy. The opinion was a reasonable brief, but given what was at stake (and unlike parental notification, not addressed by the SC between Webster and Casey), it streched the law in troubling ways.
how so?
I read through this, but I cannot say I fully comprehend the legal opinions yet.
That said, one person's behavior does concern me more than condescension on the part of Paul, et al, and that is mskate for her Nazi ad hominem. Really, even if Paul is a "troll" or worse, is it proper to disrespect those that have suffered under Nazi occupation to compare their lives with Paul's philosophy? And what evidence is there that he accords with Nazi beliefs?
Also, mskate, while I understand your argument that weight of evidence matters more than the individual context of cases, I think trying to extrapolate an opinion absent consideration of those cases would be a great risk to accuracy. Is it not possible for reasoning on a case to be sound while also reflective of a consistent judicial philosophy, for the pattern one sees in a justice's record to be coincidental?
I was against Miers, indifferent to Roberts Jr. and am the same way toward Alito. If he is not nominated, I am not going to rejoice or be outraged. That said, what does concern me about the arguments against him is that I must ask whether or not philosophical disagreement with a theoretical outcome, that of his overturning people's rights, or attempting to, is more important than finding strong and consistent error with his reasoning in the cases cited as examples.
I can empathise with concerns over how he can be presumed to rule, at least based on the weight of his record, but I am also of the opinion that it is not a judge's obligation to match my philosophical outlook, especially if law is superseded in doing so.
All right, from here on out, ANY comment referring to the ridiculous trolling and ad-hominem ludicrousness will be summarily deleted. I don't tolerate petty gradeschool bullshit on my site.
Dr. B- overall, excellent rundown of Alito's scary record, and I thank you for it. However, I'm a little confused re: #6. "He argued that it's perfectly constitutional for racists to discriminate if, in keeping with their racist beliefs, they think that the "best" candidate for a job is, by definition, a white candidate." I read the case, and other than the fact that he ruled against Bray, who'd brought the discrimination suit, I don't think he was saying that employers could discriminate if the best candidate is, by definition, white. From which part of his dissent do you get that?
His focus on "intent" and whether or not one can discern a deliberate "lie"--even in the face of evidence that the two candidates were equally qualified (indeed, Bray seems to have been better qualified) *and* evidence that standard procedures were *not* followed in her case. In other words, he is looking, not at whether or not discrimination *happened*, but whether it was *intended*. Now, intent is very difficult--indeed, arguably impossible to prove. He even dismisses evidence that he acknowledges supports Bray's contention--the fact that the woman who got the job was given an unscheduled, positive review--as not proving intent.
More to the point, he says this: "Under existing anti-discrimination law, evidence of unfairness in the selection process alone, without evidence linking the unfairness to race-based animus , should not be enough to get a plaintiff beyond summary judgment, so long as the employer's proffered legitimate reason for the employment decision remains intact." That is, if the unfairness can be explained as resting on, say, an argument that Employer A thinks that the "best qualified" candidate is the person who is "better-looking" or "most acceptable to our clients" or whatever other *rationalization* is proffered to avoid acknowledging that one's prejudice is race-based, than that doesn't count as discrimination--even if the effect of it is discriminatory. That's an *extremely* probelmatic standard. Very, very few people in the post-Civil Rights era will acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are motivated by racial animus. They will cover up racism by saying that they "just don't feel comfortable" or that someone "just doesn't have the right look" or, as in this case, that they "just don't think the person is capable" (despite evidence to the contrary), that they thought of her as "an excellent employee who was a maintainer"--again, not for any particular *reason* (indeed, the interview process was clearly skewed), but, you know, just because.
Alito's refusal to inquire about *why* Marriot thought Bray "just wasn't qualified" and was "excellent" but unfit for promotion signals to me that he is willing to take explanations for discriminatory *action* at face value. Given that no one in the entire world is going to SAY "I just think white people do a better job"--even if their actions clearly show that (and indeed, that under Alito's argument, even if you DID say that, it would be okay as long as your belief didn't stem from DELIBERATE racial prejudice) I think my summation of the effect of his judgment is accurate, if strongly worded.
To quote this: More to the point, he says this: "Under existing anti-discrimination law, evidence of unfairness in the selection process alone, without evidence linking the unfairness to race-based animus , should not be enough to get a plaintiff beyond summary judgment, so long as the employer's proffered legitimate reason for the employment decision remains intact."
And then to conclude this: That is, if the unfairness can be explained as resting on, say, an argument that Employer A thinks that the "best qualified" candidate is the person who is "better-looking" or "most acceptable to our clients" or whatever other *rationalization* is proffered to avoid acknowledging that one's prejudice is race-based, than that doesn't count as discrimination--even if the effect of it is discriminatory.
evinces a complete lack of understanding of caselaw under Title VII. I suggest you read about burden-shifting in McDonnel Douglas. Basically, you come off as an amateur hack.
I've never pretended to be a legal expert. I've noticed, though, that those who do--pretend, that is--often say things like "read this and such" and engage in name-calling without actually making an argument.
Hey Bitch,
If you were knocked up by your boyfriend, would you really tell your husband?
Do you really HAVE a husband?
Do you have kids?
Are you arguing for a woman's right to hide immoral behavior from a partner, or for her to prevent the responsible partner (whether it be hubby or boyfriend) from knowing about the conception?
Do you see women as a "minority", or only women who get unwanted pregnancies?
What exactly are you afraid of with Alito regarding your pro-abortion stance?
I don't get answers to these from your post. I can't very well stay informed by reading from PP or NARAL, as they are not reliable sources of truth on the subject.
And, it seems to me that his position for/against abortion is relevant only to you, and those who think like you. Is this necessarily going to mean that he will rule as he personally thinks or believes? I certainly don't think he will.
Hey, Dog.
Yes, a woman does have a right to hide immoral behavior from her partner. Men have the same right. Whether or not one *approves* of something has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a *right* to do it. For instance, I think it's despicable to pass judgment on total strangers, but you certainly have the *right* to do so. See how that works?
His position against abortion, if it results in rulings to limit the availability of abortion to women who need them--as it already has--certainly does affect women who think all sorts of things. It isn't only those who are pro-choice who seek abortions. Maybe if you read a little bit of what PP and NARAL (and other organizations) publish on the subject, you'd realize that.
I agree with you, dear Doctor, that certain immoral behavior should not be criminalized. But your response still begs the question: what is it that you're arguing FOR, in arguing against Alito regarding the subject of abortion? I have two daughters, and I want them to have the right to control their bodies, but it would be very troubling to me if they hid this from me (as minors), or from their partners if the partner is the one involved in the conception. The man should not have veto power, but should be notified. It may be your body, but it's not "your" fetus. I need help understanding what the problem is with that, in your mind.
I'm no lawyer, but Alito's opinions seem incredibly precise in their language, whether you agree with them or not. Even if Alito gets to address again the notification issue, this time at the SC, it still isn't Roe v. Wade. Is your concern about an incremental chiseling away of Roe, at the state level vis-a-vis notification-type statutes?
I question whether the info from NARAL or PP is credible. The abortion industry is large and profitable, hence the desire for these organizations to skew their data or information to their side. They're as biased as McD's would be when their menus are being attacked for fat content. I prefer less biased sources.
Lastly, we judge people all day long, consciously or unconsciously. There's nothing reprehensible about it. It's a very human thing to do, and often very accurate, in my experience.
The man should not have veto power, but should be notified. It may be your body, but it's not "your" fetus. I need help understanding what the problem is with that, in your mind.
It may not be "her" fetus (although I think it's highly debateable) but it's sure as hell "her" body. I don't have to tell my wife if I get a vasectomy, I don't have to tell her if I donate a kidney to my uncle, I don't have to tell her if I decide to undergo sex reassignment surgery (although I admit it'd be pretty hard to keep secret). It's my body, and I get to make the decisions, including who, if anybody, to inform.
I totally went off on this last night, so feel free to read the
extended dance mix.
What Arjet said.
Also there is a difference between what one *should* do, morally or ethically speaking, and what one should be *compelled* to do, by the law. I'd want my kid to tell me if he knocked someone up, too. But I wouldn't say that my desire should be legally enforced, because I know perfectly well that a lot of kids who get pregnant would be putting themselves at risk if they told. I'd want my partner to tell me if he were having a vasectomy or if he were sleeping with someone else or if he were going to be late home from work, for pity's sake. But that doesn't mean that I think it should be a legal requirement.
The point is that not everyone's situation is just like yours. It's called humility: not wanting the way *you* live to be made the way *everyone* has to live, because you realize that not everyone lives under the same circumstances you do.
NARAL and PP, by the way, don't profit from abortions. They're both non-profit groups. So the comparison to McD's is ludicrous.
Ludicrous comparison? PP doesn't have doctor and hospital affiliates, and PP gets no money....zip.....from these affiliates? And, do PP and NARAL receive grant money from government?
Of course they do. If we're going to discuss this, let's at least be honest about it. To claim that these organizations are not profiting from abortion, and discouraging legal alternatives to abortion, is disingenuous. The Planned Parenthood name itself was created as a euphemism for "birth control" early in the 20th century.
I'll have a peek at Arjet's dance mix on the subject, and see if it moves me like Depeche Mode. This whole argument, of course, is a micro topic on Alito, the macro being his portfolio of opinions, which all seem to be in serious debate (good), and at the same time seriously misjudged, misread, and misapplied (bad). I'd hate to see any SCOTUS nominee hammered because of the latter.
BTW, I made my way here as a result of the comment brouhaha that was formerly part of this post. Not sure what that fuss was all about, but this seems to be a decent site with sensible commentary.
I don't claim to know the half of it. I am procrastinating from some work that I should be doing and have been reading about this "virtual fight". It's been entertaining, in a "I can't stop watching reality TV" way. I feel sad for both parties - not the kind of sad that involves pity (like I think I am better, or smarter, or that I'd avoid getting myself into a similar kind of fight). It's the kind of sad that makes me think people are spending energy on stuff that doesn't really matter. I think it's impossible for everyone in the world to ever get along - and I guess that's the basis of my sadness. Especially now that I am a new parent. Everything changes after procreation. I am pro choice by the way, but thinking of abortions make me real sad, too.
Actually,statistically,Paul is likely to be smarter than the lady professor.(He's getting his Ph.D in mechanical engineering people.Next to plasma physics,it's the most difficult
major on I know.)
That doesn't mean he's correct in his arguments-just that he has to be very intelligent to be in that field.
Right. Because "smart" is a quality that's easily measured and has only one variable.
What a smart thing to say.
Smart girls are hot. Really.
Chemical engineering is considered harder than mechanical. (But probably not by mechanical engineers.)
1. Dr. B. has an open marriage and one child. Read the archives before you start slagging off her lifestyle.
2. Planned Parenthood offers a FULL RANGE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES. They get government grant money for everything BUT abortions, since wackos have effectively prevented the government from funding abortions in any serious way. I'm sure they would be DELIGHTED to do more bc, sex ed, etc. and fewer abortions. They would NOT go out of business.
3. Anyone who objects to birth control ("PP" as euphemism for same) does not deserve even this rudimentary response.
Corwin, since when is "plasma physics" a major?
It's barely extant as a specialty, these days...
Maybe a pivotal difference between the 'notification' and 'privacy' sides is the idea that 'good' behavior must be codified into law. Yes, we'd feel much better if our spouses and children would communicate with us. So we'll force them to communicate! Or failing that, at least force their health-care providers to go around them and tell us what we want to know (angry scowl).
It smacks of ownership. ("My wife/child is my property. She can't act on any situation without me knowing about it.") It's a prime example of how the law should stay the hell out of our private lives. The very people who might get an abortion secretly are those with the best reason for doing so.
As for Planned Parenthood, they prevent more abortions every month than all the sign-waving morons in history ever have.
Wow, woman, you rock! I've been concerned about this *&^% ^%$# nominee, but haven't had the time to look into it and here, here is all of it all laid out for me to get the 411.
You're awesome! Thank you!!
As for Planned Parenthood, they prevent more abortions every month than all the sign-waving morons in history ever have.
Amen, and bravo.
As for Planned Parenthood, they prevent more abortions every month than all the sign-waving morons in history ever have.
Illustrating in part how one can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion.
But that's probably too complex of a thought for the fundies to grasp.
PP prevents abortions? REALLY?! Do tell me more. This strikes me as some serious propaganda, my friend. What is the ratio of abortion referrals to adoption referrals?
Grace, you're not very graceful in your writing. I have said nothing in these comments to deserve your sarcasm. If you don't have anything nice to say, why say anything at all? There's nothing to contribute at that point. Sarcasm does not equate with intelligence.
If anyone here thinks that gov't should be paying for/endorsing abortion, I'd like to hear the arugument supporting it. I don't care to have tax money going to the abortion industry.
I am not in favor of regulating abortion. I am "pro choice" if you will, but not in the hands-off manner that you apparently are. You see this as a privacy issue, it seems. But I see it as more complex than that, esp. where a partner is concerned. There is a difference between notification and consent, and you have yet to offer a compelling reason that a partner should not be notified (and please, refrain from slippery slope examples).
What you seem to fear is Roe being overturned, and legislators being given the opportunity to create law at the state level. In other words, you want to retain court-ordered abortion rights come hell or high water. Whether Alito is pro or anti-abortion is beside the point, however. Maybe it's true that Roe is simply bad law, and needs to be overturned to that a more sane and constitutional course can be directed.
PP prevents abortions? REALLY?! Do tell me more. This strikes me as some serious propaganda, my friend. What is the ratio of abortion referrals to adoption referrals?
Abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies. Therefore ready access to birth control (i.e., a major part of Planned Parenthoods mission) prevents abortions.
For anyone seriously interested in reducing abortions, increasing access to birth control and improving sex education is far and away the most obvious thing to do. Creating procedural barriers to obtaining abortions is a way of controling women's bodies, not preventing abortion (although of course procedural barriers do have the side effect of making abortions less available to the poor and other disadvantaged groups of women).
I have read Paul's statements, and see no inaccuracies in his statements about the constitution and federalism. so you may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt.
But to harass Paul by implying tat you would work to get him in trouble at his college - simply for stating his opinion like Wally did is obscene. I'm guessing you are a liberal, as this article is the only one of yours I've read. While not illegal, Wally's statement is clearly an attempt to stifle Paul's freedom of speech. To a liberal, this act should be abhorrent.
I commend you for denouncing him in the comments section. Only through open debate without ad hominem attacks, can we ever hope to understand each other. I understand that the "without ad hominem attacks" part is very unlikely to occur, but the "open debate" part is definitely possible, as long as both sides condemn actions like Wally's comment.
"Actually,statistically,Paul is likely to be smarter than the lady professor.(He's getting his Ph.D in mechanical engineering people.Next to plasma physics,it's the most difficult
major on I know.)
That doesn't mean he's correct in his arguments-just that he has to be very intelligent to be in that field."
You mean MechEasy?
It's a good cop, Dr. Bitch. I agree with you that Alito should be "borked" and with those who think the Democrats in the Senate should be more agressive in their opposition, even to filibustering if needed. I even think that when the Republicans who control the Senate try to change the rules to prevent that filibuster, they should sue. Before the Supreme Court, of course. That would be a circus, and who doesn't love a circus.
However, I do want to defend one small part of Judge Alito's record. Your section 2.
"He argued that Congress couldn't restrict concealed weapons in school zones. That's right; your kids' right to be safe from gunplay in the schoolyard is less important than the right of 12th graders to carry concealed firearms into school."
and
"He also argued that Congress doesn't have the right to regulate ownership of machine guns under the Interstate Commerce Act; apparently he believes that machine guns don't cross borders, people carrying machine guns cross borders."
Having read about these here and before, I like the federalist arguments against overbroad congressional powers. As the recent Gonzales v. Raich case shows, the Commerce Clause has gotten stretched way out of its bounds. I think that the principle of limiting the congress is worth the unhappy policy effects.
Smart girls are hot. Too bad so few attend University.
Some thoughts for the commenters.
Having worked at PP,I do think It prevents (net) abortions.
Bitch,Ph.D.I wasn't trying to denigrate your mental abilities.But as to "smart",Francis Galton's "g" has with stood assault after assault by people frightened of intelligence measurement .
If you want a real chuckle read Howard Gardner.He goes through contortions to avoid any quantification.
I don't understand either how someone can be pro choice and anti abortion.But then I always had a lot of trouble with bosons vs fermions in beginning quantum mechanics.(A good way to remember is fermions will have a 1/2 integer for their quantum spin where bosons have zero or integer spin numbers.
Uncertainly principled yours,
Corwin
You seem to think that state constitutions and the 11th amendment can be ignored--that is activist.
You seem to think that the Eleventh Amendment says precisely what it does not say, to wit, that it prohibits suits against a state by their own citizens. Tell you what: Go read it and tell me what it says. Then, when you're done with your investigation, maybe you can come back and lecture us about "activist" judges, eh?
*crickets*
Cheers,
Corwin,
It's the conceptual definition of intelligence that is problematic. The measure simply reflects the conceptualization, as flawed as it may be.
It is not really safe to assume that a person studying for a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering is highly intelligent. It would probably not be a stretch, however, to assume that the person possesses above average intelligence.
Redleg - the real issue is that intelligence is not a scale, it's a myriad of factors. My father has an EngD in chemical, and a master's in chemical and nuclear engineering, and he's downright moronic when it comes to other issues like applied and theoretical biology, art, and theatre. Yet he's one of the more intelligent people I know.
If I, a biologist, produced an opinion about a SCOTUS case and a constitutional lawyer called me "moronic", or a professor of womens' studies thought one of my summries of feminism made me a moron, and I failed to heed the fact that I was speaking outside my field-- then I AM a moron, regardless of the fact that I qualify for MENSA.
Like whatever moron compared abortion providers to McDonald's. Good grief.
The way things have gone with the media these days, reading cogent arguments on blogs can fill the void. I applaud all here in this vein.
As for fillibuster -- it is a political tool that can yield many desirous effects for the opposition party. Should Reid and others continue their present tack (I like "tear 'em up Tuesdays") then this may be a decisive blow against this tottering, self-destructing regime, nuclear option or not. Be not afraid
I was the one who referenced McDonald's, but it wasn't to compare abortions to it. Don't comment if you can't take the time to read what you're commenting on.
I believe that it's perfectly reasonable for a husband to have notification (not consent) of his wife's pregnancy and her intent to abort that pregnancy, so I support it until I hear an argument to the contrary. I have not seen one here, other than "because". Can you be more persuasive than this?
Polls indicate that Americans are in support of this notification, so you're outside the mainstream on this one. You'd better succeed in filibustering Alito, Buster, and get a judge-activist to your liking in there, because when it comes to abortion, you're gradually losing the battle.
To my mind a huge flaw in the spousal notification of abortion argument is that it is restricting spousal notification to only one instance of the many medical actions one can take that impinges on the issue of reproduction with one's spouse.
Is the same bill requiring that a spouse be notified if treatment is being sought for AIDS or other STDs? Must a spouse be notified if a vasectomy or tubal ligation is sought? Must a spouse be notified if a contraceptive is prescribed?
If this is really about spousal rights regarding reproduction issues, extending the proposed requirement for notification of the wife/husband to cover these other common instances is only being rationally consistent.
And the exemption for "unless it's not her husband's child" just seems such poorly worded, let alone unprincipled, law in any case. How is this to be established? Is a simple statement regarding their sexual infidelity going to be sufficient, or will they need to swear out an affidavit with names, times and places? Either way is a sad invasion of privacy, but the exemption rule is so easily circumvented by a lie, whether simple or complicated as the statute demands, that it is laughable.
Below is my favorite argument from this thread, and maybe one of the funniest I have seen this year (but its only November!):
No, Paul Deignan is an arrogant sexist who is determined to show how much smarter he is than the lady professor.
Which pretty much explains why trolls of that sort are always men.
Well, I can't argue with that - not without trying to appear smarter than the lady prof and coming off as sexist, anyway.
But anyone planning to rebut me, please keep in mind - attempts to assert your intellectual superiority will be viewed as blatant anti-Irishism, and dealt with appropriately.
(Hmm - or maybe it will be viewed as anti-Catholicism? Tough call!
Anyway, it will be viewed as "anti" some "ism" or other, so don't do it. We really discourage anti-ism.)
"No, Paul Deignan is an arrogant sexist who is determined to show how much smarter he is than the lady professor.
Which pretty much explains why trolls of that sort are always men."
Could you please give any example of his trolling? By the definition of internet trolling, all of it seems to be coming form you and some of what appear to be sycophants.
My opinion on this: all of the rights (ones obtainable only to married couples) seem to exist for the purpose of supporting a family. Since it's inception, marriage has been a tool to produce an "heir". If a couple entered without the intent to have children and produce a family, they should not become married. You would be better to just live with each other. Thus, any decision involving children should be reached by both (prospective) parents. If a wife is "afraid of abuse", let her either seek legal help or defend herself. She should be given the right to choose her options, not have them defined by the state.
I do not suggest a filibuster of Alito, mostly on the grounds that it would almost certainly fail, and would only increase the public image of the DNC as trying to induce a comatose government.
Besides that, I wish that if you are going to make such broad, indepth claims about Alito's actions and standings, you should provide more details about the cases, and back up your hypothesi better.
Without engaging in any intended insult: High-school essays require more burden of proof. Please provide it.
One more thing, that I forgot in the first: at what time did you do these two things:
1) Discover that only professors in the liberal and political arts are allowed to have influence in the governing of the united states?
2) Do enough *total* polling and *extensive* traveling to determine what the mainstream actually is? The main vocal line is almost never it. It's the opinion that you DON'T hear all the time that is, ironically, usually the mainstream, as most people believe that it goes without saying.
Of what nature was this "personal threat"? Not a single one of Deignan's posts appear to be even insulting you, only asking for clarification: if someone noting that you lacked sufficient proof and asking for more is an insult, then I cannot see how this would fit with you being a teacher (or at least, a professor: you must have gone through a dissertation hearing to get that degree).
"""Saturday, November 12, 2005
BitchPhD's Clarification
BitchPhD has decided to finally admit she misused the term "IP spoofing" when describing what she "perceived" as Paul's attempts to evade her ban. When I asked, specifically, why she had reason to "perceive" Paul was evading her ban, how do you think she responded? She banned me.
Why do you think she used a weak word like "perceived"? Why do you think she continues to refuse to explain, specifically, why she accused Paul of "spoofing IP's"? If truth was on your side, if you had evidence Paul's IP had changed, or he had done something you "perceived" to be a way to evade a ban, what would you do?
More to come later.
posted by Hans Gruber at 7:47 PM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, November 11, 2005
How Many Emails?
As discussed in the previous post, Professor Wally Hettle has given a conflicting account of his communications to Paul Deignan's advisors. Hettle claimed to have emailed Paul's advisors before Paul ever emailed him. This account conflicts directly with Wally's second explanation, that he "contacted Paul's advisers after [Paul] sent [a] threatening email." Further, Hettle described this email as a "forward" of threatening email.
Paul has now obtained one email that Hettle sent, but this email's time and content is not consistent with Wally's two conflicting accounts. Why? Because Hettle's email is dated approximately 23 hours after Paul's email was sent to Hettle. Therefore, the email obtained by Paul cannot be the first email(s) described by Hettle, nor can it be the second, as the email is not a forward.
If we are to believe Wally Hettle, then there are at least two other emails that have not surfaced. One that was written and sent before November 2 6:43 EST, and another which is a "forward" with little comment by Wally.
If there are more emails out there written by Wally, this could get interesting. Take a look at what Wally Hettle sent directly to Paul:
Whether I have posted on bitchphd is absolutely none of your business.
I will say that I have seen your comments on bitchphd, now that you have directed my attention to the site. They were libelous and threatening, given the willingness of prolifers such as Paul Hill to use violence to advance their agenda.
You are a lunatic; the academy is no place for you. You also seem to be a homely and I assume lonely man.
Anyway, I’d advise you not to troll under your real name. Academia, like the Internet, is a small place.
Wallace Hettle
University of Northern Iowa
If something like this was sent to one or more of Paul's advisors, I think it's fair to say this is far from the "frivolous" lawsuit that so many believe (or hope) it to be.
posted by Hans Gruber at 12:35 AM 2 comments links to this post
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Hettle's Conflicting Comments
First, the entire conversation (or what is left of it after Dr. Bitch's--that is her term, not mine-- editing), can be found here. Dr. Hettle started his inquisition of Paul Deignan with this comment (emphasis added):
Troll boy is a student of the highly relevant field of mechanical engineering.
The moron is trolling under his real name from a home page which lists the names of his advisors. So I emailed them, as this behavior is thoroughly unprofessional.
BTW, I have a PhD and actual tenure. And I happen to know many profs who work from home, like myself.
I've read some of Dr. B's scholarship and it is superb.
Maybe Paul can come back after finishing HIS dissertation--if he finishes.
Anyway, Paul, I'm going to make an acquaintance with the admin. of your engineering school tomorrow, but I'm logging off for tonight.
Wallace Hettle
Actual Professor
Google Me
University of Northern Iowa
wally | Email | Homepage | 11.02.05 - 6:43 pm | #
Notice that Wally has written in this comment that he has already emailed Paul's advisors, and that he plans on making "an acquaintance with [Paul's] admin." However, Wally later commented (emphasis added):
Just to clarify: I contacted Paul's advisers after he sent me threatening email.
I'm not going to link to the guy's blog, but he is clearly behaving in an unprofessional manner over there, just as he did here last night.
What I suggested to P.D.'s advisers was not that they destroy his academic career, but simply that they might want to have a chat about professionalism and civility.
As Paul believes his behavior was on the up and up, he should have nothing to worry about.
That said, I do hope Paul's behavior stops. Graduate students aren't all that professionally accountable because advisers have a stake in their student's success.
But as I can testify, assistant profs are in a highly accountable, indeed vulnerable position. If PD finishes his diss. and gets a real job, (a big if), and continues his obsessive behavior, he won't last long as an academic.
wally | Email | Homepage | 11.03.05 - 1:09 pm | #
Paul Deignan has published his emails to Wally, both of which were emailed after Wally's first comment. The first provides nothing that can be construed as a threat and just seeks to confirm the individual commenting on BitchPhD is actually Wally Hettle. The second email, though civil, could be construed as a non-violent threat to expose Wally's bizarre McCarthyism to his peers:
Hello;
Have you figured out that you have made a pretty big error yet? I would like to offer you the chance to save yourself some professional embarrassment.
I can give you 30 minutes to reply with your decision.
Have a nice day,
Paul Deignan
Deignan@ada-vs.com
Whether or not one thinks this is a "threat" is a moot point. Wally's comments just don't add up. Either Wally lied when he said he'd already emailed Paul's professor or he's lying about only emailing Paul's advisors after he received a "threatening" email. Wally has repeated this falsehood more than once:
Hopefully B. will move onto a new topic, as that guy doesn't have much of an audience of his own. I've been staying out of the discussion, both because I'm tired of it and last night was just plain tired. I have a job and a family and all that.
As B. makes clear, she doesn't control the actions of her posters, including me. It's the internet, folks--Dr. B and I have never met. FWIW, Paul wants to sue us both for referring to threatening email.
So Paul's email to me is key to the confrontation, I guess.
LOL I don't know how to paste his email into Haloscan. But the email, which he has proudly posted on his own web site gave me 30 minutes to protect myself from _grave_ personal and professional embarrassment. I sure felt threatened (which is part of libel law Paul doesn't get--he needs to show malice on my part, but my representation was made in good faith). And my crime was forwarding a copy of that email to Paul's adviser basically without comment. The email, and his subsequent behavior, speaks for itself.
The ensuing trickle of mail to my (thankfully supportive so far) employers suggests that Paul gave me my 30 minutes and is now fixated on Dr. B. and little old me.
Sigh. There are ways to threaten people without threatening explicitly to do physical violence.
One last thing. Paul has posted the comment thread in questioned, but has left out all his disruptive, deleted stuff.
wally | Email | Homepage | 11.08.05 - 8:39 am | #
First, Paul did not threaten "grave personal and professsional embarrassment," he wrote instead, "I would like to offer you the chance to save yourself some professional embarrassment." This is a minor inaccuracy, but it it one of many. The real message is civil, if pointed. Further, Wally has through selective story-telling painted the story to give the wrong impression. Wally threatened Paul Deignan's professional career, emailed his advisors that night, and promised to make "acquaintances" with his Administrator of his engineering school the following day. Paul Deignan wrote with restraint that Wally could "save [himself] some professional embarrassment" if he'd retract his comments and stop his foolishness. Wally responded by forwarding the letter to his advisor (this was NOT his first communication with them according to Wally's own comments). But now Wally wants everyone to believe he was FORCED to respond to Paul's threat, when the truth is quite the opposite. Have I misunderstood and misconstrued Wally Hettle's version of events? Doubtful, considering Hettle supporters are repeating the same (false) sequence of events (which, myseriously, goes uncorrected by Dr. Hettle):
Wally claims to have done what he did because he received a hostile email from Paul, and combined with his tone against Bitch PhD in the blog comments, he worried that the guy's manner was not indicative of the societal expectation of those who hold PhD's. He says he forwarded the email to the guy's professors, instead of posting it for public consumption. If there was no email then of course contacting the professors at Purdue was definitely douchebaggery on Wally's part, but it's a huge huge HUGE stretch to call it "indicative of the left".
Whether Wally committed "libel" or some other tort, I am not sure. What I am certain is that Wally has presented his conduct and the sequence of events related to his communications with Paul's professors in a false and misleading light. Ready to come clean, Wally?
posted by Hans Gruber at 11:10 PM 8 comments links to this post"""
Could someone explain this to me?
Jenny X, looks like you misposted to Dr. Bs site -- you may want to ask the author of the site you pulled that lengthy post from to explain.
The discussion of this thread is focused on how to fight the Alito nomination.
No, I mean, he was talking about this site, and I just wanted to here what happened from you guys.
HELL NO TO ALITO!! This man will probabloy not overturn the Roe vs. Wade but I believe he will make it so complicated it would deter almost all women from getting an abortion. Alito is too extreme and will set us back 20 some odd years. HELL NO TO ALITO!!
ovpbmkj gidoas ctxfzy bwrykef qikd hamolcne tbwncguo
Very good site. Thanks!
http://adwedes.t35.com/index.html fetish pornstars
Good site. Thanks