Thank you for a truly All-Star & Hall of Fame post. I learned more reading that than filtering the countless hours of MSM.
It is no wonder you are referred to as 'The Troubadour of Truth'.
Where Kos is the Balladeer of Bullsh**.
DC, this post is terrific.
Thanks to you, both. You see ... I know you are out there in the "cyberstands", so occasionally I have to rise to the occasion.
Seriously, I wanted to put this out there as a reference for the continuing and coming distortions re: these and other cases. I realize that such things don't lend themselves to quick analysis. It takes some time, and it helps to be able to speak the language that the "lawyers in robes" speak.
Well, apparently you have more confidence that Alito will overrule Roe than those who know him best or even Robert Bork.
Five judges who have served with Alito on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals say that, because of his conservative respect for precedent and stare decisis, he will not likely vote to overturn the Roe.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1763.html
Meanwhile, Bork is not confident that he will do the right thing on abotion, “we do not know whether he will vote to overturn the worst constitutional travesties of the past" but we should nevertheless support him because he will at least do the right thing when it doesn’t come to protecting innocent human life.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
co...00511031121.asp
You all forget that the battleground on abortion jurisprudence shifted dramatically in Casey, which conceded that Roe lacks any merit and upheld “abortion rights” entirely on the basis of precedent. Thus, it is not enough now to argue that Roe is “an abomination” and a “constitutional travesty.” Alito may very well agree, but his demonstrated undue respect for precedence and stare decisis suggests that he may reject the merits of Roe and still embrace Casey, thereby upholding abortion as a fundamental right.
Nothing you or anyone else has said in brushing these matters aside demonstrates otherwise.
Well shit, bender, why not take the 'kool-ade' now and avoid the rush.
What else does your crystal ball tell you , the patsies will win the superbowl again. ?
You have to take it one step at a time. The travesty you speak of didn't start when Roe was passed,(voted on by 9 lawyers), unelected legislators, it started way before that.
It will take a while to overturn it. The first step is to get rid of judicial activism (and Roberts and Alito is a good start) and start interpreting the constitution as it was written by the founders, and not use foreign law to twist a passaage around to fit there perverted sense of justice, ie agenda.
You go, Mark!
Bender,
Shhh. Don't tell any one. Come close. Wait ... Casey says Roe is without merit? Not sure about that, but ...
Listen, the WH talking points are that Roe is safe. This is a hoot. It seems you got the memo. Well, maybe so, but ... I think you'll see Alito, Roberts, et al., undo Roe over time. I think that's what I said.
And ... respect for precedent is a little different at the top of the chain of command, so to speak.
Mark, LOL, man.
And Bender,
A little faith, my man. The Godfather, Don Bork himself, said that Alito was one of his "approved" nominees.
Around here, we don't quarrel with the Godfather, or youze gets turned over to this guy.
Don't bork with me, my friend.
A little faith, my man.
No. As we were told time and time again with the last nominee, this is too important to have to rely on faith and trust. And it is much, much too important to make ignore and excuses for the evidence because you hope that he will vote the right way.
Bender,
What I have given you is evidence, yes proof, that he HAS voted the right way, and further evidence (if you understand what you're reading and are willing to put aside preconceived ideas) that he will rule the right way in the future.
Casey says Roe is without merit? Not sure about that, but ...
Well, that's the impression I get from reading the O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter joint opinion, which relied heavily on stare decisis and insisted that the Court could not be seen to be caving in to pro-life opposition. Moreover, that's the impression that CJ Rehnquist had, "The joint opinion, following its newly minted variation on stare decisis, retains the outer shell of Roe v. Wade, but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance of that case. . . . The joint opinion of Justices O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER cannot bring itself to say that Roe was correct as an original matter, but the authors are of the view that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. Instead of claiming that Roe [505 U.S. 833, 954] was correct as a matter of original constitutional interpretation, the opinion therefore contains an elaborate discussion of stare decisis. . . . Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny," and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework which has guided this Court's decisionmaking for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. . . . The opinion frankly concludes that Roe and its progeny were wrong in failing to recognize that the State's interests in maternal health and in the protection of unborn human life exist throughout pregnancy. . . . The joint opinion also points to the reliance interests involved in this context in its effort to explain why precedent must be followed for precedent's sake."
And that's the impression that Scalia had, "The authors of the joint opinion, of course, do not squarely contend that Roe v. Wade was a correct application of 'reasoned judgment'; merely that it must be followed, because of stare decisis. . . . The joint opinion frankly concedes that the amorphous concept of 'undue burden' has been inconsistently applied."
Bender
So what is your opinion, you quoted the Supremes but failed to state how you see the decision.
Obviously you disapprove of Alito for the Supreme Court, which is fine, but the whole process is a crap-shoot,
everyone thought Souter would be a super conservative and look what he turned out to be.
Part of a strong candidate for the SC is to have a jurist willing to interpret the constitution as written and not make it up as they see fit nor to use foreign law and to set precedent according to some other countries laws which is what has been happening.
Your argument seems to be that Alito is the wrong man for the job. You seem to base your opinion on the few myopic articles written by single-issue zealots, this you quoted in your in your firt post, you have copied opinions that fits what you are trying to say.
If what you are saying is you want some guarantee that Alito will reverse Roe, your not going to get it, but he is the best man for the job. This judicial activism didn't start yesterday and cannot be over turned as quickly as you might like but it is a step in the RIGHT direction. A second step, and a third step if Stevens retires he is 86 and that too is not out of the relm of possibilities.
Well said, Mark. I argued hard against the Miers nomination, b/c there were a number of great candidates out there. Alito was on the short list. He was on Bork's short list.
The truth of the matter is ... there isn't a judge on record saying he or she will overrule Roe when given the chance.
If you read the Alito abortion opinions carefully, it is fairly clear that he is a very good bet to limit Roe and eventually help erode and/or overrule it.
Some people with never be happy. Maybe you're not one of those folks, Bender. But you surely have an increbible love of exercises in futility. I mean ... what is your point? Do you even know? Do you wish to count the number of originalists you can balance on the head of a pin?
Me? I wish to win and take back our courts. Alito is a great step in this process.
Bender,
It is also too much to rely on pessimism because you think Alito won't vote the right way.
Bottom line ... He was in the top 5-7 of who we could have hoped for. If you can't admit this, you can't admit facts and you will be hopelessly dour.
There are plenty of things to be down in the dumps about. Just not the Alito nomination.
Commenting by HaloScan
