Alito becomes Bushes next nominee

[SilverNRed]

They will try again with Alito.

493982[/snapback]

They already are trying again with Alito.

 

Chuckie Schumer tap dancing on Rosa Parks' grave and asking if Alito will roll back the gains she made kicked things off nicely.

[Mickey]

Ummm....  guess you never read the papers.  They tried.  Was the vote 100-0?  I didn't think so.  Did you read any of the crap Kennedy, Kerry and Boxer were pulling during that confirmation hearing?  I guess not.  No Roberts took his beatings as well.  But regardless, the point is no matter how liberal the judge, the Dems would have has a been in a frenzy.

493924[/snapback]

Yeah, half of all the members of the opposition party in the Senate voted for the President's nominee and you think that supports your point that the same opposition party would oppose any judge nominated by the President. You are wrong, 22 times wrong.

 

There are nations out there that do not allow any dissent at all, not even a lousy 22 votes. Maybe you would be happier in a one-party state?

[VABills]

Yeah, half of all the members of the opposition party in the Senate voted for the President's nominee and you think that supports your point that the same opposition party would oppose any judge nominated by the President.  You are wrong, 22 times wrong. 

 

There are nations out there that do not allow any dissent at all, not even a lousy 22 votes.  Maybe you would be happier in a one-party state?

494186[/snapback]

What?

 

You're losing it again. But Boxer, Kerry and the whale were very hostile during the last vote. Rgardless of who the president nomintaed is what I said, some on your side of the aisle will always be pricks even if they are uber liberals. Just because Bush nominated the person. It would hvae nothing to do with the nominee, who could be the next coming of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. If Bush nominated that person, those dems would be pricks, period. Friggen sausage man, implied that Bush was slipping the big green meanie to Harriet Miers. It really doesn't get anymore hostile than that, mickster.

[Mickey]

What? 

 

You're losing it again.  But Boxer, Kerry and the whale were very hostile during the last vote.  Rgardless of who the president nomintaed is what I said, some on your side of the aisle will always be pricks even if they are uber liberals.  Just because Bush nominated the person.  It would hvae nothing to do with the nominee, who could be the next coming of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.  If Bush nominated that person, those dems would be pricks, period.  Friggen sausage man, implied that Bush was slipping the big green meanie to Harriet Miers.  It really doesn't get anymore hostile than that, mickster.

494199[/snapback]

You said that no matter who Bush nominated "the Dems" would oppose him. There was no qualification or limitation. I read that and recalled that fully one half of all "the dems" in the Senate voted to confirm Roberts. It seemed to me then that the facts belied your point. Now you are changing "the dems" to "some on your side of the aisle". There certainly are democrats who would in fact support a nominee of Bush's depending on the nominee. Even as to those who voted against them, their opposition wasn't much more than token and likely for the benefit of their supporters rather than serious opposition to Roberts.

 

The issue really isn't Bush, the issue is abortion. Both parties have strong factions within who are not willing to compromise at all when it comes to the supreme court. There is a reason that sup. ct. confirmation hearings suddenly became so controversial and of such interest to the public and the body politic since 1972. The reason is Roe v. Wade. I just saw a gallup poll that said around 57% of Americans do not want Alito confirmed if he would overturn Roe. I am not willing to pretend that Roe isn't the dominant issue to both sides. Whether it should be, whether or not there are more important issues and so on, doesn't really matter. It is the issue and if it wasn't, confirmation hearings wouldn't even be covered on C-span.

[SilverNRed]

The issue really isn't Bush, the issue is abortion.  Both parties have strong factions within who are not willing to compromise at all when it comes to the supreme court.  There is a reason that sup. ct. confirmation hearings suddenly became so controversial and of such interest to the public and the body politic since 1972.  The reason is Roe v. Wade.  I just saw a gallup poll that said around 57% of Americans do not want Alito confirmed if he would overturn Roe.  I am not willing to pretend that Roe isn't the dominant issue to both sides.  Whether it should be, whether or not there are more important issues and so on, doesn't really matter.  It is the issue and if it wasn't, confirmation hearings wouldn't even be covered on C-span.

494439[/snapback]

Someday soon, someone should do a study to see how many Americans actually understand the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade and, more importantly, what would happen should that decision be overturned. More specifically, I wonder how many Americans think that overturning Roe would immediately result in abortion being illegal in the United States, which is not even close to being true.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Someday soon, someone should do a study to see how many Americans actually understand the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade and, more importantly, what would happen should that decision be overturned.  More specifically, I wonder how many Americans think that overturning Roe would immediately result in abortion being illegal in the United States, which is not even close to being true.

494487[/snapback]

 

 

Good point. I'd start with all of those people on the steps of the Supreme Court (both sides of the aisle).

 

Let the questioning on stare decisis/super stare decisis, Griswold and unenumerated rights begin...

[Mickey]

Someday soon, someone should do a study to see how many Americans actually understand the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade and, more importantly, what would happen should that decision be overturned.  More specifically, I wonder how many Americans think that overturning Roe would immediately result in abortion being illegal in the United States, which is not even close to being true.

494487[/snapback]

No, it wouldn't be immediate.

 

However, what in the world would stop the Schiavo congress from enacting a law doing just that? The only thing that allowed the Supreme Court to strike down the so called "partial birth abortion ban" was Roe. If the Congress can dictate a ban on partial birth abortions, it can dictate a ban on abortions. Scalia and company are already on the record on that issue.

 

If Roe goes, abortion goes. Just a matter of time. Ironically, those who so long proclaimed their allegiance to limiting government power will be the authors of one of the largest expansions of government power in history.

 

O'Connor once opined that if you concede to the state the power to force a pregnancy to term, you cede to the state the power to force a pregnancy, to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, to limit pregnancy, etc, etc. That is why, as a conservative, she was all for reasonable restrictions but was dead set on preserving the primary fact of Roe, that the government is just not going to be involved, beyond a certain point, in the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

[VABills]

No, it wouldn't be immediate.

 

However, what in the world would stop the Schiavo congress from enacting a law doing just that?  The only thing that allowed the Supreme Court to strike down the so called "partial birth abortion ban" was Roe.  If the Congress can dictate a ban on partial birth abortions, it can dictate a ban on abortions.  Scalia and company are already on the record on that issue.

 

If Roe goes, abortion goes.  Just a matter of time.  Ironically, those who so long proclaimed their allegiance to limiting government power will be the authors of one of the largest expansions of government power in history.

 

O'Connor once opined that if you concede to the state the power to force a pregnancy to term, you cede to the state the power to force a pregnancy, to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, to limit pregnancy, etc, etc.  That is why, as a conservative, she was all for reasonable restrictions but was dead set on preserving the primary fact of Roe, that the government is just not going to be involved, beyond a certain point, in the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

494546[/snapback]

 

Murder is murder.

[SilverNRed]

No, it wouldn't be immediate.

 

However, what in the world would stop the Schiavo congress from enacting a law doing just that? 

494546[/snapback]

Probably the response from the 57% of people in that poll you cited who don't want abortion illegal nationwide (and most likely think that is what happens when Roe is overturned).

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Murder is murder.

494555[/snapback]

 

 

Sure is. And an abortion, in the eyes of the law, is not murder.

[VABills]

Sure is.  And an abortion, in the eyes of the law, is not murder.

494636[/snapback]

In your opinion, not mine.

[Ghost of BiB]

FWIW, I was listening to this driving home from work couple of days ago. I thought it a very good piece.

 

NPR. Yeah, I know but it's sometimes interesting.

[Mickey]

Probably the response from the 57% of people in that poll you cited who don't want abortion illegal nationwide (and most likely think that is what happens when Roe is overturned).

494560[/snapback]

 

So you acknowledge that there would be no legal impediment to a national ban on all abortions? The only problem would be political, right? Because if that is the safeguard, then abortion will definitely be illegal nationally.

 

Those 57% numbers do not translate to the House and Senate. That poll doesn't respect political boundaries, it is a national poll. Congressman and Senators are not elected in a national election. That's how, metaphorically, 5 people in Kansas have as much power in the Senate as thousands of people from New York. Thus, the abstract, exists only on a map, creation that is a "state" is more important than actual live people. In a national poll, people count more.

[Mickey]

In your opinion, not mine.

494638[/snapback]

The difference being that he isn't seeking to force you to have an abortion but you would force him to have a baby. That is, of course, assuming that you both had operational wombs which, frankly, would be a much bigger story than even abortion but, I digress.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

In your opinion, not mine.

494638[/snapback]

 

 

You missed my point; in the eyes of the law, abortion isn't murder. I never stated my opinion.

[SilverNRed]

So you acknowledge that there would be no legal impediment to a national ban on all abortions?  The only problem would be political, right? 

494661[/snapback]

Of course I acknowledge it. It's pretty cut and dry.

 

Because if that is the safeguard, then abortion will definitely be illegal nationally.

I doubt it. A few states might outlaw it, but I don't think there are enough Republicans willing to make that vote on a federal scale. Yes, the Republicans hold the majority in Congress but, no, I don't think there are enough who want to force such a dramatic shift in American culture.

 

Outlawing abortion nationally wouldn't eliminate abortion any more than outlawing drugs eliminates drugs. I think that argument would win out at the end of the day, along with people not being comfortable with a massive change in the medical industry.

[SilverNRed]

The difference being that he isn't seeking to force you to have an abortion but you would force him to have a baby. 

494666[/snapback]

Being pregnant is what forces you to have a baby. Outlawing abortion is forcing someone who is already pregnant to not terminate that pregnancy.

 

I doubt anti-abortion activists are trying to force women who aren't pregnant to get pregnant and then have a baby.

[Mickey]

Being pregnant is what forces you to have a baby.  Outlawing abortion is forcing someone who is already pregnant to not terminate that pregnancy.

 

I doubt anti-abortion activists are trying to force women who aren't pregnant to get pregnant and then have a baby.

494695[/snapback]

No difference. If I stop you from terminating a pregnancy, you have a baby you didn't want and if not for my actions would not have had. Same result, your opinion, their womb, their life.

 

Anti-abortion activists are not trying to force women to have babies who don't want them? Hmmmm.......are you willing to state that no groups who oppose abortion don't also oppose contraceptives?

[Mickey]

Of course I acknowledge it.  It's pretty cut and dry.

 

I doubt it.  A few states might outlaw it, but I don't think there are enough Republicans willing to make that vote on a federal scale.  Yes, the Republicans hold the majority in Congress but, no, I don't think there are enough who want to force such a dramatic shift in American culture.

 

Outlawing abortion nationally wouldn't eliminate abortion any more than outlawing drugs eliminates drugs.  I think that argument would win out at the end of the day, along with people not being comfortable with a massive change in the medical industry.

494690[/snapback]

Actually stopping abortion and simply making it illegal are two different things. I thought you were originally stating that people who want Alito tossed if he would overturn Roe only take that position because they think it would mean an end to legal abortions. Do you think those 57% would change their minds on Alito if they were assured that they could still get illegal abortions the same way people buy drugs, in a seedy part of town from some crook? I don't think so.

 

Sticking to legal abortions, I think more than a "few" states would make it illegal. I would start with Idaho, S.Dakota, N. Dakota, Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, La., Miss., Alabama, Ark., Montanna, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oaklahoma, Missouri and Nebraska. Other states might but I'd be less sure about say, Minnesota, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. Pennsylvania? Maybe, they elected Specter and Rick the freak Santorum. I think it would be waaaay more than a few.

 

Then you get to the national scene. Again, very little problem there. Isn't making abortion illegal a plank in the Republican Party platform? Is there a single republican in the Senate who wouldn't get targeted as a dead RINO walking by the religious right if they opposed a national ban? If they have the votes to confirm enough nominees to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, why wouldn't they have the votes to pass a national ban?

 

I'd love to see a Repbulican Senator explain how he thinks abortion is murder so he wants Roe overturned but would draw the line at supporting a national law banning abortions because he thinks murder is okay as long as the murders are going on in New York or California. Real defensible position there.

 

The bottom line is that 57% of people would rather see Alito's nomination fail if he would overturn Roe and they hold that position because they do not want to lose the ability to decide this for themselves, not because they are deluded, not becuase they are not as smart as you and not because they don't understand perfectly well what is at stake. If Democrats decide that Alito is likely to overturn Roe (no one could ever be certain), they should filibuster because doing so would be what the majority of Americans want and trashing that would be frustrating the will of that 57% majority. The republicans might be able to do just that, they may even have the gall to do just that but lets not pretend it is democratic.

 

Bush was elected because of national security, for most, that issue trumped abortion. He was not elected to see to it that Roe v. Wade be overturned. He was elected and he gets to select the nominees but lets not for a moment pretend that he had a mandate to do that.

 

The democrats, if subsequent, reputable and reliable polls back that figure up, would be shirking their responsibility if they didn't filibuster Alito providing they believe that he is likely to overrturn Roe. If he is not, then all he has to do is say that during the hearings. "Roe v. Wade is a valid precedent and is good law and although there is room for constitutional refinement on a host of related issues, the basic holding of Roe is sound now and for the forseeable future."

[SilverNRed]

No difference.  If I stop you from terminating a pregnancy, you have a baby you didn't want and if not for my actions would not have had.  Same result, your opinion, their womb, their life. 

494750[/snapback]

Actually, it's a pretty big difference. The anti-abortion people aren't the reason you're having a baby - you are the reason you're having a baby. You're the one who got pregnant. Being against abortion is saying that terminating the human being growing inside of you is not a valid option.

 

And before you say that it isn't fair to women that having sex - even once - can result in a pregnancy that completely flips their life upside down, I'll agree. It's not fair. But that's just the way things are. Keeping the option of terminating the unborn as a means of making sex as "low risk" for women as it is for men isn't much of a solution.

 

Anti-abortion activists are not trying to force women to have babies who don't want them?  Hmmmm.......are you willing to state that no groups who oppose abortion don't also oppose contraceptives?

It's not my job to speak on behalf of every group that opposes abortion. But for the most part it seems that groups vehemently against abortion and contraceptives are also against sex outside of marraige, which is easily the best way to prevent unexpected pregnancies that people aren't prepared for.