Reply With Quote
Good choice.
Good choice.
Alito is leagues better than Miers from a qualifications standpoint.
His Circuit dissent in Casey, however, is going to make this confirmation effort a very, very interesting one. It will be in sharp relief since he's being asked to assume Justice O'Connor's seat and since Justice O'Connor wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion, which affirmed the Circuit's decision to strike down the Pennsylvania spousal notification law.
Salsalito... does this guy even know how to smile?
Come on man when Bush said stiff upper lip he didn't mean on camera...
Stare decisis...
From what I've read I could vote to confirm.
Roe vs Wade will NOT be over-turned.
Sound pretty sure of yourself there Governor Wallace.
Some of his decisions and writings do raise a question mark though:
Abortion:
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991)
Disagreed with the majority in a ruling striking down a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands if they planned to get an abortion.
I don't think women should be required to tell their husband about an abortion just like I don't think men need to tell their wives about their mistress.
Christmas display:
ACLU v. Schundler
168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999)
Wrote the opinion in a case that said a Christmas display on city property did not violate separation of church and state doctrines because it included a large plastic Santa Claus as well as religious symbols.
I don't have a problem with this.
Asylum:
Fatin v. INS
12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993)
Agreed with the majority that an Iranian woman seeking U.S. asylum could establish eligibility by showing that she had an abhorrence of her country's "gender-specific laws and repressive social norms," or because of a belief in feminism or membership in a feminist group.
I agree.
Harassment:
Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S.
381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004)
Agreed with the majority in a ruling that held a school district failed to provide free education to a high school student because it did not protect that student from bullying and taunting from fellow students who harassed him because of his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.
I agree.
Racism:
Williams v. Price
343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003)
Agreed with the majority granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American prisoner after state courts would not hear the testimony of a witness who said he heard a juror make racist remarks after the trial was over.
I strongly agree.
Due process:
Homar v. Gilbert
89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996)
Disagreed with a majority that ruled a state university violated due process by suspending a campus police officer without pay and without a hearing after he was arrested on drug charges. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the case on other grounds, but agreed with Alito that no hearing had been required.
I disagree. I believe a hearing was necessary for the dismissal unless University guidlines say one is not necessary.
Overall, I would vote to confirm.
Stare Decisis...
You are correct sir!!!!
Overturning Roe will be tricky... it's important to have extremely intelligent justices with a healthy respect for stare decisis in order to untangle the web of legal decisions into which Roe is woven.
How would one overturn Roe without also overturning Griswold? Griswold is the one that most likely was written by space aliens, but without it what happens to the implicit right to privacy and substantive due process?
What fills the void? It will take serious legal brainpower to make it work.
you are such a dumbass, equating a bigot to someone who wants to uphold the rights of women, not deny them
The right of women to kill a perfectly healthy child? Perhaps you are the dumbass.
I am not a woman, therefore I will not force my values upon them for I have NO idea what it is like to carry a child but would hope that a woman sees the gift of live for what it is and will make the decision she knows how.
Being a dumbass is saying you would know exactly what to do under the cir stances.
I am pro-life, pro-choice. Of course there are those such as Yonivore who say you cannot be both but I'll be blue in the face before he or others will ever understand my position and I'll just leave it at that or else this thread will be hi-jacked and that is not my intent.
This is all a conspiracy to get the lower income households to have loads of more babies that will all end up turning to a life of crime.
Sure, nobody knows how they will react in another's shoes, but does that preclude individuals from weighing in on a particular matter of public policy?
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-31-2005 at 02:55 PM.
Well, gee, Joe, I'm not a murderer either -- should I not force my values upon them for I have NO idea what it is like to have homicidal tendencies? Should I just hope that a murderer sees the gift of life for what it is and make the appropriate choice?
Yep.
Liberals: "Against abortions? Don't have one."
Well, if that makes sense, why not:
"Against domestic violence? Don't beat your wife."
No it does not. But since abortions are not illegal in the US?
Well, that is a matter of public policy.
That is a correct statement.
And, therefore, subject to change.
Or not.
No, it is subject to change. Now, you can claim it won't change but you can't say it isn't subject to change.
So, you're saying women are too stupid to find a more contemporary method to get an illegal abortion such as a black market abortion pill?
Wow! How sexist can you be?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
