Bush Nominates Judge Samuel Alito to US Supreme Court

[Gokul43201]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2005/10/31/alito-uscourt051031.html

Bush names federal judge to Supreme Court

Last Updated Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:54:11 EST

CBC News

Days after his earlier choice withdrew her nomination, U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday named a long-time federal judge known for his conservatism to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Samuel Alito, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, is Bush's nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement in July after 24 years on the bench.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Great, another right-wing fanatic.

Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats
...
In a report on his record, The Associated Press noted that Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which struck down a Pennsylvania law with a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses. (emphasis mine)
...
He has been nicknamed "Scalito" for his ideological similarity to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31cnd-court.html?hp"

 

[wasteofo2]

Great, another right-wing fanatic.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31cnd-court.html?hp"

He's not as bad as that little snippet makes him sound.

Just reading a little bit of his actual statement makes it all much more logical and sensible.

"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." while also adding some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her."

He's a conservative, but I've yet to see any real evidence that he's a nutjob

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

He's a conservative, but I've yet to see any real evidence that he's a nutjob

How can one be a conservative and not a nutjob? I didn't realize that was possible. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Forcing women to tell their husbands before having an abortion is not a justified law. You can come up with some arguments supporting it, but, overall, it isn't the right decision to make. I dislike this guy for a SC justice because I suspect he is pro-life.

 

[Entropy]

Great, another right-wing fanatic.

requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

Oh no! I have to tell my husband before I kill his son/daughter! Man, he is a real fanatic.

I dislike this guy for a SC justice because I suspect he is pro-life.

So pro-choice would be better?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Oh no! I have to tell my husband before I kill his son/daughter! Man, he is a real fanatic.
So pro-choice would be better?

Of course. A pro-choice person is more likely to have the characteristics required to be a SC Justice. Anyone who can't make proper moral decisions certainly isn't qualified to make interpret the law.

Abortion is not murder. It is the destruction of a theoretical being because of the will of the individual. The only thing that dies is a concept. Religious influences may cause abuse if the husband finds out about the abortion. If the relationship is sound in the first place, she will probably tell her husband. Abortion is a woman's right. Individuals have the right to not tell their families when they are about to die. When a fetus, something that is the property of a woman, is about to be destroyed, the woman has the right to choose who becomes aware its destruction.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd certainly like to know if my wife was getting an abortion, but I can understand the constitutional basis of the striking of this law. If we are to consider the fetus/embryo to simply be an appendage of the woman's body, like a finger or an appendix, then her husband does not have the right to know what she does or does not with it. We get fuzzy, however, because there is no constitutional reason to consider the embryo/fetus to be nothing more than a female appendage; that is simply the personal consensus of the justices.

That said, if this justice believes that an embryo/fetus is a separate life-form that is as much the father's responsibility as the mother's, then his ruling is in accord with the right to privacy inferred from the 14th amendment. (Is it the 14th?) This doesn't even require us to grant autonomy or personhood to the embryo/fetus and hardly makes him a fanatic or a nutjob.

 

[BobG]

How can one be a conservative and not a nutjob? I didn't realize that was possible. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Forcing women to tell their husbands before having an abortion is not a justified law. You can come up with some arguments supporting it, but, overall, it isn't the right decision to make. I dislike this guy for a SC justice because I suspect he is pro-life.

How so?

Their proposed law didn't give the husand any right to stop the abortion. It just said he should know about it - presumably so both parties could make an informed decision about their future relationship. Denying that knowledge is basically a statement that the husband's desires about a family don't matter. He has no right to know what his wife's family desires are and the husband just has to live with whatever the wife decides.

 

[loseyourname]

Of course. A pro-choice person is more likely to have the characteristics required to be a SC Justice. Anyone who can't make proper moral decisions certainly isn't qualified to make interpret the law.

I'm sorry friend, but adhering to your personal vision of morality is not a requirement for practicing proper constitutional law. That is flat-out ridiculous. I thought it was the position of liberals that one should not impose one's personal morals upon another.

Besides, his dissent requires only that he hold an ontological position that the fetus is a being separate from its mother. If that is the case, then she has no right to privacy as regards it, and requiring notification simply becomes a legal stance, not a moral one.

 

[Evo]

You're assuming that the husband is the father.

 

[Entropy]

Of course. A pro-choice person is more likely to have the characteristics required to be a SC Justice. Anyone who can't make proper moral decisions certainly isn't qualified to make interpret the law.

Why do pro-choice people have more morality than pro-life? Is it only because they share your opinion? I suppose anyone who doesn't see things your way is automatically immoral.

Abortion is not murder. It is the destruction of a theoretical being because of the will of the individual. The only thing that dies is a concept.

Theoretical? A fetus isn't a concept, why would you say something so absurd? It is a real living thing, it isn't make-believe. A fetus would only be a concept before it was conceived, when the parents are still planning to have a baby in their minds. Then it would be an idea.

Religious influences may cause abuse if the husband finds out about the abortion.

Oh yeah, because religious people are the only ones barbaric enough to abuse their spouses. A non-religious person would never object to the killing of their child, because all non-religious people are moral, understanding people that are too mature to resort to physical violence.

Abortion is a woman's right. Individuals have the right to not tell their families when they are about to die. When a fetus, something that is the property of a woman, is about to be destroyed, the woman has the right to choose who becomes aware its destruction.

That is a matter of debate, and simply because someone disagrees with this, doesn't make them a fanatic.

 

[wasteofo2]

Forcing women to tell their husbands before having an abortion is not a justified law.

First of all, he didn't write any laws, he upheld the constitutionality of a law passed by the Pa. state legislature.

You can come up with some arguments supporting it, but, overall, it isn't the right decision to make.

Are you joking me? I'm not sure of your gender, but as a guy, I'm 100% positive that I wouldn't want my wife aborting our baby without at least talking to me about it. How can you defend allowing one parent to terminate the life of their offspring without the consent of the other?

 

[wasteofo2]

You're assuming that the husband is the father.

In his statement, he said that it would be proper to allow the woman to have an abortion if she knew that her husband wasn't the father.

 

[Informal Logic]

You're assuming that the husband is the father.

Good one. :rofl:

edit:

In his statement, he said that it would be proper to allow the woman to have an abortion if she knew that her husband wasn't the father.

That is even more controversial.


[To pick up where BobG replied to my post in another thread] Most couples discuss desires to have children before they marry, so I wonder how often this is an issue. Ultimately the woman is the one who must physically deal with pregnancy and childbirth. And typically if there is a divorce, it is the woman who has custody of the children, and often men abandon them. So it affects her far more than him. I do not see it as bad to inform the man of desire to abort, but I do not feel the man should be allowed to force the woman to have a child against her will. The woman should have the final say.

Back to the OP, if Bush wanted a conservative judge, there were plenty he could choose without dividing the country. As usual, he has shown lack of understanding of the role of the presidency.

 

[deckart]

You're assuming that the husband is the father.

The injustice would be if she said he wasn't but he, in fact, was the father.

A problem with prochoice is that the father doesn't get a choice. But he does get to pay child support for 18yrs. A different topic altogether. Fathers get the shaft regardless.

 

[wasteofo2]

Good one. :rofl:
edit: That is even more controversial.
[To pick up where BobG replied to my post in another thread] Most couples discuss desires to have children before they marry, so I wonder how often this is an issue. Ultimately the woman is the one who must physically deal with pregnancy and childbirth. And typically if there is a divorce, it is the woman who has custody of the children, and often men abandon them. So it affects her far more than him. I do not see it as bad to inform the man of desire to abort, but I do not feel the man should be allowed to force the woman to have a child against her will. The woman should have the final say.

I didn't see anywhere that it said the husband should have veto power over the woman's desire to have an abortion, it just said that a woman needed to inform her husband before she went off and had an abortion.

 

[moose]

How can one be a conservative and not a nutjob? I didn't realize that was possible. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Forcing women to tell their husbands before having an abortion is not a justified law. You can come up with some arguments supporting it, but, overall, it isn't the right decision to make. I dislike this guy for a SC justice because I suspect he is pro-life.

Wait a second, WHAT?

He said that it is not the courts right to change the law or not abide by the law. He simply followed the law, even if he did or did not like it. That's how it should be. If there is a law, and someone comes to my court because the person broke that law, than by all means prosecute the person. The judicial branch is made to interpret the law.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Law and morality can't be completely separated. Irregardless, how do you know he interpreted the law correctly? He was the only dissenter, and, if the court system is efficient, shouldn't the right decision have been made?

The religious abuse thing was an example. Most pro-life people happen to be on the right, and most people on the right are religious. I was just generalizing to make a point.

I am a guy, but I still feel women shouldn't be required to tell their husbands they are going to have an abortion. It's solely a woman's choice. However, I think men be able to have sex without worrying about having to support a child.

A man can't have a personal stake in genetic property that is attached to a woman. If that is the case, men should have an influence on everything pregnant woman do. Clearly freedom in Canada would side with woman on this issue, and I assume U.S freedoms would, too.

Genetically, a fetus is alive, but who decided that genetics determined whether something is alive? There are moral and philosophical components to the issue. I feel the fetus is property of the mother, and, if it is not valued by her, she can do away with it.

Something that has not contributed to society and is only linked to society through a woman is, as a result, property of the women until released into society as a separate entity. Until then, contributions made to society by the women (perhaps through bringing a child into the world) should be controlled by the woman as would be appropriate in a free society.

 

[BobG]

In any event, you could also cite Alito's concurrence in striking down New Jersey's partial birth abortion ban as unconstitutional. His reasoning:

Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent. I write briefly to explain why Carhart requires us to affirm the decision of the District Court in this case. This is an appeal by the New Jersey State Legislature from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey holding the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, 2A:65A-5 et seq., unconstitutional and permanently
enjoining enforcement of the Act. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 41 F. Supp. 2nd 478 (D.N.J. 1998). The New Jersey statute closely resembles statutes enacted in recent years in many other states.

On January 14, 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, 192 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 S.Ct. 865 (2000), which presented the question of the constitutionality of a similar Nebraska statute. The Supreme Court recently held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional. Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 WL 825889 (U.S. June 28, 2000).

The entire text can be reviewed on findlaw.com

 

[BobG]

Interesting trivia:

Alito was born on April Fool's Day and was nominated on Halloween. Is that a bad sign? :rofl:

 

[The Smoking Man]

Interesting trivia:
Alito was born on April Fool's Day and was nominated on Halloween. Is that a bad sign? :rofl:

Only if his head turns 360 degrees and he makes references to 'your mother knitts socks in hell' according to the Bush chriteria.

 

[Evo]

A problem with prochoice is that the father doesn't get a choice. But he does get to pay child support for 18yrs. A different topic altogether. Fathers get the shaft regardless.

Actually, that's not pro choice, that's pro-life. That is something that irks me. If the man had not wanted a child, he should have the right to give up ties to it (as in an adoption) and he should not have to pay support. I know of women that have intentionally gotten pregnant trying to trap a man. If she wants to have the child, fine, but the man should not have to support it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually, that's not pro choice, that's pro-life. That is something that irks me. If the man had not wanted a child, he should have the right to give up ties to it (as in an adoption) and he should not have to pay support. I know of women that have intentionally gotten pregnant trying to trap a man. If she wants to have the child, fine, but the man should not have to support it.

I can't say that I really agree with this. One should be responsible for their actions and any man is directly responsible for bringing a child into the world, by half at least, when he gets a woman pregnant.

I'd also have to say that I agree a man should have knowledge of any such consequence of his actions and/or the termination of it.
Currently, though there is no basis for it in law, most clinics will not preform a vesectomy on a married man unless they know that his wife is aware of the operation.
Socially this country tends to lean very much towards womens rights but for some reason mostly don't care about men's right. Just as many women have been brain washed to think that they should give up their rights because they should be subservient to men many men have been brain washed to believe they should be giving up their rights and being subservient to women as reperation of some sort or something.

 

[Evo]

A guy I worked with was tricked by his girlfriend, she claimed to be on birth control and she wasn't.

I don't think that's right. Bottom line, don't trust your partner, sad but true.

 

[Pengwuino]

This one should pass through easily unless democrats are hypocrits... seeing as the following...

Christopher Dodd
Joseph Lieberman
Joseph Biden
Daniel Inouye
Tom Harkin
Paul Sarbanes
Barbara Mikulski
Edward Kennedy
John Kerry
Carl Levin
Max Baucus
Harry Reid
Frank Lautenberg
Jeff Bingaman
Kent Conrad
Patrick Leahy
Robert Byrd
Jay Rockefeller
Herbert Kohl

alllllllllllll voted to confirm him in 1990. Judicial experience, 15 years

 

[SOS2008]

I realize this is a little OT…but men typically don’t like to use condoms. While not 100% reliable (is any birth control?) condoms not only prevent AIDS and STDs, but it is a way for men to take control. I find it sad that the responsibility of pregnancy is not placed more upon men. Why are they not subjected to family planning admonishment when they act irresponsibly?

I also find the economics important, and until we as a society address the welfare of women as a whole, I don’t see how people can impose further burdens upon them. For example, women receive 75 cents for every man’s dollar (for what ever reason—which may include taking a decade out of the workforce caring for family--the reason is not relevant to the end result). “More unmarried women having children” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9854408/). My income has been commissioned-based the majority of my career. I would not only lose income, but I would probably lose my job just for taking maternity leave. Etc., etc., etc.

As for the SC nomination, the religious right was giving prayers of thanks outside the SC today. And the nomination doesn’t have anything to do with religion? After watching Hell House--getting scared straight--to Jesus that is, I don’t know what to think of this country anymore.

 

[moose]

I for one, think he is a perfect candidate... I don't see how anyone could think differently without being uninformed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A guy I worked with was tricked by his girlfriend, she claimed to be on birth control and she wasn't.
I don't think that's right. Bottom line, don't trust your partner, sad but true.

Though it will more than likely be said that he is still responsable for his own progeny he could theoretically try to sue her for fraud and attempt to emancipate himself from responsability... theoretically. In a world, though, where it is quite common for men to leave their partners after getting them pregnant he will not be looked on favourably for trying to wash his hands of his own child.

 

[loseyourname]

I for one, think he is a perfect candidate... I don't see how anyone could think differently without being uninformed.

I highly doubt that, as of right now, anybody on this board knows jack about him. I could be wrong, though, if somebody lives in his district and he has been particularly noteworthy.

alllllllllllll voted to confirm him in 1990. Judicial experience, 15 years

Note that Boxer, Feinstein, and Schumer are all absent from that list. I guarantee you that none of those three vote to confirm.

Though it will more than likely be said that he is still responsable for his own progeny he could theoretically try to sue her for fraud and attempt to emancipate himself from responsability... theoretically. In a world, though, where it is quite common for men to leave their partners after getting them pregnant he will not be looked on favourably for trying to wash his hands of his own child.

Personally, I would support the child even if I was tricked. Not because I think I can make a good case that I am justly obligated to do so, but because the child deserves it. Plus, let's face it - that kid is still carrying my genetic material, and if evolution has done its job, I will feel some sense of love, attachment, and responsibility for its well-being.

 

[Pengwuino]

I for one, think he is a perfect candidate... I don't see how anyone could think differently without being uninformed.

... different views on life maybe?

 

[Pengwuino]

Note that Boxer, Feinstein, and Schumer are all absent from that list. I guarantee you that none of those three vote to confirm.

And the beauty of democracy is that contrary to insane opinion, you don't need a unanimous vote.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Personally, I would support the child even if I was tricked. Not because I think I can make a good case that I am justly obligated to do so, but because the child deserves it. Plus, let's face it - that kid is still carrying my genetic material, and if evolution has done its job, I will feel some sense of love, attachment, and responsibility for its well-being.

I have to say that I would probably do the same thing. I'm just considering the legal aspects of the situation.

 

[Archon]

And the beauty of democracy is that contrary to insane opinion, you don't need a unanimous vote.

Let me point something out by means of a allegorical tale. Let's say a country is trying to ratify an important document, like a constitution. Now, maybe a significant portion of the populace doesn't like this document, so they decide to boycott the vote. Let's call these people...oh, I don't know...the Sunnis. If these people don't vote, then there are questions as to the legitimacy of the document. After all, in a democracy/republic, all the people are supposed to be adequately represented. When they are not, there are problems. The moral of the story: don't drink toilet water. Also, every vote or lack thereof is important.

 

[Pengwuino]

Let me point something out by means of a allegorical tale. Let's say a country is trying to ratify an important document, like a constitution. Now, maybe a significant portion of the populace doesn't like this document, so they decide to boycott the vote. Let's call these people...oh, I don't know...the Sunnis. If these people don't vote, then there are questions as to the legitimacy of the document. After all, in a democracy/republic, all the people are supposed to be adequately represented. When they are not, there are problems. The moral of the story: don't drink toilet water. Also, every vote or lack thereof is important.

Late 1700's, look it up, there's a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig problem with your argument.

And remember, all common sense and non-stupidity states that if you demand uanimous support for everything, society comes to a stand still. This is 2nd grade logic.

 

[deckart]

Actually, that's not pro choice, that's pro-life. That is something that irks me. If the man had not wanted a child, he should have the right to give up ties to it (as in an adoption) and he should not have to pay support. I know of women that have intentionally gotten pregnant trying to trap a man. If she wants to have the child, fine, but the man should not have to support it.

I'm elated to hear that coming from a woman. Definately a topic for a different thread but one I can personally relate to.