Is the idea of talking to the Husband before having an abortion really “beyond the norm” ?
On issues about kids like having them, not having them, aborting them, adopting them, sterilizing yourself, and so on… I would think it’s normal for spouses to discuss these things with each other prior to taking action.
You ought to see the level of communication involved at my house before committing on where to go for lunch. :eek:
Oh, come on! They guy opposes Roe V. Wade, affirmative action, the envirnoment, worker’s rights, he opposes privacy, he’s all for discriminating against the disabled … what the HELL would it take to convince you he is extreme? Would he have to eat babies or what?
Clinton did not choose someone like Lawrence Tribe or Mario Cuomo. Yes, his pick was toward the liberal end of the spectrum…but it was not so close to the far end of that spectrum. I mean, the far right is dancing in the streets over this appointment.
There is no evidence that Harriet Miers was not conservative and yet she was vilified by much of the Right because the rigid purity of her ideology was suspect.
I agree that in a normal, healthy marriage, these things should be discussed. But, not all marriages are such. And, the question is not whether such discussions are good or bad but whether the government is allowed to require them. I.e., does a woman have sole control over her body…Or, can the government essentially require that her husband have some of the control?
Cite, cite, cite, cite, cite and cite.
Please. 
He would have to hold political views that only a small segment of the population holds, or he would adhere to a judicial philosophy that only a small segment of legal scholars endorse. “Small” in this context is hard to quantify, but let’s put it somewhere between 10% and 20%.
:dubious:
Bless those sweet Republicans for always marching lockstep behind Clinton, never questioning his policies or appointments. You can’t be seriously arguing that the Republicans were just being magnanimous in confirming Clinton’s appointments are you? If my memory serves me correctly the Republicans were involved in the nomination process and Ginsburg certainly was not someone they publically deemed unacceptable prior to her nomination. Comparisons between her and Alito are simply not accurate.
Here’s a 24-page doc that covers privacy and workers’ rights. It’s a 24-page PDF, but it’s well organized.
And here’s one about the environment.
I haven’t found one about Alito eating babies, but I’m working on it.
I’ll bet if you asked most Americans, “Is it OK for the cops to strip search you and your family in your home, if they have a warrant to enter your home, even if the warrant doesn’t specifically say they can search your family members?” I bet you’d get numbers WAAAAAAAY below 10 percent. Well, 20 percent if Rush gets the dittoheads backing it.
I’m going to come right out and say it. These aren’t cites I’ll accept.
They’re from advocacy groups inclined to spin every decision from the judge as poorly as possible regardless of context. Was the decision mandated by a decision of a higher court? Is it simply a matter of an interpretation of a law now spun as a political or personal hostility? Also, a true judicial conservative will let even an unwise law stand, if the law doesan’t present a constitutional problem, since removing it intrudes on powers properly held by other branches or the states.
Do these sites take this into account? I don’t see that they do.
Something factual about the judge’s record that we can fairly debate might be nice, especially backed up by a reputable citation. A deluge of leftist smears, though, isn’t a good conversation starter, and frankly doesn’t do your side much good.
Well, that, plus the whole list of smears is based on a common and understandable misconception.
The Left wants judges who rule in accordance with their own personal preferences. They also assume that all judges do that already. The notion of a judge ruling that some law is Constitutional even if the judge thinks it is a wrong-headed law never seems to occur to them.
Ergo, that Alito did not overrule something based on his own whim must mean that his own whim is in favor of whatever it was.
It’s a common mistake. Those are not bound by principle are less likely to believe that anyone else is.
Regards,
Shodan
Before you go riding off on your high horse, you may want to look in on this thread. It turns out that the Supreme Court justices that are voting most often to overrule Congress are not the liberal ones but the conservative ones. Here is the NYTimes op-ed piece with the full scoop:
How much more factual can we get than cites of actual cases Alito decided on? I chose the cites I did because each of them, although from advocates, did in fact list the cases on which they based their conclusions, cited those cases, and explained why they objected. Classifying it as NOT FACTUAL implies you have caught lies about the cases cited in some of those cites … perhaps you’d like to share? I find your dismissal of them as leftist hand-waving to be right-wing handwaving. I can understand your reluctance to deal with the issues raised directly … there are so many of them, and the evidence is so damning …
That’s nice, but since I do not accept the new definition of “judicial activism” as “a propensity to overturn laws”, it is not particularly relevant to my point.
Regards,
Shodan
The simply AMAZING frequency with which deciding cases on the basis of “principle” so often coincides with the judge’s personal politics has led many of us on the left to view such claims with a rather jaundiced eye.
Well, if by “personal politics” you mean a policy of judicial restraint, I wonder why you would be surprised.
OK, I lied - I am not in the least surprised.
Regards,
Shodan
“Dittoheads” aren’t citizens? But let’s not get into that…
For those interested in the facts of the case, and not the spin, here is the actual opinion of that court (warning: PDF). Doe v Goody
I’m not sure which side I agree with, but note that the contraversy involves a largely technical matter of how to evaluate the affidavite attached to the warrant (which did specify other occupants) vs the actual face of the warrant. Precedent noted in the ruling opinion states that there are indeed cases when the affidavite should be considered, but that the two justice majority did not agree that those precedents apply in this particular case.
I would note that it’s clear for his dissenting opinion that Alito does not endorse “strip searching” random citizens, but simply placed a larger emphasis on the supporting documentation to the warrant than did the other justices. That seems like an issue over which reasonable people can disagree.
I’d like to caution posters and readers of this thread to reacting to soundbyte analyses of complex legal issues, especially as the anti-Alito spin machine gets into high gear. We’ve already seen in this thread that Alito “demands” that women notify husbands of their intent to abort a fetus, and how that is a gross mischaractarization of the issue at hand.
I would characterize a great many of these little blurbs as being presented out of context, omitting nearly all of the text of the decision, ignoring completely precedent and other constitutional considerations, and presenting the cases as the judge’s personal views when in fact he felt bound by law and precedent.
Here’s an example. Your first cite claims that “ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES.” Bullshit. Alito does nothing of the sort. He argued that the strip search in question was in fact authorized by the original warrant and the fact that law enforcement officials are given wide latitude in Fourth Amendment cases because of prior Supreme Court cases granting them broad immunity in their jobs.
It should be noted here that this wasn’t an evidentiary question. The cops in question had raided a meth house and searched the occupants, and for their trouble got sued by the nice people who ran the place.
Far from rejoicing in these searches, as some would portray it, Judge Alito clearly is disgusted by them. Yet his disgust clearly is motivated by the criminal types who would place children in a meth house in the first place. Can’t say I blame him.
There’s my cite. It is the decision itself, not some spin by a group of hacks. Perhaps you can find some of these yourself, and we can have a real discusssion with some real and genuine facts.
I can be a little clearer than that. The cops had a warrant to raid the house because they believed drugs were there. They found a woman and her ten-year-old daughter when they raided they place. The warrant said nothing about strip-searching the woman and the ten-year-old duaghter. But the cops did it anyway. Alito said it was fine that they should do so even if they didn’t have a warrant and as your quote indicated, Alito cried a few judicial crocodile tears in the text of his decision, but basically said it was OK. And I’m not the only one who disagreed with Alito … the other two judges on the appeals court did … his was a dissenting vote in a decision that found in favor of the victims of the search. Alito just feels that if cops got a warrant they can do anything. Call that a technicality?
I would like to caution readers that just because a judge tosses in a few phrases about how he’s terribly sorry that a ten-year-old girl got strip-searched in her own home, you can’t assume he’s really all that broken up about it. You have to look at the fact that he favors a decision which would almost inevitably lead to similar events in the future, and weigh that against his mere words.
Bullshit right back atcha. Read my response to John earlier. Alito does support warrantless strip searches. His co-judges did not. Them’s the facts.
There’s my cite. It is the decision itself, not some spin by a group of hacks. Perhaps you can find some of these yourself, and we can have a real discusssion with some real and genuine facts.
[/QUOTE]
You could have gotten the exact same words from the cites I provided, if you’d bothered. But I suppose the same text from Villanova’s server is more real, somehow. For some of us.