Because they sold the law as something other than, “Force battered women to go to their abusive husbands with news of an abortion and get the shit beaten out of them Bill 101.”
Duh.
It’s in the Washington Post, too. We’ll see if the “computer error” defense holds…
Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse
Maybe because the law does nothing of the sort.
FIGHTING ignorance, EC, not SPREADING it.
I do plan to keep my day job, but I think the problem is that most people, in interpreting such a question, assume it is about people like them, which in most cases is a non-abusive thing. So they think OF COURSE a wife should have to notify her husband in case of an abortion. But in the vast majority of cases, a wife will notify her husband of an abortion prior to having one, in fact, they will probably talk it out pretty thoroughly. Whereas the people who would REALLY be affected by this law are the ones whose relationship has gone sour. A goodly percentage of these people will be in abusive relationships. So the law basically is, “Make abused women get the shit beaten out of them by their abusive husbands if they want an abortion Bill 101.” Or else they have to bear (a)nother child by Mr. Abusive. Lovely example of jurisprudence there. Really.
If the law were presented as it really is, and as Mr. Alito is CLEARLY content with its being, because he DID do a bit of judicial crocodile crying, saying, “Women with abusive spouses who must give notification under this law is a matter of grave concern.”
I notice he wasn’t so concerned that he was willing to deep-six it, though. I noticed that real good.
Should read: If the law were presented as it really is (and as Mr. Alito is CLEARLY content with its being, because he DID do a bit of judicial crocodile crying, saying, "Women with abusive spouses who must give notification under this law is a matter of grave concern) the general public’s approval of the law would probably be in the single digit range.
First of all, you know damn well that the law allowed for a woman to be exempt under the conditions you describe. Please stop spreading ignorance.
Secondly, a justice cannot strike down a law because he hypothesizes that it will result in women being battered by their husbands. You do realize that, don’t you? (I supposed that, technically, he could do so, but there is no legal precedent for doing such a thing.)
I know you want to give justiced the ability to rule according to their whims, but keep in mind that their whims will often not agree with yours.
If it pans out, it’s enough for me to say “Take a hike, Sammy”. Howzabout you?
I’ll wait for the details, but I have no problem if Alito gets bumped. There are plenty just like him waiting in the wings. *Chiao *Alito just means *Wilkommen *Lutig.
elucidator: It looks like Vanguard was just one of many financial institutions affected, and it could be that it was some subsidiary of Vanguard or something like that. I think if he flagged it himself, as the WH claims, even if it wasn’t until after that woman complained, then he’s probably OK.
It’s not like he smoked marijuana or once hired an illegal alien nanny or something really despicable like that. 
How, if at all, do the documents released today affect this question?
From the AP:
Meh.
The constitution DOESN’T contain a right to an abortion-- the SCOTUS read that right into it. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t support the precedent.
As for th other things… are any of them surprises? The guy is a political conservative. Shall we stop the presses?
I’m not arguing that it does contain that right. This gives some insight into not only Alito’s legal philosophy, but his personal views on the subjects. I think that has the potential to be significant. I’m sure people will make something out of his (understandable) refusal to commit to the precedent, and now his statement that he personally believes it is wrong. That’s as close to a response to the “would you vote to overturn it?” question as we’re going to see. So, as I said, I’m wondering how this will affect the decisions of the Democrats (and even the pro-choice Republicans).
I seem to recall a to-do regarding Roberts and the Federalist Society. I thought that was interesting.
No, it doesn’t specify any such right. Which is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist. Unless, of course, you can point out the passage that states that any right not enumerated in the Constitution may be presumed not to exist.
If the Great State of Minnesota should decide, in its wisdom, that my gall bladder is the seat of Godhead, and that its removal is blasphemous, hence forbidden…surely I can expect you to defend my right to decide to remove said gall bladder? It is the most fundamental form of property, is it not? My very self.
But wait! The Constitution says nothing whatever about my having a right to a gall bladder extraction! Is my case somehow thereby nullified? I think not.
And, of course, nowhere in the Constitution is there any statement that the rights of a citizen begin at the moment of conception. You could look it up.
True enough, but somebody is zooming somebody, here, no? We have good reason to expect that the Bushiviks are seeking to pander to their extemist base: they have promised an overturn of RvW, and if they don’t or won’t or can’t deliver…well, that will certainly set the cat amongst the pidgeons. The Republican grip on power depends on the abortion extremists, if they lose but 5% of the electorate, nation wide, they’re toast. And they know it.
So we have this game of nods and winks to blind horses: wink and nod to the “pro-life” forces, try to sneak somebody on to the SCOTUS who will do their bidding without ever explicitly stating that such is their purpose. Pander to the right without infuriating the center and left.
Do I distrust these people? You betcha. Would they be willing to pull a fast one to get their way? Without question.
Legal minds, as I’m sure you know, are enthralled with complexity. Would it be so hard, really hard, to find a position that would “respect the precedent” and yet discover a means to overturn RvW?
Alito wrote a judicial opinion that said regulating the ownership of machine guns was beyond the power of the federal government. Pretty outside the mainstream to me.
The relevant point here is that there are several schools on thought on that topic, none of which can claim an exclusive lock on the truth. Roe, in particular, has been viewed as tenuously decided by plenty of well respected legal minds across the political spectrum.
Well, that’s exactly the problem with decisions like Roe. When you are willing to stray far afield from the text of the constitution, you COULD find that rights begin at conception (or at the initiaition of brain waves, or the frist hear beat, or…).
Are you suggesting that that 5% would begin to vote Democratic? They might try to form a different party, but that’s a very, very slim possiblity. The Pubs have that crowd as securely enthralled as the Dems have the African-American voters.
No justice should ever say that he or she would uphold precedent under any and all circumstances. So, of course Bush’s nominees are going to be more open to overturning some precedents than would, say, Kerry’s. But that doesn’ mean that he WILL overturn it, assuming of course that he even has that opportunity (and it’s quite likely that he never would).
Does a memo written 20 years ago mean that he MIGHT overturn Roe? Yes. Does it mean that he WOULD? No.
The Republicans (mostly Bush) are getting weaker by the day, and maybe the Dems will decide to roll the dice and go for the fillibuster. But it is a big crap shoot, and might very well backfire. So, I guess you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya …?
At least Alito has the memory and/or honesty that Roberts is lacking.
Actually, from my understanding the main question in Roe was whether the State had an interest in protecting the fetus not whether there is a right to privacy. I think its pretty well agreed upon that the State doesn’t have the power to ban a medical proceedure for no particular reason. The disagreement comes into play when one considers whether protecting the fetus counts as a particular reason.