Jump to content

the official "Scalito" thread


angelofdeath

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Guest KING BLING

The following article, with little bias explains where he got his nickname - a tendancy to be an "activist judge" despite precedent and a willingness to plow ahead through conflict of interest...note the last paragraph shows he recused himself only after he upheld the ruling and not before...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102700813.html

 

 

 

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed "Scalito," or "little Scalia," by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country.

 

Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 1990. He had worked for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration and served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

 

In 1991, he was the lone dissenter in a 3rd Circuit decision striking down a Pennsylvania law's requirement that women tell their husbands before having an abortion. Alito also wrote a 1997 ruling that Jersey City officials did not violate the Constitution with a holiday display that included a creche, a menorah and secular symbols of the Christmas season.

 

Three years ago Alito drew conflict-of-interest accusations after he upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the Vanguard Group. Alito had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with the mutual fund company at the time. He denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

 

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.� [bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

 

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.� [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

 

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.� The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard� and “ignores our precedent.� In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.� [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to mention that it is yet ANOTHER white guy

making decisions for a country full of a very diverse group of people

 

my father was right

 

white men are going to cling and claw onto every last bit of power they have left

even if it means destoying everyone else in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KING BLING+Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

[/b]

 

I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

 

I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

 

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.� [bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

 

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard� and “ignores our precedent.� In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.� [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]"

 

the other 2 seem fucked up, however the source is probably michael moronized.

 

abortion is like this:

if roe is overturned, it doesnt guarantee nationwide abortion ban. it sends the issue back to the states. there is no constitutional authority, to regulate a social issue. the half assed argument of privacy can easily be argued in the same manner for the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to all people, since the fetus is living, it should be guaranteed life.

why is roe a bad decision? because it usurps the 10th amendment and takes away the power of hte states to decide the issue. if it is a privacy issue, why dont i have the right to kill my kid any time until age of 18? its my privacy right? but yet if if a guy breaks into my house, rapes my wife, slices up my daughter and hangs my dog, and i shoot the guy with his back to me and he is fleeing, i go to jail. hypocrisy anyone?

 

racial preferences:

what is a free country if they cant decide who they want to hire? the civil rights act equalized everyone. the acts following created affirmative action, quoatas, and set asides to certain people. how is this right? how about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR NONE. what is fair about the centralized federal judicial dictatorship forcing people to hire a certain number of a certain kind of people with no reguard to qualifications, or education?

 

immigration:

 

there is no such thing as "settled law" in terms of courts. decisions are constantly being overturned and reversed. what has the liberal establishment been doing since FDR? overturning and reversing previous rulings and laws.

illegal immigration is a national issue, not a state issue, as set out by the constitution. the states should assist and work with the feds. all illegals should be rounded up and sent home, amnesty should be trashed and our borders secured.

 

 

the funny thing is, constitutional constructionists like Scalia, and Thomas are immediately labeled racist, because they believe in the constitution. you guys think the federal government is the answer to everything and all that is needed is more.

 

when our government was first created there were 3 federal crimes. treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. look at us now.

centralization is the easiest way to promote tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by Krakatau+Nov 1 2005, 02:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Krakatau - Nov 1 2005, 02:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by KING BLING@Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE:  Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

 

I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

 

I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?

[/b]

 

 

I write most of my stuff here from work so sometimes as I write inbetween work my ideas get jumbled. By appearance the family was searched under the guise that in some way the accused relationship to them makes them assesories - IE: if the father is guilty, his family should be subjected to the same scrutiny. That was my impression and I offered the other possible scenarios to reflect how the family was guilty by association not neccesarily because they were suspected of anything.

 

did that clarify?

 

I like that this guy doesn't agree the FMLA - because families with kids in the hospital or in otherwise life threatening situations should also worry about losing a job...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KING BLING+Nov 1 2005, 05:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Nov 1 2005, 05:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by Krakatau@Nov 1 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by KING BLING@Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

 

I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

 

I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?

 

 

I write most of my stuff here from work so sometimes as I write inbetween work my ideas get jumbled. By appearance the family was searched under the guise that in some way the accused relationship to them makes them assesories - IE: if the father is guilty, his family should be subjected to the same scrutiny. That was my impression and I offered the other possible scenarios to reflect how the family was guilty by association not neccesarily because they were suspected of anything.

 

did that clarify?

 

I like that this guy doesn't agree the FMLA - because families with kids in the hospital or in otherwise life threatening situations should also worry about losing a job...

[/b]

Yes it did, thanks. When I saw that case I assumed it to be more of a 'if you are with him, you could conceal something for him (regardless of relationship)'. Throwing out that he supports cops in strip searching a ten year old girl without the consent of her mother (I am assuming) is a good tactic though. Hmm. I hadn't really considered that angle. Now I don't like him even more.

 

 

What's wrong with not supporting the FMLA? I used to work with a guy that used to get days off all the time with that.... shit used to piss me off so damn much. Asshole's six year old gets a terminal case of leukimia and all of a sudden it's 'four days off this week' Jones... What a dick.

 

Really though, that is a fucked up stance to have, and I'd love to hear his reasoning behind it. Couple of logical loophoops he must be jumping through to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

 

Compaines can require proof from doctors of a condition at any time...

 

I used to be a supervisor and would see some people really need this stuff, and some who would abuse it. At the end of the day, those people who would abuse it were on my "you will be shatted upon as soon as your child/spouse gets into better shape" list.

 

Keep in mind, FMLA does not mean the person using it gets paid for that time - so if that person is not using sick days, he isn't getting paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i see your point angel

 

but i think that these judges have an agenda

shit won't be put to the states, until the federal law changes and it becomes a question of states defying the law (such as in medicinal marijuana, where clearly, states are making their own decisions on legality, and the feds are not respectiing those decisions)

 

a privacy issue is what goes on inside a woman's own body

once the kid is no longer inside of her body, you can't really argue about it being private

in addition to the fact that people deal with all kinds of extenuating issues relating to pregnancy

 

did you know that, THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG PREGNANT WOMEN IS MURDER

 

meaning sometimes, these women have a lot of shit to think about when they decide about the future of their baby, and THEIR BODY

 

**since when did i say that the federal government is the answer?

i wish theyu would spend LESS TIME, LESS MONEY

worrying about what people do in their bedrooms and what decisions people make about pregnancy

the federal government is attempting to start micromanaging people's lives (especially when you factor in all the patriot act rules)

 

we need a federal government to regulate CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

not personal morality

we could use a federal government answer to health care, in my opinion

but i don't see the feds as a very good answer to very many problems (see new orleans)

i hate their fucking foreign policy and every damn pork project they support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by symbols@Nov 3 2005, 01:20 PM

i see your point angel

 

but i think that these judges have an agenda

shit won't be put to the states, until the federal law changes and it becomes a question of states defying the law (such as in medicinal marijuana, where clearly, states are making their own decisions on legality, and the feds are not respectiing those decisions)

 

a privacy issue is what goes on inside a woman's own body

once the kid is no longer inside of her body, you can't really argue about it being private

in addition to the fact that people deal with all kinds of extenuating issues relating to pregnancy

 

did you know that, THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG PREGNANT WOMEN IS MURDER

 

meaning sometimes, these women have a lot of shit to think about when they decide about the future of their baby, and THEIR BODY

 

**since when did i say that the federal government is the answer?

i wish theyu would spend LESS TIME, LESS MONEY

worrying about what people do in their bedrooms and what decisions people make about pregnancy

the federal government is attempting to start micromanaging people's lives (especially when you factor in all the patriot act rules)

 

we need a federal government to regulate CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

not personal morality

we could use a federal government answer to health care, in my opinion

but i don't see the feds as a very good answer to very many problems (see new orleans)

i hate their fucking foreign policy and every damn pork project they support

^^^^icon20.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think we are coming at common ground, symbols, but from different angles.

i think we both want the feds off of our backs. the thing is when someone advocates a return to our original consitutional liberty, you immediately get slandered. our federal government was created to protect our "God given" rights. the constitution recognized these rights proceeded to LIMIT government, not grant it power. the constitution allows it to do very limited things.

 

i agree with you 100% that the feds shouldnt be regulating morality. however i believe morality can be regulated by individual sovereign states, as did our founders. i believe in the defense of marriage act in theory, but not an amendment. it usurps the powers of the individual states. if roe was overturned, all it does it leaves it to the states to decide the matter. this is the way our country was set up and the way it should be. this is why i believe our country to be superior to every other country in history. the system of federalism, if properly used as it was for over a century, is a wonderful thing. decentralized power.

 

this is where i think we differ. in addition to the government stopping regulation on social issues, it should also stop regulating EVERY OTHER THING NOT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

as you pointed out with katrina, a good working federal government, doing above and beyond its duty, is essentially an oxymoron. private donations, private aid, voluntary aid from surrounding states/the rest of the country, would of handled the problem 100 times better than fema with their credit cards with 250,000$ limits.

 

but back to judges. i do not know if alito has an agenda. i dont believe he is out to ban abortion nationwide, as the christian science monitor is already going against him for 3 "pro" abortion votes. 2 more scalia's is what we need!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

Lest We Forget....

 

A little quote <as discussed> I read today that summed up our current nominee:

 

 

Alito promised senators in 1990 -- when he was nominated to the 3rd Circuit Court seat -- that he would "disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies." But he participated in that 2002 case where a three-judge panel on which he served dismissed an appeal of a lower court ruling favorable to the Vanguard Group.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/alito.ap/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

This is the idea:

If a girl has herpes she is not required to tell you - even if she should. From a personal responcibility standpoint its a matter of whom you as a man choose to sleep with and the protections you take. From a legal principle standpoint - your body is your body, you are protected from forcfully doing anything to it (within reason) including seeking permission as an adult to have procedures, such as abortion, performed...

 

The law should not compel individuals to seek permission from another in regards to there body. If you choose to visit a sick person you take the risk of catching it regardless of if you give permission. Moral: Be careful what you do so if a mistake happens, the person involved shares the idea that its a choice that will effect both of your lives...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/alito/index.html

 

 

 

Alito denied that Constitution protected abortion

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a two-decades old document, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito voiced his support of the Reagan administration's fight to show "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

 

Alito's 1985 letter, which was part of a newly released set of documents from his federal government service, was an application to be deputy assistant attorney general. He was already working in the department's solicitor general's office, where he helped prepare cases to be argued in court on behalf of the government.

 

In the memo, he writes, "I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration."

 

Later he writes about his accomplishments, "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion."

 

He notes that as a federal employee, "I have been unable to take a role in partisan politics. However, I am a lifelong registered Republican."

 

Liberal groups were quick to criticize Alito's memo. "Combined with his judicial record, Judge Alito's letter underscores our concern that he would vote to turn back the clock on decades of judicial precedent protecting privacy, equal opportunity, religious freedom, and so much more," said Ralph Neas, president of People For the American Way. "And it is further evidence that if Samuel Alito is confirmed to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, he will shift the Supreme Court dramatically to the right for decades to come."

 

The documents are among dozens of pages released Monday by the Reagan and Bush presidential libraries. Alito did get the job he applied for, and went on to serve as U.S. attorney in New Jersey from 1987 to 1990. He then became a federal appeals court judge, his current job.

 

He was nominated last month to take O'Connor's seat. Abortion is certain to become a key issue in confirmation hearings.

 

As a judge, he dissented in 1991 as his appeals court threw out a Pennsylvania provision requiring a married woman seeking an abortion to notify her husband. The Supreme Court later upheld that ruling.

 

Alito has told senators in private meetings in recent days he has "great respect" for precedent, including the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. But he would not say whether he would continue to uphold that ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, there are a lot of rights we take for granted that are not "in the constitution." Originalists/textualists are dumb. Let me explain why.

Originalists are dumb on three points: 1) There is no "original intent" of the constitution the federalists and anti-federalists were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues which means that the constitution is a compromise. 2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine. 3) If Originalism is true, the framers thought that blacks were 2/3 of a person, therefore Brown v. Bd. of Educ. should be overturned immediately.

 

Textualism is dumb simply because there is no way to read a document and for it to have anything but the most superficial meaning without understanding the context and interpreting the words.

 

I'm a moderate, but I understand that idealogues on both sides are dumb.

 

Finally, abortion is a pretty dumb application of federalism for a lot of reasons that I won't get into here. But as a matter of practicality even if Roe is overturned most of the blue states have abortion in the state constitutions.

 

Milton - Delusion of Juristic Grandeur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

I agree with your first point, but not what you added as opinion. Either way, well said.

 

If things were as some of the members here would have them most of the red states would be with little to offer its citizens. You would have the concentration of science, ideas and progress in states like New York and California, and stuggling farmers without subsidies or transport routes in barely populated states. I mean, the current farm industry in america would have no financial support encouraging an artificial market, the south no emergency aid when hurricanes and tornadoes come through, and nothing to offer that would compete with third world imports. So fuck it - let it be so. Food, textiles, industrial production and other primary red state resources are in such abundance if demand is there that beef might become a rare treat but otherwise the world would continue spinning. I'll add to this if it inspires responce, otherwise, I think I'm a blue state constitutionalist - bring us your poor and willing to work and we will give them one of our many Ivy League scholarships - you can give them applications to BYU and Oklahoma State so that when they graduate they can manage the farm workers and dirt roads...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ummm, there are a lot of rights we take for granted that are not "in the constitution." Originalists/textualists are dumb. Let me explain why.

Originalists are dumb on three points: 1) There is no "original intent" of the constitution the federalists and anti-federalists were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues which means that the constitution is a compromise. 2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine. 3) If Originalism is true, the framers thought that blacks were 2/3 of a person, therefore Brown v. Bd. of Educ. should be overturned immediately.

 

Textualism is dumb simply because there is no way to read a document and for it to have anything but the most superficial meaning without understanding the context and interpreting the words."

 

 

first point:

 

"1) There is no "original intent" of the constitution the federalists and anti-federalists were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues which means that the constitution is a compromise"

 

your point drives my point home, very good. the constitution was written basically as to establish a free trade zone among the states, as most states imposed tariffs on commerce between states under the articles. it was written to please the anti federalists who didnt want a concentration of power. there wouldnt of been a constitution ratified if it wasnt for the bill of rights. the "original intent" is what the constitution says, not what someone wants it to say. there was debate over stuff in the constitution before it was ratified, once ratified it was the supreme law of the land.

 

2nd point:

 

"2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine."

 

this point is bogus. the consitution says, what it says. it can be amended however. lets look what madison said in the federalist papers...

 

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

 

third point:

 

" 3) If Originalism is true, the framers thought that blacks were 2/3 of a person, therefore Brown v. Bd. of Educ. should be overturned immediately."

 

most originalists believe that the feds do not have power to regulate this issue. they believe it is the job of the soveriegn states. the constitution was amended to make blacks equal. this made it a federal issue. blacks are equal and things like affirmative action are not consitutional. Walter Williams a black conservative (an originalist, if you will) makes a great point that more tyranny than any jim crow law will come to this land at the hand of a strong central government. he believes the states should retain reclaim there sovereign powers through the non existent 9th and 10th amendments.

he also says some other things like...

 

and about students...

"Black politicians and civil rights organizations' loyalty to the education establishment means academic doom to black youngsters. Washington, D.C,. politics and its schools, among the worse in the nation, are a case in point. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, use private schools to educate their children. But, when D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams broke ranks with most black elected-officials and endorsed recently proposed education vouchers, Norton blasted him as being "a sell-out.Whom do you think Frederick Douglass would deem the sell-out: those who seek an alternative to rotten schools that cost taxpayers $13,000 a year per student or those who support the status quo?"

 

or...

 

"I don't blame only politicians. For the most part, they're only the instruments of a people who have growing contempt for our Constitution. You say, "Hold it, Williams. Now you've gone too far!" Check it out. How many votes do you think a James Madison-type senatorial candidate would get if his campaign theme was something like this: "Elect me to office. I will protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Because there's no constitutional authority for Congress spending on the objects of benevolence, don't expect for me to vote for prescription drugs for the elderly, handouts to farmers and food stamps for the poor. Instead, I'll fight these and other unconstitutional congressional expenditures"? I'll tell you how many votes he'll get: It will be Williams' vote, and that's it."

 

but its quite clear this man is racist, like the consitution.

 

Joseph Sobran, an orginalist sums things up pretty good. (see below) our founders, originalists themselves, favored a small limited government, with VERY FEW POWERS. this was normal, everyday thought. for shits sake we just got done fighting a revolution over an assfuck wanting to tax us without the colonies having representation in parliament. this was common classical liberal thought at the time. look at us now....

 

"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestne...dex.php?id=4978

 

 

Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito

 

WASHINGTON - Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, citing its lawyers' contention that the spot is factually incorrect.

 

A spokesman for the groups sponsoring the ad said the network's decision reflects the political right's effort to shield President Bush's choice for the high court.

 

The ad says that as an appellate court judge, Alito has "ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate ... even voted to approve strip search of a 10-year-old girl." Referring to a document Alito wrote in 1985 while seeking a job in the Reagan administration, it quotes him as saying that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

 

The groups backing the ad include the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil rights, People for The American Way and abortion rights organizations.

 

In a 2004 decision, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the case of four police officers who faced a lawsuit after the search of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter in the course of executing a search warrant for narcotics.

 

The court said "searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." The court pointed out that "a search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside."

 

Alito dissented in the case, saying the best reading of the warrant is that it authorized the search of anyone found on the premises. He added that even if the warrant didn't explicitly give that authorization, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so."

 

Paul Shur, a spokesman for Fox, said that according to the network's lawyers, the ad is "factually incorrect and we've given them an opportunity to fix it."

 

Said Jim Jordan, a spokesman for the groups: "The entire right wing establishment, from Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell to Fox News, has circled the wagons around Sam Alito."

 

Asked about changing the ad in response to Fox's request, Jordan said, "Roger Ailes doesn't get to edit our ads." Ailes is chairman of Fox News.

 

Officials said the ad would run on cable television news programs nationally as well as in Maine and Rhode Island, two states that have three moderate Republican senators.

 

They declined to say how much would be spent, but officials at rival organizations placed the expenditure at less than $65,000, an amount unlikely to make a significant impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing. If what they say is true we are going to get another Scalia on the court. The question becomes, what does this mean for the constitutional law doctrine?

 

1) first and foremost, don't shit yourselves just yet. It takes a long ass time for the court to overturn a prior decision. They have this thing way up there which is called stare decisis it has the effect of making prior decisions binding on newer decision unless the court finds a compelling reason to overturn a case.

 

2) But, what the court can do is create tiny exceptions in its old doctrine in order to basically subsume the old one. Then scalia will come out with an opinion that says "the exemptions have swallowed teh rule lets create a new rule without all the exceptions."

 

3) O'Connor was the swing vote on a lot of issues both in abortion context as well as the free speech context. Prior to the current term there were four liberals (Ginsberg, Breyer Stevens and Souter) two swing votes (O'Connor and Kennedy) and three conservatives (Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist) this created pretty interesting outcomes because the case would go depending on how the swing votes decided. Argumetns would be made to target O'Connor and Kennedy in order to get a decision. But now, nobody knows what teh fuck is going on. O'Connors replacement with ScAlito measn that a swing vote has turned into conservative outpost. However, Roberts depending on what he does could turn Rehnquists position into a swing vote. (depending on how the cases come down currently.) This would basically even out the court but given his appointment by Bush it seems likely that it will be skewed a little to the right.

 

In sum, go out and burn your flag while you still have the chance. It might be illegal in the morning...

 

MILTON (The only good constitutionalist is buried in Arlington.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...