Comments on: Alito: Overturn Roe

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:12:56 +0000

Again, I ask, who says that a Supreme Court justice must be willing to commit him / herself to never making a ruling that in any way mitigates Roe v Wade, in order to be a Justice?

Can you please name another decision where that is the case?

And again, I ask, after 30 plus years, isn’t it time our “Living Constitution” changed?

By: elrod

elrod — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:12:43 +0000

SaveFerris,
By that definition, Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves from any future abortion decision too. After all, they’ve made it perfectly clear that they want to overturn Roe v. Wade in prior decisions. What does it matter if a judge let it be know before he got on the Court that he would do the same in a future case?

By: dano347

dano347 — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:12:54 +0000

“Both you and AP (part of liberally biased Big Media) over simplify. Alito, indicating governmental disagreement with Roe v Wade (states versus feds), did not recommend overturning it.”

You call Oliver and liberals a part of big media - AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF OVERSIMPLIFYING?

THAT’S RICH! So General Electric, Viacom, and DISNEY are liberal institutions? You’d better notify their stockholders, and quick!

“If it hasn t been deep, it should prove very easy for YOU, rather than me too sniping from the sidelines, to show me where I m wrong on my post.

Just been there and done that, buddy [see above].

“Have at it buddy, but slip up and you risk intellectual embarrassment for having been shown up by one not so deep.”

To read this, coming from the likes of you - to me, its like he was just asked to be president of Mensa.

Happy Holidays.

By: dugger1

dugger1 — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:12:00 +0000

pionar,

I understand and merry x word to ya.

Dugger

By: pionar

pionar — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:12:35 +0000

Dugger, I will give you that you did not say that directly. However, you did say, “Alito, indicating governmental disagreement with Roe v Wade (states versus feds), did not recommend overturning it.”

And at the time, what was the policies in power? Reaganisms. Therefore, I used fundamental math (A = B, B = C, therefore A = C) to surmise that the Reaganites were who you were referring to. I apologize for not being more clear.

And sorry about the nastiness, I don’t like working this close to Christmas.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:12:59 +0000

Merry Xmas, Dugger

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:12:59 +0000

Why won t Alito just come out and say that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he obviously does, and let the chips fall where they may?

Because you know that if an abortion case were to come before the court, the Libs would holler day and night calling for Alito (or anyone else who “pre-judged” the case during confirmation) to recuse themselves.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:12:50 +0000

All the more reason for him to be on the court.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:12:04 +0000

pionar,

You are not usually so personally nasty. As its the Christmas season, I will not retaliate in kind (as usual), but merely point out where you are wrong. I said nothing about “Reaganites” either way, now did I? So that is your own straw man you are pummeling. And I merely cited AP’s version of Alito’s quote, which clearly indicated no firm decision as to the advisibiliy of overturning RvW (hence, the word “whether”).

Ron,

If it hasn’t been deep, it should prove very easy for YOU, rather than “me too” sniping from the sidelines, to show me where I’m wrong on my post. Have at it buddy, but slip up and you risk intellectual embarrassment for having been shown up by one not so deep.

Dugger, (what a very deep man this deep young man must be) Merry Christmas To All OW Posters

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:12:37 +0000

Both you and AP (part of liberally biased Big Media) over simplify. Alito, indicating governmental disagreement with Roe v Wade (states versus feds), did not recommend overturning it.

(We) “should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled.”

See the difference?

Dugger, MERRY CHRISTMAS (bwhahahahahahaha)

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:12:16 +0000

Check the date: this is old news

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:12:13 +0000

If Roe should be overturned, the red states will merely be exporting
their abortion statistics to others. It won’t decrease the number of
abortions, but it will increase the dead moms who choose the coat-hanger.
But then, this really isn’t about saving fetuses, is it?

By: elrod

elrod — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:12:10 +0000

The Alito-defenders are just as intellectually dishonest as the Dover school board. They crow in one camp about how they want to overturn RvW and then when asked about it they deny deny deny. Whatever happened to conservatives longing for the great public confrontation over the role of the judiciary? That’s the part that bothers me more than anything else. Ever since Bork, conservatives have tried to hide their real legal philosophy. If they really believe in overturning Roe, why not come out and say it? Are they afraid they’ll lose in the court of public opinion so they have to resort to deceit? Why won’t Alito just come out and say that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he obviously does, and let the chips fall where they may? I have more of a problem with judicial nominees who lie about their judicial philosophies (or “lack” thereof) than with those who hold judicial philosophies different than mine.

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:12:05 +0000

pionar, when you say Duggar is being “intellectually dishonest,” just be clear that such “intellect” that he has displayed in lo these many responses hasn’t really been very deep at all.

By: pionar

pionar — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:12:01 +0000

SaveFarris, this refers to a different memo than what you linked to.

Dugger, you’re just batshit crazy (or intellectually dishonest) if you think Reaganites didn’t want RvW overturned. Then again, I already knew you were.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:12:59 +0000

Understanding that I am pro-choice, I have still heard many arguments against RvW. Essentially the court found a right to privacy which is what the decision is based on. However, many constitutional scholars disagree that the right exists, and thereby this should be a state decision, up to the electorate.

I don’t believe it will ever be overturned, but as a legal doctrine, there are good arguments that it was based on a faulty reading of the constitution