Comments on: The High Cost Of Roe vs. Wade

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:41:42 +0000

What did change with Scalia?

Scalia is supposed to be non-activist, respect the will of the people, and respect states rights.

Well he along with fellow “non-activist” Thomas and the new gu Roberts voted that the Federal government’s attorney general could overturn a law passed by popular vote in a state. They find it awfully easy to sell out their convictions when a law does not fit their personal and the religious rights moral views.

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:45:15 +0000

Nope, all drifts have been left not right. Scalia was known to be conservative when he was being confirmed yet he was unanimously confirmed.

By: Mitch Wagner

Mitch Wagner — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:24:07 +0000

Don’t know.

In a general sense: It’s been often commented-on that judges change their views over time when they’re on the Supreme Court. The most frequently-cited example is Souter. Could that have been the case with Scalia?

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:12:44 +0000

Than what changed since Scalia? He did afterall, get confirmed unanimously in a Democrat controlled senate.

By: Mitch Wagner

Mitch Wagner — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:08:33 +0000

Is what, precisely, worth it?

Judge Alito is up for confirmation as one of the 20 or so most powerful people in the government of the most powerful country in the world. And unlike most of the people in the government, he’s on there for life–it takes something truly heinous for him to be recalled.

Under the circumstances, shouldn’t we give this guy a good, thorough grilling to be sure he’s the right man for the job?

What message does it send to future nominees? Well, it sends a message that, if they’re up for Supreme Court, their careers will be thoroughly scrutinized.

And all these years conservatives have been telling us that it’s us liberals who are too touchy-feely, too concerned about feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

As to this whole issue of the Living Constiution–I notice the same people in favor of the Living Constitution are the people who are in favor of restricting sexual and reproductive freedom and overturning quotas–and, by golly, Originalism lets them do just that!

But the two subjects are unrelated. Really. It’s just a coincidence it worked out that way.

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:15:16 +0000

It's very real, there are pictures and it's part of the judicial record, more here.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:51:24 +0000

I am skeptikal about this wife crying story. The only person who claims to witness this is a former Alito clerk who told this to a Conservative PR firm who spread the word throughout the media who is always willing to help feed the eight wing PR machine.

If she did cry who cares, maybe she should have cried 20 years ago when her husband joined an organization that tried to hold minorities and women out of the ivy league. Boo-hoo.

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:59:25 +0000

Hey Zulma,

I am curious, where did I trivilialize the importance of Roe vs. Wade? Remember, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, nothing changes except that the issue goes back to each individual state, it no longer becomes a federal issue where even banning very late term abortions is almost impossible to do.

I consider that a good thing, not a bad thing.

By: zulma aguiar

zulma aguiar — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:15:21 +0000

I think you trivialize the importance of Roe vs. Wade.
I am glad Democrats are finally realizing that they have kissed too much bush butt after 9-11 and hopefully they’re starting to develop a spine enough to defend our democracy against conservatives who want to hinder our progress to a more progressive set of communities that create a superior country.
Repression is agression and subverts democracy.
Zulma