« Terrorist front-group CAIR | Main | The Cotillion -- a gathering of women »
January 31, 2006
Samuel Alito confirmed
Just as the Hamas election brought clarity over the motivations and politics of "Palestinians", so does the vote on the confirmation to SCOTUS of Samuel Alito, a man who qualifications for the office were unimpeachable, lay bare the motivations and politics of the hysterics who opposed him.
From the unconscionable tirade of Uncle Teddy to the fecklessness of Babs Boxer, they clearly demonstrate that it is not Alito who is "out of the mainstream" but themselves. Not once in the hearings could they actually charge him with anything "extremist." Not once could they demonstrate that Alito had ever put ideology before Rule of Law and the Constitution. All they could do was rely on slanderous rhetoric, misstating and engaging in wholesale deception about a handful of Alito's decisions over the course of 15 years.
Even the attempt of making a boogeyman out of college alumni group that Alito had a casual association with went no where.
For some, they see a "dark day" -- not because Alito is a sinister figure who hates children and kicks puppies -- they see their dreams of using SCOTUS as a kind of "Super Legislature" to imperialisticly impose their own agenda on their fellow citizens (for their own good, of course!) will be much harder. They do not wish to actually have to go to their fellow citizens and persuade them to their views.
Nice to see the true out-of-the-mainstream actually having to understand what the US Constitution and American values are really about.
Posted by Darleen at January 31, 2006 12:44 PM
Comments
So, do you think Roe v Wade will now be overturned? Would you support that if it happened? how about contraception rights? Just curious.
Posted by: jabsy at January 31, 2006 02:08 PM
The problem with your idea of "taking it to their fellow citizens and persuade them to their views." Is that this no longer a country of thinking people. You give the people in the red states too much credit. Should we have waited for Mississippi and that lot to be convinced that civil rights and were good and Jim Crow laws were bad? Brown vs Board of Education - should have been decided on a state level?
Should access to abortion, Plan B, and birth control be left to states? If I happen to live in New York or Califonia I am lucky, but what about Texas? Do you really believe those issues should be left to luck? And don't tell me that I can just move to another state because that's a ridiculous argument.
I am sad. I do feel these are dark days. And long, long, long after Bush is gone we will be feeling the impact.
Posted by: Mieke at January 31, 2006 02:24 PM
You know what, Darleen? I just realized something:
You're not at war with "Islamism" as much as you are at war with the Left. You actually hate the Left more than you hate those who actually murder people. It is this hatred which blinds you to arguments over legitimate Constitutional debates over topics such as surveillance, debates which are not simply Right vs. Left (not when people like are siding with liberals on this). It is this hatred which blinds you to legitimate debate over judges who are appointed for life and who were members of organizations which espoused bigotry.
You know, Alito helped create the radical argument that the president can override Congress and dominate the courts by issuing a "signing statement" to "get in the last word" about what a new law means. You know what that is, Darleen: that's extremist.
But you clearly are uninterested in debating these issues. Your blog isn't about issues at all-- it's about your hatred for liberals and the Left (and don't give me that nonsense about how the two are separate, like "palestinians" are really Jews).
So go ahead and delete my comments or take me to task for my emotional rage-- as if you harbor none. We on the Left know the truth. We know you hate us, and you hate us a lot more than we hate you.
We pity you.
Posted by: Brad at January 31, 2006 03:11 PM
Bravo Brad Bravo
Of course I won't delete your comments. I want it up there for all to see. Such obvious delusional thinking by such as you needs the fresh air of exposure.
Why is the Left so enamored of Islamism, even as they have to know Islamists would consume them without a second thought? Because the collectivist, and frankly anti-Liberty, ethos of the Left finds common cause with Islamism's raging hatred of Western Civilization. The Left finds something strangely familiar with another collectivist dogma that invests a select elite with All Knowing All Truth and how best to control others for their own good.
Collectivism has always failed. It only lasts in ratio with how much liberty it rations to its populace (such as how much capitalism it allows). Collectivists like to talk of "freedom" but they are scared of Liberty. Because Liberty also demands serious responsibility.
Liberals HAVE been co-opted to the most part by Leftists. Certainly the liberalism of JFK (Kennedy, not the spineless Kerry) eschewed Leftism. "A rising tide lifts all boats" is a JFK quote that few, if any, Leftists would do more than piss on.
And I don't know what it is about Jews that makes you apoplectic, Brad, but I stated historical fact. "Palestinian" was the Roman name given the region in 70 AD and to the people there at the time. And those people were JEWS. Romans couldn't wipe them out, even when officially renaming them and razing The Temple. What makes you think YOUR repeating of revisionist history will?
Posted by: Darleen at January 31, 2006 07:44 PM
Mieke
I have a lot of respect for you as well as really liking you. I'm hoping that you don't really mean the elitist cant you wrote. Remember, it was not EVER "judges" that created the liberty of the Civil Rights era. It was PEOPLE. Like Dr. King and the people who marched with him. It was the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government that brought about civil rights, NOT the judiciary.
We have had 33 years of nasty intercine societal warfare over abortion BECAUSE of Roe v Wade. If it had been left to the states, that would have been avoided. The extreme pro-abortion faction has held legalistic sway for much of that time - from NARAL to NOW in blocking adoption advocacy, parental notification, and the banning of partial birth abortion. And while the extreme anti-abortion crowd would like to see abortion banned, it won't happen. Because the MAJORITY of those "unthinking" Americans realize that some abortion must always remain legal, but reasonable restrictions should also be in place. They understand the "nuance" that the extremists at either end do not.
I've seen what can only be described as good, decent, thoughtful (and more than qualified jurists) men (Roberts and Alito) savaged for having the audicity to not worship at the feet of the radical Left. The "Party of Tolerance" gave us the spectacle last night of Uncle Teddy, a male of low character, low morals and the soul of a street thug, getting red in the face with a rant of pure fantasy, slandering without compunction a man of humble background, true achievement and genuinely respected by all who have ever worked with him. It produces the type of people, like Mike Farrell, who can media whore outside of San Quinten about the wonderful Tookie Williams yet never even know the names of the people Tookie murdered and attack anyone that even mentions the victims.
The Midrash is right, "He who is merciful tothe cruel, will in the end be cruel to the merciful."
Posted by: Darleen at January 31, 2006 08:13 PM
You're are only partially right that it took the actions of some brave people and acts of Congress and various presidents (Bush the first had be dragged kicking and screaming)- but many more times it was the Supreme Court who was leading the way with important rulings.
Just a sampling, but the list is endless:
1938: In Missouri ex el Gaines v. Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri could not satisfy its obligation to provide equal protection by sending an African American resident to an out-of-state law school and that Lionel Gaines must thus be admitted to the all-white University of Missouri School of Law. This case was the beginning of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's effort to chip away at the separate-but-equal doctrine.
1950: In theSweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents cases, the Court struck down segregation of African American students in law and graduate schools. The Justice Department, in its brief to the Court, said it believed Plessy was unconstitutional and should be overturned. NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, began to devise a strategy that would force the Court to re-examine the constitutionality of the separate-but-equal doctrine.
1956: The Supreme Court, without comment, affirmed a lower court ruling declaring segregation of the Montgomery bus system illegal, giving a major victory to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the thousands of anonymous African Americans who had sustained the bus boycott in the face of violence and intimidation.
June 12 1967
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time are forced to revise their laws.
1968: In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., the Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bans racial discrimination in housing by private, as well as governmental, housing providers.
April 20 1971
The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds busing as a legitimate means for achieving integration of public schools. Although largely unwelcome (and sometimes violently opposed) in local school districts, court-ordered busing plans in cities such as Charlotte, Boston, and Denver continue until the late 1990s.
1971: In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits not only intentional job discrimination, but also employer practices that have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women. The Court held that tests and other employment practices that disproportionately screened out African American applicants for jobs at the Duke Power Company were prohibited when the tests were not shown to be job-related.
Posted by: Mieke at January 31, 2006 09:03 PM
And just where did the "separate-but-equal" doctrine originate?
Posted by: Darleen at January 31, 2006 09:08 PM
On the abortion issue, you and I mostly agree that prevention and education are the way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and then abortions, but you are nuts if you don't think legislators states like Mississippi, Indiana want to ban it all together. I am just not comfortable with people whose belief system is rooted in a literal interpretation of the bible making these types of decisions for an entire state.
You are far more trusting and confident in the intelligence of these people than I am. Most of the women I know who have had abortions did not have them for convenience sake. I just don't think it is anyone's business.
Facts to ponder:
Republican Rep. Troy Woodruff, serving his first term in the Indiana Legislature, wrote House Bill 1096 knowing it would conflict with Roe vs. Wade.
That was precisely his point: He wants his ban appealed to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the justices will overturn Roe and give states the power to make abortion a crime. "On an issue that's this personal, it should be decided as local as possible," he said. "We either want these procedures, or we don't…. And I don't."
Louisiana sets out that "the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception." The Nebraska Legislature has said that it "expressly deplore[s] the destruction of unborn human lives." Pennsylvania seeks "to extend to the unborn the equal protection of the laws." Utah, Missouri and Illinois are among several other states with similar language in their constitutions or statutes.
Such statements are merely philosophical; they don't have the force of law. But at least a dozen states have criminal laws banning abortion. They can't be enforced as long as Roe vs. Wade remains binding. In theory, though, they could take effect immediately upon a reversal, subjecting abortion providers to penalties ranging from 12 months' hard labor in Alabama to 20 years' imprisonment in Rhode Island.
Right now there are at least 19 states in the mid-west and south who want to outlaw abortion outright. 16 states still have pre-1973 anti-abortion laws on the books - some of them would be immediately enforceable if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the future.
Abortion legislation
Some of the abortion-related state laws passed in 2005:
South Dakota: Ban abortion in all instances if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
Since January, governors have signed several dozen anti-abortion measures ranging from parental consent requirements to an outright ban looming in South Dakota.
Not since 1999, when a wave of laws banning late-term abortions swept the legislatures, have states imposed so many and so varied a menu of regulations on reproductive health care.
Three states have passed bills requiring that women seeking an abortion be warned that the fetus will feel pain, despite inconclusive scientific data on the question.
Posted by: Mieke at January 31, 2006 09:18 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11115610/
The ban covers a procedure generally performed in the second trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb and the skull punctured.
A federal judge in Nebraska also has ruled the ban unconstitutional. The Nebraska ruling was upheld in July by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tuesday’s decisions were also expected to be appealed to the high court.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court’s 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
Looks like we'll have a chance to see how this will play out sooner rather than later. I hope, I pray I am wrong.
Posted by: Mieke at January 31, 2006 09:20 PM
Mieke
Partial birth abortion IS particularly cruel when done on a viable fetus. Not one bit of testimony was ever offered at Congressional hearings that it was ever medically necessary.
Posted by: Darleen at January 31, 2006 09:43 PM
We've had this discussion before. It is rarely if ever done on a viable fetus. It is medically necessary - or was for my friend Claudia Ades (google her to read her congressional testimony) and for my sister's friend who was six months pregnant with a viable fetus (totally healthy which is why this is so heartbreaking and the result of a seventh IVF) but she got toxemia and was in the ICU about to die (either of a heart attack or stroke). Another friend, Maureen (who testified with Claudia) found out when her much loved baby was five and a half months that it had no brain. None - only a brain stem. Should she have been forced to carry that baby to term-another four months,feeling it grow and move, only to have it die the moment the cord was cut? She was also heart-broken at the loss. Should the state have had ANY say in their decisions to terminate? NO. NO. NO. NO.
Posted by: Mieke at January 31, 2006 10:04 PM
I'm not happy with Alito, but the Supreme Court tends to go its own way and be influenced more by precedent and internal loyalty to the institution, rather than by the individual partisanship of various judges.
That federal partial birth (anti-abortion) law might come up but the decision is apt to turn on Congresses' ability to pass such legislation.
Its unlikely Roe will be overthrown anytime soon.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at February 1, 2006 09:14 AM