With Sincere and Abject Apologies to Judge Alito and his Family...

[amicus]

I have watched the full Senate proceedings of the confirmation hearings for the nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Alito.

Just why his wife , children and relatives were present, I do not know, but his wife was brought to tears by the vicious attacks on his character made by Senators Kennedy and Shumer, both left wing democrats.

Judge Alito let no emotions cross his face and continued to answer in a calm, measured manner, answering the same questions about Roe v Wade, time after time after time.

To their credit, most of the Senators, even dissenting democrats, acted with reserve, maintaining at least some dignity to that august body.

But the actions and words of Kennedy and Shumer were despicable and beneath contempt. These men do not deserve to continue serving the nation as US Senators.

There has also been precedent set concerning political partisanship in the proceedings. When President Clinton Nominated Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Court, it was well known that she was a left wing liberal who would support the pro abortion element. She was treated with respect and received 96 votes, I think, from the full Senate for confirmation.

This confirmation hearing has been a one issue debacle, a public litmus test concerning the abortion issue. This is neither the purpose nor the function of the advise and consent duties of the Senate. This is a continued attempt to politicize the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Alito will be confirmed by the full Senate, probably with about 70 votes, all made on a partisan line.

Since Republicans in the Clinton era surpassed partisan politics and easily confirmed his nominee, this action by the Democrats bodes ill for future nominees and confirmation hearings.

Although is sickens me to admit it, eventually another scummy democrat will become President and may have the opportunity to nominate a candidate for the Surpreme Court. One can already, at this time, predict it will be remembered what the democrats did in January, 2006.


Amicus....

 

[cloudy]

Alito scares me. He'd bring women right back into the dark ages with a smile on his face.

While that may be fine with you, ami, there's over half the population in this country that may not be so happy with that.

 

[amicus]

I think you are wrong, Cloudy. After listening to his responses and comments, I suggest that the worst that might happen concerning Roe v Wade will be that it is turned back to the individual States.

It will eventually be overturned for legal issues, it was incorrectly decided in the Surpreme Court by a political majority and does not comport to Constitutional law.

Much to my chagrin, I suspect the right to kill an unborn child for reasons of convenience will continue survive in States like New York and Calfornia.

But I did not post my comments intending to argue abortion, just to point out the truly obscene behavior of Kennedy and Shumer. Those of you who watched may well understand.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

I think you are wrong, Cloudy. After listening to his responses and comments, I suggest that the worst that might happen concerning Roe v Wade will be that it is turned back to the individual States.

It will eventually be overturned for legal issues, it was incorrectly decided in the Surpreme Court by a political majority and does not comport to Constitutional law.

Much to my chagrin, I suspect the right to kill an unborn child for reasons of convenience will continue survive in States like New York and Calfornia.

But I did not post my comments intending to argue abortion, just to point out the truly obscene behavior of Kennedy and Shumer. Those of you who watched may well understand.

amicus...

I've never had much respect for Kennedy, and don't know enough to spit at about Shumer.

Alito bothers me because he's a yes man for Bush, pretty much. Frightening thought.

 

[amicus]

Not to argue with you Cloudy, but again, I think you are wrong.

Judge Alito's comment, 'no man is above the law', bears directly on the issue of unwarranted phone taps on American citizens.

Alito stated several times, unequivocably, the the power of the President, even in wartime is limited and subject to Constitutional law.

If I concluded anything thing from his words, it is that he will very strictly interpret the Constitution in the direction of protecting all rights of all citizens, large and small.

In my opinion, he will come to the court free of an ideology or an agenda and make his rulings on each individual issue according to the merits presented in the case.

He also indicated he would utilize fully the stare' decisis criteria of precedent and settled law in his deliberations.

I think perhaps it is time that you, and many others on this forum, begin to realize that the Supreme Court of the United states in unique in purpose and function.

Laws, be it abortion or otherwise, are determined by the elected representatives of the people, not appointed judges.

There is no enumerated 'right to abortion', in the Constitution. It can become a law if the several states so agree but only if it is protected by the Constitution and it is not.

In order to take life and liberty from one protected by the Constitution, there must be 'due process'. Only American citizens live under that umbrella of protection, even though we believe these rights are absolute and universal and apply to all humans.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I've never had much respect for Kennedy, and don't know enough to spit at about Shumer.

Alito bothers me because he's a yes man for Bush, pretty much. Frightening thought.

Alito is a consequence Cloudy. When his pet nominee was shot down, Bush reacted as he usually does when thwarted. He selected someone far worse in the eyes of his antagonists. If they shoot this one down, the next one will be even worse. He is betting the supply of arch conservative judges is greater than the patience of the nation with the Dems for shooting his nominees down.

All those who thought having his personal favorite shot down would cause him to moderate his stance haven't been paying attention.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

'no man is above the law

any man is above the law if that law is unjust.

Ami, I happen to agree with you about the two aforementioned politicians...

I don't, however, believe this man will be a positive addition to the high court, and not just on the abortion issue. He is beyond conservative, he's frightening.

I read somewhere (forgive me for not looking it up) that something like 90% of Alito's dissents take positions more conservative than his colleagues...including colleagues appointed Bush and Reagan.

it may be an era you want to live through again, Ami, but most of us (and yes, a majority of the public side against his decisions, not just his colleagues) would rather not...

 

[Pure]

The Biggest Problem

with Alito is his credibility, which is not high. He's simply saying what it takes.
Probably he will be confirmed. Odd that ami chose this occasion to talk about blowhard senators, personal attacks etc. This is a favorite way of DeLay in the House. Also Republicans are busy attacking the patriotism of any who question Mr. Bush.

Example of Alito's slipperiness: he has forgotten about joining the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, though he mentioned it in his job applications. Were he as bold as ami, he'd say, "Yes, indeed; I saw no reason to lower standards of higher ed. by admitting women to Princeton; I still don't!"

 

[Selena_Kitt]

He's simply saying what it takes.

yes, thank you... he is very untrustable... even as politicians go...

"Yes, indeed; I saw no reason to lower standards of higher ed. by admitting women to Princeton; I still don't!"

Don't forget the African Americans... they didn't want them either...

 

[amicus]

Ah, the dance of the liberal lambada continues.

CAP Concerned Alumni of Princeton turned out to be the Chappaqidick red herring of Senator Kennedy that failed to make an impression.

Princeton was a male only school and the question of women on campus, was not one of discrimination as you imply, Pure, rather the choice of maintaing the status or changing to co-educational. It is not a moral abridgement of human right to choose to be educated in a male only or female only environment.

Again, you skirt the issues and stoop to the personal. Whether conservative or liberal, in the current usage of the words, the issue of constitutionality remain primary even if you wish to deny it.

The liberal changes in society, brought about by an activist Supreme Court, has indeed changed our society greatly over the past half century.

You may not want to return to a more conservative society, you may prefer a more liberal one, that is not really the point.

The basic issue concerns law, our basic law, the Constitution. While you seem to think the liberal interpretation by left wing judges has benefitted your social agenda, that still is not the point.

It is the integrity of our constitution and the integrity of the court to faithfully interpret those laws that is of supreme importance. If you wish the court to be influenced by appointed and confirmed judges, always subject to political influence, then you effectively destroy the effectiveness of that institutution.

The proper way to change the law of the land to suit your social preferences, such as abortion, gay marriage, et cetera, is to amend the constitution, not to corrupt the courts.

Hopefully, just hopefully, the make-up of this new court will reinstitute the proper conduct of judges within the Supreme Court and they will interpret existing law and not legislate new nuances.

amicus...

 

[Guest]

his wife was brought to tears by the vicious attacks on his character made by Senators Kennedy and Shumer, both left wing democrats.

Go to the CNN website and view the event yourself. It is under politics in their viewer.

Oddly, Kennedy and Shumer are not speaking. Graham, a Republican is. he is saying nice, supportive things.

 

[oggbashan]

Why do nominees have to go through this ordeal to serve the people of the US?

Are the politicians who interrogate them shining examples of irreproachable virtue?

The system seems designed to ensure that almost anyone who could be a good public servant will be deterred from admitting that they are human and possibly faillible.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ah, the dance of the liberal lambada continues.

CAP Concerned Alumni of Princeton turned out to be the Chappaqidick red herring of Senator Kennedy that failed to make an impression.

Princeton was a male only school and the question of women on campus, was not one of discrimination as you imply, Pure, rather the choice of maintaing the status or changing to co-educational. It is not a moral abridgement of human right to choose to be educated in a male only or female only environment.

Again, you skirt the issues and stoop to the personal. Whether conservative or liberal, in the current usage of the words, the issue of constitutionality remain primary even if you wish to deny it.

The liberal changes in society, brought about by an activist Supreme Court, has indeed changed our society greatly over the past half century.

You may not want to return to a more conservative society, you may prefer a more liberal one, that is not really the point.

The basic issue concerns law, our basic law, the Constitution. While you seem to think the liberal interpretation by left wing judges has benefitted your social agenda, that still is not the point.

It is the integrity of our constitution and the integrity of the court to faithfully interpret those laws that is of supreme importance. If you wish the court to be influenced by appointed and confirmed judges, always subject to political influence, then you effectively destroy the effectiveness of that institutution.

The proper way to change the law of the land to suit your social preferences, such as abortion, gay marriage, et cetera, is to amend the constitution, not to corrupt the courts.

Hopefully, just hopefully, the make-up of this new court will reinstitute the proper conduct of judges within the Supreme Court and they will interpret existing law and not legislate new nuances.

amicus...

Sorry Amicus, but Alito is exactly what the neo conservatives decry the most harshly. He's an activist judge. He has on several occasions let his personal agenda cause him to append decisions with an even farther right flavor than they carried in the interpretation of the law. And he has allowed his personal convictions to flavor his opinions.

I am not going to go so far as to say this particular brand of judicial activism is not needed on the high court as a counter to the adversarial activism of bader-ginsburg and byer, but you cannot sell Alito as a strict constituionalist. By the record, that dog won't hunt.

For my part, I don't hold out much hope of either party selecting a constitionalist. I hope only that they select a minimalist, who will view decisions on a narrow front and render decisions based on the case at hand. That allows for less free interpretation by the lower courts of decisions that are often narrow in scope due to circumstance.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Why do nominees have to go through this ordeal to serve the people of the US?

Are the politicians who interrogate them shining examples of irreproachable virtue?

The system seems designed to ensure that almost anyone who could be a good public servant will be deterred from admitting that they are human and possibly faillible.

Og

The original wording, said the President would select members of the high court with the approval of the congress. Most people think the literal interpretation of that was that he would select thim in concert with them. Much like our judicial system though, it became adversarial in flavor, rather than done in the spirit of unity.

Justices now are political footballs, because they have such a strong influence on the direction the country takes.

the dems, in this case, recognize the balance of the court could be strongly affected by another arch conservative. So they are doing all they can to deny Bush's appointees a straight up or down vote, which they almost assuredly would win. their hope is, if they deny enough selections, GW will be forced to select amore moderate candidate. they hope by this means to influence the make up of the court, even though they are in theminority in both house and senate at the moment.

I guess the best way to phrase it, is that the justices, through their ability to interpret law, can short cicrcut the intent of congress when they pass a law. That power has become much greater than it was in yester year, because more and more cases have been opened to judicial review by the supremes as more and more federal laws have been passed. At this point both sides recognize their agenda can be short circuted by an unfreindly court, so the political leanings of the justices has become something on the order of magnitude of a martian invasion in importance to both sides.

basically, even if you ar in the minority and don't control either house of congress, you can still push your agenda if you have a freindly court.

 

[amicus]

Colleen: "...He's an activist judge. He has on several occasions let his personal agenda cause him to append decisions with an even farther right flavor than they carried in the interpretation of the law. And he has allowed his personal convictions to flavor his opinions..."

You might want to document your assertion here Colleen. However, if there were such instances in his past I am certain that either Kennedy, or Shumer or Biden of Feingold would have been screaming at the top of their lungs.

Since they re reran the hearings in the evening on CSPAN as well as the live coverage during the day, I had to opportunity to see almost the entire procedure and nowhere did I see Alito accused of being an 'activist judge' as you state.

Prior to his 15 years in the 3rd Circuit court, he did have the Reagan administration as his client and indeed did support Reagan's agenda, however, that was his job as an attorney general and did not necessarily reflect a 'personal agenda'.

That duck won't fly kid.

amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

The problem I have with this process is that we expect our Judiciary to wholly impartial. Full stop. No conditions.

They are appointed to uphold the law without fear or favour. What their politician leanings are, what their private opinions are on abortion, on drugs on whatever - that they put aside when they sit in court and decide on the facts and pleading before them.

A conservative or a liberal judge in UK terms has no meaning.

Og

 

[amicus]

Ogg...I display my ignorance of the British system when I ask if perhaps you might explain if the Brits have something similar to what we call the Bill of Rights, those original 10 amendments to the constitution and those added since?

Most of the disagreements between liberal and conservative here, left and right, come from interpretations of one or another of those amendments.

Perhaps British law does not have such short, succinct statements that can be subject to interpretation?

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen: "...He's an activist judge. He has on several occasions let his personal agenda cause him to append decisions with an even farther right flavor than they carried in the interpretation of the law. And he has allowed his personal convictions to flavor his opinions..."

You might want to document your assertion here Colleen. However, if there were such instances in his past I am certain that either Kennedy, or Shumer or Biden of Feingold would have been screaming at the top of their lungs.

Since they re reran the hearings in the evening on CSPAN as well as the live coverage during the day, I had to opportunity to see almost the entire procedure and nowhere did I see Alito accused of being an 'activist judge' as you state.

Prior to his 15 years in the 3rd Circuit court, he did have the Reagan administration as his client and indeed did support Reagan's agenda, however, that was his job as an attorney general and did not necessarily reflect a 'personal agenda'.

That duck won't fly kid.

amicus...

For a cynic Amicus, you have a disturbing habit of underestimating the resolve of those who oppose your position. in this case the confimation of Alito.

The good people at the ACLU have made alito's published opinions avilable ina downloadable file for easy reference.

an example, and the only one i am going to cut and paste for sake of time and boredom:

this is a 199 decision on religious symbols as part of a traditional holiday decoration on publi property:

Case is American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler

The City announced that it would appeal the decision, but in the meantime, on December 13, 1995, it erected a modified display that included, in addition to the elements in the previous display, a 4' tall plastic figure of Santa Claus, a 3' 10" tall plastic figure of Frosty the Snowman, a 4' tall sled, Kwanzaa symbols on the tree, and two signs, each approximately 2' by 3', stating: "Through this dis- play and others throughout the year, the City of Jersey City is pleased to celebrate the diverse cultural and ethnic heritages of its peoples." See Appendix A (display on left side of City Hall); Appendix B (display on right side of City Hall); Appendix C (map of display).

The plaintiffs then moved to have the City held in contempt of the District Court's injunction, and they also sought a preliminary injunction against the modified dis- play. On December 18, the District Court denied these requests, concluding that the addition of the secular sym- bols rendered the modified display constitutionally un- objectionable. Ruling quickly, the District Court did not analyze the modified display at length but wrote:

I conclude that by making these additions de- fendants have sufficiently **7 demystified the holy , they have sufficiently desanctified sacred symbols, and they have sufficiently deconsecrated the sacred to escape the con- fines of the injunctive order in this case.

De sanctified? De consecrated? Huh?

That shows a clear opinion on the part of the judge that christian symbolism is consecrated and is sacred. the addition of a frosty and some Kwanza symbols to the tree should not, under any extremity of the law, be considered to mitigate christina symbology as it had been adjudicated to refer to the establishment clause.

His opinions are full of the same language.

Quak quak

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The problem I have with this process is that we expect our Judiciary to wholly impartial. Full stop. No conditions.

They are appointed to uphold the law without fear or favour. What their politician leanings are, what their private opinions are on abortion, on drugs on whatever - that they put aside when they sit in court and decide on the facts and pleading before them.

A conservative or a liberal judge in UK terms has no meaning.

Og

Some judges can put their personal convictions aside Og. One would hope that such procedings would weed out those who cannot, but such is not the case usually. In fact, Presidents seem prone to appointing the very ones who cannot, because those are the ones whose influence might help steer things the president's party's way.

You would never see a Bill Clinton appoint an anton Scalia, nor a G.W. Bush apoint a ruth bader-ginsberg. It is to the point that we actually look at who appointed a justice now, for a quick reference as to how they will likely vote. It is only the fact that some maintain their independance or grow independant that we ever see decisions that fall almost along the lines of the political party that appointed the justice.

 

[Pure]

F in logic

ami commented on my remark that Alito, in joining the "Concerned Alumni" would have opposed the admission of women. and of course now he 'doesn't recollect.' IOW, not only is he backward, he's slippery.

ami says,

Princeton was a male only school and the question of women on campus, was not one of discrimination as you imply, Pure,

Reply: First of all, let me say, I was there at the time, and you were not. I did not "imply" discrimination (that's putting words in my mouth) but I did suggest that the fight to keep out women was backward. It is not simple 'discrimination' in that several ivy league schools were male only, with the exception of Cornell. Some, like Harvard, had sister schools (Radcliffe) so well integrated that de facto co education existed.

It is not different in kind from a "Christian only" (No Jews) golf club.

No doubt you, ami, see no problem with this kind of backwardness since it constitutes the liberty for the well off, which you prize above all else.

But where an institution is one of a few, it's a worse situation than a golf club, because there are many many clubs (though only a few host the major tournaments).

Ami rather the choice of maintaing the status or changing to co-educational.

Reply: yes, that is true. but note that most of the male-only universities were undergoing similar soul searching.

Ami: It is not a moral abridgement of human right to choose to be educated in a male only or female only environment.

I don't see such a right in the constitution. Do I have a right to join a 'male only' army? Sorry, but no.

Your argument is not different from an argument for a white only college.
Some might allege a 'right' to be in a white-only environment.


I will concede that small entities like clubs can 'choose', that is, 'discriminate', e.g. a club for only those of Greek ancestry. (Yet no Greek in the US has a *right* to be in such a club: we don't have to create a club for him if there isn't one!) A person and her friends may set up a sorority, i.e., choose only women.

Here is a fact you are probably unaware of: Since the alumni of Princeton are very strong, how could Princeton have changed? Was it activist judges? No. Princeton alums wanted their *daughters* to have access to a top educational facility. Those young women were the immediate beneficiaries of the change.

Incidentally, Princeton already had some Black students, both US and foreign, before this 'coed' problem came up.

So you see, ami, by your 'rights' logic, exactly the opposite conclusion follows. The alumni of Princeton have a right to change things to suit themselves, to provide education to daughters as well as sons. So they--except for Alito's rump group [CAP]-- favored the change and had every right to work for it and make it. All of this is independent of a 'women's rights' approach. *Men's* rights were exercized. They got what they wanted for their daughters and others.

Your nostalgia for a by gone age has interfered with your analysis of the situation. Alumni rights were affirmed, not the fictitious and illusory 'right' of some applicant to expect men only. As far as applicants go, they could (rightfully) expect 'men only' till 1968. Then the alums and adminstration changed admissions to co ed. So applicants could then expect co-ed, and no 'right to men only' was lost.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmmm. I don't know much about Alito, so I can't comment on his political leanings. In reference to Colleen comments on Bush's behavior when a nominee is rejected, though - and of course with all due respect - if the Democrats shoot down his first choice of a judge as centrist as Bush's support base will allow, it seems likely that he'd have to make the next one more conservative, like it or not. His only other option would be to go more liberal, which I think one might fairly suggest seems an odd thing to expect of a conservative president.

 

[amicus]

Colly, Pure....from Colleen's post: "...For a cynic Amicus, you have a disturbing habit of underestimating the resolve of those who oppose your position..."

There is truth in what you say, Colleen, yes indeed.

From the hearings it was said that Alito heard over 4,000 cases in his term on the 3rd circuit and wrote several hundred opinions. Yes, I underestimated you in not thinking you would go to ACLU files and pull up a piece to defend your assertion that Alito is an activist judge.

I am not certain the portion to you posted defends your point or just confuses the issue. I have neither the time nor the interest to either visit the ACLU site or pore through cases heard by Alito to try to 'cherry pick' a case that supports my view as you did.

I say again, had any obvious evidence of Alito's alledged activism been available, those democrat detractors would have made hay out of them. That leads me to believe that no such 'firm' evidence, evidence that would satisfied even the loose lipped Kennedy.

And Pure, "...Reply: First of all, let me say, I was there at the time, and you were not. I did not "imply" discrimination (that's putting words in my mouth) but I did suggest that the fight to keep out women was backward..." "...No doubt you, ami, see no problem with this kind of backwardness since it constitutes the liberty for the well off, which you prize above all else..." "...Ami: It is not a moral abridgement of human right to choose to be educated in a male only or female only environment.

I don't see such a right in the constitution. Do I have a right to join a 'male only' army? Sorry, but no...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

Pure, you equate a pre coed system, a pre abortion period, a pre 'gay rights' period as 'backwards' and thus a bad thing.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

There are many, perhaps a majority of Americans, (see the last two elections) who have begun to question the efficacy of our modern 'liberal' society. Many of the side effects of feminism, secular humanistic curricula in schools, liberal interpretation of law, ecological and animal rights advocates, just to name a few, many of the side effects and corollaries have become burdensome.

But whether these social changes are a good thing or not, as I said earlier, is not the point.

The issue is: were these changes brought about in such a manner as to be legally encompassed in the law of the constitution? The debate, which you do not seem to wish to face, is whether the Surpreme Court in its Liberal interpretation of the law has in fact become a third legislative branch of government; one that acts beyond the pall of the electorate?

Those of you who welcome the so-called, 'women's reproductive rights', enforced gender equality through quota systems seem oblivious to the constitutional questons involve and just wish to continue to bathe in the warmth of your success.

There are many Americans, a voting majority perhaps, who are not comfortable with the social changes of the past half century. They are fighting back. I think that is a good thing.

300 days until the off year elections, Canada has one in a week or so, going Conservative I hear, que sara, sara.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hmmm. I don't know much about Alito, so I can't comment on his political leanings. In reference to Colleen comments on Bush's behavior when a nominee is rejected, though - and of course with all due respect - if the Democrats shoot down his first choice of a judge as centrist as Bush's support base will allow, it seems likely that he'd have to make the next one more conservative, like it or not. His only other option would be to go more liberal, which I think one might fairly suggest seems an odd thing to expect of a conservative president.

The problem with GW, as I see it horsey, is that he is vindictive. In the small, mean way a child is vindictive when he dosen't get his way.

He has a very adamsesque approach to things, i.e. you are for me or against me.

Don't want to go along quietly with my iraq build up intelligence? Fine. I'll have scooter out your wife as a CIA agent.

Don't want to join my coalition? Fine. I'll threaten to cut contracts to your country's manufaturing sectors and discourage imports. That'll teach ya.

He can't seem to brooke any opposition. Don't want to pass patriot act my way? fine, I'll veto your comprmise bill and decry you as an enemy of freedom.

His administration is just rife with these petty, schoolyar, vendettas.

Don't like my nominee? Fine. I'll select one whose worse and if you shoot him down I'll nominate someone who makes strom thurmond look like ghandi.

I will admit, I myself would be exasperated with the way the Dems have used the filibuster on all my prominent choices. But in this case, anyone who didn't see an Alito waiting in the wings while they were nukeing his freind was blind.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, Pure....from Colleen's post: "...For a cynic Amicus, you have a disturbing habit of underestimating the resolve of those who oppose your position..."

There is truth in what you say, Colleen, yes indeed.

From the hearings it was said that Alito heard over 4,000 cases in his term on the 3rd circuit and wrote several hundred opinions. Yes, I underestimated you in not thinking you would go to ACLU files and pull up a piece to defend your assertion that Alito is an activist judge.

I am not certain the portion to you posted defends your point or just confuses the issue. I have neither the time nor the interest to either visit the ACLU site or pore through cases heard by Alito to try to 'cherry pick' a case that supports my view as you did.

I say again, had any obvious evidence of Alito's alledged activism been available, those democrat detractors would have made hay out of them. That leads me to believe that no such 'firm' evidence, evidence that would satisfied even the loose lipped Kennedy.

And Pure, "...Reply: First of all, let me say, I was there at the time, and you were not. I did not "imply" discrimination (that's putting words in my mouth) but I did suggest that the fight to keep out women was backward..." "...No doubt you, ami, see no problem with this kind of backwardness since it constitutes the liberty for the well off, which you prize above all else..." "...Ami: It is not a moral abridgement of human right to choose to be educated in a male only or female only environment.

I don't see such a right in the constitution. Do I have a right to join a 'male only' army? Sorry, but no...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

Pure, you equate a pre coed system, a pre abortion period, a pre 'gay rights' period as 'backwards' and thus a bad thing.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

There are many, perhaps a majority of Americans, (see the last two elections) who have begun to question the efficacy of our modern 'liberal' society. Many of the side effects of feminism, secular humanistic curricula in schools, liberal interpretation of law, ecological and animal rights advocates, just to name a few, many of the side effects and corollaries have become burdensome.

But whether these social changes are a good thing or not, as I said earlier, is not the point.

The issue is: were these changes brought about in such a manner as to be legally encompassed in the law of the constitution? The debate, which you do not seem to wish to face, is whether the Surpreme Court in its Liberal interpretation of the law has in fact become a third legislative branch of government; one that acts beyond the pall of the electorate?

Those of you who welcome the so-called, 'women's reproductive rights', enforced gender equality through quota systems seem oblivious to the constitutional questons involve and just wish to continue to bathe in the warmth of your success.

There are many Americans, a voting majority perhaps, who are not comfortable with the social changes of the past half century. They are fighting back. I think that is a good thing.

300 days until the off year elections, Canada has one in a week or so, going Conservative I hear, que sara, sara.


amicus...

I wasn't taling about me Amicus. I don't really consider myself your adversary. More often than not, my objections to your position and my posts are moderate compared to those of people who hold a really adversarial position to yours.

I was saying you underestimated the way Alito's adversarys would act. Making his opinions public, in an easy to read, easy to access format, makes it pretty easy to determine what kind of judge he has been. Even if you can't make out the jargon, and the decisions are prema force filled with jargon, you can see by the tone. Before you ask, I'll be the first to admit I haven't gone to the trouble of actually looking up his decisions, so for all I know what I quoted may be an out and out falsehood. But I doubt it.

Obvious evidence is a little like an obvious call on a close play at home plate. It's real obvious, but what a red socks fan saw and what a yankee fan saw are probably not the same.

Working on the decision I posted, the language is what is obvious. An impartial judge, would never accept, much less litter an opinion with his personal conviction a particular religion was sacrosanct. Alito cannot help himself, because his conviction is strong enough that he just assumes a reader will agree.

And that just about sums up what an activist judge is dosen't it? Someone who lets personal agenda permeate his rulings from the bench? A truely strict constituionalist would never let his language favor one religion. No matter how liberal or conservative your interpretation of the establishment clause, a supposedly impartial jurist ascribing to a particular religion surely is a violation of that clause? In a court of law a judge is the embodiment of the state's penal codes.

That isn't to say you cannot be a strong churchmember. The judge in the Terry Schaivo case was a very prominent member of a baptist congregation. But he distanced himself from his religion in rendering that decision, even when his congregation asked him to stop attending because of his ruling in the matter.

A jurist who was working as a strict interpretor of the consitituion would hold himself above such displays of his private, personal, leanings, would he not?

 

[LadyJeanne]

The problem with GW, as I see it horsey, is that he is vindictive. In the small, mean way a child is vindictive when he dosen't get his way.

I always thought of it as he must have always been picked last for dodge-ball, and now he's sticking it to everybody who doesn't want to be on his.