Alito Confirmation Hearings Begin Today

Originally posted by junglejake
That's really the problem with Laura's accident and why Ted should get a pass for his, isn't it. No Bush ties. Knowing Bush = guilty. Being associated with a donkey = innocent.

Actually I don't care either is not right to bash one and forget the other.

Both were found to be accidents even if we may differ on opinions.

That's all.

I see Alitos as a treat to my personal rights as a women and that includes my right to privacy.

Because he has been vocal enough in the bench to show his feelings and views about woman's rights.

I am a human being not an object at the mercy of the opinions or men that when put in positions of power like the supreme court can come back and take those right away because they have a personal moral agenda to do so.

So if a man is elected by his peers to be a representative of the community he lives in, he can't dictate anything about women, but a woman can dictate things that apply to other women and men? Do we have to now look back on legislation and determine the gender of the person to establish if they were allowed to propose such a law? No women can ever put forward father's rights laws now?

Why don't we break it down even more. No African American can propose laws that affect non-African Americans; no Caucasian can do the same, etc.

Oh, and as for laws that cover everyone, like stealing, murder, and the like, those laws, if they weren't proposed by a hermaphroditic individual who has ancestry from every nation in the world and whose skin color is the same as every American's (i.e. it shifts in its tint), need to be taken off the books because what did that individual know about morality or the rule of law as it applies to gay hermaphroditic Spanish speaking aboriginal tribal outcasts.

Originally posted by junglejake
So if a man is elected by his peers to be a representative of the community he lives in, he can't dictate anything about women.

That sounds like Islamic law to me junglejake, a men may be elected to care for the community but he is not in power to dictate what women or men do with personal and privacy issues.

but a woman can dictate things that apply to other women and men? Do we have to now look back on legislation and determine the gender of the person to establish if they were allowed to propose such a law? No women can ever put forward father's rights laws now?

Again this sounds like Islamic law and Christian bible scriptures.

I don't care what another women or man do with personal matters I care about my personal and private matters and I do not accept you or any other men or women to get in my business.

Its called "Rights to privacy"

Why don't we break it down even more. No African American can propose laws that affect non-African Americans; no Caucasian can do the same, etc.

Actually they have their own ways to handle their business and they make sure they showed even if is no law.

And you are taking this to far now, so Should we stone women for adultery? kill them for not obeying their "Fathers" if you want to make it to the extreme then remember that is laws in our country that protect us from religious "Extremists"

I will not comment on the last part of the post because truly it makes not sense.

I hope you are talking about Privacy rights you know they are part of our constitutional rights?

Or perhaps you are mixing religious views and opinions with taking our constitutional rights and turning our country in a extremist theocracy base in Christianity.

It seems that judge alitos may be incline on just that, judge on personal Moral opinions and views.

Forget our rights.

I could claim that it is a violation of my privacy if I raise children to eat them when they turn 15. Our society says no, it's not, the state calls that murder and cannibalism and they are against the law, private or public.

If you're going to claim that abortion is a victimless crime that is only an issue of what a woman wants to do with her body, you first have to convince a large segment of the population, some of whom are not religious (which shouldn't be an issue, but it has become apparent that people who base their decisions on religion have lesser opinions than those who base their opinions on no religion). Second, the state doesn't recognize that as being an issue, as we can tell with drug laws, anti-suicide laws, anti-euthanasia laws, etc.

Other than believing that a woman doesn’t have a right to murder, even when it’s her own kids, where is Ally-Oto against women’s rights?

Sorry Jake but is part of the women rights to privacy and to tell you the true is not the business of anybody but the women in question.

You can bring any scenarios you want but at the end is about privacy and tampering with it will affect women and men equally.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

I'll provide reason backing my statement, though. Oh, wait, I already did.

Marg, just saying, "sorry, you're wrong" or "that's a fact" doesn't make it true. Explain to me how it is a privacy issue for a woman to kill her baby that the government has no say in, but it's a legal matter for a woman to kill herself.

And explain what other issues Ally-Oto is "against" women's rights (unless that woman happens to be an unborn female, in which case he's for women's rights).

Originally posted by junglejake
Explain to me how it is a privacy issue for a woman to kill her baby that the government has no say in, but it's a legal matter for a woman to kill herself.

What baby? There is no 'baby'.

This is a baby:



You have no right to know whether or not a woman is pregnant any more than you have a right to know that she has cancer or herpes or diabetes. You have no right to her medical information.

Then I propose legislation allowing Siamese twins to be permitted to murder one another, since it is not anyone's right to know about their medical condition.

I also propose a banning of the sexual offenders list because some psychologists claim it is a mental disease that gets people to rape others, and no one has a right to know someone's medical condition.

However, this isn't an abortion thread, this is a thread talking about Alito. Am I to understand that if a supreme court justice won't rule in favor of Roe v. Wade no matter what the case presented before them, they're not qualified to be on the bench? Ought I assume this is the only issue that matters in America?

Marg said Alito is against women's rights. Is abortion the only right women care about? Is that all that matters? As long as a woman can kill her child, she doesn't care if the state can steal her property to make some extra tax $?

Originally posted by junglejake
Then I propose legislation allowing Siamese twins to be permitted to murder one another, since it is not anyone's right to know about their medical condition.

Well, as long as they're not born yet, then you might have a chance. Good luck on that one, Jake.

I also propose a banning of the sexual offenders list because some psychologists claim it is a mental disease that gets people to rape others, and no one has a right to know someone's medical condition.

Again, whatever political causes you wish to get behind, I support you to pursue them.

I am a little surprised that you support murder and sexual crimes, but sometimes it's hard to tell on a discussion board.

Seriously, though, one involves murder and the other involves sexual offense. These are clearly already against the law and have been for quite some time now. I don't have a right to know of a rapists medical condition, but I have a right to know if he has molested children and lives next door.

Am I to understand that if a supreme court justice won't rule in favor of Roe v. Wade no matter what the case presented before them, they're not qualified to be on the bench?

I can't imagine a situation where I think a SC judge should rule against RvW. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I can't think of it right now.

Marg said Alito is against women's rights. Is abortion the only right women care about?

That's not all this woman cares about. But it's very important. Marg?

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

First of all the government can not interfere with personal decisions when it comes to the right to procreate, to get married and anything that has to do with family life.

This will not only is applicable to women but also to men, is called the right to privacy.

So for that reason a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy and a couple has the right to seek contraceptives.

If contraceptives are denied base on religious or personal moral views it violates the right of privacy of the people involve. (Griswold v. Connecticut) 1965.

That also is applied to abortion. Wade v. Roe.

If Wade v. Roe is overturned and make it criminal so also the used of contraceptives will be overturned or more likely been pushed by religious groups as immoral base of on such decision.

Even now is actually been push as you know. This will affect not only men and women but also married couples that seek alternatives to family control.

Bringing back the right to privacy in family matters.

Something like this will bring the country laws back to the 1800’s laws when women were view as the property of their fathers and then their husbands, something that many religious, law makers, health care providers and legal community lobbied state legislatures see as counter productive to modern times.

Women chances for survival will decreased, because most of the related pregnancy and child birth deaths were due to illegal abortions.

Since women have given rights upon their bodies, they now enjoy the freedom to pursue education and better jobs in the male dominated society.

The Wade v. Roe is more than just abortion rights are about the quality of life of women in our nation, the rights of taking control of their lives and to achieve the same objectives as their male counterparts.

So the save the fetuses is nothing else than a lame excused by religious extremist that seek to bring women back to her knees and take away all the liberties that women enjoy in this time and age.

But what they seem to forget is that it also affects men equally.

Many people has been feed that is all about saving fetuses and forget the true agenda of overturning Wade v. Roe.

BH, I was proposing two incredibly stupid proposals to demonstrate that the right to privacy does not trump other laws. I believe that when a child can live outside of the mother, they should definitely be considered alive. However, apparently making partial birth abortion, where the doctor induces labor but turns the baby around (don't want momma to hear those cries) then crushes the baby's skull and sucks its brains out through a tube, would suddenly take away any education rights of women, any rights to be in the workplace, any rights to be in politics, etc. In a country where women can't murder with impunity, they cannot be free, huh?

Marg, you brought up an interesting point. If someone doesn't sell contraceptives because they believe it is wrong, they are violating a woman's rights to privacy. What about the other person's rights?

I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that you don't support the death penalty. I don't know that you do or do not, and if you do, lemme know. Would you be in support of, like jury duty, having execution duty where a citizen is required, by law, to throw the switch on the chair, inject the criminal, or whatever? Should we remove the conscientious objector clause from military service? After all, someone who believes that contraception is murder (I don't, but I recognize that others do) that is forced to issue it is participating in murder, in their mind. Same thing with nurses and doctors that are required, by law, to participate in and perform abortions.

Where do individual rights end? I believe that abortion is not a medical condition, I believe it is one person hiring people to kill another person. It appears to me that some people's beliefs need to be more respected than others by your logic, too. Who gets to choose? Who has more rights than who?

On the HIPPA issue, this has been determined to a degree. Apparently AIDS patients have more rights than doctors, paramedics and their families, because an AIDS victim doesn't need to disclose their disease to the individual who is trying to save their life by working with the bodily fluids that transmit the disease. Since there is such a high incubation time for the HIV virus, that also means that they will probably spread the disease they get from some person whose life they saved to their families, killing them, too. To protect the rights of an AIDS victim from potential care issues involved in taking precautions against a 100% fatal disease, you take away the rights of those in the life saving business.

One thing that bothers me about this guy is his weenie-ism about Presidential War Powers, In this CBS News Video, Alito hem-haws around the answer of War Powers. Scroll down to "Alito Discusses War Powers", about 12 from the top.

Biden Suggests Scrapping Hearings

I agree. They're pretty worthless!

Out of curiosity, what do y'all expect from this? This is par for the course for a Supreme Court nominee hearing. The senators try to get the person to make rulings without hearing the evidence of a case challenging said ruling (I.E. How will you rule about x asked by a senator), and they don't answer because they, as a judge, shouldn't. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated this most eloquently, but it is typical of successful judges not to answer specific questions like that.

Why should Alito be different?

The system is broken, according to Biden? Because the judicial nominees won't make rulings without hearing the case? A judge is not supposed to let their personal bias influence interpreting the law. The only real factor is how they interpret the law, as a constitutionalist or interpretist. The system would be broken if the senators were able to lock a judge (one of the other branches of government in place as a check & balance against the legislature) into a decision before someone even had their day in court.

Alito has issues with the powers of the president and also his views about wade v. roe, taking inconsideration that one affects what is been going on with the spying and surveillance of American citizens he pretty much support the president decision to over step on constitutional rights.

On the second taking in consideration that it has to do with women and their right to privacy we pretty much knows were he stand on his personal moral agenda.

Originally posted by junglejake
This is par for the course for a Supreme Court nominee hearing.
...
Why should Alito be different?

I don't expect anything different than what's happening. This is par for the course. I'm just commenting.

The system is broken, according to Biden? Because the judicial nominees won't make rulings without hearing the case?

Why even bother having them, then? That's why I think they should be scrapped. If the person (Alito in this case) doesn't have to answer questions and really shouldn't rule from the bench based on his personal feelings, what are the hearings for???

I do agree with Biden that there's no point to them, except one.

Political grandstanding.

That's all. Alito's qualifications are known, the BAR association has said he's very qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, he has an extensive judicial record, etc. He's qualified for the position as far as anyone in the industry is concerned, and will be nominated based on the numbers in the senate. The only point of this, that I see, is political grandstanding.

Honestly, knowing your politics, do you feel that the GOP Senators are doing any sort of service to the country by swallowing whole horse this candidate, without asking anything even remotely of consequence?
Secondly, Bidens 12 minute questions et al: does the opposition party have any recourse once sycophant mode is enacted by team GOP, or vica versa if the roles were switched? Does the minority even get bullets, much less a gun, when the majority is rubber stamping?

Bout: Read about the last 3 or 4 posts above yours for my answer. Not sure about Becky's, of course.

from Benevolent Heretic
No links, then, huh?

None that I'm going to waste time digging up. Funny, tho, I'm listening to the radio in the background, and guess what the current topic is? Teddy's drinking problem. And that station is based out of Boston.

Well, it sure doesn't take that much to convince you that Kennedy is a POS.

Fourteen years as my senior senator cemented my opinion. Same as John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry - another loser.

Originally posted by marg6043
If Wade v. Roe is overturned and make it criminal so also the used of contraceptives will be overturned or more likely been pushed by religious groups as immoral base of on such decision.

O sure. You mean like the Catholic religion does today? They consider contraceptives to be immoral. Saying that the government will rule contraceptives to be illegal is just non-sense and extremism.

Originally posted by marg6043
Something like this will bring the country laws back to the 1800’s laws when women were view as the property of their fathers and then their husbands

Sounds like Judge Alito is going to institute Muslim law right here in the United States. I don't know how you expect anyone to buy that story.

Skipping over the issue of abortion being right or wrong, it's wrong for the Supreme court to create new laws based on their rulings. If Congress wishes to pass a law making abortion legal, then fine. The way this really should be done is to just let each state vote on making it legal as the people of the state see fit. This is the way out country should be run, and is the way that Judge Alito thinks.

Roe v Wade eventually could be overturned.The Supreme court isn't perfect you know.

Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not citizens