The shortest argument ever for confirming Alito

[MaineDolFan]

Just curious...didn't think you meant anything by it!  Thanks, tho!

[ADeadSmitty]

Souter was considered a huge threat to Rowe V. Wade.  The common thought / fear was that his confirmation would send women back to the dark alleys, hotel rooms and (forgive me) wire coat hangers for abortions = when abortion was illegal and women put their lives at risk to have it done.

The point being that Souter turned out to be a basic none threat to Rowe V. Wade...and Alito would be as well.

I believe that is the point of the thread.

Yup, that's it.

Sorry I wasn't around to back up my own thread but I got busy all of a sudden.

Basically my point is, I don't see why we should believe NOW and NARAL and whoever when they say confirming Alito will mean the end of Roe, huge piles of dead women stacked up outside state courthouses, asteroids crashing into Earth, etc. They've cried wolf before.

[pintofguinness14]

Yup, that's it.

Sorry I wasn't around to back up my own thread but I got busy all of a sudden.

Basically my point is, I don't see why we should believe NOW and NARAL and whoever when they say confirming Alito will mean the end of Roe, huge piles of dead women stacked up outside state courthouses, asteroids crashing into Earth, etc. They've cried wolf before.

Mark my words, if Alito is confirmed an asteroid will crash into the earth.

[ADeadSmitty]

Also, if Alito is confirmed, corpses will reanimate, angrily climb out of their graves and go on an unstoppable brain-eating rampage throughout the country. Write your senators!

[pintofguinness14]

Also, if Alito is confirmed, corpses will reanimate, angrily climb out of their graves and go on an unstoppable brain-eating rampage throughout the country. Write your senators!

This post is offensive to zombies.  It should be removed.

[Phishfan]

There is a big difference though. Souter really had very little public information available on him, so everyone assumed he was anti-abortion since Bush nominated him. Alito has actual writings stating his position on the subject. If you would say those groups are crying wolf about Alito, then you would have to say Alito is a flip flopper (I always wanted to use that).

[Househead]

Alito sucks.

By the way, I watched the confirmation hearing on tv last night (yes, I am nerd regarding that stuff, but its interesting) and really like Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. I think he is a really intelligent and articulate man and I wish he would become a stronger voice for the democratic party and consider running in 08. Too bad though the voters of this county are made up by crazy Christians and honkies that would never vote for a jew, despite the qualifications he might bring to the table.

[pintofguinness14]

Let it be overturned.  Bad case, bad law, et cetera et cetera...

There was a neat little editorial in The Economist a few weeks ago suggesting the Democrats (and the pro-choicers as a whole) would be better off if Roe v. Wade was overturned.  The gist of the editorial was that polling consistently shows that 4/5 Americans are in favor of legal abortion in at least some circumstances.  The numbers in favor get smaller if you talk about circumstances other than rape, incest or if the life of the mother is at stake, but we're still talking about a solid majority.  Not many Republican legislators will be willing to vote against a strong majority of voters.  

If Roe is overturned, my prediction is that a couple of states will outlaw it outright, a good number will place greater restrictions on abortion, but it will still be available in the first trimester and some will leave the existing rules alone.  All in all, most Americans who want access to safe abortions will still have it (albeit in a possibly more regulated environment) and we'll have arrived at that state through the democratic process as opposed to by judicial fiat.  

[pintofguinness14]

Alito sucks.

By the way, I watched the confirmation hearing on tv last night (yes, I am nerd regarding that stuff, but its interesting) and really like Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. I think he is a really intelligent and articulate man and I wish he would become a stronger voice for the democratic party and consider running in 08. Too bad though the voters of this county are made up by crazy Christians and honkies that would never vote for a jew, despite the qualifications he might bring to the table.

Feingolds qualifications aside, the Dems would be fools to go nominate him.  He'd lose not because he is a Jew, but because he's way out to the left.  If you're interested in getting a Jew elected, go with Joe Leberman.  He'd have a chance, at least. 

I've met Feingold.  While I don't agree with everything he says, he impressed me.  He's one of those people that is genuinely interested in making a difference.  It's too bad we do not agree on more.

[Phishfan]

I don't follow the Economists reasonings on how overturining Roe v. Wade would benefit pro-choicers. Pro-choicers already have what they want. How would any change benefit them? It would not.

In terms of Feingold, I have not followed him very much. Both of you have stated he is a smart man so maybe I will look him up. In terms of Lieberman, that guy is basically a liberal economist with a conservative social agenda. Too middle of the road to get enough votes from either side I imagine.

[pintofguinness14]

I don't follow the Economists reasonings on how overturining Roe v. Wade would benefit pro-choicers. Pro-choicers already have what they want. How would any change benefit them? It would not.

In terms of Feingold, I have not followed him very much. Both of you have stated he is a smart man so maybe I will look him up. In terms of Lieberman, that guy is basically a liberal economist with a conservative social agenda. Too middle of the road to get enough votes from either side I imagine.

It would benefit Democrats because the Republicans would no longer be able to take a strong stand on the issue without having to worry about actually voting one way or the other as they would if the court threw out Roe and told the legislators to decide what they want.  It would benefit the pro-choicers because the end result would be access to legal abortion anyway and that result will be legitimated by our democratic process as opposed to going through the back door (the courts).  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Courts getting involved to safe guard our rights, but I think abortion is one of those times when the decisions were best left to be fought over in the political branches of the government, and not in the judiciary.

I'm not saying Leberman would win, but his middle of the road status is exactly why he would get more votes than Feingold.

[Phishfan]

I get your point, but it's a bit idealistic. Abortion is always going to be a point of contention. Maybe it will focus more on the state level if Roe is overturned, but it will still be debated. Pro-lifers would only be happy if abortions were only allowed in extreme cases (and some would only be happy if it was not allowed at all) so the debate would still go on.

Laws can always be repealed so there is no end to this debate one way or another. A solid stance by the judiciary branch is the only way to have a consistent line on this one.

[runtheball]

The Constitution says nothing about abortion.  It falls into the category that each state should decide it's legality individually.  The Supreme Court overstepped it's authority in outlawing it in the first place. 

[Househead]

The Constitution says nothing about abortion.  It falls into the category that each state should decide it's legality individually.  The Supreme Court overstepped it's authority in outlawing it in the first place. 

The constitution does not say a lot about of a lot of things (at least not explicity), however many rights are implied and that is where the right to chose comes from (privacy). Its the courts job to interpret which rights are available and they did. In no manner did they overstep their authority.

[runtheball]

Rights are not implied by the Constitution.  That's simply wrong.  They are either stated or not stated.  Those that aren't fall to each state to decide.  It's pretty clear if you read the document.