<p>Why don’t we teach goverment courses in school for longer than 1 semester and not count on faith based initiatives to do that for us???</p>
<p>LauraS50 - Knock it off. No originalist goes so far as to want slavery again. Originalists respect the Constitution and its amendments - including the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. Those were not made by judges, but rather by the process written into the Constitution for changing it. Originalist-types love that stuff. While mocking people who seek to judge cases based on the laws in front of them might be exciting, you really don’t make yourself look very bright by making such an obvious logical error.</p>
<p>I’ll be honest - overturning Roe scares the hell out of me. Still, I think it’s horrible law, is NOT settled (even my very left-leaning Con Law prof hated it - besides the fact that it has been limited, tweaked, and altered beyond recognition in the past 30 years), and should be oveturned - so we can start to legislate this stuff in a sensible manner. Guess what, folks - even if Roe is overturned, abortion on demand is legal until state legislatures act to change that. If the majority of Americans back abortion (lead by the 18-35 male crowd, who is screaming for more sex with fewer repercussions…), then abortion will… (drumroll, please)… still be legal! </p>
<p>Hopefully, someday, the courts can stop using a very blunt tool (their opinions on one specific case in front of them) to accomplish a difficult, nuanced task (such as abortion). The Supreme Court can only rule on the case in front of them - they can’t speculatively rule on future cases; they can’t rule on related issues. It is an institution that is remarkably ill-suited for social engineering.</p>
<p>Miers was the compromise candidate that the liberals have been screaming for. They got her, but didn’t back her; instead, they let her be crucified. Now you have a Roberts/Scalia/Thomas clone - and you’re complaining? Back the moderate when she’s there, instead of deriding her as a puppet of the administration. Clearly, a woman who made it to the top of a big-city firm in her era is NOT just a mindless Stepford robot. (Rolls eyes.)</p>
<p>“If it is approved by the majority of Americans, why are you afraid of it being addressed in a democratic fashion as it has been in Europe?”</p>
<p>Because the Founding Fathers, in hundreds of pages of writing, made it quite clear that their greatest fear was tyranny of the majority, and that the original intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to curb it. </p>
<p>If you’d prefer to live in Europe, no one’s stopping you.</p>
<p>I guess with this nomination having been made there isn’t much need to consider (R) Senator Lott’s suggestion that the President look for “the best qualified man, woman or minority”. </p>
<p>Perhaps the good Senator has found some alternate species that need be considered other than his own (neanderthal).</p>
<p>Well, then, what the heck. Why not just abolish Congress and let the Supremes rule. Who needs elections and a democratically elected body when the majority is not to be trusted.</p>
<p>Why abolish now when control is not quite complete? I mean it is three brances, separate ones. So, one more to go…robe that is.</p>
<p>“Well, then, what the heck. Why not just abolish Congress and let the Supremes rule. Who needs elections and a democratically elected body when the majority is not to be trusted.”</p>
<p>I assume your question is directed at the authors of the Constitution. I think they are able to answer you quite effectively.</p>
<p>The Supremes already rule. THEY elected “W” the first go 'round.</p>
<p>Even the Dems must be happy with that decision. Afterall, they continually say that Bush should nominate someone just like O’Connner who cast the deciding vote for Bush. ;)</p>
<p>How many people here think a woman should have to notify her husband before she has an abortion? Should we allow the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public courthouse as long as we also have seven habits of successful people or a Christmas manger scene as long as Frosty the Snowman is one of the wisemen? The Government should represent all people not a small group of right wing fanatics.</p>
<p>How many people think that a man should have to notify his wife before he has a vasectomy? I do.</p>
<p>Any marriage so screwed up that one party won’t tell the other about the above two situations is probably beyond repair anyway…and after the divorce they won’t need permission for anything.</p>
<p>
Personnaly I think that was a dumb law, but that is not the point. What is frustrating about this whole discussion is the apparent confusion about the role of the judicial branch - they are not there to determine whether a law is dumb or not, but whether it is lawful/constitutional. People need to get it out their mind that the court system is there to create laws or to evaluate laws as to whether they are “good” or not - that is the role of the legislative branch with the endorsement of the executive branch.</p>
<p>From this morning’s LA Times, an interesting article on the esteem in which Alito is held by liberal colleagues who know him and have worked with him.
<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051102/ts_latimes/nomineehassomeunexpectedsupporters;_ylt=AgN60UyCrCEzTedFsVSy0zXrbr8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051102/ts_latimes/nomineehassomeunexpectedsupporters;_ylt=AgN60UyCrCEzTedFsVSy0zXrbr8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl</a>
If you know anything at all about Judge Higginbotham, this is remarkable praise indeed.</p>
<p>FF, that sound great HOWEVER, they nuance the laws and decide which are constitutional and which are not. They can decide whether a law holds up or is okay for one group…but not another. That is ultra important. Congress proposes and Court disposes…or clarifies.</p>
<p>As an aside, I would proudly add that Justice Alito is one of our neighbors. We are ecstatic about his nomination!</p>
<p>I say to all you hysterical ideologues: run for cover!</p>
<p>ScrappleFace.com, meanwhile, “reports”:</p>
<pre><code>Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, today questioned Judge Samuel Alito’s commitment to diversity noting that the Supreme Court nominee’s last name is 60 percent vowels and only 40 percent consonants.
In perhaps the most substantive critique of President George Bush’s nominee to date, the senator also noted that the federal appeals court judge’s full name contains every vowel, but a disproportionately small percentage of consonants.
“Not only is Judge Alito’s name too vowel-heavy for mainstream Americans,” said Sen. Schumer. “But ‘Alito’ begins and ends with vowels, suggesting that vowels are the alpha and omega of the alphabet, and clearly denigrating the contribution of consonants to our society.”
</code></pre>
<p>Is there ever a time when the court should “legislate from the bench” or should all errors- such as slavery, voting rights only be corrected via the amendment process. If the Dred Scott decision was to find slavery unconstitutional or if some court case found women had the right to vote prior to the amendment would that be wrong. Can’t the court correct issues like these without overreaching? I am not sure where you draw the line- gay marriage, affirmative action, prohibition?</p>
<p>Poetsheart, I think a husband and wife should communicate but I don’t think it is required by the constitution. The Supreme Court rejected Alito’s considered opinion on this case.</p>
<p>And putting Frosty the Snowman as a justification for allowing a manger scene on public property was amusing to me.</p>
<p>No one I know is in favor of “abortions” but no one should want to return to the days before Roe v. Wade. When only the wealthy who could afford to travel outside the country got safe abortions and other women died in hotel rooms from back street abortions. </p>
<p>A woman should have the right to choose.</p>
<p>Well, I hope they confirm him, even if he isn’t the most qualified (and is clearly a judicial activist), just as I hoped they’d confirm Miers, who was.</p>