response 2 of 186:

Jan 12 03:17 UTC 2006

Clarence Thomas said that too, but it turned out he was lying.

response 4 of 186:

Jan 12 08:47 UTC 2006

> I think the argument that because something doesn't appear in the
> Constitution it is forbidden makes no sense at all: you might even
> call it stupid.

If anyone were making that argument, it would indeed be stupid.
But they're not, so we're left with this dangling accusation of
stupidity and no one to point it towards, though your response
is the next best thing to a statement of intent to volunteer.

If Roe V. Wade had not been decided the way it was, or if it
were to be overturned, the mechanism through which abortion would
(or, more accurately, *might*) become illegal would be through
many state and local laws which outlawed the practice completely
in some jurisdictions and substantially restricted its practice
in others.  The finding in Roe v. Wade invalidated such laws but
without the force of that decision legislatures would be free to
make laws which they are not currently able to enact.

response 6 of 186:

Jan 12 14:21 UTC 2006

>it seems to me that Alito hasn't said that he would
>vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Not directly, no.  He 1)Acknowledged he had written in the past that Roe
had been wrongly decided and be reversed, but 2)Said kind words about
stare decisis, while 3)Saying some things were more important than stare
decisis, and finally 4)Refused to say that Roe was "settled law". 
Sounds like a vote to overturn.

Why not just come out and say, "Roe is bad and should be reversed"?  If
one believes (as the Right claims they do) that abortion is wrong and
Roe was a travesty along the lines of Dred Scott and that a majority of
Americans oppose abortion, and you have majority control of the Exec and
Legis branches, why not just stand up for what you believe and say, "We
want judges who will reverse Roe"?

>First, Alito never disputed he belonged to CAP. 

He's given a number of answers.  The one he's been hanging his hat on
lately is "I don't remember."  During the hearings he's added, "If I was
a member, maybe it was because I was in ROTC." 
 
>And nobody can show it was antiwoman, antiminority, or antigay.

From "The Nation":  "By the time Alito was readying his 1985 job
application with the Reagan Administration, the admission of women and
minorities was well established at Nassau Hall, but this did not stop
CAP from lamenting the consequences. "People nowadays just don't seem to
know their place," fretted a 1983 Prospect essay titled "In Defense of
Elitism." "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs
simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped
are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and
homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to
bear children." By this point the editor of Prospect was Dinesh D'Souza,
who brought to its pages a new level of coarseness aimed at those who
did not know their place. "Here at Princeton homosexuals are on the
rampage," complained a 1984 news item in Prospect--this after a gay
student group had dared to protest being denied permission to hold a
dance at a campus club. Another article poked fun at Sally Frank, a
Princeton alumna who was suing the university for denying women access
to all-male eating clubs. It noted that a Rhode Island woman who'd won a
discrimination suit against a mining company had subsequently died in an
on-the-job accident. "Sally Frank, take note," it quipped."

>Second, the ABA rating was not just "well-qualified" - it was a 
>unanimous "well qualified."

With a gold star!

>Third, according to news reports, the promise not to participate in 
>Vanguard cases was applicable to his "initial period" on the bench.

Yes, that's what Alito *now* says he meant, but that isn't what he said
when he was trying to win a spot as a circuit judge--he said he would
disqualify himself from "any cases involving the Vanguard companies." 
Not "any cases in the next couple of years", but "any", period.

>don't you think it's about time that the courts started to 
>respect the constitutionally-mandated powers of the two other 
>suppposedly co-equal branches of government?

That isn't what this is about.  The theory of "unitary executive" claims
that the President has the right/ability to override and/or ignore
and/or bypass the other branches of government, like a King.

response 8 of 186:

Jan 12 17:39 UTC 2006

Re O'Connor and Roe as "Bad Law". I only found some commentary on this, that
went as follows:

"At the same time that Justice O'Connor has led the way for the renewal
of the states' role in the constitutional design, she also has refused
to permit her more conservative brethren to eviscerate a woman's right
to choose an abortion.

"This position has won Justice O'Connor stinging rebukes from her
brethren. Nevertheless, she has never backed down from what has been
her principled position from the very beginning: There is a right to
abortion, and the states may not place an undue burden on it. Much to
her credit, no amount of upbraiding or name-calling has moved her an
iota."

(from http://tinyurl.com/eyxpb)

Can you cite where O'Connor referred to Roe as "bad law"?

response 10 of 186:

Jan 12 19:11 UTC 2006

>Does johnnyjohnnie claim that an article in a magazine necessarily 
>reflects the adopted position of the organization?  

I'd say that the official publication of an organization (which is what
the above clip quotes from) does, yes.

>The news report stated the wording "initial period" was taken from the 
>text of a written question.  Can johnniejohhny prove otherwises?

And we all know that the news media is never wrong, particularly uncited
reports.  A written question from whom to whom, and when, and where? 
And who used the phrase "initial period".?  Need more details.  

Here's what we know for sure:  In 1990, during confirmation hearings for
his appointment to the appellate court, Alito pledged--under oath, in
writing--to (and I quote) "disqualify myself from any cases involving
the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, or the First
Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, New York."  He didn't say, "for an
initial period", or "for five or six years", or give any other sort of
qualifying statement.  Alito now says he *meant* only for an initial
period, but that don't make it so.

>Does johhnyjohhyy also claim that liberals such as o'connor didn't say 
>she thought Roe was bad law?

(S.D.O'C. is hardly a liberal)  I make no claims whatsoever as to what
Justice O'Connor didn't say.  What's your point?


(And just as an aside, I must note that klg's habit of mocking others'
names is quite amusing given that he conceals his own.  My guess would
be that he finds his own name particularly objectionable [one mocks in
others what one fears in oneself].  Others here have called him "Kerry",
which--though somewhat androgenous--doesn't strike me as particularly
shameful.  Perhaps it's the complete name that causes him grief; maybe
it rhymes, like "Kerry Larry Gooseberry", or something.  Anyway...)

response 12 of 186:

Jan 12 20:56 UTC 2006

You're overly sensitive, alright.  Better add another layer of tinfoil.

Here's a hypothetical for you:  an official publication of some
organization publishes a piece that is not prefaced with a disclaimer
and is not afterwards repudiated by the organization in question.
What should one assume to be the overwhelmingly likely position of
that organization vis a vis the issue in question?

response 14 of 186:

Jan 12 21:35 UTC 2006

/wonders if klg would join the kkk because he
 likes their immigration policy.

response 16 of 186:

Jan 12 23:36 UTC 2006

!party

response 18 of 186:

Jan 13 01:16 UTC 2006

hi naftee!

response 20 of 186:

Jan 13 11:55 UTC 2006

You know what they say about "assume."

response 22 of 186:

Jan 14 02:46 UTC 2006

Sen. Brownback and other Republicans made repeated references in the 
hearings to Brown v. Board of Education, apparently to make the point 
that starre decisis isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that sometimes 
overturning precedents is a good thing. (I think these are winking 
messages to reassure their base that Alito is the sort of guy who will 
overturn Roe v. Wade.) The irony here is Brown really shouldn't have 
been decided the way it was, if you follow the principles conservatives 
claim judges should be following. 
 
First, there's original intent. It seems highly unlikely that Congress 
intended to end segregation when the 14th Amendment was passed, in 
1866. In fact, the text of the Brown decision clearly states that it's 
ignoring the conditions that existed when the amendment was passed. 
 
Secondly, Brown was bucking the will of the people, in that it was 
overturning a law established by the Kansas state legislature. 
 
If there was ever an example of "judicial activism," the nemesis of 
conservative legal minds, Brown v. Board of Education is it. 

response 24 of 186:

Jan 14 07:19 UTC 2006

Maybe he was tired. Do you find tired people fascinating?