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?

response 26 of 186:

Jan 15 02:44 UTC 2006

Kenny and Brodbeck know how Alito will vote on abortion just as well as
NARAL knew how Breyer would.

Yeah.  Kennedy's still tired from trying to rescue Mary Jo.

response 28 of 186:

Jan 15 23:24 UTC 2006

That's all water under the bridge.

response 30 of 186:

Jan 18 03:15 UTC 2006

Alito is going to join with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and new 
Chief Justice John Roberts as the Four Musketeers of hardline 
conservatism.  Remember too that the court's most liberal justice, 
Justice John Paul Stevens, turns 85 in April.  Bush and co. know 
Stevens won't live forever, or possibly be lucid enough to stay on the 
court forever, and all they have to do is be able to replace him with 
a "fifth musketeer", and they've won the battle.  This court is VERY 
close to being controlled by the right.