Posted on 01/10/2006 7:54:24 AM PST by conserv371
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., wasted no time getting down to business Tuesday, plunging right into whether Alito believes privacy is protected by the Constitution and his views on abortion.
"Senator, I do believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy," Alito responded when Specter asked if the nominee accepts the principles of Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that established that medical contraception fell under the right to privacy and legalized birth control. Alito also said he believes that same protection is provided for single women.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
1. Someone aborts a fetus knowing it is a human life. 2. Someone aborts a fetus not knowing it is a human life. 3. Someone aborts a fetus not knowing it is a not human life. 4. Someone aborts a fetus knowing it is not a human life.
In the first case, he argued if a person knowing takes the life of another human being that is legally considered murder.
In the second case, he stated if someone was driving along and saw a coat in the road and ran over it. It was found that a homeless person was under that coat and died. This individual would be guilty of manslaughter.
Third case: A construction company is deciding to demolish a building and in order to get it done quickly skips checking to make sure no one is in the building. Legally, they could found guilty of criminal intent because of not checking for humans even though there was no one in the building.
The last case: A fetus is destroyed and the individuals are sure it is not a human life. This would be the only acceptable time but this statement has yet to be proven as fact. So three out of the four cases result in unlawful conduct and the last case must be proved which it has not.
Pro-choice people have to prove that a fetus is not a human life or some smart lawyer could argue that those involved in an abortion are guilty of murder, or manslaughter, or criminal intent.
"In the second case, he stated if someone was driving along and saw a coat in the road and ran over it. It was found that a homeless person was under that coat and died. This individual would be guilty of manslaughter."
Probably not.
That said, I suppose it would be if it would be considered criminally negligent to run over a coat.
"I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as 'super precedents' or 'super duper precedents,'" Alito responded. "It sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket."
"A judge doesn't have a client, as I said yesterday, and a judge doesn't have an agenda and a judge has to follow the law, and an important part of the law in this area as we look at it in 2006 is the law of stare decisis," Alito said.
He left out the last bit... "and the law is whatever the judge decides it is at that point in time"...
After all, that IS what the fight is about.
The 9 can decide what the words and the laws mean.
The unlawful killing of another without intent to kill; either voluntary (upon a sudden impulse); or involuntary (during the commission of an unlawful act not ordinarily expected to result in great bodily harm).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Manslaughter
brandonlclark.com/glossary.html
I have a lot of trouble with this. By the color and shape, it could have been a deer and the driver should have at least made an attempt to stop. My feeling is that he simply wasn't paying attention.
How did the driver know that the supposed box didn't have a 200 lb object in it?
Is running over a coat an unlawful act?
No.
That's awful.
A few points:
"By the color and shape, it could have been a deer and the driver should have at least made an attempt to stop."
Why? To render aid to a potentially injured and dangerous deer? Get a trophy? I've hit deer. If your car is functioning; drive on, there's nothing to do.
"My feeling is that he simply wasn't paying attention."
You're probably right. Probably talking on a cell phone and smoking a cigarrete while reading a map. But the standard to bring a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" --- not a feeling.
"How did the driver know that the supposed box didn't have a 200 lb object in it?"
Who knows. But that is his problem. It's not a crime to mess up your own stuff.
Note, not a lawyer, just a repeat grand jury member, normal juror, employer of lawyers, and witness over the course of my life.
That puts the court in the position of deciding 1) whether a fetus is indeed a human being, a position the court has studiously avoided up till now; 2) whether, regardless of its own determination as to the "human-ness" of a fetus, the same definition could reasonably be expected to be shared by members of society at large, including the defendant.
Failing the first, there is no criminal act -- certainly not a homicide, since no human being was killed. Failing the second, there is no criminal intent, the second component necessary to establish culpability.
While it may be possible to overturn the precedent set by Griswold, it won't be done with this argument.
That's a terrible story. In defense of the driver, I would point out that the consequences of attempting to stop short or take other evasive actions in snowy roadway conditions can be worse than hitting an object in the road. So if the driver really thought he was hitting a cardboard box -- or even a deer -- then I might be inclined to give him a little leeway here.
Personally, I'd like a nominee, just once, to say something like this:
"Senator, you say you wish to have 'a woman's right to choose' guaranteed, correct?
Sir, I have the perfect solution for you: Do Your Job.
IF, sir, you and your compatriots were half the intellectual and political giants you fancy yourselves to be, we'd not be having this conversation.
You would, long ago, have written up an amendment to the Constitution stating plainly and for all to see, that this 'right to choose' exists. You would have defined it in legal stone.
Alas, you have not done so. And why is that? Is it because, to legislators on EITHER side of the issue, it is a cash cow? I wonder, Senator Kennedy, if you'd have gotten away with half of your misogynistic life, had you not 'Roe V. Wade' to save you each election. And you, Senator DeWine, you claim a certain political philosophy, but betray it right, left and sideways. Would you, I wonder, still be in office, if you did not have the endorsement of Right to Life groups?
No, GENTLEMEN (and I use the term loosely), the question is NOT, how will I rule on a given case. I will rule according to the laws of the Federal Government and the Constitution of the United States. The question is, if you are SO CONCERNED about this issue, why have you NOT done your duty to solidify this position (which you claim such strong support for) into law?
So, before you waste another half an hour on some prepared position statement, just look at the Constitution. Examine the Bill of Rights. Read the plain english. Do not 'interpret', 'expound' or 'surmise'. If you see it written before you, it is in the Constitution, if you do not, it IS NOT, and I WILL NOT pretend otherwise."
Ah well.
I can dream, can't I?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.