Skip to comments.
Is SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito Pro Abortion?
Find Law ^
| 10.31.05
Posted on 10/31/2005 7:58:05 PM PST by Coleus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 321-337 next last
To: flashbunny
>>>he was bound by precedent.
What is the precedent for Partial Birth Abortion? And why do other states have it as illegal?
61
posted on
10/31/2005 8:27:44 PM PST
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Coleus
The critical point from the decision which MUST be recognized is this one:
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to deny certification in Carhart must be regarded as controlling here....
As a lower court judge, Alito had NO authority to overturn a USSC decision, and to assert that he should have done so is anti-Strict-Constructionist.
His ruling in this case is CLEARLY the result of a strict-constructionist reading of the US Constitution relative to the role of the court on which he sat within the judicial system. Since he IS a strict constructionist, and not an liberal or conservative activist, he obeyed the US Constitution and gave proper deference to the USSC's ruling in a substantially identical case. This does not, IN ANY WAY, speak to how he would have ruled had he been on the USSC, where he would have had the authority to overturn earlier USSC decisions.
It's decisions like this that give me hope that we've got a REAL strict constructionist here who, when he sits on the USSC, will apply that thinking to the Constitution, look at the "right to privacy" claims, and not see them as justifying infanticide. THIS is how I want abortion ended ... not because I believe it is morally reprehensible, but because there is NO right to abortion in the US Constitution ... while there IS a right to life for the unborn.
62
posted on
10/31/2005 8:27:52 PM PST
by
TexasGreg
("Democrats Piss Me Off")
To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
>>>Let's go back in time and abort him. That'll show him.
Who has a time machine?
Look, people...this to me appears to be an example of following the law as the legislature wrote it and stare decisis...it's probably a good thing this thread got started. Makes me think we have a good choice that won't legislate his personal opinions from the bench.
To: Coleus
64
posted on
10/31/2005 8:28:11 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Cyborg is the greatest blessing I have ever known.)
To: Pyro7480
65
posted on
10/31/2005 8:28:26 PM PST
by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
To: COEXERJ145; Coleus
There will be always people who are eternally pessimistic. I'm not sure Coleus is one of them though.
66
posted on
10/31/2005 8:28:54 PM PST
by
Pyro7480
(Blessed Pius IX, pray for us!)
To: Calpernia; Stellar Dendrite
That coming from the person who linked opposing mires to being allied with communists.
There's no problem discussing his record - that's one of the good things - he has a record to discuss.
Just have a basic clue as to the workings of the legal system before you start thinking you have scandal on your hands.
This is almost like one of those threads where people post an urban legend that has been posted and debunked many times before.
67
posted on
10/31/2005 8:29:07 PM PST
by
flashbunny
(Anybody want to trade Alito back in for Miers?)
To: Calpernia
We shouldn't be looking at prior rulings? So, we should have no discussion? Not post records and ask no questions?Who said anything about not looking at prior rulings? Do so by all means. Question. Discuss. Just try to make a passing attempt at understanding a ruling and the basis for it before jumping to an incorrect conclusion.
68
posted on
10/31/2005 8:29:23 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(Happy first birthday, Miss Beasley. Happy Anniversary President and Mrs. Bush.)
To: flashbunny
Judge Luttig made a similiar statement in a similiar case.
As a court of law, ours is neither to devise ways in which to circumvent the opinions of the Supreme Court nor to indulge delay in the full implementation of the Court's opinions. Rather, our responsibility is to follow faithfully its opinions, because that court is, by constitutional design, vested with the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution.
There's also a remark that Mother Alito made about her son in regards to abortion. Rose Alito, 90, told reporters that her Catholic son is of course against abortion.
69
posted on
10/31/2005 8:29:24 PM PST
by
Reagan Man
(Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
To: flashbunny
I think not.You just insulted my friend.People with skills debate and not insult.
70
posted on
10/31/2005 8:29:52 PM PST
by
fatima
(I stole MS.BEHAVIN tagline and I am happy:))
To: Coleus
Then why do many states HAVE bans on PBA????????? Well, if you look at your full post you will see the answer
27 states have bans without a health exception. 19 bans have been specifically blocked by a court. 8 bans remain unchallenged.
To: Always Right
I know your joking....but just wait.... before this is over I'm sure the RATS will create some (as Baghdad Bob used to say) ''Hollywood magic'' and make it look like he has!
To: Coleus
Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent. When evaluating the rulings of a Federal Appeals Court judge this should be kept in mind.
To: Pyro7480
I am not aware of any state that had PBA ban, that wasn't subsequently overturned by a federal court. Is there an exception?No Stenberg v Carhart is the law???? of the land. SCOTUS has reached deep into the emanations of the penumbra and their twisted souls and found a right to murder full term babies in the constitution by sucking out their cortex and then tearing them limb from limb.
Congress' PBA ban is coming soon to a SCOTUS near you though, this term.
74
posted on
10/31/2005 8:30:39 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: COEXERJ145
Funny, I said last night that no matter who the nominee is, there would be some malcontents on FR who would oppose him/her and I was flamed for it. Looks like I was right. >>
There is always that one in the crowd.
75
posted on
10/31/2005 8:30:48 PM PST
by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
To: fatima
perhaps you should tell your friend to do a little more research before posting inflamatory threads.
76
posted on
10/31/2005 8:30:55 PM PST
by
flashbunny
(Anybody want to trade Alito back in for Miers?)
To: Reagan Man
Phew, sure glad they didn't pick Luttig.
77
posted on
10/31/2005 8:31:47 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Howlin; Miss Marple
It has begun - talk about going out of your way to try and find a reason to be upset.
To: Coleus
79
posted on
10/31/2005 8:32:33 PM PST
by
flashbunny
(Anybody want to trade Alito back in for Miers?)
To: fatima
Fatima, I think my pro-life credentials are well-known, and I am an attorney.
Believe me when I say that Alito had no authority in this case. He had no choice but to do what he did.
80
posted on
10/31/2005 8:32:35 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Cyborg is the greatest blessing I have ever known.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 321-337 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson