Posted on 11/13/2005 9:07:54 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
...developing
I expected this to come soon - people's interest in Washington politics drops to almost nil during the holidays, so it's only natural that the leftists would want to get a bunch of hits in before Thanksgiving. It's time to rumble.
I mean AFTER she has written an opinion.
Correct. The Constitution says nothing about a pregnant woman having a right to kill the unborn human life developing in her womb. The Founding Fathers never condoned abortion or supported such an abomination. Neither should we.
This may be juvenile but...
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Knew the Libs couldn't let it go, they tried with Roberts. People tend to forget but they tried to slime him, it just didn't go over well. They'll do the same with Alito, it was only a question of when the restraint would break.
bring it on Dems! We're ready for you. We've been ready for years.
Even Lawrence Tribe, one of the lib's favorite law profs, has said that the Roe case was bad law.
Hmmmmm....was he/she a troll? Their opinion counts for something?
Um....
Did Matt lose his watch?
His show is almost over...
Allan Dershowitz too.
..and therein lies the truth; the proper originalist response to abortion would be to say that no legislature has the right to allow for the termination of an innocent life. The Constitution speaks much more clearly of a right to life than it does a right to homocide parading around as a right to privacy.
O'Connor's biggest embarrassment was not Casey, however, it was Grutter. How the HELL can something be Constitutional--but only for 25 more years? Either it's in the document or it isn't! She should have been impeached for that. WTF that woman is still doing on the SCOTUS after that ridiculous opinion is further evidence Congress would be more useful for the Republic if the legislators were all replaced by a trained seal act. At least the seals wouldn't initiate legislation. They'd be a damn sight less noisy. And they wouldn't be any more likely to make the District a circus, either.
"Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."- Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, 23 June 2003
I'm not a Constitutional scholar. Does anyone recall any reference to 25 years in that document? Anything even allowing for the imposition of such a timeframe for Constitution-derived policy?
WASH TIMES: Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view... Judge Alito, Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that 'the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion' in a 1985 document obtained by the WASHINGTON TIMES.... 'I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position... Developing...
I agree completely with this analysis. Her reasoning was absurd.
"Does anyone recall any reference to 25 years in that document? Anything even allowing for the imposition of such a timeframe for Constitution-derived policy?"
I'm pretty sure it was in the fine print at the back, you know, the boilerplate the Founders wrote in really small calligraphy. /sarc
O'Connor's affirmative-action appointment is a prime example of why 'affirmative action' hiring NEVER ends up putting the best candidate in the job. Sometimes it gets lucky by tapping a supremely COMPETENT person for the job (Justice Thomas is a shining example of such a lucky roll of the dice) but most often, the best mind for the job is overlooked, as it was when she was appointed simply because of her irrelevant physical features. Reviewing her opinions, laden with more balancing tests than a glue factory with horse apples, one is reminded of the old saw about why God gave blondes 2% more brains than horses, except that she's pooped all over the Constitution anyway with her silly equivocations.
She has been a disappointment on so many levels that her arrival on the bench cannot help but to have been a setback for her sex, almost to the point that her Grutter ruling is understandable--it may be that she recognizes the damage she's done to the perception of women as men's intellectual equals, and hopes to compensate for it by keeping affirmative action in place for the 25-odd years it'll take to undo the sexism she's engendered.
UPDATE:
Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view... Judge Alito, Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that 'the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion' in a 1985 document obtained by the WASHINGTON TIMES.... 'I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position... Developing...
Awesome quote! He is now more worthy of confirmation.
Yahoo! A justice who believes in LIFE first! Take that you Culture of Death zombies!
Even more revealing in this quote is his commitment to originalism. Unless something is spelled out in the constitution, it cannot be constitutional.
Makes me like him even more, as if that is possible. :-)
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.