Say Anything Blog

[...] Schumer Accuses Alito Of Supporting Segregation By Rob on October 31, 2005 at 2:31 pm [...]

Democrats and their baseless and childish accusations. Wake me up when that sad story changes. For now, I think that I will attempt to ignore their immature taunts and forget that they are lawmakers in positions of power.

Didn’t Alito bite the head off of a live chicken while performing a sacrifice to the dark lord.  I am surprised the Dems didn’t accuse him of that too.

Wait, that is protected under the Democrat’s version of the Constitution.  Animal Sacrifice--free speech and protected, Ten Commandments--need to be removed due to Separation of Church and State.  Almost forgot.  The worst thing they can accuse him of is being religious.  That will get their supporters all in a lather.

For the left, it’s all about politics.  The constitution is an evolving document, and that evolution is accomplished through the mechanism of amendment.  Want a right to privacy?  Sponsor an amendment and see if the people want it.  A right to abortion?  Same thing.  Supreme Court justices are chosen by the President, and if they are competent, they should be approved.  Their political philosophy is irrelevant, or should be.

I am 100% confident that Judge Alito is a judge who would be as strong an antisegregationist as the 99 percent of the federal Judges and Justices since 1954 who have been in the vanguard of enforcement of the 14th Amendent since that time.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar.

It seems to be clear:  you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  If we want to establish a right to abortion on the federal level, let them amend the constitution for that purpose.  Of course, it would never fly, which is why they ran it through the courts.  I don’t see the right to privacy in there, either, so once again, amend the frigging constitution!  This is why we need to put originalists on the Court.  It’s just about following the constitution as written, or about amending it if we all think that should be done.

The reality is that if the Federal Government would have tried to pass a law regarding abortion prior to Roe, odds are it would have been struck down as a state’s rights issue.  But the Federal Judiciary can expand the role of the Federal Government by inventing new rights such as the right to privacy that supercede the rights of the states.

The right to privacy does not exist with regards to abortion.  You are engaging in commerce within a state and purchasing a regulated and monitored service.  Doctors have licenses and the state government is what determines what practices and proceedures are permitted in Medicine within that state.  Now states can no longer regulate medical proceedures.

I think the right to privacy also applies to human cloning as well as genetically splicing my kids DNA with that of Monkeys to breed a super-race.  I should be able to make medical decisions to let my kids die and to for that matter kill them up until they turn age 18 since I am their guardian.  That is my “right to privacy” too.  I should have a right to privacy to sexually or physically abuse them too.  Nope, right to privacy only means that up until their body completely emerges from the womb, I can stab them with a fork and pull their brains out before throwing them in a dumpster.

Why not debate these issue in the Senate and let the Senate pass a law regarding these things, then let our courts enforce the law?  Alito believes that is the way the Founding Fathers intended the system to work.  Freeing the Slaves was not done by the Supreme Court, and that was a “DEVISIVE ISSUE”.  Abortion, gay marriage, Kelo, these are not devisive.  These are issues that our Legislators have failed to adequately tackle (in many cases) or issues where the Courts want to overrule the will of the people.  That is not democracy.  That is a dictatorship from the bench.  And it needs to be stopped.

It is preposterous that a conservative, constructionist judge might find that civil rights are not constitutionally protected?

genetically splicing my kids DNA with that of Monkeys to breed a super-race.

LOL,
Bud Abbot never delivered a better straight line.

Your kids DNA is probably patented already.
Bring in the chimps.

A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html

It is preposterous that a conservative, constructionist judge might find that civil rights are not constitutionally protected?

Of course it depends on what you mean by “civil rights"… That’s two broad a term to debate honestly

I have a civil right to demand that liberals pay all of my bills.

Going back to the original post, Schumer was suggesting that Alito would roll back the kind of legislation that Rosa Parks embodied.  This is an obvious reference to the Civil Rights Act, desegregation, etc. 

What part of the constitution supports such legislation?  If it cannot be found using a strict constructionist approach, and Alito is a strict constructionist, it would stand to reason that Alito would rule that such legislation is null and void.

Thus, my question: why is it so absurd to consider that he might overrule civil rights legislation on constitutional grounds?

MI: If they are in the constitution or have been added by the amendment process, they exist.  If they don’t, they are not protected.  I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

Whistler:  That is the first step.  Next, they tell you how to spend the money because they are giving it to you, then they tell you how you should live, then they abolish everything you want and give you what they want you to want.  This is the menace of liberalism.  As long as you don’t want any freedom or independence, it’s OK. Oh, yes, they tell you how much money you should make and where you can work.

MI:

It is preposterous that a conservative, constructionist judge might find that civil rights are not constitutionally protected?

Good point. I think you could make a reasonable claim that Brown v. Board of Education was an “activist” judicial decision. I very rarely hear conservatives explain the Constitutional background for that case.

BTW, Alito’s views almost Mirror those of Clarence Thomas.  I think it is pretty safe to say that Thomas is not going to send us back to the days of Segregation.

Funny, Equality has in interesting meaning to Democrats.  I think we are approaching equality when our Secretary of State is an African American Woman, the guy she replaced was an African American male, and when an African American sits on the Supreme Court.  Not that we are there yet, but the Democratic party sends us Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson that even within their own party are a joke that simply are used as a conduit to purchase the black vote via social programs and shakedowns, yet the African Americans within the Republican Party like Condi or Colin or Clarence Thomas are ACTUALLY EQUALS.

We are not the party of Segregation.  Never were.  Our party fought a war to keep this country unified and stop slavery.  We were the ones pushing for Civil Rights while Democrats were blocking doors in the South.  If Chucky wants to talk about Rosa Parks, perhaps he could get his Senator from West Virginia to eulogize her in the Rotunda.  Better bring a cross and some lighter fluid to that one though.

Dave,

You have a thread on Segregation.  First off, the process to prevent it should have been a Judicial one and it should have occured via either Amendment or via the Legislative Branch.  The problem that occured that forced Brown v. Board of Education was one that the Supreme Court themselves created by interpreting the Constitution to allow “Separate but Equal” treatement in 1896. 

http://www.lawbuzz.com/can_you/plessy/plessy.htm

Before, you tried to make the point that Brown v. Board of Education was “an activist decision”.  So is it activism to reverse a bad prior case that itself was an “activist decision” that was attempted to legitimize the complete segregation of African Americans?

The Declaration of Independence states that we recognize as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal.  The fact that at the time, the humans in charge of this country were not fully in line with that doesn’t make any form of wrongful discrimination unconstitutional.  The evolution of the constitution has been through its amendments, and any form of unequal treatment is not only now specifically unconstitutional, but unAmerican.  Dave, how you feel about it is irrelevant.

Right on, Justin.  It looks like Shumer is trying to create an imaginary creature known as a “right-wing judicial activist” who would invent law, like the lefties.  There is nothing in the Constitution to support segregation, and no test cases before the Court to try to roll back constitutional civil rights, so it is a non-issue.  That doesn’t prevent Shumer from trying to invent something that doesn’t exist.

BTW, Alito’s views almost Mirror those of Clarence Thomas. I think it is pretty safe to say that Thomas is not going to send us back to the days of Segregation.

Can you elaborate on that? It seems like you’re saying that Clarence Thomas’s race prevents him from impartiality.

We are not the party of Segregation.

But we’re not talking about the Republican Party, we’re talking about conservative Supreme Court justices.

The reality is that the whole principle of segregation is obviously unconstitutional, don’t you agree?

I’m torn on the subject, and I think there are good arguments to be made for either side.

Of course, Dave the Senator finds segregation horrible, and would vote against it (using his morals). But Dave the Justice must use the Constitution, and he has a tough time making that case.

I believe it is a part of Equal Protection; it is based on an amendment to the constitution, at any rate.  The reality is that the whole principle of segregation is obviously unconstitutional, don’t you agree?

Justin: Did you have anything to say that related to this thread?

Have you ever notices that Freedom of Speech is not actually protected by the “Original” Constitution?  In order to guarantee freedom of speech, we went through a long amendment process.

If this so called “right to privacy” that allows for abortion is somehow implied in the Bill of Rights or other Amendments without being so stated, it seems that the Judiciary has conveniently slipped several new “rights” into the Constitution through the process of interpretation from the bench rather than through the process of amendment that the Founding Fathers--you know the ones that wrote the damned thing in the first place--used.  If the Judiciary were meant to create rights and make up amendments such as “Seperation of Church and State” or “Right to Privacy”, why didn’t Jefferson simply get his cronies on the SCOTUS to invent the right to freedom of speech or to bear arms from the Bench through a series of SCOTUS rulings?  Why did they go through the process of adding a Bill of Rights at all--expecially via the Amendment process?

If you want a “right to abortion” or a “seperation of Church and State” that removes all but the most secular of symbols, then by all means.  The process is pretty simple.  Takes a while though.  Alito believes that Judges interpret the Law, not that Judges invent new law by twisting the words and the original meaning of the Constitution to suit the current needs.  It is “NOT AND EVOLVING DOCUMENT” save that the evolution occur through ratification of amendments.

If this is a Radical Conservative View, then it sounds like I am a radical conservative.

Dave,

In 1954, would you have considered 1896’s Plessy to be settled case law?

You are implying that Alito would overturn Civil Rights Legislation all the way back to Brown v. Board of Education and it was Shumer that invoked “Rosa Parks”.

So do we go back to Plessy?  Is that what you think Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, the Republicans want?  That sure seems to be the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the Democrats.

Was Brown judical activisism?  NOPE.  But Plessy sure as hell was.  The SCOTUS used Plessy to institute a policy of Seperate but Equal.  It was indeed the Supreme Court that confirmed segregation was allowed despite the fact that this decision was no grounded at all in the Constitution, but rather in the feelings of the Judiciary at the time.  That is exactly what Judicial activism is.  It is Plessy just the same as it is Massachussets using their Judiciary to force gay marriage down the throats (sorry bad phrasing) of their citizens.

Judicial activism is wrong regardless of whether it is used to segregate blacks, authorize gay marriage, or allow abortion.  Worse yet, it is wrong when it creates decisions like Kelo. 

You want a more detailed answer?

It looks like Shumer is trying to create an imaginary creature known as a “right-wing judicial activist” who would invent law, like the lefties.

So, if a judge strikes down a law, is that the same as “inventing” one?

Good point. I think you could make a reasonable claim that Brown v. Board of Education was an “activist” judicial decision. I very rarely hear conservatives explain the Constitutional background for that case.

Dave, did I do a good enough job explaining that “seperate but equal” came from the 1896 Plessy decision and that Brown v. Board of Education was simply the court going back and fixing a decision that they got horribly wrong 60 years earlier.

And guess what, there may be a few other cases this new court “corrects”.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Brown v. Board of Education:

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

(...)We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that “separate but equal” facilities ran contrary to the 14th Amendment. To me, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that states that.

MI: No.  When SCOTUS strikes down a law because it violates the Constitution, they are doing their constitutional duty.  When a group of judges supports or advocates creation of a law because they feel it should be done, even if it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it is judicial activism.

Dave:  For the life of me, I can’t see how you could think the founding principles of this country, the Declaration or the Constitution support any sort of racial discrimination.  It only existed because we didn’t fully implement the founding ideals in the beginning.  We have remedied that, for the most part. If you want to create more rights, amend the Constitution, if you have the support of the people.

The founding principles of this country were higher than anything else at the time in the world, and still are. We are still living up to them. It is called evolution. Give it a try.

How does this answer my question?

My point was Representation, the one man one vote stuff, still not universally popular.

It was all about representation in the House of Reps at the time.

Where did the slaves vote Robert?

MI: I have no control over your ability to understand me.

Does anyone?

Dave: For the life of me, I can’t see how you could think the founding principles of this country, the Declaration or the Constitution support any sort of racial discrimination.

It only existed because we didn’t fully implement the founding ideals in the beginning.

Now this is an interesting concept; there are founding ideals that did not get in on the ground floor?  What other founding ideals are still outstanding?

MI:  The 3/5 of a vote was strictly for census purposes.  The South(your demon) wanted a whole vote for each slave, the North(the good guys, by you) wanted zero for each slave.  It was all about representation in the House of Reps at the time.  Please read your US History! 
The founding principles of this country were higher than anything else at the time in the world, and still are.  We are still living up to them.  It is called evolution.  Give it a try.

Woof:  As you should know, it wasn’t about voting; it was about the census, which determined how many reps were given to a state in the House of Reps.  As you also know, slavery is now illegal as well as unconstitutional, and the Senate is also decided by popular vote.  In those days, it was done by appointment.  Like I said, evolution.

MI: I have no control over your ability to understand me.

The Dems like to use the one man, many votes stuff, it seems. Shumer’s point had nothing to do with representation. In fact, he would deprive conservative constitutionalists representation on SCOTUS, it would seem.

MI: I don’t know if anyone has the ability to control your ability to understand anything.

MI: I don’t understand why you subscribe to what you believe.

MI: I don’t know if anyone has the ability to control your ability to understand anything.

If anyone has the ability to control the ability to understand my ability to understand anything, it would be you.

MI: That’s the name of the guy on first base.