[...] Schumer Accuses Alito Of Supporting Segregation By Rob on October 31, 2005 at 2:31 pm [...]
Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P - 12:10pm on 10/31/2005
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.
likwidshoe - 02:10pm on 10/31/2005
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.
Justin B - 04:10pm on 10/31/2005
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.
robert108 - 05:10pm on 10/31/2005
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.
vnjagvet - 05:10pm on 10/31/2005
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.
robert108 - 07:10pm on 10/31/2005
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.
Justin B - 07:10pm on 10/31/2005
It is preposterous that a conservative, constructionist judge might find that civil rights are not constitutionally protected?
modern instances - 04:11am on 11/01/2005
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.
[...] 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?
LOL,
Bud Abbot never delivered a better straight line.
Your kids DNA is probably patented already.
Bring in the chimps.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
Of course it depends on what you mean by “civil rights"… That’s two broad a term to debate honestly