Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.

[kapkomet]

-as reported on the AP wires

Why, thank you, Mrs. Obvious. (not you, Mercy!)

[Texsox]

I think there's a difference between an amendment process, which indeed does reflect upon societal changes, and striking down laws or upholding them on some basis of societal norms.  Therein lies the difference to me.

 

Checks and balances have served us well for over 200 years. The current legislative and executive branch would love nothing more than to destroy any judicial review and destroy any confidence in a free press. What have we then? One party running over everything.

 

Our country is no longer an agricultural based, slave based, economy. I don't believe the original framers are any smarter than our current leaders. The courts are asked to review laws that could never be comprehended 200+ years ago. Wiretapping, Internet porn, abortion, guns not being a food gathering device, nuclear vs. small arms battles, drug abuse, immigration and the list goes on. If we are basing what is best today, by what our forefathers believed 200+ years ago, we seem to be as smart as the Taliban calling for burkas.

 

As long as we need the legislature creating new laws we need to the judicial branch making certain they are within our constitutional rights.

 

Societal norms changed slavery, civil rights, interracial marriage, and a host of other issues. If not for a critical mass of citizens (societal norms) wanting those laws struck down, it wouldn't have happened.

 

Interesting that many conservatives love the Constitution, but when the checks and balances come in and the judicial branch uses their Constitutionally granted rights and responsibilities, conservatives rail against it.

[Texsox]

The spousal notification dissenting opinion came up on NPR this morning right after the nomination was announced and it immediately had me concerned.  If Alito doesn't think that cases where a wife is choosing to have an abortion rather than bringing another victim into the home of an abusive/possible rapist husband is worthy of consideration, then he will see parental notification as an absolutely black and white issue as well.

 

 

It will be very unfortunate.  And the truth is that the ultra conservatives spoiling for the fight are going to win even if their guy goes down.  It galvanizes and energizes the conservative base, puts their cause into the spotlight, and will be a vehicle by which they raise 10s of millions of dollars.  There will be political fallout come election time, but the social conservatives are looking to be paid for their loyalty to the GOP the last few election cycles.

 

The reason this is such a tough issue is it requires Dems and GOPers to cross over and actually intermingle a bit and reach a consensus that cause some DEMs to admit some conservative tendencies and some GOPers, to admit some Dem points. Can't have that. Plus with every twist and turn, each side can trot out an example of why either extreme is right.

 

Cruched, loving, devout Christian whose wife terminated his little son's life. Followed by the poor abused wife who was abused and raped by her husband. Reality is clearly in the middle.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Interesting that many conservatives love the Constitution, but when the checks and balances come in and the judicial branch uses their Constitutionally granted rights and responsibilities, conservatives rail against it.

 

That is something I have stumbled around trying to say in similar threads before. Thanks for being more eloquent than I. The judicial branch is exists as a Constitutional check against abuses of power by the exutive and legislative branches (and vice versa). But when a judicial entity excercises such power in the manner they see fit they are labeled "activist judges" etc.

[kapkomet]

That is something I have stumbled around trying to say in similar threads before.  Thanks for being more eloquent than I.  The judicial branch is exists as a Constitutional check against abuses of power by the exutive and legislative branches (and vice versa).  But when a judicial entity excercises such power in the manner they see fit they are labeled "activist judges" etc.

And I think that stems from the fact that they are appointed for life. Go back into history and see why they indeed appoint these folks for life, and generally, you get your answer as to why both "liberals" and "conservatives" feel so strongly about who they get onto the bench.

[Texsox]

And I think that stems from the fact that they are appointed for life.  Go back into history and see why they indeed appoint these folks for life, and generally, you get your answer as to why both "liberals" and "conservatives" feel so strongly about who they get onto the bench.

 

Thank you. That was a 2x4 across the forehead. While I see the judicial branch as neutral, and hopefully above politics, that is so naive I am embarrassed to admit it. Of course like the other two branches, each party wants "their" people in. I've always felt character and citizenship was far more important than ideology.

[southsider2k5]

It will be very unfortunate.  And the truth is that the ultra conservatives spoiling for the fight are going to win even if their guy goes down.  It galvanizes and energizes the conservative base, puts their cause into the spotlight, and will be a vehicle by which they raise 10s of millions of dollars.  There will be political fallout come election time, but the social conservatives are looking to be paid for their loyalty to the GOP the last few election cycles.

 

 

And it dramatically reduces the number of times "Rove, Libby and Fitzgerald" will have their names in the news.

 

So what were their excuses for the last 5 years worth of conservative nominees? They have been doing this all along. How can it be about looking for a fight to distract the media when they have nominating the same type of judges since they got into power? Besides if they really wanted distract the media they could just lob some bombs at empty tents or get a blowjob.

[Texsox]

Basically Rush and Hannity said the same thing as FlaSoxxJim. GOPers got their marching orders, go git 'em, get galvanized

[JUGGERNAUT]

Though Miers was a hack I can't hope wishing that he would have appointed a woman. My dearly beloved says he had an obligation to do so.

 

Then again it looks like God is helping Bush out. What better way to frame the abortion issue for the moderates in the nation (yes they still exist .. mostly in the GOP) then spousal notification rights?

 

Put away the personal right to privacy for a minute & think of this with a heart of compassion & sympathy for people involved. These are not strangers. He is her dearly beloved. How would you feel if your wife had an abortion & never bothered to discuss it with you? There are some things that just make good common sense for family life. This is one of them.

 

This issue allows the GOP's to paint the Dem's as heartless beyond the cause. That will bode well for 2006 elections.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Likewise parental notifications is on the list to be reviewed by the USSC. There are many issues that come with teenage pregnancies. How did this happen? Consent with a minor, consent with an adult, rape, incest? Do abortion advocates produce statistics on this? Because without proof that the majority of these cases are the result of consent with minors we are essentially talking about criminal cases. I don't think it's unreasonable to notify parents in such cases.

 

As for consent with minors in some states that too is considered a criminal act. So in general for many cases when a minor aged teen seeks an abortion there is likely a criminal act associated with the conception. Not only parents but the authoritities should be notified. This should not be treated as hush-hush like depicted in Fast Times At Ridgemont High.

[kapkomet]

Though Miers was a hack I can't hope wishing that he would have appointed a woman.  My dearly beloved says he had an obligation to do so. 

 

Then again it looks like God is helping Bush out.  What better way to frame the abortion issue for the moderates in the nation (yes they still exist .. mostly in the GOP) then spousal notification rights? 

 

Put away the personal right to privacy for a minute & think of this with a heart of compassion & sympathy for people involved.  These are not strangers.  He is her dearly beloved.  How would you feel if your wife had an abortion & never bothered to discuss it with you?  There are some things that just make good common sense for family life.  This is one of them. 

 

This issue allows the GOP's to paint the Dem's as heartless beyond the cause.  That will bode well for 2006 elections.

What about those who are in an abusive relationship and the mother doesn't want that child brought into that chaos?

 

What about Laci Peterson? She's dead, and so is her baby. Albiet a little different, but you get the point.

 

What about a mother who has a terminally ill issue that she is trying to keep her husband from finding out so he can continue to live his life in peace? Again, doesn't make it right, but it does happen.

 

There's alternatives to all of these besides abortion, but there could be times and places where it's relevant.

 

It's about the right of privacy at first. Thank your lucky stars that you have a wife that supports you and communicates with you no matter what the cost. Not everyone is so lucky.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But is't not as cut-and-dried as that JUGGS. The husband is not always so dearly beloved. And in fact if the marriage in question was happy yand functional, then the woman would likely be trying to figure out how to keep the child despite whetaver perceived obstacles there are.

 

But there are a helluva lot of abusive spouses out ther as well. If a battered wife in a no-way-out abusive relationship decides an abortion is better than subjecting another human being to the tortures she is subjected to, the decision is understandable and morally justifiable. A law mandating that a husband such as the one in this scenario be notified of her wife's pregnancy and intentions is illogical, short-sighted, and morally reprehensible.

[JUGGERNAUT]

By the same token you are trying to legislate by weighing exception cases that would be viewed as abnormal over the majority or commonplace case. That's never a good idea. Law should first & foremost apply to the most general case. The one that applies to the most people. All exception cases should be handled by laws specifically designed to handle that exception. Of course there is a cost associated with that so there must be ample number of such cases to warrant such laws.

 

In the cases you mention it's not hard to draft such laws. The presence of police report would be enough to justify an exception.

 

There are two cases that don't involve any domestic violence that come to mind:

1) The wife doesn't want to have any/more children. I don't think the state should be a willing participant to help her avoid discussing this with her dearly beloved.

 

2) The father of the child is not the husband. It's the result of nonconsensual sex.

If it's the result of rape, or incest then she simply needs to file a police report to be granted an exception. There is no burden of proof just to file a report. At the discretion of the wife the husband does not need to be notified by the authorities.

 

3) The father of the child is not the husband. It's the result of consensual sex. Here's where the greatest room for debate is on this issue. Notifying the husband might lead to revelation of the affair & the end of the marriage. Should the state play the role of an accomplice in covering up the affair or does it have an obligation to notify the husband? It's not as easy answer & w/out question morality comes into play.

 

On the left they will argue right to privacy is essential to keeping an affair hush-hush. On the right I will argue the monetary consequences related to divorce laws makes it almost mandatory for the state to take an active interest in such cases. Say the husband is notified & demands that a test be run to rule out that he's the father. The result of that test can have great bearing on a subsequent divorce case. From a religious perspective infidelity is sufficient grounds for an annulment or similar like sanctioning from a church.

 

So there are severe & important consequences that reach far beyond abortion related to spousal notification. These can't just be swept under the rug in an effort to protect a right to privacy they or may not be legitimate to begin with.

Edited November 1, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But is't not as cut-and-dried as that JUGGS.  The husband is not always so dearly beloved.  And in fact if the marriage in question was happy yand functional, then the woman would likely be trying to figure out how to keep the child despite whetaver perceived obstacles there are.

 

But there are a helluva lot of abusive spouses out ther as well.  If a battered wife in a no-way-out abusive relationship decides an abortion is better than subjecting another human being to the tortures she is subjected to, the decision is understandable and morally justifiable.  A law mandating that a husband such as the one in this scenario be notified of her wife's pregnancy and intentions is illogical, short-sighted, and morally reprehensible.

 

 

Maybe some provision could be put in so that in documented cases of abuse there is an "out" for a woman not wanting to say anything. In most cases, however, the husband does have a right to know since the baby is half his.

[Texsox]

Maybe some provision could be put in so that in documented cases of abuse there is an "out" for a woman not wanting to say anything.  In most cases, however, the husband does have a right to know since the baby is half his.

Can paternity be determined that early? How would it work if the woman said "I don't know who the father is?" regardless if she knows or not?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Can paternity be determined that early? How would it work if the woman said "I don't know who the father is?" regardless if she knows or not?

 

 

I hadn't considered that before. I suppose you could make the argument that if a woman wanted to get an abortion without telling her husband then its entirely possible that she was screwing around on him and possibly got pregnant by someone else.

[YASNY]

Maybe some provision could be put in so that in documented cases of abuse there is an "out" for a woman not wanting to say anything.  In most cases, however, the husband does have a right to know since the baby is half his.

 

 

What country do you live in? Because in this one, currently, the husband doesn't have any rights whatsoever.

[EvilMonkey]

What country do you live in?  Because in this one, currently, the husband doesn't have any rights whatsoever.

You are wrong. He has the right to pay for 18+ years. And if the kid isn't his, and he finds out later, he STILL has the right to keep paying, because according to the courts, since he acted like the dad, he is the dad, regardless of any possible deception that may have been in play.

[Texsox]

You are wrong.  He has the right to pay for 18+ years.  And if the kid isn't his, and he finds out later, he STILL has the right to keep paying, because according to the courts, since he acted like the dad, he is the dad, regardless of any possible deception that may have been in play.

 

That only makes sense in the context of what is best for the child. And thankfully, in this country, we do value protecting the interests of children over adults. Sometimes it just doesn't seem right and fair, and probably isn't. I recall a case where a man sued the bio dad of his children. Poor guy thought he had not one but two kids and later found out both were this other guys.

[kapkomet]

You know what I don't get?

 

A Kapkomet original thought here ™:

 

Why the hell is it that if we were to find an amoeba or *ANY* single cell on the planet of Mars, the next day the headlines would scream, ***LIFE ON MARS*** but an abortion isn't killing life?

 

/Carry on.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You know what I don't get?

 

A Kapkomet original thought here ™:

 

Why the hell is it that if we were to find an amoeba or *ANY* single cell on the planet of Mars, the next day the headlines would scream, ***LIFE ON MARS*** but an abortion isn't killing life?

 

/Carry on.

 

Havent you heard? Unborn fetuses are nothing more than little blobs of inanimate matter which can be discarded at will.

 

 

 

:rolly

[Texsox]

You know what I don't get?

 

A Kapkomet original thought here ™:

 

Why the hell is it that if we were to find an amoeba or *ANY* single cell on the planet of Mars, the next day the headlines would scream, ***LIFE ON MARS*** but an abortion isn't killing life?

 

/Carry on.

 

 

I don't think anyone, outside of an uber-pro-choice person would say an abortion isn't killing life.

I believe the pro-choice crowd would tell you there is a difference in viable life. They would further point out that if you are equating a single cell organism and a baby, they have won. You probably would spray for cockroaches, kill ants, knock down a wasp nest. If you do these things, and you equate a single cell organism as human life, how can you not support a woman's right to decide what can and cannot grow inside her body? After all, if any single cell organisms = a human life, then we cannot even kill a weed. If we can kill a weed, we can kill a zygote.

[kapkomet]

I don't think anyone, outside of an uber-pro-choice person would say an abortion isn't killing life.

I believe the pro-choice crowd would tell you there is a difference in viable life. They would further point out that if you are equating a single cell organism and a baby, they have won. You probably would spray for cockroaches, kill ants, knock down a wasp nest. If you do these things, and you equate a single cell organism as human life, how can you not support a woman's right to decide what can and cannot grow inside her body? After all, if any single cell organisms = a human life, then we cannot even kill a weed. If we can kill a weed, we can kill a zygote.

Dang it, you took all my fun away.

[Texsox]

Dang it, you took all my fun away. 

 

I liked it actually. This is an area that I have very torn opinions. On one hand, I find abortion wrong on so many levels. I can stack up a dozen reasons why I believe it is wrong. On the other hand, I find one compelling reason to not be 100% in the pro-life camp. I can't see how I can dictate what can and cannot grow inside another human. Shouldn't a person's body be outside the reach of our government? I understand the personal responsibility on the part of the woman.

[Steff]

You are wrong.  He has the right to pay for 18+ years.  And if the kid isn't his, and he finds out later, he STILL has the right to keep paying, because according to the courts, since he acted like the dad, he is the dad, regardless of any possible deception that may have been in play.

 

 

Thankfully. a lot of states are now revamping these specific laws. In the past the courts could not force a woman to reveal paternity without a long drawn out court battle - which many times took years and in the mean time the man accused did pay and grew to love the child as his own. Now a man can refuse to be named on the BC until paternity IS defined lowering the risk of these cases happening. IMO, it should be SOP for couples not married to have paternity test done, and if they choose not to then sign a waiver stating so and the man taking parental responsibility with his eyes open. Sadly, it's on his plate to step up on this issue.