Barry, I have news for you. This a D- pick and it will not make it thru the senate. The democrats and moderate republicans should filibuster this nomination big time. I just listened to McCain on Fox News. The guy was not impressed at all. I got the feeling (and I hope) that he will not vote for him.
I don't see why a strict constitutionalist would necessarily overturn Roe v. Wade.
There is some idea that a "right to privacy" was pulled out of some justice's ass to allow this "legislation from the bench."
The truth is that the constitution does not enumerate the rights of citizens, it enumerates the powers of the government. Since reproductive rights were not given to the government by the consitution, they do, by the constitution, fall to the people.
Restricting abortion is unconstitutional, without an amendment.
The truth is that the constitution does not enumerate the rights of citizens, it enumerates the powers of the government. Since reproductive rights were not given to the government by the consitution, they do, by the constitution, fall to the people.
Which is all well and good, as long as you consider a fetus a blob of amorphous undifferentiated tissue, not a living being.
If you consider it the latter (as many people do), then it changes the nature of the equation pretty substantially.
Since reproductive rights were not given to the government by the consitution, they do, by the constitution, fall to the people.
Restricting abortion is unconstitutional, without an amendment.
So anything not explicitly given to the government in the constitution is illegal for them to regulate without passing a new amendment?
Dandy! How about we buy out all the wildlife reserves, since the right to wall off tracts of land for environmental purposes isn't explicitly written anywhere in the constitution?
Oh, I see, so a fetus is alive! Is it MORE ALIVE than an adult slave from Africa? I wonder why some genius like you didn't make the argument that slaves are ALIVE and therefore have individual rights!
As for the last moron, when it comes to passing laws restricting the rights of the citizens, YES, YOU NEED AN AMENDMENT. I can see that neo-cons don't *really* like the idea of having real constitutionalist justices. What they want are Conservative Republic justices. The two couldn't be farther apart.
Do I think gun laws should be struck down. YES. Do I think stem cell laws should be struck down. YES. Do I think affirmative action should be struck down. YES. Any law that unconstitutionally robs me of any freedom, such as the Patriot Act, should be struck down.
It's all right there in the constitution, should you ever decide to take a look.
The truth is that amending the constitution is too hard, so religious anti-abortion nuts want justices who will legislate from the bench and pretend as though we have no rights except as they are given to us by Tom Delay.
Oh, I see, so a fetus is alive! Is it MORE ALIVE than an adult slave from Africa? I wonder why some genius like you didn't make the argument that slaves are ALIVE and therefore have individual rights!
Probably because nobody thought of them that way - until someone did, and stood up for them, and passed laws giving them equal rights.
Personally, based on films taken in utero, I'm of the mind that a fetus is probably alive. However, I don't feel that it's my place to make a woman's decision for her.
And as for the religious aspect, I'm an atheist; but if god exists and has a problem with abortion, a woman would presumably take that issue up with god eventually. It's not my problem.
As an aside: you're certainly a feisty little wench. But I'm in MENSA, so I'm better than you.
Er, are you saying that it isn't? 'Cause whether or not it's human, isn't it technically alive even when it's just a single-cell organism? Aren't sperm and eggs alive?
"Is it MORE ALIVE than an adult slave from Africa? I wonder why some genius like you didn't make the argument that slaves are ALIVE and therefore have individual rights!"
Wow, nothing like non-sequitors. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've uncompromisingly come down in favor of the very controversial idea that slaves had their individual rights violated? Do you feel more righteous?
Please. I don't believe that abortion is murder myself, but equating Pro-lifers to slavery advocates is ridiculous and adds nothing to the discussion.
"As for the last moron"
Yes, oh superior guardian? Please, tell those of us less blessed with intelligence the way it is.
"I can see that neo-cons don't *really* like the idea of having real constitutionalist justices. What they want are Conservative Republic justices. The two couldn't be farther apart."
Or it could be that I just differ in my interpretation of the constitution, but fuck! What am I saying? You're right. It's probably that devious neo-con partisan conspiracy that I'm so diligently engaged in these days.
(Never mind the fact that I'm a pro-choice pro-gay marriage atheist who just happens to also be a free marketer and pro-Iraq war and voted for Bush. But yeah, I just want those crazy ol' social cons to skullfuck SCOTUS because that's just the kind of perverse person I am)
"It's all right there in the constitution, should you ever decide to take a look."
My God. Is it really that simple? And to think, people have disagreed for all these years, when it was so straightforward!
I guess we can break down the cause of this past disagreement into a few easy to understand concepts, right?
1) People disagree because they have evil agendas of doom
2) People disagree because they are stupider than you and haven't read the constitution or haven't read it the right way, which is the way you read it, which is the only way it was ever meant to be read by anyone because you were born with an ability to talk to dead Founding Fathers.
"The truth is that amending the constitution is too hard, so religious anti-abortion nuts want justices who will legislate from the bench and pretend as though we have no rights except as they are given to us by Tom Delay."
At the risk of baiting (heh, too late, right?) I invite you to replace the name "Tom Delay" with the phrase "the Jews", and then see if you can understand why all of this is so very paranoid sounding to me.
"Jackass."
Oh, you wound. In the end, "paranoid" isn't really the right word for all of this.
I was right to begin with--it's "condescending". It all comes down to you being the only one who isn't blinded to some bright and obvious truth, and so you need to kick and scream to drag the rest of us who are too stupid to agree with you for our own good, like good little monkeys.
Just what exactly did you hope to accomplish, Bailey? Did you think that demonstrating your outrage in our ability to disagree with you and frothing at the mouth when we attempt to have a discussion is really going to get you anything other than a raised eyebrow?
For everyone's sake, either take a shot at humility or take it somewhere else.
Comments
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
If he won't abort, I can't support.
Posted by: fred | October 31, 2005 10:17 AM
No?
"If he'll Hoover a womb, let's give him some room"?
Just trying to help.
Posted by: apotheosis | October 31, 2005 11:28 AM
If he'll force teens to deliver, then I must a-quiver.
Nah, I gotta think some more.
Posted by: fred | October 31, 2005 12:17 PM
If he likes my gun,
He'll be lots of fun.
Okay, so it's not exactly Yeats, but I say "keep 'em simple."
Posted by: Barry | October 31, 2005 12:20 PM
How about, "if he mashes babies into mush, we'll finally forgive Bush"?
Posted by: Adam | October 31, 2005 03:29 PM
And on that note, how come no one ever turned Jesse Jackson's "Keep...out...tha' BUSHES" statement against abortion clinics?
Posted by: apotheosis | October 31, 2005 03:35 PM
Ahahaha!
Barry, the measure of a great blog is in its commentors.
Sorry to let you down, buddy.
Posted by: Adam | October 31, 2005 06:43 PM
Barry, I have news for you. This a D- pick and it will not make it thru the senate. The democrats and moderate republicans should filibuster this nomination big time. I just listened to McCain on Fox News. The guy was not impressed at all. I got the feeling (and I hope) that he will not vote for him.
Posted by: Blue Wind | October 31, 2005 10:16 PM
My god. Blue Wind, had you not told us that that was news, I might have thought that it was just an opinion you have.
And to think, how lost I would have been.
Posted by: Adam | October 31, 2005 10:44 PM
I don't see why a strict constitutionalist would necessarily overturn Roe v. Wade.
There is some idea that a "right to privacy" was pulled out of some justice's ass to allow this "legislation from the bench."
The truth is that the constitution does not enumerate the rights of citizens, it enumerates the powers of the government. Since reproductive rights were not given to the government by the consitution, they do, by the constitution, fall to the people.
Restricting abortion is unconstitutional, without an amendment.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 1, 2005 11:30 AM
If you consider it the latter (as many people do), then it changes the nature of the equation pretty substantially.
Posted by: apotheosis | November 1, 2005 11:47 AM
So anything not explicitly given to the government in the constitution is illegal for them to regulate without passing a new amendment?
Dandy! How about we buy out all the wildlife reserves, since the right to wall off tracts of land for environmental purposes isn't explicitly written anywhere in the constitution?
Posted by: Adam | November 1, 2005 12:10 PM
Oh, I see, so a fetus is alive! Is it MORE ALIVE than an adult slave from Africa? I wonder why some genius like you didn't make the argument that slaves are ALIVE and therefore have individual rights!
As for the last moron, when it comes to passing laws restricting the rights of the citizens, YES, YOU NEED AN AMENDMENT. I can see that neo-cons don't *really* like the idea of having real constitutionalist justices. What they want are Conservative Republic justices. The two couldn't be farther apart.
Do I think gun laws should be struck down. YES. Do I think stem cell laws should be struck down. YES. Do I think affirmative action should be struck down. YES. Any law that unconstitutionally robs me of any freedom, such as the Patriot Act, should be struck down.
It's all right there in the constitution, should you ever decide to take a look.
The truth is that amending the constitution is too hard, so religious anti-abortion nuts want justices who will legislate from the bench and pretend as though we have no rights except as they are given to us by Tom Delay.
Jackass.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 1, 2005 05:26 PM
Personally, based on films taken in utero, I'm of the mind that a fetus is probably alive. However, I don't feel that it's my place to make a woman's decision for her.
And as for the religious aspect, I'm an atheist; but if god exists and has a problem with abortion, a woman would presumably take that issue up with god eventually. It's not my problem.
As an aside: you're certainly a feisty little wench. But I'm in MENSA, so I'm better than you.
Posted by: apotheosis | November 1, 2005 05:51 PM
"Oh, I see, so a fetus is alive!"
Er, are you saying that it isn't? 'Cause whether or not it's human, isn't it technically alive even when it's just a single-cell organism? Aren't sperm and eggs alive?
"Is it MORE ALIVE than an adult slave from Africa? I wonder why some genius like you didn't make the argument that slaves are ALIVE and therefore have individual rights!"
Wow, nothing like non-sequitors. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've uncompromisingly come down in favor of the very controversial idea that slaves had their individual rights violated? Do you feel more righteous?
Please. I don't believe that abortion is murder myself, but equating Pro-lifers to slavery advocates is ridiculous and adds nothing to the discussion.
"As for the last moron"
Yes, oh superior guardian? Please, tell those of us less blessed with intelligence the way it is.
"I can see that neo-cons don't *really* like the idea of having real constitutionalist justices. What they want are Conservative Republic justices. The two couldn't be farther apart."
Or it could be that I just differ in my interpretation of the constitution, but fuck! What am I saying? You're right. It's probably that devious neo-con partisan conspiracy that I'm so diligently engaged in these days.
(Never mind the fact that I'm a pro-choice pro-gay marriage atheist who just happens to also be a free marketer and pro-Iraq war and voted for Bush. But yeah, I just want those crazy ol' social cons to skullfuck SCOTUS because that's just the kind of perverse person I am)
"It's all right there in the constitution, should you ever decide to take a look."
My God. Is it really that simple? And to think, people have disagreed for all these years, when it was so straightforward!
I guess we can break down the cause of this past disagreement into a few easy to understand concepts, right?
1) People disagree because they have evil agendas of doom
2) People disagree because they are stupider than you and haven't read the constitution or haven't read it the right way, which is the way you read it, which is the only way it was ever meant to be read by anyone because you were born with an ability to talk to dead Founding Fathers.
"The truth is that amending the constitution is too hard, so religious anti-abortion nuts want justices who will legislate from the bench and pretend as though we have no rights except as they are given to us by Tom Delay."
At the risk of baiting (heh, too late, right?) I invite you to replace the name "Tom Delay" with the phrase "the Jews", and then see if you can understand why all of this is so very paranoid sounding to me.
"Jackass."
Oh, you wound. In the end, "paranoid" isn't really the right word for all of this.
I was right to begin with--it's "condescending". It all comes down to you being the only one who isn't blinded to some bright and obvious truth, and so you need to kick and scream to drag the rest of us who are too stupid to agree with you for our own good, like good little monkeys.
Just what exactly did you hope to accomplish, Bailey? Did you think that demonstrating your outrage in our ability to disagree with you and frothing at the mouth when we attempt to have a discussion is really going to get you anything other than a raised eyebrow?
For everyone's sake, either take a shot at humility or take it somewhere else.
Posted by: Adam | November 1, 2005 05:57 PM
I'm in the I.S.P.E. -- a much more exclusive group than Mensa. In fact, it is to Mensa what Mensa is to the general population.
You lose again.
OK, you got me, a fetus is alive. I guess microbes have THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION then, right, you idiot?
You can't possibly be as stupid as you sound, so I take it you are just making a fumbling attempt to spin what I say.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 4, 2005 11:34 PM