Cynical Nation

In many cases, it's a sign of an arrested development or gross immaturity. When Clinton supported seven of the ten planks of Gingrich's Contract with America and embarked on a pro-business and deep, structural Welfare Reform, Conservatives didn't ask Dems, "Why not support Bob Dole, he's more socially Liberal than Clinton?"

Why would any true, diehard Democrat ever support a Republican?

But when the likes of a G W Bush fails to deliver on the borders and on shrinking federal spending, a lot of immature Dems are quick to ask, "Aren't you sorry you voted for that guy?" As if any true Conservative would ever consider voting for a Liberal Democrat who is actually worse on spending, far worse on tax policy and weak on crime and the war on terrorism.

Same thing here, with Alito. In my view, he's a far better, and more traditional choice than Miers and far preferable to say Lawrence Tribe, Mario Cuomo or Alan Dershowitz (any two of which well may have been the choices of a Democratic President).

I think it's important to note that the right is also outcome-oriented. Most of the people on the right I know want abortion ended, affirmative action quotas ended, school prayer returned, etc. Any justice who is more likely to help in these matters will be supported by the right.

The only people REALLY concerned about process and not outcome are legal scholars.

It's not "outcome oriented" to oppose the abject violation of equal access and equality before the law that are embodied in race/gender preferences.

It's not even "outcome oriented" to oppose Roe.

I believe in abortion because I believe any would-be parent who doesn't want a child is by definition an unfit parent, at that moment. I actually wish more reckless and irresponsible people would have more abortions, BUT still, despite my support for abortion, I acknowledge that Roe V Wade is bad law the same way that the 1973 abomination that declared Capital Punishment "Cruel & Unusual punishment" was bad law, in that such rulings violate the sovereignty of each state.

Today, we have it about right, nutty, half-baked Liberal states, mostly in the northeast have either banned the death penalty or don't use it, while states like TX, FL & GA use it quite liberally (pardon the pun).

Same with Roe. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, abortion wouldn't be outlawed, it would merely go back to the inidividual states for consideration. That means the forces opposed to abortion would have to fight each battle on a state by state basis and today, no more than three states (Utah, Mississippi & Alabama) would appear to be winnable for those folks.

One of the toughest decisions that the SCOTUS has to make is when it believes that people have certain rights that cannot be denied by the states.

In Roe vs. Wade they decided that a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and that a state could not rescind that right. That can be construed as "violating state sovereignty", and if that's true, so be it. The justices did not want a situation in which woman had to cross state lines to enter a state in which abortion was legal. They also did not want the states to be able to dictate what should be a very private decision between a woman and her doctor.

Personally, I like the simplicity of it (abortion) being legal in every state. I hope if Alito is confirmed he will try to maintain a woman's right to choose, if he gets that opportunity.

Law has always been about achieving social goals, such as preserving life and property and keeping society as peaceful as possible. So you could say that law in general is "outcome-oriented".

I don't like "the simplicity" of anything over-ruling its Constitutionality.

Many, many Americans strongly feel that the death penalty should not be a State's option either, but the Constitution clearly states otherwise. See the 9th Amendement;

[b]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/b]

(Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.)

And 10th Amendment;

[b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/b]

(The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people.)

In other words, mine, or even say a 60% majority of American's passionate support for A, or opposition to B, does not over-ride the Constitution as written. That's why America's Founders put in the fail-safe of providing only two very uphill methods for amending the Constitution:

[b]Congress proposes amendments.[/b]

As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

[b]The states propose amendments.[/b]

The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

You might argue that the law is "outcome oriented," but that is NOT the case in practice. Two Uncles of mine were Judges (one a NY State Supreme Court Judge) and a number of relatives are lawyers....and lawyers from Prosecutors to judges always joke about "the last place you want to come for justice is a courtroom."

As one of my Uncles used to say, "You don't get justice in court, you get THE LAW."

That was a man who decided the NYC "condom ruling," about condoms being able to be dispensed in schools. He sympathized with the parents who opposed the school's being allowed to dispense condoms without either their knowledge or consent, BUT felt they argued it on the wrong grounds. "Had they argued on public health grounds, that schools aren't even allowed to dispense aspirins, instead of arguing the morality of the issue, I would've ruled in their favor."

All those parents got "THE LAW," but not much justice, however one might define that.

The abortion debate hinges on whether or not individual citizens have a right to privacy, or if we are slaves of the State we live in, completely subject to even the most invasive whim of the State legislature.

Neocons are uniformly against freedom and for slavery, so long as it is women or minorities. The only people who are truly free under Neocon doctrine are Corporate Executives, who they fight to shield in every way so that they can continue to astonish the public with their greed and treason.

"The abortion debate hinges on whether or not individual citizens have a right to privacy, or if we are slaves of the State we live in, completely subject to even the most invasive whim of the State legislature.

Neocons are uniformly against freedom and for slavery, so long as it is women or minorities. The only people who are truly free under Neocon doctrine are Corporate Executives, who they fight to shield in every way so that they can continue to astonish the public with their greed and treason.' " (BH)

OK, this is about the most retarded of all the emotional defenses (appeal to emotion) that exists today, so it makes perfect sense that Bailey here would espouse it.

There is NO fundamental "right to privacy" under the U.S. Constitution, the 4th Amendment notwithstanding.

If there were such a "right," pedophiles could use a very similar emtional argument that goes, "The government has no right to define what is and is not love and that mere 'consent' has little or nothing to do with true love and real connections between people." They could very well argue, as others have, in appealing to foreign laws and customs, that in Ethiopia, for instance, some 72% of all the Marriages in that country are the result of kidnappings of very young girls often followed by brutal beatings and gang rapes until the girl ultimately "consents" to Marry one of her abductors.

Of course, our current laws against pedophilia are safe ONLY because the pedophiles and their defenders CANNOT make the claim for any inherent and fundamental (ie. all encompassing) "right to privacy," as it does not exist in our Constitution.

The abortion debate centers around one thing and one thing only and that is whether a fetus is a "life." If it IS a "life," then it has all the Constitutional protections that any other "life," including its mother's, has.

In this regard, since we know that many "Premies" (prematurely birthed) infants survive now, even at four months of age, then it follows that any fetus/baby beyond the first trimester is a "life," since Premies of that age and older can viably survive outside the womb.

Of course, that argument of mine would still allow for abortions within the first trimester (currently well over 90% of all abortions) and I have little or no problem with that myself, as any would-be parent who doesn't want a child, is, at least at that moment and in my view, an "unfit parent."

Statistics show that unwanted children are disproportionately represented among the criminal class, a point made by a caller to William Bennett's "Morning in America" radio show that got Bill Bennett into a little controversy a few weeks back.

Most importantly, as I said, personal support for abortion is a very different issue than is support for the poorly constructed Roe Vs Wade decision.

Once again, the reason that Roe V Wade is such a poor decision is that it clearly violates the 9th & 10th Amendments, in the same way that the 1973 nationwide SC imposed ban on Capital punishment did. Both decisions took a matter that rightly belonged to the individual States and imposed a veritable federal decree on the country that it had no authority to impose.

Though I personally support first trimester abortions and only wish more of the reckless, irresponsible (read poor) and Liberals/Leftists among us would avail themselves of that procedure even more often, I acknowledge that Roe is "bad law" because it supercedes each State's Right to decide this issue for themselves.