abortion and judges and Tim's incoherent/uninformed babbling about both
So, I've been listening to the Judge Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings on the radio the last few days and it has got me thinking about a few things. Mostly why I should be in charge of everything and everyone else are idiots (why does that sound like it should be 'is' even though its plural?). Ok, so I have no experience whatsoever in Law, Politics, or anything else, but it does bug me that it seems like everyone is going about this hearing all wrong.
Everyone, at least one my side of the isle, wants to make this whole thing about abortion. I dont think that that should be the only concern (there are a lot of other pressing issues that are arguably more important), but fine, lets focus on the abortion issue. For those of you who don't know, my stance on abortion is that I am pro choice but anti abortion. I think abortion is disgusting, but I recognize that prohibiting it will not stop it from happening and will result in a lot of dead would-be-mothers. Also, I think there is a world of difference between an abortion after 1 month and one after 7. We need to alter our cultural view on teenage parenthood before we can prohibit abortion, and we need to stop kidding ourselves that abstinance only programs solve anything. So yeah, we need to keep abortion legal, and it falls to the Supreme Court to do that. However to say that Roe v. Wade should stand soley on stare decisis(sp), and not on its constitutional merits is not the right aproach. I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, so I have no opinion on whether the right to an abortion can be implied from it, but it certainly is not explicitly given. So if Judges have differences on that point, we shouldnt forbid them from reevaluating it. Obviously Roe was not an airtight enough case to settle the issue once and for all. Basically, my point is that Roe is a precident just like any other precident, and even if we agree with it, we shouldnt forbid it from being revisited. Some senators, such as Dick Durbin, who I thought expressed a reasonable view on abortion in his questioning, have expressed problems with the fact that Alito refuses to make the same statements about Roe as Chief Justice Roberts:
Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.
...
After his exchange with Alito yesterday, Durbin told reporters: "Sam Alito would not use those same words. It really, I'm afraid, leaves open the possibility that we are considering the nomination of a justice who will change 30 years of law in this country, a dramatic change to the American society."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101120.html
Yeah, it would be a dramatic change to our society, but that doesnt mean it should not be reexamined, and who knows, he could overrule Roe and still rule in favor of legal abortion but with slightly more restriction, which I would probabaly be all for. I think we need a more open debate about abortion, and not treat Roe like some sacred thing that we can't even have a debate about. We can keep abortion legal, while still trying to reduce the numbers 0f abortions, outlawing late term abortions, and adressing inconsistencies such as the fact that if you accidentally hit a pregnant woman with your car, and kill her unborn child, you are held responsible for manslaughter, but if the woman kills the same child, its ok. People on both sides take this pompous black and white view that abortion is eitehr good or bad, but I think we have to see it as both. I like what an ACLU card carying co worker of mine said: "No one should feel comfortable with either position on abortion" prolife or prochoice, someone is gonna get fucked, so how can you feel comfortable with it? Ok, thats all on that issue, Roe v. Wade = good, but not above scrutiny.
The second, and potentially more pressing issue is that of executive power. I heard a some of Senator Biden's questioning of Alito, and he was asking whether he agreed with the assertions of some people, most notably John Yoo, a professor who is a proponent of the "Unitary Executive" and I believe an advisor to the bush administration, that the president has the power to declare war without the approval of Congress. He wouldnt give a straight answer! basically he said "The Congress has the power to determine funding, so they can cut off funding if they dont agree" (paraphrased). Now, once again, I'm not constitutional Scholar, but I do know this part:
Powers of Congress:
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2
Now, I have also heard, although I cant find it in the constitution, that the president can declare 30 days of war if it is not possible for Congress to convene and vote quickly enough, but certainly, Alito can't believe that the president can have the sole power to declare war... that is a bit disturbing. Even the possibility that he would yeild this much power to the executive branch is very troubling especially with things like the NSA wiretap issue, and Guantanimo Bay detainees likely to come before the court.
Finally, It bothers me that Alito's supporters talk about how smart or nice he is and how good of a person he is, and think that these are reasons for him to be confirmed. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but that doesnt mean he is going to decide cases based on the Constitution and not on his personal beliefs. You could be an asshole and a great judge, or a saint and a horrible one.
Alito will most likely be confirmed, and since there are no glaring problems in his record (well there are a few questionable cases), maybe he should be. I dont like his answers on a lot of issues, but I dont think thats enough for a fillibuster, and he certainly will get the votes he needs. I dont think he will overturn Roe, (which despite my earlier tirade, I do not think would be a good think), but my concern is more about how much he will defer to the judgement of the executive in cases where they are a party.
Everyone, at least one my side of the isle, wants to make this whole thing about abortion. I dont think that that should be the only concern (there are a lot of other pressing issues that are arguably more important), but fine, lets focus on the abortion issue. For those of you who don't know, my stance on abortion is that I am pro choice but anti abortion. I think abortion is disgusting, but I recognize that prohibiting it will not stop it from happening and will result in a lot of dead would-be-mothers. Also, I think there is a world of difference between an abortion after 1 month and one after 7. We need to alter our cultural view on teenage parenthood before we can prohibit abortion, and we need to stop kidding ourselves that abstinance only programs solve anything. So yeah, we need to keep abortion legal, and it falls to the Supreme Court to do that. However to say that Roe v. Wade should stand soley on stare decisis(sp), and not on its constitutional merits is not the right aproach. I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, so I have no opinion on whether the right to an abortion can be implied from it, but it certainly is not explicitly given. So if Judges have differences on that point, we shouldnt forbid them from reevaluating it. Obviously Roe was not an airtight enough case to settle the issue once and for all. Basically, my point is that Roe is a precident just like any other precident, and even if we agree with it, we shouldnt forbid it from being revisited. Some senators, such as Dick Durbin, who I thought expressed a reasonable view on abortion in his questioning, have expressed problems with the fact that Alito refuses to make the same statements about Roe as Chief Justice Roberts:
Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.
...
After his exchange with Alito yesterday, Durbin told reporters: "Sam Alito would not use those same words. It really, I'm afraid, leaves open the possibility that we are considering the nomination of a justice who will change 30 years of law in this country, a dramatic change to the American society."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101120.html
Yeah, it would be a dramatic change to our society, but that doesnt mean it should not be reexamined, and who knows, he could overrule Roe and still rule in favor of legal abortion but with slightly more restriction, which I would probabaly be all for. I think we need a more open debate about abortion, and not treat Roe like some sacred thing that we can't even have a debate about. We can keep abortion legal, while still trying to reduce the numbers 0f abortions, outlawing late term abortions, and adressing inconsistencies such as the fact that if you accidentally hit a pregnant woman with your car, and kill her unborn child, you are held responsible for manslaughter, but if the woman kills the same child, its ok. People on both sides take this pompous black and white view that abortion is eitehr good or bad, but I think we have to see it as both. I like what an ACLU card carying co worker of mine said: "No one should feel comfortable with either position on abortion" prolife or prochoice, someone is gonna get fucked, so how can you feel comfortable with it? Ok, thats all on that issue, Roe v. Wade = good, but not above scrutiny.
The second, and potentially more pressing issue is that of executive power. I heard a some of Senator Biden's questioning of Alito, and he was asking whether he agreed with the assertions of some people, most notably John Yoo, a professor who is a proponent of the "Unitary Executive" and I believe an advisor to the bush administration, that the president has the power to declare war without the approval of Congress. He wouldnt give a straight answer! basically he said "The Congress has the power to determine funding, so they can cut off funding if they dont agree" (paraphrased). Now, once again, I'm not constitutional Scholar, but I do know this part:
Powers of Congress:
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2
Now, I have also heard, although I cant find it in the constitution, that the president can declare 30 days of war if it is not possible for Congress to convene and vote quickly enough, but certainly, Alito can't believe that the president can have the sole power to declare war... that is a bit disturbing. Even the possibility that he would yeild this much power to the executive branch is very troubling especially with things like the NSA wiretap issue, and Guantanimo Bay detainees likely to come before the court.
Finally, It bothers me that Alito's supporters talk about how smart or nice he is and how good of a person he is, and think that these are reasons for him to be confirmed. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but that doesnt mean he is going to decide cases based on the Constitution and not on his personal beliefs. You could be an asshole and a great judge, or a saint and a horrible one.
Alito will most likely be confirmed, and since there are no glaring problems in his record (well there are a few questionable cases), maybe he should be. I dont like his answers on a lot of issues, but I dont think thats enough for a fillibuster, and he certainly will get the votes he needs. I dont think he will overturn Roe, (which despite my earlier tirade, I do not think would be a good think), but my concern is more about how much he will defer to the judgement of the executive in cases where they are a party.
posted by Unknown | Friday, January 13, 2006
|
3 comments
