NationStates Jolt Archive

Conservative favorite, Judge Alito, is new Supreme Court pick.

More when I get back.

At first I read it as "prick". That is all.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051030220009990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173968,00.html

Links to the new pick.

Very pro-2A. My kinda guy.

Yep.

Over and over again, President Bush told the American people that they invaded Iraq partly so that women can be free--free to drive, free to study, free to vote, free to work--free to do whatever they want without living as second class citizens to men.

Now, he nominates a judge who believes that women must be required by law to ask their husband's permission before seeking medical care.


Go figure.

"People for the American Way" is already hyperventilating, so I approve of this nominee.

Now, he nominates a judge who believes that women must be required by law to ask their husband's permission before seeking medical care.

Actually, that's before seeking an abortion. It's best in cases like this to be as specific as possible.

In many states, the husband has far, far more rights than most women imagine. In far, far more areas than abortion.

Something that every woman should look into before getting married.

Even if laws are not written in favor of a man, he still holds tremendous unofficial power. As an example, even in states where no relevant law exists, a married woman often must get her husband's permission to get a tubal ligation - not because of laws, but because the surgeon is afraid of being sued by the husband.

Our society does have some backwards laws - and some backwards precedence. It would take an examination of the decision he wrote in that specific case to determine just why he ruled that way - it's not possible simply to say, "he just hates women" or "he just hates abortion".

Many would like to demonize their opponents merely by stating a simplified version of their position - and in some cases, that works, because the person in question possesses no subtleties. But Alito is more than "Scalia-lite" as the media likes to label him - I do not believe that someone with that long a legal background is as simple as that.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

My joy at not living in the US to suffer under this is mixed by sadness for friends I know who will. :(

Man I hate single issue people.

Everyone (I don't mean here, I mean in many forums and such) seems to be all excited about his pro-2nd Amendment status to the exclusion of everything else.

The man could beat his wife, have a harem of 13 year old boys, believe it should be legal to perform random cavity searches without parental consent on junior high students for drugs, believe it should be illegal to say anything remotely bad about the President (as long as he's Republican), and require every American to place a flag on their houses, salute it every morning, take a blood oath to hate all things French, and - because he's pro 2nd Amendment - he gets a pat on the back and a "Welcome to SCOTUS!"

That just makes no damn sense to me.

Well congrats...You people wanted a "real" conservative...and now we have a conservative that may be a little "too real".

Mmmmmm...Random cavity searches...mmmmmmm

Man I hate single issue people.

Everyone (I don't mean here, I mean in many forums and such) seems to be all excited about his pro-2nd Amendment status to the exclusion of everything else.

The man could beat his wife, have a harem of 13 year old boys, believe it should be legal to perform random cavity searches without parental consent on junior high students for drugs, believe it should be illegal to say anything remotely bad about the President (as long as he's Republican), and require every American to place a flag on their houses, salute it every morning, take a blood oath to hate all things French, and - because he's pro 2nd Amendment - he gets a pat on the back and a "Welcome to SCOTUS!"

That just makes no damn sense to me.


Opinion: I'm not single issue, but if someone isn't willing to consider the views of the Founders in ruling how the Constitution should be viewed, and is more enamored with international law or his political party in terms of influencing his decisions on how the Constitution should be viewed, then I have a problem with them.

Just because a nominee passes my view of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean they get a pass. But if they don't share my view of it, then they get no pass at all - no matter what they stand for, because it's likely that the Opinion expressed above is true, and will apply to all other issues.

Opinion: I'm not single issue, but if someone isn't willing to consider the views of the Founders in ruling how the Constitution should be viewed, and is more enamored with international law or his political party in terms of influencing his decisions on how the Constitution should be viewed, then I have a problem with them.

Nod ... and I do understand that there are certain "pushbutton" issues in everyone which will be the first things they look at, but I've seen lately a lot of people who are screaming that "Barbara Streisand is going to kill Jesus and take away your guns, so don't vote Democrat no matter what you do!"

I know you've seen these people to. You know ... the ones giving conservatives a bad name ... the ones ya'll *really* should be waging war against. ;)

I made a thread on this fear. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can offer some insight?

Nod ... and I do understand that there are certain "pushbutton" issues in everyone which will be the first things they look at, but I've seen lately a lot of people who are screaming that "Barbara Streisand is going to kill Jesus and take away your guns, so don't vote Democrat no matter what you do!"

I know you've seen these people to. You know ... the ones giving conservatives a bad name ... the ones ya'll *really* should be waging war against. ;)

I made a thread on this fear. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can offer some insight?

The 2nd Amendment, as currently interpreted, does not protect my individual right to bear arms, even though it is arguable that this is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Democratic Party has had at its core beliefs the idea that everyone in the US should be disarmed. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" was Senator Feinstein's cry.

Senator Schumer is also extreme on this issue.

So until SCOTUS enshrines the 2nd Amendment as my individual, guaranteed, irrevocable right, I won't vote for any Democrat, nor support any Democratic candidate.

I may choose not to vote, if the Republican candidate isn't worth it, either.

When the Democratic Party enshrines the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in their core platform, and forces all of its party members to toe the line, I'll consider voting for Democrats.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Oh goodie, so more of the "The Supreme Court can't decide issues of morality (Ok, good so far, Scalia). The US Congress can't decide issues of morality (Go Scalia! You're making sense!) The State Legislature can (HUH!?!?!?!?!)"

I may choose not to vote, if the Republican candidate isn't worth it, either.


Vote third party. If there's anything that will make America a better place, it'd be the end to the two party system

Oh goodie, so more of the "The Supreme Court can't decide issues of morality (Ok, good so far, Scalia). The US Congress can't decide issues of morality (Go Scalia! You're making sense!) The State Legislature can (HUH!?!?!?!?!)"

Amendment X

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.

Vote third party. If there's anything that will make America a better place, it'd be the end to the two party system

I've voted Libertarian on occasion.

Yep.

Over and over again, President Bush told the American people that they invaded Iraq partly so that women can be free--free to drive, free to study, free to vote, free to work--free to do whatever they want without living as second class citizens to men.

Now, he nominates a judge who believes that women must be required by law to ask their husband's permission before seeking medical care.


Go figure.
Huh? WTF are you talking about???

Amendment X

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.

....As read through the Amendment 14, the States are bound by the same restrictions on their power as the Federal government. Thus, the 1st Amendment applies to all government offices. Therefore, issues of morality are pretty obviously powers reserved to the people.

Well congrats...You people wanted a "real" conservative...and now we have a conservative that may be a little "too real".

I can honestly say, I wanted a moderate. I didn't want anyone that was far right.

I can honestly say, I wanted a moderate. I didn't want anyone that was far right.
I could care less about "left" or "right".

What I want is a strict Constitutionalist.
A "constitutionalist" refers to those who advocate strict adherence to the intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

If you want the laws or Constitution to actually change, it is the job of the legislature to write those laws or amendments.

I could care less about "left" or "right".

What I want is a strict Constitutionalist.
A "constitutionalist" refers to those who advocate strict adherence to the intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

If you want the laws or Constitution to actually change, it is the job of the legislature to write those laws or amendments.

Applause!

Well said Sierra. Well said inedeed.

Applause!

Well said Sierra. Well said inedeed.

I will now point out that Scalia, and Alito, are both strict constitutionalists.

well i'll be supporting this guy.

Vote third party. If there's anything that will make America a better place, it'd be the end to the two party system

I agree with that, the two party system is increasingly becoming worse and worse with every passing week... But regardless until somebody comes along and starts a truly credible 3rd party with MODERATE views..., I must admit that we're all doomed to be stuck in this vicious 2-party system... Still I am disappointed with what's going on with the nominations of Supreme Court Justices lately... Too much politics and not enough deciding who can really interpret our constitution faithfully. It sucks if you ask me... I'm hoping if this guy gets the confirmation that he doesn't turn into another one of those "radical" judges, hopefully he'll realize that it's best to be moderate in your judicial opinions and we'll all be relatively happy with the decision 20 years down the road...

A "constitutionalist" refers to those who advocate strict adherence to the intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.


So it's back to the slave houses with blacks and no more votes for women? Oh that's nice. :p

I could care less about "left" or "right".

What I want is a strict Constitutionalist.
A "constitutionalist" refers to those who advocate strict adherence to the intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

And since "intentions of the framers" is just as up for interpretation as anything else, you end up with plenty of types of "strict constitutionalist." Several contradictory decisions have been made in the history of the court, always with those on the court (and those that supported them), seeing themselves as "strict constitutionalists".

Generally, when someone says, "I want a strict constitutionalist," what they really mean is, "I want someone who agrees with my interpretation of the Constitution, which I believe is what the framers would have wanted."

The framers were dickheads anyway.

I will now point out that Scalia, and Alito, are both strict constitutionalists.

except when they aren't.

pretending, of course, that there is a coherent position that could be called a strict constitutionalism - which there really isn't.

The framers were dickheads anyway.

Fry any braincells with this quip?

Fry any braincells with this quip?

Mmmm, yummy, fried brain cells.

Can I have a baked potato too? =)

Mmmm, yummy, fried brain cells.

Can I have a baked potato too? =)

Here you go!

*hands you a baked potato to go with the fried brain cells*

Mmmm, yummy, fried brain cells.

Can I have a baked potato too? =)

Nah, you'll want fries with that. Ketchup?

I'm sorry America, but your country is going to the nuthouse.

I'm sorry America, but your country is going to the nuthouse.

What do you mean "going"? :D

I'm sorry America, but your country is going to the nuthouse.

Its been going to the nuthouse since politics took over the judicial branch of government thanks to both parties.

I'm sorry...I'm not interested in this topic at all, but every time I read the title, it reads as "Judge Alito is a n00b prick"...seriously...I just noticed that's not what it said:confused:

Opinion: I'm not single issue, but if someone isn't willing to consider the views of the Founders in ruling how the Constitution should be viewed, and is more enamored with international law or his political party in terms of influencing his decisions on how the Constitution should be viewed, then I have a problem with them.
A Framer told me we must salute the British flag and pray towards Ireland every day. You can't prove that right or wrong because neither of us knew the Framers.

Why are we practically worshippin the guys who encased the Constitution in a decorative wooden square?

Why are we practically worshippin the guys who encased the Constitution in a decorative wooden square?
'Cause they were bright enough to do the job right?

'Cause they were bright enough to do the job right?
And again:
Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least!
They are not gods, people! Cut them some slack.

EDIT: "Framers", hey? You mean that literally?
Bugger!

'Cause they were bright enough to do the job right?

Yes, it's very pretty, but they were only woodcarvers. Who cares what their intentions were?

Yes, it's very pretty, but they were only woodcarvers. Who cares what their intentions were?
Apparently not those of us who wear blinders against the past and think that the only important thing is what happened today.

Apparently not those of us who wear blinders against the past and think that the only important thing is what happened today.

Was the pleasing shape and decorative grain of a wooden slat ever important to politics?

Was the pleasing shape and decorative grain of a wooden slat ever important to politics?
The frame thing was cute once. Three times is tired.

Happy Halloween.

The frame thing was cute once. Three times is tired.

Happy Halloween.

I was just seeing how long you'd wriggle on the line. It's not my fault you didn't get it the first two times.

....As read through the Amendment 14, the States are bound by the same restrictions on their power as the Federal government. Thus, the 1st Amendment applies to all government offices. Therefore, issues of morality are pretty obviously powers reserved to the people.
Actually, this doesn't apply to the 2nd because of US vs Cruikshank. Supreme court case from 1875. Basically a bunch of good ol' boys down south were keeping the local blacks from owning firearms. The blacks took the case to court. The court used a string of logic that makes RvW look like eloquent poetry to state that the 2nd unlike the other amendments in the BoR, isn't incorporated into the states.

A Framer told me we must salute the British flag and pray towards Ireland every day. You can't prove that right or wrong because neither of us knew the Framers.
Ever heard of the Federalist Papers? Written to build support for the Constitution? By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"? I think they might give us a few hints . . .

Ever heard of the Federalist Papers? Written to build support for the Constitution? By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"? I think they might give us a few hints . . .
Nope, no good. A strict constitutionalist only goes by what's in the Constitution. ;)

Actually I have heard a number of the religious folks who want more goverment partisapation in religion (meaning making theirs the official one) state that since the phrase seperation of Church and State does not appear in that document, it matters not that Jefferson and other wrote about it elsewhere.

I was just seeing how long you'd wriggle on the line. It's not my fault you didn't get it the first two times.
If you want to use the fishing metaphor, I'll give you an A for presentation and a D for reeling me in. I sure did bite at the bait, but I spit it out before you could set the hook. In other words, I didn't embarrass myself too much.

Nope, no good. A strict constitutionalist only goes by what's in the Constitution. ;)

Actually I have heard a number of the religious folks who want more goverment partisapation in religion (meaning making theirs the official one) state that since the phrase seperation of Church and State does not appear in that document, it matters not that Jefferson and other wrote about it elsewhere.

I know you didnt make that claim, but your statement seems to imply it, so I want to clarify for those who are not aware of it that the term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Federalist Papers either.

The term "separation of church and state" appears first in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1801 as part of a discussion. In its original usage, the phrase was reffering to something completely different from what it reffers to today. The term "separation of church and state" as we know it today (with its current meaning) first appeared only 58 years ago in the Everson v. Board of Education dissenting opinion. Thus, if you want to be truly accurate, the concept of "separation of church and state" was devised by Justice Robert Jackson 58 years ago, not by any of the founding fathers.

Ever heard of the Federalist Papers? Written to build support for the Constitution? By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"? I think they might give us a few hints . . .
Three people and they did not address every subject.

Three people and they did not address every subject.

Nope, just what the Constitution said and what they ment.

Democrat Song:
Beware of Alito the Hun
He will ravish the fields of Jurisprudence
He will steal away the rights of our women
And plunder the liberties of the free...

Republican Song:
Rejoice for our Liberator Alito
He will cleanse our poisoned fields of shame
He will firmly curtail the ravages of wickedness
And will re-light the torch of liberty...


:p

Nope, just what the Constitution said and what they ment.
Three people didn't write the Constitution.

Yep.

Over and over again, President Bush told the American people that they invaded Iraq partly so that women can be free--free to drive, free to study, free to vote, free to work--free to do whatever they want without living as second class citizens to men.

Now, he nominates a judge who believes that women must be required by law to ask their husband's permission before seeking medical care.


Go figure.

He was actually overturned by SCOTUS on that... scary to think he might actually serve on that body now isn't it!

He was actually overturned by SCOTUS on that... scary to think he might actually serve on that body now isn't it!

The case went to the SCOTUS, and the dissenting opinions (Rehnquist I think) referenced Altio's dissenting opinion from the lower court, but nothing had to be over-turned.

From my understanding, you could ask Cat, the case wasn't about permissions so much as notification rights.

Does a wife who marries with a deep desire to have children have the right to know that her conniving husband is just playing her along because he got a vasectomy (and didn't tell her and told his doctor not to tell her), he didn't tell her because he wants to hold that control over her?

Perhaps the spouse kept in the dark is being manipulated and wouldn't want to be married if they knew the truth? Perhaps a spouse has a right to know medical conditions, since they will be the one expected to make decisions in an emergency?

If you don't want your spouse to know your medical little secrets, perhaps you shouldn't have married them?

Perhaps the case wasn't quite as absurd as some people like to pretend...

The case went to the SCOTUS, and the dissenting opinions (Rehnquist I think) referenced Altio's dissenting opinion from the lower court, but nothing had to be over-turned.

From my understanding, you could ask Cat, the case wasn't about permissions so much as notification rights.

Regardless, no one under law should be or is required to be honest to their wife or husband. I'm not saying I would be dishonest to my husband personally, but it's not against the law, nor should it be, especially when we are talking about MY body. Your husband has no right to tell you what you may or may not do with YOUR body. If people have a hard time with that, perhaps they'd prefer to live in Iran, they'd fit in nicely.

As I heard in on the news SCOTUS did in fact over-turn his ruling, perhaps they got it wrong. That's what they said though.

All I can say is I'm just damn glad I live in a free country and not the USA. Bad, bad, bad pick on Bush's part. I'm sure the far right wingers will just love him again for it though.

Conservative favorite, Judge Alito, is new Supreme Court pick.

More when I get back.

No idea who that is. :confused:

From my understanding, you could ask Cat, the case wasn't about permissions so much as notification rights.

Does a wife who marries with a deep desire to have children have the right to know that her conniving husband is just playing her along because he got a vasectomy (and didn't tell her and told his doctor not to tell her), he didn't tell her because he wants to hold that control over her?

Perhaps the spouse kept in the dark is being manipulated and wouldn't want to be married if they knew the truth? Perhaps a spouse has a right to know medical conditions, since they will be the one expected to make decisions in an emergency?

If you don't want your spouse to know your medical little secrets, perhaps you shouldn't have married them?

Perhaps the case wasn't quite as absurd as some people like to pretend...


There are good marriages and their are bad marriages. There are couples who are honest with each other, and those who aren't.

However, last time I checked - since this guy is supposedly such a strong "constructionist" - there was nothing in the Constitution that mandated honesty in marital relationships.

So, what other "full truth" do you think the courts should be REQUIRING people to disclose to each other?


I agree in principle with you that spouses should tell each other such things, and I think that in most cases they do.

But I do not think that the judiciary should decide that they can FORCE it in specific areas that they get to pick and choose, and especially not in such a blanket fashion. Plus, forcing notification is too close to forcing consent if you ask me: "Honey, I can't get an abortion unless you sign here saying that I told you."

"Fuck you - no abortion, and I'm, going fishing where I'll be out of contact until after the legal 20-period (or whatever it is until you cannot get an abortion) expires so that you can't have one!"

You can't see that happening?

So, with no constitutional grounds for his opinion, I think it is fair to say that this is demonstrative of one thing only: That this is a judge willing to legislate from the bench.


I thought that was what you didn't want?!

Regardless, no one under law should be or is required to be honest to their wife or husband. I'm not saying I would be dishonest to my husband personally, but it's not against the law, nor should it be, especially when we are talking about MY body. Your husband has no right to tell you what you may or may not do with YOUR body.

When you are having a medical emergency they ask your spouse to sign the papers... Thus, they do have power over your body, only it doesn't trump your own. And in the case of notification, how is it any power whatsoever? The system could send them certified letter and have them served OR you could file for a divorce, have them served, and not serve them with the abortion notification.

If people have a hard time with that, perhaps they'd prefer to live in Iran, they'd fit in nicely.

Um, yeah. Okay. Don't light any matches near that strawman of yours, without serving a notice first... lol

As I heard in on the news SCOTUS did in fact over-turn his ruling, perhaps they got it wrong. That's what they said though.

You missed my point. Alito's opinion was already a dissenting opinion, meaning, his side had not won the district court ruling BEFORE it went to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS upheld the ruling, meaning wives didn't have to notify their husbands...

But I do not think that the judiciary should decide that they can FORCE it in specific areas that they get to pick and choose, and especially not in such a blanket fashion. Plus, forcing notification is too close to forcing consent if you ask me: "Honey, I can't get an abortion unless you sign here saying that I told you."

"Fuck you - no abortion, and I'm, going fishing where I'll be out of contact until after the legal 20-period (or whatever it is until you cannot get an abortion) expires so that you can't have one!"

That's why you have it served if need be. She doen't even have to face him.


So, with no constitutional grounds for his opinion, I think it is fair to say that this is demonstrative of one thing only: That this is a judge willing to legislate from the bench.


I thought that was what you didn't want?!

There is constitutional grounds if you think people have a right to have children. If someone is depriving you of the right to have children, perhaps you have the right to get a divorce and marry someone that wants to have children too... Rather than spend a lifetime with someone that's been lying to you and stops you from being able to make that choice for yourself.

You missed my point. Alito's opinion was already a dissenting opinion, meaning, his side had not won the district court ruling BEFORE it went to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS upheld the ruling, meaning wives didn't have to notify their husbands...

Yeah, so in other words he thought it was perfectly fine to have a law that would make women have to consult their husbands when it came to abortion. Talk about activist judges, if that's not trying to legislate from the bench, I'm not sure what is. Given abortion is perfectly legal and most married woman are of age, at least one would hope!

Yeah, so in other words he thought it was perfectly fine to have a law that would make women have to consult their husbands when it came to abortion. Talk about activist judges, if that's not trying to legislate from the bench, I'm not sure what is. Given abortion is perfectly legal and most married woman are of age, at least one would hope!


Yes. The word is notify, not consult, but yes. He thought it was perfectly fine that a law would exist that said spouses have a right to know when they can or cannot have children based on nothing but the decision making abilities of the other spouse. That's right.

That's why you have it served if need be. She doen't even have to face him.


So, you're saying that you think that marriages should be better preserved by having a wife SERVE notification of medical treatment to her husband if she is too afraid to tell him?


Wow.


I think by the time you're there - your marriage is done anyway.


There is constitutional grounds if you think people have a right to have children. If someone is depriving you of the right to have children, perhaps you have the right to get a divorce and marry someone that wants to have children too... Rather than spend a lifetime with someone that's been lying to you and stops you from being able to make that choice for yourself.

Show me where in the constitution it mandates rights to:

a) children.
or
b) full marital disclosure.


please. Point to the article.


Having a judge legislate in line with your personal viewpoint is NOT constructionism. It's partisanship.

Three people didn't write the Constitution.

They helped write it and helped to get it passed. Nowhere did I say that it was only written by 3 people.

Yes. The word is notify, not consult, but yes. He thought it was perfectly fine that a law would exist that said spouses have a right to know when they can or cannot have children based on nothing but the decision making abilities of the other spouse. That's right.

It's still bad law. They have divorce court if you don't want to stay married. Next you'll tell me that you think adultery should be illegal again too? No, that's what divorce court is for. A woman can choose to do what she wishes to her body and in privacy. Privacy does mean private, between her and her doctor. Anything less is certainly not "freedom"

Yes. The word is notify, not consult, but yes. He thought it was perfectly fine that a law would exist that said spouses have a right to know when they can or cannot have children based on nothing but the decision making abilities of the other spouse. That's right.


You are too focused on this one possible scenario Ph33rdom. The problem is that such a law extends far beyond it, and that this is likely to be a tiny subset of possible reasons why a woman might not want to tell her husband.

It is bad law not just because it is constitutionally unsound, or because it is just plain wrong to selectively force disclosure on private matters, but also because anywone who gives it a moment's thought can forsee circumstances where it would be beneficial to a marriage for the husband not to know. Situations that this law would not allow the woman to make the right choice.

Two cases in point:

1) A woman's husband is on his second your of Iraq. In a moment of lonliness (and of drunkenness) she has a one-night stand. Or maybe she gets raped. She's ashamed, she's putting herself through hell, and worse yet - she's pregnant. She can save her marriage if her husband never knows, and she wants above all else to keep her marriage, but this law would force her to admit to the affair along with the notification. Or maybe it puts his life in danger as he is worried more about his wife's rape than he is thinking about keeping his head down. She also is working full time to support their existing three children while he is off on reduced pay as a reservist, and they are barely keeping up the payments. Pregnancy, due to time loss, would surely cost her children with her husband their home.


2) A woman is diagnosed with cancer. During subsequent testing it also is found that she is pregnant. If she stays pregnant she limits her treatment options which could give her a 60% chance of living. IF she stays pregnant she has a five percent chance of living, and only a 2% chance of living long enough to deliver the baby anyway. Does she tell her husband so that he must also mourn a child in the event (40%) that she dies? Or does she hope to spare him that grief and simply do what she can to save herself to be with him and hopefully still have the chance to have a family with him?


IT was a bad decision.

More importantly, it was a constitutionally unsound decision.

So, why do you want a person selected to SCOTUS if he makes Constitutionally unsound decisions?

So, you're saying that you think that marriages should be better preserved by having a wife SERVE notification of medical treatment to her husband if she is too afraid to tell him?

Wow.

I think by the time you're there - your marriage is done anyway.

An perhaps, both spouses should have a right to know about how bad it's gotten?


Show me where in the constitution it mandates rights to:

a) children.
or
b) full marital disclosure.

please. Point to the article.

Having a judge legislate in line with your personal viewpoint is NOT constructionism. It's partisanship.

Rather, you suggest that someone outside of yourself has the right to deny you the children desire without even needing to tell you about it? The right to progeny is real, I assure you.

Two cases in point:

1) A woman's husband is on his second your of Iraq. In a moment of lonliness (and of drunkenness) she has a one-night stand. She's ashamed, she's putting herself through hell, and worse yet - she's pregnant. She can save her marriage if her husband never knows, and she wants above all else to keep her marriage, but this law would force her to admit to the affair along with the notification. She also is working full time to support their existing three children while he is off on reduced pay as a reservist, and they are barely keeping up the payments. Pregnancy, due to time los, would surely cost her children with her husband their home.


2) A woman is diagnosed with cancer. During subsequent testing it also is found that she is pregnant. If she stays pregnant she limits her treatment options which could give her a 60% chance of living. IF she stays pregnant she has a five percent chance of living, and only a 2% chance of living long enough to deliver the baby anyway. Does she tell her husband so that he must also mourn a child in the event (40%) that she dies? Or does she hope to spare him that grief and simply do what she can to save herself to be with him and hopefully still have the chance to have a family with him?



Both of those reason are why she doesn't want to tell him. Neither is a reason why he doesn't have a right to know.

Since we're talking about the Constitution, show me in the Constitution that you actually have a right to privacy.

Rather, you suggest that someone outside of yourself has the right to deny you the children desire without even needing to tell you about it? The right to progeny is real, I assure you.

No it is not, at least it is certainly not absolute. Because it also involves another person's right NOT to have prgeny.


The old saying is clear: My right to swing my arm extends where your nose begins.


The extension of your argument is that a husband can force his wife to have as many children as HE wants. That is a bullshit argument.

Both of those reason are why she doesn't want to tell him. Neither is a reason why he doesn't have a right to know.


There is no enherent "right to know absolutely every thought or decision by your spouse" enshrined in the Constitution.

IT maybe something you would like from your spouse, but it is not a right as defined by law.

No it is not, at least it is certainly not absolute. Because it also involves another person's right NOT to have prgeny.

The old saying is clear: My right to swing my arm extends where your nose begins.

The extension of your argument is that a husband can force his wife to have as many children as HE wants. That is a bullshit argument.

Strawman about the wife being forced to have children...It's not even a part of the discussion.

The right to swing you arm and choose for yourself doesn’t not give you the right to choose for your spouse without their knowledge. The spouse has the right to know that they will not have children because their spouse decided not to, well within their rights to do so. And, if children is import enough to the first spouse, they will have to get a divorce and marry some else huh... But you would deny them the right to know and spend their lives with someone else who chooses for them...

Since we're talking about the Constitution, show me in the Constitution that you actually have a right to privacy.


I'll ask you the converse: Where is it enshrined the right to deny privacy?

There is a reason you need probably cause to search a person's residence, which implies a measure of privacy from unreasonable search and siezure. You don't get to go fishing without providing a compelling reason in the public interest. Laws that force notification of anything must be shown to be in the public interest else they become a means to and end-run around it.

There is no enherent "right to know absolutely every thought or decision by your spouse" enshrined in the Constitution.

IT maybe something you would like from your spouse, but it is not a right as defined by law.


When your spouse gets a STD, and you catch it, and then you find out that they knew and they didn't tell you, you'll think you had the right to know before hand too. The same goes for a pregnancy or sterilization treatment.

Since we're talking about the Constitution, show me in the Constitution that you actually have a right to privacy.

It's been well established in the 14th Amendment. Same as no where in the Constitution does it actually say "Separation of Church & State" yet has also been well established in the 1st Amendment. If you didn't have a right to privacy, then the police could just knock your door down and search your house without a warrant. Think about it.

When your spouse gets a STD, and you catch it, and then you find out that they knew and they didn't tell you, you'll think you had the right to know before hand too. The same goes for a pregnancy.


Nope. An STD is within the public domain for notification because of the public interest of a health risk. you're wife's pregnancy is not going to rub off on you and swell YOUR belly.

Try again.

I'll ask you the converse: Where is it enshrined the right to deny privacy?

Under the US Constitution, you DON'T have the right to privacy. Now I'll ask you again since you decided to dodge my question. WHere in the Constitution does it enshrine the right to privacy.

There is a reason you need probably cause to search a person's residence, which implies a measure of privacy from unreasonable search and siezure.

Constitutional Amendment IV

You don't get to go fishing without providing a compelling reason in the public interest. Laws that force notification of anything must be shown to be in the public interest else they become a means to and end-run around it.

And hence you need a fishing license to go fishing in most states. Fishing is a state issue.

Under the US Constitution, you DON'T have the right to privacy.

Yes you do. SCOTUS has set the precedent many, many, many times.

Strawman about the wife being forced to have children...It's not even a part of the discussion.

The right to swing you arm and choose for yourself doesn’t not give you the right to choose for your spouse without their knowledge. The spouse has the right to know that they will not have children because their spouse decided not to, well within their rights to do so. And, if children is import enough to the first spouse, they will have to get a divorce and marry some else huh... But you would deny them the right to know and spend their lives with someone else who chooses for them...


Again, you are legislating forcing marital honesty. There is no compelling argument for that. And you keep focusing on only one possible scenario as the basis for your argument while excluding all others.

The court MUST look at all scenarios when determining the Constitutionality of a law, and in this case Alito's decision was clearly found wanting by the highest court of the land.


But hey - if you're saying that you know better than SCOTUS as to what is Constitutional and what isn't, you go right on saying it..... becuase they clearly disagreed with both you and Alito on this matter.

Yes you do. SCOTUS has set the precedent many, many, many times.

Show me in the Constitution of the United States where we have the right to privacy.

It's been well established in the 14th Amendment. Same as no where in the Constitution does it actually say "Separation of Church & State" yet has also been well established in the 1st Amendment. If you didn't have a right to privacy, then the police could just knock your door down and search your house without a warrant. Think about it.

I already did.

And hence you need a fishing license to go fishing in most states. Fishing is a state issue.


lol. by "fishing" I meant "going on a fishing expitition" which is what the judges generally refer to when limiting search warrants.


Now, as to the fact that you are complaining that the issue of protection from unreasonable search and siezure is an ammendment rather than an original part of the Constitution, may I ask if you also then feel that the second amendment should be tossed out on it's ear?

I already did.

And I already looked at the 14th amendment and you know what? Nothing about privacy in there. I see a great case to make abortion illegal though.

....nor shall any State deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property, witout due process of law...

Now show me in the 14th amendment where it gaurentees the right to privacy. After looking at it, it does not.

As to illegal searches and seizures, that is covered by the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And I already looked at the 14th amendment and you know what? Nothing about privacy in there. I see a great case to make abortion illegal though.

....nor shall any State deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property, witout due process of law...

Now show me in the 14th amendment where it gaurentees the right to privacy. After looking at it, it does not.

That's funny given that abortion was made legal using the 14th Amendment..lol Better not go into law Corneliu. ;)

That's funny given that abortion was made legal using the 14th Amendment..lol Better not go into law Corneliu. ;)

Actually, I've been told by many professors to think about going into law. Now show me in the XIV amendment that gaurentees the right to privacy?

Again, you are legislating forcing marital honesty. There is no compelling argument for that. And you keep focusing on only one possible scenario as the basis for your argument while excluding all others.



Exactly. You right to be notified if you will or will not have children because or your spouse's choosing trumps your spouses right to lie to you.

Corneliu, you do forget the ninth do you?

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

by refering to the right to privacy as SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions - including decisions surrounding the 4th as well as others - including but not limited to Roe v Wade, they have often invoked the phrase "right to privacy"

As such, under the system of legal precedent as defined by the founders the existance of this right has become a matter of stare decisis and falls in line with the ninth.

The term "search and siezure of your person" includes ALL of your person - including what goes on in your mind, as is affirmed in the right to avoid self-incrimination.

No, the constitution does not directly say "right to privacy".

But neither does it say "right to have children" or "right to an honest spouse" as Ph33rdom is attempting to say.




Like I've said before, legislating what YOU want is not a sign of constructionism.

Exactly. You right to be notified if you will or will not have children because or your spouse's choosing trumps your spouses right to lie to you.


No. It does not. Please try and make a Constitutionally sound argument for this notion.

Actually, I've been told by many professors to think about going into law.

Gee Corneliu, according to you since I've known you on this forum your professors think you're the next Albert Einstein if we were to believe everything you've said that is. :p


Now show me in the XIV amendment that gaurentees the right to privacy?

Here, I'll do better, read the decision yourself.

relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Roe v. Wade - http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm

Those rights being about privacy, SCOTUS set the precedent.

No. It does not. Please try and make a Constitutionally sound argument for this notion.

You do not have a constitutional right to order your family doctor to lie to your spouse against your doctors and your spouses desire when the product of that lie determines your spouses right to have or not have children...

Strawman about the wife being forced to have children...It's not even a part of the discussion.

The right to swing you arm and choose for yourself doesn’t not give you the right to choose for your spouse without their knowledge. The spouse has the right to know that they will not have children because their spouse decided not to, well within their rights to do so. And, if children is import enough to the first spouse, they will have to get a divorce and marry some else huh... But you would deny them the right to know and spend their lives with someone else who chooses for them...
Here is one for you. How does this apply to unmarried women. Are you forced to get the father's consent to have an abortion?

Roe v. Wade - http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm

Those rights being about privacy, SCOTUS set the precedent.
Don't waste your breath on "constructionists."

You do not have a constitutional right to order your family doctor to lie to your spouse against your doctors and your spouses desire when the product of that lie determines your spouses right to have or not have children...


Excuse me? Doctor-patient, as well as lawyer-patient privelidge is most certainly a matter of stare decisis.

Your wife's doctor has a legal obligation not to tell you or anyone else a damn thing unless it may impact your health directly.

Her doctor doesn't have to lie. What he has to do, by law, is say "it's none of your damn business unless your wife tells me that it is".


That, sir, is black-letter law and only exceptions that are required for the greater public good have ever been mandated.

You do not have a constitutional right to order your family doctor to lie to your spouse against your doctors and your spouses desire when the product of that lie determines your spouses right to have or not have children...

Actually you do. It's the same right that you have with clergy and lawyers and yep, you guessed it, doctors. Client privilege.

Hahaha Silliopolous get out of my head.. *LOL* :D

Here is one for you. How does this apply to unmarried women. Are you forced to get the father's consent to have an abortion?

In some states, A minor has to notify her parents before getting an abortion. I don't know what the age limits are and what states have them, but I know some states do. I do not think the parental notification law is unconstitutional because a minor is not legally liable for their actions yet and a surgery should require a parent’s notification whenever possible (any surgery).

Don't waste your breath on "constructionists."


I don't mind REAL constructionists, but some people that claim to be such seem to be constructing something that looks VERY different than what SCOTUS has been working with for the past couple of centuries.....

Hahaha Silliopolous get out of my head.. *LOL* :D

Sorry.... I'll leave.

Except... what's that over there in the medula oblongata?


*gasp*


You're a sick girl!


Sick.Sick. Sick. Sick.....




Can I have your number?

:D

Corneliu, you do forget the ninth do you?

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

Nope, I haven't forgotten the 9th Amendment. Just like I haven't forgotten about the 10th Amendment that SCOTUS DOES seem to have forgotten about.

by refering to the right to privacy as SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions - including decisions surrounding the 4th as well as others - including but not limited to Roe v Wade, they have often invoked the phrase "right to privacy"

However, there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to privacy.

As such, under the system of legal precedent as defined by the founders the existance of this right has become a matter of stare decisis and falls in line with the ninth.

You have a slight problem. They didn't use the 9th Amendment in their decision. I wouldn't be arguing if they did. They used the 14th Amendment which is a totally different amendment compared to the 9th. This case belongs under the 9th amendment and NOT the 14th amendment.

The term "search and siezure of your person" includes ALL of your person - including what goes on in your mind, as is affirmed in the right to avoid self-incrimination.

Which is what the 4th Amendment states. We have rights afforded to us under the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments as well as the 8th in regards to criminal matters.

No, the constitution does not directly say "right to privacy".

Nor is it stated indirectly.

But neither does it say "right to have children" or "right to an honest spouse" as Ph33rdom is attempting to say.

Nor is having an abortion covered in the Constitution of the United States.

Like I've said before, legislating what YOU want is not a sign of constructionism.

And legislating what I don't want is not a sign of constructionism. We have to come to a compromise. Something that everyone seems to have forgotten to do.

Sorry.... I'll leave.

Except... what's that over there in the medula oblongata?


*gasp*


You're a sick girl!


Sick.Sick. Sick. Sick.....




Can I have your number?

:D

Haha, nope, sorry, I'm a happily married woman. And no you don't have to leave. I was only joking, it just seems that we have been both thinking the exact same things at the same time. :)

Gee Corneliu, according to you since I've known you on this forum your professors think you're the next Albert Einstein if we were to believe everything you've said that is. :p

Its because of my style of argueing subject matters.

*snip*

And any lawyer that actually has read the constitution of the United States of America can see that there is no right to privacy under the US Constitution.

As for Roe v. Wade, the real roe is an avent pro-lifer who admitted that it was a mistake to even bring this case.

Abortion should only be incase of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at stake and that it can be medically proven that it is.

You have a slight problem. They didn't use the 9th Amendment in their decision. I wouldn't be arguing if they did. They used the 14th Amendment which is a totally different amendment compared to the 9th. This case belongs under the 9th amendment and NOT the 14th amendment.

You're wrong Corneliu, they used both. Or did you miss my last post to you.. lol

I don't mind REAL constructionists, but some people that claim to be such seem to be constructing something that looks VERY different than what SCOTUS has been working with for the past couple of centuries.....
"Constructionists" honestly strike me as psychic charlatans claiming they are channeling the feelings and emotions of every Framer of our Constitution.

As for Roe v. Wade, the real roe is an avent pro-lifer who admitted that it was a mistake to even bring this case.

Abortion should only be incase of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at stake and that it can be medically proven that it is.

This is inmaterial and irrelevant to the discussion.

Excuse me? Doctor-patient, as well as lawyer-patient privelidge is most certainly a matter of stare decisis.

Your wife's doctor has a legal obligation not to tell you or anyone else a damn thing unless it may impact your health directly.

Her doctor doesn't have to lie. What he has to do, by law, is say "it's none of your damn business unless your wife tells me that it is".


That, sir, is black-letter law and only exceptions that are required for the greater public good have ever been mandated.


But the doctor does have to lie, in your scenario. One spouse is going in for fertility treatments, wondering what’s wrong, all the while the other spouse is sterilized or actively stopping them from having children, and you suggest that they can't be told that they don't need treatment for infertility because nothing is wrong...

It is a two way street. You have, or, you should have the right to know why you can't have children, even when it is against your spouses wishes for you to be told, from your own doctor or from the medical clinic etc.,.

But we here in this thread of hi-jacked it too long now, we disagree and we have nothing new to say, I’ll drop it in dissent. We'll see which way the SCOTUS goes in the future, though. Past rulings are past rulings, times change. Like the times the SCOTUS said it was illegal to free a slave, and women didn't have the right to vote, some SCOTUS rulings need to change too.

There is no Constitutional support for abortion, and on the same hand there is no Constitutional support for its denial, likewise for every other flashbang issue like homosexual marriage or anything else.

There is just as much Constitutional support for the right to privacy as there is for it never existing. Of course the Constitution doesn't say there is a "right to privacy" but what good is the Bill of Rights if there isn't?

This is inmaterial and irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually it is quite relevant.

Anyway, this is beside the issue of MY THREAD!!!

Alito is currently serving on the 3rd Court of appeals. He is a Catholic and from New Jersey.

He is also conservative and was on the Democratic blacklist of candidates.

Now, we have democrats lining up to try and filibuster the nominee.

What do you think?

You have a slight problem. They didn't use the 9th Amendment in their decision. I wouldn't be arguing if they did. They used the 14th Amendment which is a totally different amendment compared to the 9th. This case belongs under the 9th amendment and NOT the 14th amendment.


I'm sorry, are you talking about the right to provacy in general? As it inolves Roe V Wade specifically? Or Ph33rdom's assertion?

Because I was answering the direct question about "right to privacy" and all I have stated is the following:

1) it is not in the constitution
2) It is not against the constitution (ammendment IX)
3) by frequent reference in SCOTUS decisions, it has BECOME an implicit right under the ninth.


We are duiscussing multiple things here. You seem to be on abortion in general. Ph33rdom is onto IF it is legal than does the husband have a RIGHT to know - to which I (and SCOTUS) say NO.


Frankly, there isn;t all that much in the Constitution. It is a framework under laws and decisions must be refined. I mean, there is no stated right not to be allowed to drive in the constitution either, but yet most people kinda like the fact that testing and licencing is required under law.

but to limit the constitution only to what is stated you must take notice of the 9th. At which point constructionism goes out the window as to what those undefined rights might be. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Who's opinion is more constitutionally sound?

The only benchmark we have is stare decisis - the previous decisions of SCOTUS to guide us, and the preponderance of that gives evidence to the notion that there is an implicit right to privacy. Why else would the 4th have been neccessary?


And legislating what I don't want is not a sign of constructionism. We have to come to a compromise. Something that everyone seems to have forgotten to do.

A compromise on what exactly? Pick something beyond arguiong about the term privacy then as that is a black or white statement. You have it or you don't. Compromise is reached on specific instances of privacy, and the benchmark should always be "the greater public good".

Where abortion stands in that case is still up in the air as it is a often a very personal sentiment on how you feel about it.

But in point of fact, whether someone you don't know has an abortion or not is generally not likely to impact your life - beyond wishing that it hadn't had to happen for that person.

What do you think?
I think legislating morality from the bench, the White House or the Congress is worse than the imaginative "legislating from the bench" by "liberal" judges crap.

Actually it is quite relevant.

Anyway, this is beside the issue of MY THREAD!!!

Alito is currently serving on the 3rd Court of appeals. He is a Catholic and from New Jersey.

He is also conservative and was on the Democratic blacklist of candidates.

Now, we have democrats lining up to try and filibuster the nominee.

What do you think?

No it wasn't relevant. It was nothing but your own personal opinion. And a woman who's emotions have changed on the subject. Had she not brought the case, someone else would of.

As to Alito, he's a bad choice and kiss your freedoms good-bye if he gets confirmed. He is no friend of privacy, or to workers or to women.

P.S. Do go back one page, you were wrong about them not using the 9th in the case, they used both. I'd like to see you squirm your way out of that one. ;)

Actually it is quite relevant.

Anyway, this is beside the issue of MY THREAD!!!

Alito is currently serving on the 3rd Court of appeals. He is a Catholic and from New Jersey.

He is also conservative and was on the Democratic blacklist of candidates.

Now, we have democrats lining up to try and filibuster the nominee.

What do you think?


I think that he is an activist conservative judge who will attempt to legislate from the bench. His history suggests nothing less.

And if the shoe were on the other foot and it were a liberal judge with that mindset being propsed you'd be screaming "judicial activism".


As to the filibuster, it is a mechanism put in place to ensure that the minority party has the ability to force more than cursory discussion on an issue. One of those "checks and balances" that the framers put in while we are taliking about constructionism.

Yes, the Republicans can use the nuclear option which then - to my mind - puts too much power into the hands of the ruling party. They should eliminate it at their peril, not just for political expediency. Because it might just come back and bite them on the ass down the road when they find themselves in the minority.

GW failed with Miers picking an unqualified candidate. His response is to suck up to the furthest right portion of his base to select someone guaranteed to cause contraversy.

Frankly, I think that he could have found an acceptible moderate conservative which would haev served the same purpose of tilting the court to the right on most decisions without causing an uproar and increasing the divide between the two parties, and of the nation.


"I'm a uniter, not a divider"


Remember when he said that?

This was a claculated move, and he will use the Senate majority to ram it through to completion in order to try and rebuild his "political capital" after everything else pretty much in the second term has got scuttled.

And he is doing it at the expense of making any effort to rebuild bi-partisan relations.

'06, and '08 are going to be ugly, ugly years..... electorally speaking.

As to Alito, he's a bad choice and kiss your freedoms good-bye if he gets confirmed. He is no friend of privacy, or to workers or to women.

*yawns*

More liberal rhetoric. Alwell. I'm not concerned. I'll still have my freedoms. BTW, did you know that not only are they comparing him to Scalia but also to Chief Justice Roberts?

Alwell. I'm not concerned. I'll still have my freedoms. That is where you lose all credbility, if you had any.

That is where you lose all credbility, if you had any.

I know what my rights are. I will excersie my rights too. I have rights that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of the United States that cannot be taken away via a Court Case. It would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and House as well as 38 states to approve it.

So tell me, what rights will I lose of Alito gets placed on the Supreme Court?

I know what my rights are. I will excersie my rights too. I have rights that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of the United States that cannot be taken away via a Court Case. It would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and House as well as 38 states to approve it.

So tell me, what rights will I lose of Alito gets placed on the Supreme Court?
Well considering you channel the spirits of the Framers supposedly, none you care about.

Well considering you channel the spirits of the Framers supposedly, none you care about.

What rights will I lose of Alito gets placed on the bench of the United States Supreme Court?

That is where you lose all credbility, if you had any.


Corneliu lost all his credibility with me a long time ago. He has been wrong on more topics then I can count since he first came to this forum. And he's been called on most of them where there was no room for him to claim anything but he was wrong, yet he still refuses to admit when he's wrong.

However, he is young and I leave room for that given he at least tries while often being wrong. Maybe one day he'll get it right.

What rights will I lose of Alito gets placed on the bench of the United States Supreme Court?
None you care about. But for the rest of us who personally like the right to privacy, we can expect it to be overturned quick, fast, and in a hurry. Especially, the ability to get an abortion without government intervention for any women who would want or need to.

In some states, A minor has to notify her parents before getting an abortion. I don't know what the age limits are and what states have them, but I know some states do. I do not think the parental notification law is unconstitutional because a minor is not legally liable for their actions yet and a surgery should require a parent’s notification whenever possible (any surgery).

I'm not really sure what you think this has to do with spousal notification, which has a completely different reasoning behind it altogether.

You are correct, there are parental notification laws, and the reasoning is that a minor does not make her own medical decisions and that a parent makes them for her, and thus should know what she is doing.

However, even in this case - where minors are involved - the courts have found repeatedly that any such laws that does not provide a loophole - a way for the minor to get an abortion without parental consent - is blatantly unconstitutional. Any such law must provide a way for a minor to appeal to the court to deem her mature enough to make such a decision on her own - it must allow for her to appeal to the court with her reasons for not giving parental consent, and to possibly get permission to have an abortion without consent.

Now, that is in the case of a minor, someone with much less rights than an adult woman. And even a minor must be provided with some possibility - some way to gain access to an abortion procedure without notifiying anyone else. And yet you think that an adult woman should have to notify or get permission from another adult?

But the doctor does have to lie, in your scenario. One spouse is going in for fertility treatments, wondering what’s wrong, all the while the other spouse is sterilized or actively stopping them from having children, and you suggest that they can't be told that they don't need treatment for infertility because nothing is wrong...

This is truly ridiculous Ph33r. People don't just randomly go for fertility treatments. Doctors don't just say, "What? Having trouble getting preggers? We'll just put you on these treatments!!" No, they do tests, on both members of the couple to try and determine what is going on. If one of them is sterlized and the other is perfectly fertile, the doctor is not going to suggest that the fertile one start getting treatments. And if the sterile one is stupid enough to try to keep up the ruse and go in for testing in the first place, the only thing they can do is tell the doctor not to tell their results to their spouse. This, of course, will look a little odd to the other spouse:

Doctor: "We can find nothing in your tests to suggest infertility. You seem to be producing sperm at a good rate. The sperm is good quality. You are a virile man."

Man: "So, is there something wrong with my wife then?"

Doctor: "I am not at liberty to tell you that. I can only discuss her results with her."

Man (to woman): "Honey, what did the doc tell you?"

Woman: "I'm just fine too."

Man (to doctor): "So why aren't we getting pregnant?"

Doctor: "I am not at liberty to discuss that."

Man (to woman): "Are you sure he said everything was ok?"

Woman: "Of course! I'm just fine!"

Man: "So, why aren't we getting pregnant then?"

Woman: "..........."

It is a two way street. You have, or, you should have the right to know why you can't have children, even when it is against your spouses wishes for you to be told, from your own doctor or from the medical clinic etc.,.

No, you should be able to know. People should be honest with each other. And if people were better than they ever have been.....

Of course, they aren't. And we don't legislate honesty. The only person with a responsibility to tell their spouse these things is the person themselves. Period. If they don't do it, we can label them a bad person - and, if they are keeping such secrets, chances are that the marriage will fail anyways.

None you care about. But for the rest of us who personally like the right to privacy, we can expect it to be overturned quick, fast, and in a hurry. Especially, the ability to get an abortion without government intervention for any women who would want or need to.

Ok now your resorting to ad homin attacks. I care about all of the rights that I have. So tell me, what rights will I lose if Alito gets placed on the Bench.

God I hate fearmongers.

God I hate fearmongers.


So you must really dislike Bush?

So you must really dislike Bush?

:rolleyes:

Why should I dislike someone for actually defending the country of the United States against her enemies?

However, that is a different debate for another thread.

:rolleyes:

Why should I dislike someone for actually defending the country of the United States against her enemies?

However, that is a different debate for another thread.
You missed the part where he pretends he is a gypsie and looks into his imaginary crystal ball while he invokes the spirit of 9/11.

I fear losing the right to privacy and the rest of you should to. The judiciary is the only one with the power to do it because they are the last stop for all controversial moves.

:rolleyes:

Why should I dislike someone for actually defending the country of the United States against her enemies?

However, that is a different debate for another thread.

Yes, because Saddam was such a huge threat to America.. LMAO! Please!

Hey, you were the one who said you hated fear mongering, I was only replying to what you said.

I was done with this conversation, but then Dem came along :p

I'm not really sure what you think this has to do with spousal notification, which has a completely different reasoning behind it altogether. ...

I didn't volunteer the information or bring it up because I believe it is related, but the question was specifically asked so I answered it...

This is truly ridiculous Ph33r. People don't just randomly go for fertility treatments. Doctors don't just say, "What? Having trouble getting preggers? We'll just put you on these treatments!!" No, they do tests, on both members of the couple to try and determine what is going on. If one of them is sterlized and the other is perfectly fertile, the doctor is not going to suggest that the fertile one start getting treatments. ...

I agree that it is ridiculous, but all you did was type up an example of how it would play out, you didn't bring a solution to the problem or suggest 'why' the spouse 'can't' have a right to know. We ARE talking about one person being denied a right, and another person being granted a right as well, two peoples rights are involved. The right of a spouses privacy right now outweighs the other persons right to know that they aren't having a child... I think it should go the other way. I've stated it several times, I think privacy, in a medical condition that determines a persons right to produce a child out-weighs the secondary spouses right to secrecy (throw in your standard court approved exception process).


No, you should be able to know. People should be honest with each other. And if people were better than they ever have been.....

Of course, they aren't. And we don't legislate honesty. The only person with a responsibility to tell their spouse these things is the person themselves. Period. If they don't do it, we can label them a bad person - and, if they are keeping such secrets, chances are that the marriage will fail anyways.

Does my right to privacy mean I don't have to tell my spouse how much money I claimed on my income taxes? Should I have to tell my spouse that I've filed for bankruptcy? Should I have to tell my spouse that I've put the house up for sale while they were on vacation?

Will I get away with it? Yes. Should I get away with it? Should it be called 'unconstitutional' for a state to legislate that it will be illegal in their state to do such things without notification to their spouse? Should a state have the ability to legislate a law that says both spouses have a 'right' to be told that one of them is dying (a medical condition and privacy rights involved example) because even the non-dying spouse has a right to put their house/economics, life long financial planning etc., in order even if the first (the dying) spouse doesn't think they 'want' to tell them.

Let's say a state decides to mandate that both spouses must be informed within so-and-so days of such diagnosis (throw in an court approved process for an exception clause)... (should they or would they is not my question), would it be ruled 'unconstitutional?'

IMO, a spouse does have certain rights that transcends an individuals privacy rights as an individual because they are a 'combined' entity in the eyes of the law, they cannot be expect to receive a guarantee of privacy from themselves.

Oh goodie, so more of the "The Supreme Court can't decide issues of morality (Ok, good so far, Scalia). The US Congress can't decide issues of morality (Go Scalia! You're making sense!) The State Legislature can (HUH!?!?!?!?!)"
This was true before the 14th amendment was put in place. Whether or not it still applies is a different matter entirely.

I didn't volunteer the information or bring it up because I believe it is related, but the question was specifically asked so I answered it...

I could've sworn that the question said "single women", not "minor women". Ah well.

I agree that it is ridiculous, but all you did was type up an example of how it would play out, you didn't bring a solution to the problem or suggest 'why' the spouse 'can't' have a right to know.

No, I meant your statement was ridiculous. The idea that someone would be "going for fertility treatments" because their spouse lied to them is, itself, ridiculous, as no doctor would put a perfectly fertile person on any such treatments.

We ARE talking about one person being denied a right, and another person being granted a right as well, two peoples rights are involved.

No, we aren't. You have no right to know anything at all about anyone's body, not even your spouse. By your (and my) view of marriage, you certainly should know, but you have no right to know if it is not volunteered.

The right of a spouses privacy right now outweighs the other persons right to know that they aren't having a child...

You are setting up a false dichotomy. You do not have a "right" to use another person's body to have a child, even if you are married to them. Thus, one person's decision does not, in any way, affect your "right to have a child" or even your "ability to have a child." If your spouse is not producing a child for you, and you really want one, you can go out and have one with someone else. It is personal decision to remain faithful that keeps this from happening, not their decision not to tell you that they are sterile.

I think it should go the other way. I've stated it several times, I think privacy, in a medical condition that determines a persons right to produce a child out-weighs the secondary spouses right to secrecy (throw in your standard court approved exception process).

That person still has the right to produce a child, if they can find a willing partner. Nothing that I do, unless I castrate you, even if we are married, affects your right to produce a child. All you have to do is find a willing partner.

Edit: Of course, it doesn't make any sense to say that anyone has an individual "right to reproduce", any more than it makes sense to talk about an individual "right to marry." Neither of these are things you can do on your own, unless you figure out a way to clone yourself, so they cannot be individual rights. Now, the right to try and find someone with whom you will reproduce and attempt to reproduce with them.... [i]That is a right you have.

Does my right to privacy mean I don't have to tell my spouse how much money I claimed on my income taxes?

If you have made the decision to keep your finances separate, absolutely. In that case, they are not directly affected, so it is none of their business.

Should I have to tell my spouse that I've filed for bankruptcy? Should I have to tell my spouse that I've put the house up for sale while they were on vacation?

See above.

Of course, most married couples don't keep their finances separate, so it isn't "your income", "you filing for bankruptcy", or "your house." I belongs to both.

IMO, a spouse does have certain rights that transcends an individuals privacy rights as an individual because they are a 'combined' entity in the eyes of the law, they cannot be expect to receive a guarantee of privacy from themselves.

Only those things which are actually combined in the eyes of the law should be combined. The right to make medical decisions about an individual's body is not covered under this.

everytie my eyes just go over the title of this thread without reading it properly I keep seeing it as 'Judge Alito is a prick'

well i know nothing about the bloke but maybe thats an omen!

Originally Posted by Corneliu
God I hate fearmongers.

So you must really dislike Bush?
Oh the sweet irony of it all. Good one Steph.:)

This was true before the 14th amendment was put in place. Whether or not it still applies is a different matter entirely.

I wouldn't say it was ever true. Was it legal for them to try to do so? Yes. Does it make any sense for them to have that power or to attempt to use it? Not really.

I could've sworn that the question said "single women", not "minor women". Ah well.

Ah, perhaps your are right, the question was women, the answer was minors.


No, I meant your statement was ridiculous. The idea that someone would be "going for fertility treatments" because their spouse lied to them is, itself, ridiculous, as no doctor would put a perfectly fertile person on any such treatments. Seeking fertility medical help because you can't get pregnant (as a couple) could entirely exist because your spouse is lying to you...


No, we aren't. You have no right to know anything at all about anyone's body, not even your spouse. By your (and my) view of marriage, you certainly should know, but you have no right to know if it is not volunteered.

Why not? What federally enforcable individual 'right' is it that the says a legislature 'can't' give spouses that right? I am talking about a right to 'knowledge,' not a right to dictate.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. You do not have a "right" to use another person's body to have a child, even if you are married to them. Thus, one person's decision does not, in any way, affect your "right to have a child" or even your "ability to have a child." If your spouse is not producing a child for you, and you really want one, you can go out and have one with someone else. It is [i[your[/i] personal decision to remain faithful that keeps this from happening, not their decision not to tell you that they are sterile.

You set up the false dichotomy. I never endorsed the idea that someone could force anyone to have a child. I said that they do not have the right to deny you the opportunity to have a child (as a lying spouse would be). You do not have the opportunity to 'find someone else,' your spouse determined for themselves that YOU don't have the right to know, thus, you can't choose.

That person still has the right to produce a child, if they can find a willing partner. Nothing that I do, unless I castrate you, even if we are married, affects your right to produce a child. All you have to do is find a willing partner.

They are told that they have a willing partner. You suggest that they don't have a right to know the truth that they don't.

If you have made the decision to keep your finances separate, absolutely. In that case, they are not directly affected, so it is none of their business.

Your individual couples decision to keep finances seperate is up to you. Your credit rating doesn't care. Your credit will be destroyed by your spouse who keeps secrets and takes triple mortgages out on the house without telling you. Your decisions and choices as a couple are irrelevant to being held responsible for their actions. Thus, IMO, you should have certain rights that supercede their right to privacy...



Only those things which are actually combined in the eyes of the law should be combined. The right to make medical decisions about an individual's body is not covered under this.

The right to choose for someone else is not a privacy issue at all...

Seeking fertility medical help because you can't get pregnant (as a couple) could entirely exist because your spouse is lying to you...

Seeking help? Yes. And after all the tests, the spouse that wasn't infertile would be told, "Yup, looks like you're just fine." They wouldn't be put on any sort of treatment whatsoever because the spouse was lying. Going in for the tests? Yes. Getting any actual treatment? No.

Why not? What federally enforcable individual 'right' is it that the says a legislature 'can't' give spouses that right? I am talking about a right to 'knowledge,' not a right to dictate.

Getting married doesn't give you a magical right to know things that your spouse does not want to tell you - unless they affect you physically or financially. There is no logical reason that we can give a spouse the right to know about the medical decisions of a person that cannot extend to the person's parents, siblings, and friends. After all, a those people have the "right" to grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and god-children just as much as anyone has a "right" to have children.

You set up the false dichotomy. I never endorsed the idea that someone could force anyone to have a child. I said that they do not have the right to deny you the opportunity to have a child (as a lying spouse would be).

And there lies the false dichotomy. A lying spouse can in no way actually deny you the opportunity to have a child (which, as I pointed out, isn't a right in and of itself anyways). You still have the right to try and find a willing partner who will bear your child or impregnate you. Getting married doesn't remove that right, and having someone tell you they are fertile when they are not doesn't remove that right either.

You do not have the opportunity to 'find someone else,' your spouse determined for themselves that YOU don't have the right to know, thus, you can't choose.

You don't have to know that your spouse is infertile in order to decide to look elsewhere. There is no magical bond that keeps you from being unfaithful until you find out your spouse is infertile.

They are told that they have a willing partner. You suggest that they don't have a right to know the truth that they don't.

Legally? They don't, unless that person has signed a legal contract that specifically says, "I will bear a child for you/impregnate you." Morally? I would say they do. But legally, it is no different from me agreeing to enter a golf tournament with you without informing you that I don't know how to play.

Your individual couples decision to keep finances seperate is up to you. Your credit rating doesn't care. Your credit will be destroyed by your spouse who keeps secrets and takes triple mortgages out on the house without telling you.

If and only if your name is also on the house.

The right to choose for someone else is not a privacy issue at all...

And yet you think that you have the right to choose what someone does and does not tell another human being about themsleves....

Legally? They don't, unless that person has signed a legal contract that specifically says, "I will bear a child for you/impregnate you." Morally? I would say they do. But legally, it is no different from me agreeing to enter a golf tournament with you without informing you that I don't know how to play.

It's more like signing a legal contract to play golf with some in a tournament and then shooting badly and on purpose because you want them to lose.

If and only if your name is also on the house. No, your children will lose their home even if your name isn't on the title. There will be financial repercussions. A state's right to legislate in these issues is being talked about here... not the right itself.

And yet you think that you have the right to choose what someone does and does not tell another human being about themsleves.... Because it is them too. A 'choice' to be infertile is not the same as involuntarily being infertile.

It's more like signing a legal contract to play golf with some in a tournament and then shooting badly and on purpose because you want them to lose.

Show me *exactly* where in any state marriage license you sign somethign that says, "I agree to bear your child/impregnate you." If you cannot show this, then you cannot state that a marriage license is also an agreement to attempt to have children.

No, your children will lose their home even if your name isn't on the title.

The children would "lose their home" even if you weren't even there, if you are relying on someone else to provide it for you. This is a big part of why marriage ends up entangling finances so much. There really is no "your home", it is "our home" - and is made legally so. That way, both people have to be informed of anything going on with it.

Edit: Meanwhile, there will be financial repercussions for your neighboors if you lose your house as well. Your house may be repossessed and sold at a very low price, possibly lowering the price of their home as well. Does that mean that we should be legally obligated to tell our neighboors all about our financial matters?

One last edit: Meanwhile (again), if you have truly kept your finances separate, which I already said was the only situation under which you could keep your financial matters from your spouse legally, your children wouldn't lose their home or have financial repercussions from the actions of your spouse. You would be capable of supporting yourself (and them) without that input. If you need the input of the other person to support yourself and those dependent on you, you haven't kept separate finances, now have you?

Because it is them too. A 'choice' to be infertile is not the same as involuntarily being infertile.

No, it isn't "them too." Only one member of the couple is infertile. There is no magical legal obligation to tell your spouse you are fertile or infertile any more than there is a legal obligation to tell your one night stand whether or not you are fertile. You are still an individiual, with all the rights of an individual. Unless the marriage license you sign specifically stated that one of your marital duties was to try and have children, there is no legal reason that you can be forced to reveal details of your medical history that you don't want to.

Last time I checked, it doesn't say anything like that in the marriage license.

I'm still looking into his policies and haven't decided if he's a good pick or not yet, but the fact that the Brady Bunch has nicknamed him "Machine Gun Sammy" is a point in his favor in my book. :)

I'm still looking into his policies and haven't decided if he's a good pick or not yet, but the fact that the Brady Bunch has nicknamed him "Machine Gun Sammy" is a point in his favor in my book. :)
Flashbang.

An perhaps, both spouses should have a right to know about how bad it's gotten?




Rather, you suggest that someone outside of yourself has the right to deny you the children desire without even needing to tell you about it? The right to progeny is real, I assure you.
The only right a man has when a woman has an abortion is the right to whine about it.

No, it isn't "them too." Only one member of the couple is infertile. There is no magical legal obligation to tell your spouse you are fertile or infertile any more than there is a legal obligation to tell your one night stand whether or not you are fertile. You are still an individiual, with all the rights of an individual. Unless the marriage license you sign specifically stated that one of your marital duties was to try and have children, there is no legal reason that you can be forced to reveal details of your medical history that you don't want to.

Last time I checked, it doesn't say anything like that in the marriage license.

Fertility is a paramount reason for marriage and divorce, and always has been. You do recall that that even before no fault divorces, infertility was an 'acceptable' reason to grant a divorce? If one of the two spouses withholds the information of infertility, or in this scenario, chooses to be infertile, the couple will not have a child, period, end of story. I'm not surprised that you might 'value' personal privacy over this, but I am dumbstruck that you argue that the other spouse has not been deprived of their choice to have children.

Let's say a widower had a vasectomy and then meets and marries a younger woman whom wants to have children. He lies to her about his condition for fear of losing her to her desire to have children and delays the testing for many years. After the woman starts to get worried she's seeing doctors and trying to find out what’s wrong, and the doctor knows that the husband is shooting blanks but according to you he CAN'T even tell her. I say bullshit. He (her doctor) should be able to tell her the real reason she's not getting pregnant, and you say she has lost nothing because she 'could' have slept around? No, her husband has wronged her, she ‘should’ be able to sue for damages AND he should be charged with a crime.

The woman choosing to be infertile instead of the man changes nothing. In my opinion, it does not have to be unconstitutional (depending on wordage) for a state legislature to pass and keep a spouse ‘notification’ clause for abortions, vasectomies and other fertility procedures.

Fertility is a paramount reason for marriage and divorce, and always has been.

....for some people, yes. But there is nothing inherent in the legal institution of marriage that says someone must attempt to have children (or be able to).

If one of the two spouses withholds the information of infertility, or in this scenario, chooses to be infertile, the couple will not have a child, period, end of story. I'm not surprised that you might 'value' personal privacy over this, but I am dumbstruck that you argue that the other spouse has not been deprived of their choice to have children.

They have not "been deprived of their choice to have children." They have made a choice to be faithful to a person who is not, for whatever reason - be it intentional or not - helping them to produce children. That is a personal choice that they have made. If I always wanted to marry a natural blonde, and I marry a blonde guy, and then I find out that he isn't a natural blonde, it doesn't take my choice to marry a natural blonde away - it means that I made the choice to marry someone who, as it turns out, wasn't a natural blonde.

Let's say a widower had a vasectomy and then meets and marries a younger woman whom wants to have children. He lies to her about his condition for fear of losing her to her desire to have children and delays the testing for many years.

He can only delay testing of himself, not of her.

After the woman starts to get worried she's seeing doctors and trying to find out what’s wrong, and the doctor knows that the husband is shooting blanks but according to you he CAN'T even tell her.

The doctor can only tell her what he knows about her - which is that she is perfectly healthy and could bear children if she were with a fertile man. Logical deduction would lead her to one of two conclusions (a) she is just really, really, really unlucky or (b) her husband is not fertile.

He (her doctor) should be able to tell her the real reason she's not getting pregnant,

So, the doctor and the woman should be able to step all over the rights of the husband - another human being with his own rights - just because she wants something?

and you say she has lost nothing because she 'could' have slept around?

No, I never said she has lost nothing. Lies hurt people - that's what they do, and I think she has lost quite a bit. However, that isn't something that can be fixed legally. It is not the business of the government to legislate that a man has to tell his wife he is infertile any more than it is the business of the government to legislate that said man has to tell his wife how many sexual partners he has had in life and how safe he was with them. That is information that, morally, he should give her, but it isn't a legal thing - it is a moral one.

No, her husband has wronged her, she ‘should’ be able to sue for damages AND he should be charged with a crime.

Only if you are going to charge every single person who ever lies to another with a crime for doing so.

The woman choosing to be infertile instead of the man changes nothing. In my opinion, it does not have to be unconstitutional (depending on wordage) for a state legislature to pass and keep a spouse ‘notification’ clause for abortions, vasectomies and other fertility procedures.

There is no logical reason, although there are plenty of emotional ones, to state that someone must notify their spouse of fertility procedures but not every single medical procedure. Thus, a woman would have to notify her husband before every pap smear or mammogram. A man would have to notify his wife before he had a prostate exam. A woman would have to notify her husband before she had a root canal, and so on. And each notification would have to be backed up by law.

Show me in the Constitution of the United States where we have the right to privacy.

Show me in the Constitution where an individual is granted the right to bear arms.

Show me in the Constitution where an individual is granted the right to bear arms.

I already have. The 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution.

Its because of my style of argueing subject matters.

Your style is horrible. You never back anything up and you make broad proclamations as if they were incontravertable truth, again without backing them up.

And any lawyer that actually has read the constitution of the United States of America can see that there is no right to privacy under the US Constitution.

And yet none have successfully argued that point in the history of the U.S.. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because no lawyer in the history of the U.S. was as brilliant as Corny?

As for Roe v. Wade, the real roe is an avent pro-lifer who admitted that it was a mistake to even bring this case.

That's immaterial. The law is the law, no matter how the plaintiff feels afterward.

Abortion should only be incase of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at stake and that it can be medically proven that it is.

Why? Because you say so? That's the Corny method. That crap won't fly in the halls of science or law.

I already have. The 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution.

I see something about a militia, but nothing at all about an individual's right to bear arms. Are you saying that the weight of tradition and judicial precedent grants the right to bear arms to an individual, even though the Constitution does not explicitly give that right to an individual? Hmmm.

..*snip*

Most of your examples remove the actuality of having children from the equation. A healthy young person who desires starting a family on the day they get married has a reasonable expectation of having children. If their spouse has a 'known' pre-existing condition that affects that reasonable expectation in a substantial way, the first spouse has a right to be told. IMO. Changing what I’m saying to apply to all medical procedures, or non-fertility related lying etc., is a strawman really and a change of the topic.

The topic is fertility. Period. Whether or not each married person has a right to know that their spouse has decided in no uncertain terms to end all chance of producing that progeny and thus, their right to decide how to respond to that knowledge (be it stay with them of move on to another person to have children is irrelevant), their right to know the condition and family raising prospective is the aspect I'm arguing for).

I see something about a militia, but nothing at all about an individual's right to bear arms. Are you saying that the weight of tradition and judicial precedent grants the right to bear arms to an individual, even though the Constitution does not explicitly give that right to an individual? Hmmm.

Apparently, you can't read.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, shall not be infringed.

Apparently, you can't read.

Apparently, I can. If the right was intended for individuals, why was the militia even dragged into it? It clearly shows that the right to bear arms is in conjunction with a well-regulated militia. I have no problem with court precedent broadening the application to cover all non-crime violating people.

Apparently, I can. If the right was intended for individuals, why was the militia even dragged into it? It clearly shows that the right to bear arms is in conjunction with a well-regulated militia. I have no problem with court precedent broadening the application to cover all non-crime violating people.

Who do you think the militia are? They didn't have the national guard then. ;)

4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sounds like a right to privacy to me. The only thing left up in the air is what constitutes unreasonable searches...which of course is what precedent is for.

Apparently, I can. If the right was intended for individuals, why was the militia even dragged into it? It clearly shows that the right to bear arms is in conjunction with a well-regulated militia. I have no problem with court precedent broadening the application to cover all non-crime violating people.

Your focusing on only one part of the amendment. gahhh... I'm not going to get into this.

What do you think of the Supreme Court Nominee?

Who do you think the militia are? They didn't have the national guard then. ;)

Wouldn't citing past experiences and decisions be the citing of precedent? The 2nd Amendment has been applied unwaveringly to mean an individual has a right to bear arms, even though the language leaves that up in the air. The combination of the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments have unwaveringly been applied to mean that we as Americans have a right to privacy. If you open up the one to debate, you open up everything...which is exactly what the citation of precedent is designed to forstall.

Citing precedent = saying "ah, not this shit again." :D

Your focusing on only one part of the amendment. gahhh... I'm not going to get into this.

What do you think of the Supreme Court Nominee?

Yes, I'm focusing on the part of the Amendment to you consistently overlook...which is exactly why I bring it up. You and I both agree, though, that precedent has established an individual's right to bear arms.

Yes, I'm focusing on the part of the Amendment to you consistently overlook...which is exactly why I bring it up. You and I both agree, though, that precedent has established an individual's right to bear arms.

What do you think of the new Supreme Court Pick. You know? The topic of my thread?

What do you think of the new Supreme Court Pick. You know? The topic of my thread?

I don't know. My gut feeling is that he sucks ass, especially since everything Bush touches turns into feces. We'll see how the confirmation process goes, though. If he's a conservative who leaves his conservatism at home and rules purely on the law, then I have no problem.

If he's a "constructionist" in the manner that you indicate a "constructionist" should be (in other words, someone who consistently interprets the Constitution with a conservative bent that weakens the 4th amendment and eliminates the right to privacy,) then hell no.

What do you think of the new Supreme Court Pick. You know? The topic of my thread?
In short, he's unacceptable. On the plus side, he does fulfill one of Bush's campaign promises--that he would select justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas--but for that very reason, he is unacceptable as a Supreme Court justice. He's replacing a moderate--you don't replace a moderate with a wingnut. I'm not asking for a liberal justice--elections have consequences, and this is one of them--but I'll be damned if he'll get to replace O'Connor with Alito without a major fight.

Most of your examples remove the actuality of having children from the equation.

Um....I'm not sure what you mean by this. In truth, the doctor or spouse not telling the other person just delays the actuality of having children, unless the person in question chooses to give up.

A healthy young person who desires starting a family on the day they get married has a reasonable expectation of having children. If their spouse has a 'known' pre-existing condition that affects that reasonable expectation in a substantial way, the first spouse has a right to be told. IMO. Changing what I’m saying to apply to all medical procedures, or non-fertility related lying etc., is a strawman really and a change of the topic.

The problem here is that you have provided no reasoning whatsoever for why a person who gets married should have to share that medical condition, and not every single possible medical condition they could have. The only reason you have given is, "I personally think that having kids is important enough to make it so." I hate to break it to you, but that isn't an objective argument.

You also haven't provided any reason that a person should have to share this information with their spouse, and not with every single sexual partner they have. After all, a person entering into a sexual relationship without getting married may have a reasonable expectation of having children, unless they are using precautions or know that their partner is. Why shouldn't they get the option to trample all over the other person's rights and get their medical background?

The topic is fertility. Period. Whether or not each married person has a right to know that their spouse has decided in no uncertain terms to end all chance of producing that progeny and thus, their right to decide how to respond to that knowledge (be it stay with them of move on to another person to have children is irrelevant), their right to know the condition and family raising prospective is the aspect I'm arguing for).

You have provided no reasoning whatsoever why this lie is any different from any other lie. Any lie a person tells their spouse will remove their ability to "decide how to respond to that knowledge (be it stay with them or move on to another person)." Until you can provide an objective reason that this lie is worse than any other - or start legislating that it is a crime to lie to anyone - you have no argument.

You have provided no reasoning whatsoever why this lie is any different from any other lie. Any lie a person tells their spouse will remove their ability to "decide how to respond to that knowledge (be it stay with them or move on to another person)." Until you can provide an objective reason that this lie is worse than any other - or start legislating that it is a crime to lie to anyone - you have no argument.

Having children comes in a window of opportunity years, a limited period of time that is shorter for women than it is for men, but is true of us all. Along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, must surely correspond the freedom to raise a family. An essential right of being human is the right of raising a family, it is an essential building block for the rationale of having civil rights at all. You have no freedom if you don't have the right to raise a family. If that ability is stolen from you, the government should not condone that action or enable that choice to deceive by making it illegal for you to be told... Which again, is the real topic. Should it be ‘illegal’ for the legislature to legislate the right to be told? Again, I say no.

Having children comes in a window of opportunity years, a limited period of time that is shorter for women than it is for men, but is true of us all. Along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, must surely correspond the freedom to raise a family. An essential right of being human is the right of raising a family, it is an essential building block for the rationale of having civil rights at all. You have no freedom if you don't have the right to raise a family. If that ability is stolen from you, the government should not condone that action or enable that choice to deceive by making it illegal for you to be told... Which again, is the real topic. Should it be ‘illegal’ for the legislature to legislate the right to be told? Again, I say no.

This is an interesting question posed here. Do we have the right to raise a family? Also does the right to raising a family supercede a womans right to choose what to do with her body? I would be interested to see if SCOTUS has made any rulings on an issue like this.

This is an interesting question posed here. Do we have the right to raise a family? Also does the right to raising a family supercede a womans right to choose what to do with her body? I would be interested to see if SCOTUS has made any rulings on an issue like this.


This question has nothing to do with what a woman does with her body, this question has to do with whether or not her spouse has a right to know that a decision regarding their fertility has been made ...

Ok, can you 2 knock it off and get back to the topic of this thread please?

Ok, can you 2 knock it off and get back to the topic of this thread please?

Oh, okay.

Attila rocks! Oops, I mean Alito :p

Although I'm much happier having this fight than the unknown fight of Harriett. At least this time we know what we are fighting about.

Oh, okay.

Atilla rocks! Oops, I mean Alito :p

Although I'm much happier having this fight than the unknown fight of Hariett. At least this time we know what we are fighting about.

Ok, something on Alito.

He did vote to uphold the law that would require notification of the husband when his wife was getting an abortion. However, he was the only disenter in that case.

Also, he voted to strike DOWN the NJ law outlawing Partial Birth Abortion. :eek:

This question has nothing to do with what a woman does with her body, this question has to do with whether or not her spouse has a right to know that a decision regarding their fertility has been made ...

Which has everything to do with that. Its the womans body she should decide wheter or not she wants to tell those she loves that she is going to have a procedure on it. Its a procedure dealing with her body. Who she wants to tell is up to her disgression.

Very pro-2A. My kinda guy.

What evidence do you have of that?

What evidence do you have of that?

Besides the fact that the Brady Bunch has labeled him" Machine Gun Sammy" :)

What do you think of the new Supreme Court Pick. You know? The topic of my thread?

Scalito is a scary right-wing activist judge.

I am glad Bush picked someone properly qualified and with a record of decisions that can be reviewed.

Ideologically, however, Alito is a Scalia-clone with little respect for human rights. To replace the moderately conservative and practical swing vote of O'Connor with ideological zealot is not acceptable.

Besides the fact that the Brady Bunch has labeled him" Machine Gun Sammy" :)

Assuming you are not totally joking, are you just assuming the enemy of your enemy is your friend?

Does Ailto have a record on the 2nd A?

Scalito is a scary right-wing activist judge.

I am glad Bush picked someone properly qualified and with a record of decisions that can be reviewed.

Ideologically, however, Alito is a Scalia-clone with little respect for human rights. To replace the moderately conservative and practical swing vote of O'Connor with ideological zealot is not acceptable.

Hey CT. Besides that the BB hate him, I don't know that much about it yet. Could you give more details?

Assuming you are not totally joking, are you just assuming the enemy of your enemy is your friend?

Does Ailto have a record on the 2nd A?

Not at all. As I stated above and in an earlier post, I don't know enough about him yet to form a total opinion. As for the BB, It's in one of their press releases (ie rants) Go to their website. They're having kittens over him.

Opinion: I'm not single issue, but if someone isn't willing to consider the views of the Founders in ruling how the Constitution should be viewed, and is more enamored with international law or his political party in terms of influencing his decisions on how the Constitution should be viewed, then I have a problem with them.

Just because a nominee passes my view of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean they get a pass. But if they don't share my view of it, then they get no pass at all - no matter what they stand for, because it's likely that the Opinion expressed above is true, and will apply to all other issues.

So, in other words, you prefer judges that ignore precedent and make the laws however they see fit based on crystal-balling what "the views of the Founders" allegedly were. You know full well the caselaw is against your view of the 2nd A. Only a judicial activist would adopt your version of the 2nd A.

The idea of judges that are "enamored with international law" is a canard and you know it.

These are feeble excuses for single-issuing a Justice ON A BASICALLY DEAD ISSUE.

I could care less about "left" or "right".

What I want is a strict Constitutionalist.
A "constitutionalist" refers to those who advocate strict adherence to the intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

If you want the laws or Constitution to actually change, it is the job of the legislature to write those laws or amendments.

Yes, we should return to the 18th Century and never progress!!!!

Backwards, ho!!

(BTW, it was never the intention of the founders that the Constitution be strictly construed according to their "intent." So your philosophy violates its own first principle.)

(BTW2, we have written laws and amended the Constitution and -- doing its job -- the Supreme Court has interpreted and enforced those laws and the Constitution.)

I see something about a militia, but nothing at all about an individual's right to bear arms. Are you saying that the weight of tradition and judicial precedent grants the right to bear arms to an individual, even though the Constitution does not explicitly give that right to an individual? Hmmm.

Not true. The Constitution is actually very explicit on the individual right, though recent administrations have chosen to ignore it. See the following:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

Excerpt:

The Standard Model is rooted in two main sources: the text of the Second Amendment and its historical underpinnings. Both are interpreted to support an individual right to keep and bear arms.[19] The text's support is seen as straightforward: the language used, after all, is "right of the people," a term that appears in other parts of the Bill of Rights that are universally interpreted as protecting individual rights. Thus, any argument that the right protected is not one enforceable by individuals is undermined by the text:

[To deny that the right protected is one enforceable by individuals] the following set of propositions must be accepted: (1) when the first Congress drafted the Bill of Rights it used "right of the people" in the first amendment to denote a right of individuals (assembly); (2) then, some sixteen words later, it used the same phrase in the second amendment to denote a right belonging exclusively to the states; (3) but then, forty-six words later, the fourth amendment's "right of the people" had reverted to its normal individual right meaning; (4) "right of the people" was again used in the natural sense in the ninth amendment; and (5) finally, in the tenth amendment the first Congress specifically distinguished "the states" from "the people," although it had failed to do so in the second amendment.[20]

Thus, say Standard Model writers, the Second Amendment protects the same sort of individual right that other parts of the Bill of Rights provide. To hold otherwise, these writers argue, is to do violence to the Bill of Rights since, if one "right of the people" could be held not to apply to individuals, then so could others.[21] Furthermore, as William Van Alstyne notes, the "right" to which the Second Amendment refers is clearly the right "of the people, to keep and bear arms."[22] Thus, whatever the meaning of the (p.467)Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia," that reference does not modify the right recognized by the Amendment.[23]

This textual argument is also supported by reference to history. Standard Model scholars muster substantial evidence that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms.[24] The first piece of evidence for this proposition is that such a right was protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.[25] As such, it became one of the "Rights of Englishmen" around which the American Revolutionaries initially rallied.[26] Standard Model scholars also stress that the right to keep and bear arms was seen as serving two purposes. First, it allowed individuals to defend themselves from outlaws of all kinds--not only ordinary criminals, but also soldiers and government officials who exceeded their authority, for in the legal and philosophical framework of the time no distinction was made between the two.[27] Just as importantly, the presence of an armed populace was seen as a check on government tyranny and on the power of a standing army. With the citizenry armed, imposing tyranny would be far more difficult than it would be with the citizenry defenseless.

Not true. The Constitution is actually very explicit on the individual right, though recent administrations have chosen to ignore it. See the following:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

Excerpt:

Exactly my point. Pro-gun activists are perfectly happy citing precedent, analysis and the words of the Founders in other documents with regards to the 2nd Amendment. The fact that they turn around and say that the exact same kinds of sources are irrelevant to the ideas of "seperation of church and state," and "right to privacy," is hypocritical to the core.

"Right of the people to keep and bear arms" is explicit. Show me explicit "right to privacy", and "separation of church and state." in our Consitution. If that separation was expilicit, there would be no Congressional Chaplain for over 200 years.
Please, quote chapter and verse where those exact words are, elucidate, clarify, expose, for perhaps I am incorrect - but flippin' doubt it!

Alito is not like Scalia nor conservative enough for me. Michael Luttig should have been the pick. He is a true Christian Conservative. But then again, what can I expect from Mr. Bush, exept that he has failed at everything he has ever done in his life.

So, in other words, you prefer judges that ignore precedent and make the laws however they see fit based on crystal-balling what "the views of the Founders" allegedly were. You know full well the caselaw is against your view of the 2nd A. Only a judicial activist would adopt your version of the 2nd A.

The idea of judges that are "enamored with international law" is a canard and you know it.

These are feeble excuses for single-issuing a Justice ON A BASICALLY DEAD ISSUE.
There are only 2 supreme court cases which deal with the 2nd amendment, 3 actually but you get all whiny when I mention the Dred Scott case, and that was only indirectly involved anyway. Cruikshank was basically a giant mastubatory effort by the good ol boy network in place at the time. Miller didn't state one way or the other, all it concretely decided was that the weapon in question has to be militarily useful. As such it is far from a dead issue.

"Right of the people to keep and bear arms" is explicit. Show me explicit "right to privacy", and "separation of church and state." in our Consitution. If that separation was expilicit, there would be no Congressional Chaplain for over 200 years.
Please, quote chapter and verse where those exact words are, elucidate, clarify, expose, for perhaps I am incorrect - but flippin' doubt it!

The exact words aren't there, the "Right to Privacy" being merely a helpful synonym (surely you know what a synonym is?) but the meaning is clear, as unbroken Supreme Court precedent shows.

As for the 2nd Amendment, are you saying that the first clause in the only sentence is meaningless? That it was put there for no reason at all? If they were seperate ideas, why weren't they seperated into different sentences or paragraphs? Nope, it's all once sentence, which means that quoting only half of it is misleading.

But here's Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How can that not be interpreted to mean that the Government can't go poking into your private affairs without good reason?

Amendment 14:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those two in conjunction, along with Court precedent clearly state a right to privacy.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...

That means that they won't make any laws that even have anything to do with religion, pro or con. Without using the words "seperation of Church and State" the constitution still indicates a clear and unwavering support of the idea that the State shall not meddle in Religion. Period.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...

That means that they won't make any laws that even have anything to do with religion, pro or con. Without using the words "seperation of Church and State" the constitution still indicates a clear and unwavering support of the idea that the State shall not meddle in Religion. Period.


Nor creating any laws that would in some way hurt, defame or contradict such religion(s). Is that even possible? Seems to me that someone's religion/beliefs will suffer in the written laws of the land.