|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jan 11, 2006 13:09:44 GMT -5
I think its time to vote on him. He clearly shows how he will interpret the constitution and some liberals and conservatives have pledged support for him.
keep in mind its not an election its a confirmation saying he is competant and experienced.
There is no denying he is worthy regardless of his conservatism and beliefs.
what do you guys think ?
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jan 11, 2006 18:06:56 GMT -5
There's no question he will be confirmed. He is a fully qualified federal judge. That's more than enough Constiutionally. I have been watching some of the hearings on CNN and FOX. It's quite amusing to see senators like Ed Kennedy show their political ass by trying to trip him up, and instead get straight answer after straight answer out of Alito. Even CNN reports that the soild liberal Democrat senators are getting frustrated in their efforts to wear him down. I also find it very interesting that a feminist liberal, pro-choice Republican senator is willing to defend him, and pledge her vote on his appointment.
|
|
|
Post by pansy on Jan 11, 2006 18:29:45 GMT -5
who cares. with this newly stacked court we're about ready to lose all our rights and freedoms anyways...at least the ones we still have left.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jan 11, 2006 23:42:22 GMT -5
I liked when ted kennedy and the republican guy started going back and forth saying "Show the letter" "I have no letter" "yes you do I mailed it to you" "that doesnt mean I got it"
After todays answers Im fairly confident that Roe v Wade will be overturned. Any thoughts on this?
i see pansy isnt to optimistic about this guy.
would you perfer someone else who legislates from the bench and loosy interprets the constitution for his own aganda. Someone for isnstance like the justices who ruled in favor of the school that would not allow a student to put up a picture of jesus along side the other students completed assignments. They must have a diferent constitution than I have seen.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Jan 11, 2006 23:51:54 GMT -5
After todays answers Im fairly confident that Roe v Wade will be overturned. Any thoughts on this? If Roe is overturned, the Republican Party will be hurt for years to come. A lot of Republicans are socially moderate yet like the Republican business agenda. When there are state-by-state battles on anti-abortion laws, the Party will be torn apart from the inside. Premarital sex is here to stay, and abortion and contraception are part of the package.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jan 12, 2006 1:20:24 GMT -5
After todays answers Im fairly confident that Roe v Wade will be overturned. Any thoughts on this? If Roe is overturned, the Republican Party will be hurt for years to come. A lot of Republicans are socially moderate yet like the Republican business agenda. When there are state-by-state battles on anti-abortion laws, the Party will be torn apart from the inside. Premarital sex is here to stay, and abortion and contraception are part of the package. Those state by state battles over abortion are already beginning to occur. Take New Hampshire, for example, against Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, already set to be heard in the Supreme Court soon. I don't think Roe Vs. Wade will be overturned; Roberts and Alito are too by the book to do that. As is Thomas and the others. However, when states bring suits against agencies like Planned Parenthood on the issue of prior notification, i don't see the new court being sympathetic to the private agencies. PP will only suffer, as will the pro-choice battle for decades to come. With Alito in there, there will likely be a new vote of 5-4 on many issues, perhaps even 6-3 depending on the laws. New abortion rights will be severely hampered. Which is just what i want to see. Anyway, i got all tickled when Kennedy kept on asking Alito if he thought the Constitution protected the right to abortion, which of course it doesn't. It will take a nearly 70% dominated liberal Congress and Executive to pass an ammedment placing the right to abortion in the US Constitution. No chance in hell of this occuring, of course. If anything, the Roe effect has much more solidified the vote against them in the last thirty years, not less. Roe herself has turned against the court decision in her name. Other issues are at stake, of course. But Alito's confirmation will set back liberal issues a lot. Gonzalez is fighting the State of Oregan right now on the issue of narcotics being used for assisted suicide, which the new Court will most likely back him up on. And the New Hampshire thing, well, that one pretty much speaks for itself, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jan 12, 2006 11:41:32 GMT -5
I agree with Pansy It is sad to see the country turning religious I hope Alito is not confirmed
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jan 12, 2006 11:47:38 GMT -5
Lets face it, if his beliefs were liberal you would be singing a completely defferent tune
and they ruled well i wouldn't want my children subjected to religious propaganda by other children's parents
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jan 12, 2006 12:49:17 GMT -5
you are right I would be singing a different tune but thats politics same thing with geremandering its to the advantage of whoever is in power at the time.
religious speech of individuals is considered equal to secular speech and they must be treated the same.
If the teacher or school had put up a picture of jesus thats different but this student was asked to do an assigment and he did it. where were the circuit justices constitutional grounds for ruling for the school?
so you are saying we should have freedom of speech only when it is not religious in nature.
The first amendment was made to protect unpopular speech so get over it or leave .
I say Roe v Wade would get overturned because it seems if there are no constitutional grounds for it it would be declared unconstitutional.
about the case . I have heard that the client never actually received an abortion and later joined a group of women who had gotten abortions who due to physical and psychological damage advocate against it. Im not sure if this is true cause I have not researched it.
face it liberals as shown in the hearing admit that Roe v Wade is not sound doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jan 12, 2006 12:50:33 GMT -5
with liberal justices life is like a box of choclats ... you never know what your going to get. many times its stupid cocunut crap.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Jan 12, 2006 13:20:34 GMT -5
Religious speech, huh? So you are OK with a picture of Satan right beside a picture of Jesus? Perhaps once in a while, Congress should open with a Wiccan ceremony instead of a Christian prayer.
Favoring one religion over another is establishment. The Constitution requires the government to treat all religions by the same standards (including religions you don't like). If the government is going to provide money or facilities or privileges to one religion, all other religions (as well as non-religious philosophies) should get the same benefits. The cheaper and less burdensome alternative is for the government to avoid giving benefits to any religion.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jan 12, 2006 13:41:39 GMT -5
the teachers job is to teach and if the teacher thinks that presenting this students work to other children would be teaching religion then the teacher has discretion not to display this students work. This is not a public square - its a kindergarden. As I said I would not want my children to be subjected to other children's PARENTS religious propaganda and the judges ruled well.
Whats next, a fetus getting voting rights?
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jan 12, 2006 13:51:41 GMT -5
its true, they teach this in highschool politcs and economics, they probably skipped it in your school because the teacher would choke from anger
luckily there were people who continued to fight for the cause
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jan 12, 2006 21:35:38 GMT -5
this was high schooler not a kindergartener .
where do you get that all religions must be treated the same. The seperation of churchj and state was to not allow for a declared national religion that is it. and also it was made to protect churches from gov influence.
heres one area that worries me about that. what if a preacher preaches that homosexuality is a sin and a person hears it and guns down a homosexual , the preecher would then be held accountable for the murder even if there was no hate speach involved under a newly proposed hate crimes bill. THat is where some liberals are heading. Or what if a preacher refuses to marry a gay couple he could then face discrimination charges. That is where we are headed.
In canada a preacher was inprisoned for saying homosexuality is a sin . where is his freedom of speech and religion.
you can say something is immoral without being hateful. I know plenty of people who do not agree with hmosexuality but help them when they need it and love them.
as a therapist I would refer them to someone who could help them come out though I dont agree with homosexuality its there descison not mine . Am I hateful .
why would that make a teacher or student mad about Roe.
how is Alito a religious fanatic he seemed to handle the questions based on teh constitution and not religion.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jan 12, 2006 22:19:29 GMT -5
i assume you were referring to this www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15949declared or not - de facto establishment is prohibited because abortion was made legal he is not a religious fanatic as say Ashcroft was but the trail he left behind certainly shows many dark spots the hearings are stupid anyway i don't know what the point is to test his ability not to react to accusations?
|
|