It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Alito Confirmation Hearings Begin Today

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by junglejake
JSO, I disagree that it is the representative to represent all the people in the country. First, it is that politicians responsibility to represent their district or state's wishes primarily. Then, it is the people's responsibility to remove that representative from power through the vote if that person is not doing a good job. The fact that Ted Kennedy is still a senator says one of two things:

1. More than half the population of Massachusetts are not doing their civic duty, or

2. The people in that state like pork and like to waste time.

I will give him that - he is a good "provider" for the state. He does deliver lots of pork to his constituents.

But this statement

More than half the population of Massachusetts are not doing their civic duty

should be modified, I'm sure you'll agree.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

A man has every right to have a say in the life of his prospective child. It wasn't conceived in secret, unless the wife was an adulterous whore. Enough said.

I can believe that in this time an age you can said something like that without knowing the problems that the women may find herself before becoming pregnant with another man child, Jsobecky.

Who are you, Alitos or anybody to dictate, tag and name calling a women as an adulterous whore.

Judging a women base of personal opinions because you may feel in power to do that is bias against women.

It has nothing to do with power and opinions, unless you count morals as nothing more than opinions.

We will never, ever agree on this marg, so I'll drop it for now. But I will say this - there are no "problems" that while supposedly bad enough to force a woman into another man's bed, will be enough to base national law on.

If she is so miserable, there are divorce courts. The husband will end up paying for the child either way.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by dbates
If Congress wishes to pass a law making abortion legal, then fine.

You know, I wish they would. I wish they'd just stop using the right to privacy implied in the Constitution's and just make it clear cut and legal. Same with gun control. I wish they'd just make a law that people have a right to protect themselves and own firearms and stop depending on the 2nd Amendment.

I know that may sound strange coming from me, but it's true.

The way this really should be done is to just let each state vote on making it legal as the people of the state see fit.

Well, I disagree with that, for now at least. Not with the voting system we have in place now. Pretty soon, all the states would magically outlaw abortion based on faulty voting processes...

Roe v Wade eventually could be overturned. The Supreme court isn't perfect you know.

Very true. This is the big Alito scare. That it will be. If abortion were just made legal, I wouldn't care nearly as much about Alito being confirmed.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by marg6043
The man has a bad record and that alone is going to bite him in the butt.

Please, tell us more about this "bad record". I'd like to hear it.

I'm surprised that this thread doesn't have a hundred responses. I watched part of the hearings, and the sub-story of the despicable display put on by the Democratic senators was almost a headline unto itself. The display put on by Kennedy was shameful; he should be censured. And he should check into a clinic immediately; his alcoholism is a disgrace to the American Senate. He does not deserve to be a Senator.

So what if Kennedy was drinking? He would be representing quite a few Americans who are so completely sick of where this country is heading and have resorted to alcohol to sooth their disgust. So, what your saying is that people with only your supposed conservative religious morals/ideals should be allowed to the Senate?

Just another view point.

- Attero

Edit: I'm not a Democrat, and I don't know or care about Kennedy's agenda. I just think the opposition of the Republicans who are in power need to do all they can do to counter their agenda. My views are not represented in the current government in any way shape or form.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Attero Auctorita]

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by dbates
O sure. You mean like the Catholic religion does today?

Well taking in consideration that the Catholic Church is buying hospitals around specially the ones that offer services to the poor and needy It kind of make you think about their agenda, with the law in favor or not.

But its not isolated to Catholics that wants to ban contraceptives is also more extremist from other religious nominations that seek the same agenda.

They consider contraceptives to be immoral. Saying that the government will rule contraceptives to be illegal is just non-sense and extremism.

I agree, but the mere fact that is happening on the bases of personal preferences tells enough of what is going on.

Sounds like Judge Alito is going to institute Muslim law right here in the United States. I don't know how you expect anyone to buy that story.

Well if you take away women rights no only the rights of their bodies but to take control of it, it will not be any more than bringing the Islamic law but with a Christian view. Before Griswold v. Connecticut that was they way things were done in the US when it came to women rights.

Skipping over the issue of abortion being right or wrong, it's wrong for the Supreme court to create new laws based on their rulings.

Yes you are right is wrong for them to create laws, but when it comes to the rights of privacy that is the issue here with Wade v. Roe they are supposed to protect constitutional rights, not base their ruling on personal or moral feelings.

When it comes to supporting the powers of the president to over step on constitutional rights they also have to protect the constitution.

That has been an issue with Alito also.

If Congress wishes to pass a law making abortion legal, then fine.

I agree.

The way this really should be done is to just let each state vote on making it legal as the people of the state see fit. This is the way out country should be run, and is the way that Judge Alito thinks.

Well taking in consideration that before wade v roe that is the way it was done it became an issue when some states were banning abortion vs the ones that allowed.

Roe v Wade eventually could be overturned.The Supreme court isn't perfect you know.

Occurs they can but the issue will be on which bases and how will affect the right to privacy no only to women but also men in these country.

Very clearly the law protect the Americans from the government to get into the personal affairs that included, procreation, marriage and family life. Griswold v. Connecticut

Interesting link thanks, you are right they are not perfect

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
We will never, ever agree on this marg, so I'll drop it for now. But I will say this - there are no "problems" that while supposedly bad enough to force a woman into another man's bed, will be enough to base national law on.

You are right is not agreement on this one, but remember women may find themselves in very bad situations like been victimized and afraid to talk, like been rape and feel the shame and many more Jsobecky enough to hide their shame and wanting to keep it secret.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
The senators try to get the person to make rulings without hearing the evidence of a case challenging said ruling (I.E. How will you rule about x asked by a senator), and they don't answer because they, as a judge, shouldn't. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated this most eloquently, but it is typical of successful judges not to answer specific questions like that.

Why should Alito be different?

When Ginsberg used this reasoning to avoid answering a question, her decision was understood and respected. But when Alito uses the same reasoning, hypocrites like Chuck Schumer will cry foul. The same double standard was used against John Roberts.

Why is that?

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
Honestly, knowing your politics, do you feel that the GOP Senators are doing any sort of service to the country by swallowing whole horse this candidate, without asking anything even remotely of consequence?
Secondly, Bidens 12 minute questions et al: does the opposition party have any recourse once sycophant mode is enacted by team GOP, or vica versa if the roles were switched? Does the minority even get bullets, much less a gun, when the majority is rubber stamping?

Well, BT, both sides are wrong, imo. The R's for rubberstamping, and the D's for going into auto-reject mode.

And the same thing happens when the D's are in power. To an extent, this current crop of D's is the worst ever. In the past, the final senate vote for the nominee was more realistic, and much less controversial. Take Ginsburg, for example. There was no party-line split for her confirmation vote.

I'm not ready to concede the 100% FOR Alito vote from the (R) Senate. The Judicary Committee is one thing; the final vote is the one that counts.

And to answer your question re: Biden. Yes he does have an alternative. Do the right thing for the people of Delaware, and of the US. Be his own man when it comes to thinking, instead of going along with the herd.

If I had my way, the whole Judiciary Roast Committee would be canned.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by jsobecky]

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:00 PM
There is no Constitutional right to privacy. Roe v. Wade is flawed for that reason, but there's little possibility that it will be overturned on that basis. The "right to privacy" was invented to provide the government with a specious authority to rule on a matter about which it was not granted the power to rule. Marg is more right than she knows-- the government truly has no say in the medical care of the people, either pro or con. Constitutionally, they can no more ban abortion than they can allow it. It's simply not within the powers of the federal government to interfere either way. However, the federal government is not about to give any power back to the states, so for that (chilling) reason alone, Roe v. Wade is safe.

Then back on topic...

Doesn't the whole thing seem sort of pointless? As has already been pointed out, the Republicans have gone into immediate and unqualified confirm mode and the Democrats have gone into immediate and unqualified oppose mode. Neither side seems the least bit interested in really discovering what sort of jurist Alito might be. They're each (as are most of their respective constituents) simply searching for any bits and crumbs of information-- any hints or clues or inferences or rumors-- with which they can each attempt to justify the conclusions that they've already reached.

Not that I'm surprised or anything...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in