The Supreme Court doesn't just decide abortion cases

[dsc]

We need to stop acting like that is all it does. First, we run the risk of alienating some people who might otherwise join in the fight and second it is clear the pro life side has intensity on its side. Why not point out the very real possibility he would return jurisprudence to the pre New Deal era? Would he overturn laws requiring overtime? Would he ban federal protection of the enviroment? Would he favor corporations over consumers? There is evidence he would but instead we hear abortion, abortion, abortion and yet more abortion. I realize this may come as a shock, but there are a huge number of people who care more about overtime than they do about abortion. Maybe, just maybe, we should speak to them.

[Maddy McCall]

1. Fine. Sacrifice my right to control my own health care, and I leave...

this party. But maybe you'll be content with some of the mouthbreathers who enter the party after half of the Democratic constituency is betrayed and has lost all enthusiasm for supporting this party.

Or maybe you just like stirring up shit over this same, tired argument.

[merwin]

4. As Randi Rhodes says, the GOP will never outlaw abortion.

It's one of their main wedge issues. They use it to keep the fundies coming to the polls.

[converted_democrat]

33. I'm not so sure she is right......

I grew up in a really conservative (though I cringe to admit it) household. I honestly think they are grooming the gay marriage issue to take the place of Roe Vs. Wade when it is overturned. It is a win win for them, they get another issue they can rally the "base" with, (gay marriage) and they will embolden the far right by giving them a victory.

You know what? I'm going to throw out another prediction too. The overturn of Roe Vs. Wade will be the first of many bad decisions by the Supreme Court. When I say bad decisions, I mean they will be the opposite of public opinion, and support. They will hold us all hostage to the "religious views" of 25% of the population, and then threaten anyone that publicly opposes their positions as traitors, and then probably prosecute just to set an example.

Wait and see if I'm not right. I don't want to be right about this, but I'd bet my last dollar I'm on the money. I know the mindset of these people, I grew up with them, and I know how they think. I know what they are after, they want total control of everything there is to control, and they don't care how they get there. They don't care if Bush lies, they don't care if elections are rigged, they don't care. Their "ends" will always justify their "means" in their view.

The only way to stop them is to get Bush impeached before his term is over, and truly impress upon the populace just what peril our democracy is truly in. Too many many people want to believe that "this is America, it can't happen here." This is America, and it is happening here, and we have to figure out a way to to get this message out to the average Joe before it's to late.

[DearAbby]

41. If the Pukes were so aggressive against abortion, why dont they legislate

a law?

Both abortion and gay marriage, these two issues are buzz buttons to get the RW Wackos out to vote. They see these people the exact same way that DeLay sees them. You don't see them falling all over themselves writing laws banning either.

They also know that the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

I dont know what grounds the court would have to overturn the law, there is still the privacy issue. Unless they place on a fetus, rights over and beyond those of the woman.

Of course, I may be totally wrong :shrug:

[converted_democrat]

43. Things are different now, than they were in the past.....

The repukes are lining up for a "reign." They want to rule forever. Why do you think they are in bed with Die-bold and the like? Why do you think that they are closing all the "blue state" military bases? Why do you think they are coming up with creative ways to shift tax dollars to "churches", via faith based initiatives? Why do you think Bush keeps mentioning Posse Comitatus, and the need to change it? Why would he want to use the military as a policing agent? Why?

In the past they have always had to worry about "democracy." If they would have outlawed abortion before, they would have had to worry about the backlash. They don't have to worry about that anymore. They have Die-bold, and other less than reputable vote counting companies. They have all their plans in place. Now they can begin to reward their "supporters." We are headed into a complete theocratic state, faster than anyone realizes, and it's happening all in plain sight.

[Tactical Progressive]

39. Randi is wrong

They'll have abortion as a wedge issue for the next thirty years.

First they'll spend a few years disappropriating abortion from federal control. That will be their reactionary-right Supreme Court's first job. They'll outlaw it in all the fundamentalist states almost immediately. Then they'll spend years corrosively and viciously trying to get it banned in the other states, in court, with legislation, using violence, or however they can. They'll make it harder to run abortion clinics, access abortion clinics, cross state lines for an abortion, harder to stop anti-abortion terrorism, to sue anti-abortion terrorist organizations, you name it.

All the while trying to get the federal government to pass legislation outlawing it across the board. The hypocrisy means nothing to them. They were against 'America as the world's policeman' under Democratic leadership, until they gained the power to be the world's policeman under Republicans. They are against federal control of abortion as long as it allows abortion. They'll be all for federal control of abortion as soon as it outlaws abortion.

They'll never stop until they are allowed to legally lynch somebody for just saying they believe abortion should be legal.

You don't know these people at all if you think they reason like you do, and neither does Randi.

And all of that is besides the point that they can make any twisted corrupt moral position their wedge issue.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Choice is a VERY important issue... BUT...

There are things the SC could do that scare me far more than overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm not hoping that they'd overturn Roe and I think it would certainly be bad if they did, but given that the issue at Roe was whether a state could regulate abortion and whether they COULD ban it, an overturn of Roe v. Wade would still leave the opening of making abortion legal through legislation. And that's a battle we can win.

The scarier thing would be if the SC were to put major limits on federal power and dramatically scale back the post-New-Deal government structure. THAT would be bad, and would leave us with virtually no recourse.

[funflower]

3. Yes. They decide "executive power" cases. And national elections.

[Wildewolfe]

5. No one here wants

... you to sacrifice your right to control your own health care. The right to choose is an inportant one in this guys confirmation hearing. But we mustn't allow it to be the only issue. That let's the right set the stage and limit us to their rules of engagement. They know that it is a pivot point to 20% of each side... that means the majority are less passionate about it and that means he is probably going to get in.

But hit him with Right to choose
Hit him with employee rights issues
Hit him with environmental issue
Hit him with every issue we as a WHOLE care about an you engage 100% of the electorate not just 40%.

We need to put up a huge fight here. But we also need to use all the options at our disposal and not let the right focus it down to one issue.

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. People who care more about overtime than abortion

scare me. I care about both, but I know that one is a clear life and death issue and that clear statements have been made about it by this candidate.

I'm not interested in pandering to bigots who will go "la-la-la-la-la" with their fingers in their ears if I mention my civil rights.

[dsc]

10. before the era of overtime and workplace safety

people used to be worked to death. You might read a history book or two to find out about those people. Incidently you might actually thank some of those who while they are pro life vote for Democrats consistantly. Or maybe you don't want the 1 out of 4 votes they provide Democratic candidates.

[Der Blaue Engel]

34. As I said, I care about BOTH

And I have no desire to pander to bigots who want to rescind ANY of my civil rights.

As it happens, I have read a history book or two, but thanks for the helpful suggestion. I'm sure you didn't mean for it to come out in such a petty, condescending tone as the one in which I read it.

[dsc]

35. My post was no more condesending than yours was

[Der Blaue Engel]

36. How so? Are you a bigot with your fingers in your ears?

I highly doubt it. Not sure where I condescended to you, but I apologize if you felt that I did.

[HockeyMom]

19. If a woman is a SLAVE to Pregnancy and Birth,

she isn't going to have to worry a Overtime or Worker's Rights. And need I remind you, women make up 51% of the population.

I have been on group interviews and some of the women have cited their qualifications as "my children are GROWN (i.e, menopause, no more kids) and I won't be taking off from work to care for them."

See what I mean? Imagine if a woman of childbearing age cannot get birth control or abortion? Think employees will want to hire her? I am also old enough to actually remember those days.

[Beaverhausen]

7. and some of them go hunting with Cheney

By the way, if you want to bring up Alito's record on labor issues and corporate cases, have at it. I would like to hear what he has ruled on these things.

[dsc]

21. actually 1 out of 4

pro life voters vote for Democratic candidates. Presumedly a goodly number of them do so because they gasp care more about other things than abortion. I suppose you don't care that they are the reason Bill Clinton was elected President or that we had majorities in Congress for decades.

[Beaverhausen]

27. No one is stopping you from bringing up other issues

See the post below that lists many of Alito's troubling decisions on all sorts of cases. Lots of fodder for discussion there.

But abortion is a very important issue for many people - myself included. I will not stop talking about it.

[WI_DEM]

8. you're right there are a wide array of issues which Alito could alter

[Czolgosz]

11. Alito is an extremist on many issues:

He's an extremist on many issues:

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991). Instead of following the law, he tried to let the politicians re-write the Constitution to restrict a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), where he tried to ignore almost 70 years of cases which had clearly decided the scope of Congress's authority. Here's a bonus: Judge Alito doesn't think Congress has the authority to regulate private citizens' ownership of machine guns.

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in Banks v. Beard, 399 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2005), where he tried to re-write the law so prisoners didn't have access to newspapers or family photos.

Finally, read Judge Alito's dissenting opinions in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996), and Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997), where Judge Alito served as an apologist for corporate racial and gender discrimination.

Even Judge Alito's Republican-dominated court of appeals and our Supreme Court thought Judge Alito's ideas were radical, out of the mainstream, and maybe a little bit crazy.

Envision an America where each of these dissenting opinions by Judge Alito has become the universal law of the land, and you will know why he must be stopped.

Here's a link to more: <http://media.pfaw.org/stc/AlitoPreliminary.pdf>

Plus, Judge Alito's lied to Congress before so why should anyone trust him this time? Here's an account of his lie to Congress:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company. . . . lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant" in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee.

Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal . . . ''I just started seeing Vanguard after Vanguard, and I almost fell to the floor," she said in an interview at the Jamaica Plain home she shares with a friend after losing her own home in the course of the prolonged litigation. ''I just couldn't believe that it could be so blatant."

In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge, he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

. . . .

In the 1990 questionnaire, Alito was asked how he would resolve potential conflicts of interest. He responded: I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

[Beaverhausen]

Excellent! This is good info!

[MichiganVote]

12. Sure go ahead, remove choice from consideration

Afterall, the SC has its one lone token female on the bench, a few brave females in the house and senate, a couple of female governors and even fewer women in positions of real power in corporate america.
Absolutely, marginalize us some more.

And watch what happens.....

edit/typo

[dsc]

14. Please point out where I said this

I want a quote, for the record that means you have to look at my post and find the words "remove choice for consideration" I am merely asking that maybe, just maybe, we stop acting like the one and only issue Alito is going to get to decide is abortion. Maybe, just maybe, we should spend oh a minute on family leave. Maybe, just maybe we should spend oh lets be really extravegant thirty seconds on the 4th amendment.

[MichiganVote]

20. As far as I know there is no fence in front of you or anyone else

w/regard to what issues to consider for any judgeship or political office. For others, there is one priority issue and that issue is choice. The media reports or provides commentary on the issue of choice more than the very politicians in office.

[dsc]

22. I am still waiting for your apology or for that quote

you know the one you completely made up in your previous post. As to this post I honestly can't understand the last sentence.

[MichiganVote]

24. First, I did not quote you. Second, I'm satisfied you opened a discussion

and I responded. Had I known you expected me to agree with me I'm sure I would have avoided your post. Put me on ignore if that works for you.

[dsc]

25. You might want to read what you typed

You clearly stated that I said to remove abortion from consideration. I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect you to acurately state what I actually said and not rewrite what I said which is what you did. I don't think the second thing is too much to ask. I said, and I think reasonably clearly that we shouldn't talk about only abortion that is very, very different from saying we shouldn't talk about abortion.

[MichiganVote]

26. Your post does not define "we". Who is "we"?

My interpretation of your post is that it infers that "we" should not consider abortion only in regard to SC justices. The only people I am aware of who seem to focus soley on abortion are the religious right and the media. Worker rights are an important issue. Fine. So are the coat hanger days for females.

I did not, in fact, state that you said "we" should remove choice from consideration. Nor did I rewrite what you said, as you well know.
Like it or not, for females, choice is a paramount issue. Always.

If you want to focus on issues other than choice, have at it. As I said, there are no fences around you. Why should women create a fence around themselves for the sake of other issues when for many this IS the most important issue for them?

[dsc]

28. just look at the threads

and for that matter look at the interest group campaigns. Abortion is one of many issues but looking at those one would think it was close to the biggest issue.

[MichiganVote]

29. And so it is one of , if not the biggest issue of our time. Again.

All issues of life/death strongly emotionally affect Americans. Once upon a time it was slavery.

[dsc]

30. If OSHA were eliminated

more people would die than with the end of Roe. I guarentee it. Get rid of food inspection, also a New Deal era reform and people would drop like flies. How about a nation with no national enviromental laws (ie we all race to the bottom) think that might kill a person or two? Abortion isn't the only life or death issue.

[MichiganVote]

31. What is significant about Roe is that in the mind's of some,

Roe v. Wade defines America. Hence, the right fights, in part, for the identity of America. OSHA issues, as important as they are, do not do that. Yet.

I am a very strong supporter of OSHA and worker right's. Having called or written OSHA on numerous occasions I think I can safely say that these laws are very important to workers and families.

However Roe v. Wade epitomizes the value of choice in this society and that concerns me more. I don't have the wherewithall to figure the numbers of any of these issues and I don't think you do either.

As far as I know Americans are still overwhelmingly in favor of Roe. What is the identity of America when it's lawmakers turns their backs on what the majority of citizens favor? Do you honestly think worker right's have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the ravages of business and its clout on the court?

[dsc]

32. No

but lets be blunt. Way, way too many pro choicers have shown, repeatedly, that they value tax cuts, and other things more by voting for Bush. If you wish to stop Alito then I think you need to expand the discussion into other issues which might expand the coaltion. If pro choice moderate Republican women didn't get it by the time Bush was up for reelection by which time they had seen the type of judges he favored, they aren't going to get it now.

[MichiganVote]

37. If they, pro choicers aren't going to get it then why bother

worrying about what their opinions are. This is a link to a roster of OSHA or work related cases that the SC has considered.

http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=381&DID=231731

Think pro choicers have paid attention to any of them? Doubtful.


Now think about this:
54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Where are the lawsuits for faulty contraceptives? Nowhere. And, conservatives want to ban emergency contraceptives even though we know that would lead to higher numbers of abortions.

Both OSHA and Abortion are economic issues.

[Daphne08]

13. AMEN! n/t

[China_cat]

15. Maybe it doesn't.

But that's the one issue that if they overturn it will give precedent for overturning ANY other right based on the presumption that citizens don't have a right to privacy.

Which means your right to love who you want and not go to jail for it.

[dsc]

18. that is true

and you will note that I actually didn't mention Lawerence in my post either. Frankly I think both decisions are important but neither is anywhere near as important as the New Deal decisions this guy could well overturn.

[B Calm]

16. I'm more worried about losing worker rights!

[cornermouse]

17. Case in point was today's decision.

Court Rules Against Special Ed. Parents

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_schools;_ylt=Aqd100PW46KtI3TdocWX45Ss0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-


...Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the 6-2 court, said that when parents challenge a program they have the burden in an administrative hearing of showing that the program is insufficient. If schools bring a complaint, the burden rests with them, O'Connor wrote.

The problem with this ruling is the very real fact that parents with disabled children usually do not have the financial wherewithall to go out and hire at attorney to challenge the school or the knowledge to fight effectively.

A lot of our schools, on the other hand, have budgets that are tight to the point of strangulation thanks to the republicans. What we're going to see is special education being given little more than lip service.

Sorry about the link, I don't seem to be able to make it work.

[daa]

23. Agreed

Will he overturn the pension ruling in the Cooper v IBM? We stand to lose a lot more than abortion.

One thing about this guy is he is an accomplished jurist. I think the vanguard crap is bogus. He has said he is personally against abortion (like some democratic Senators) but will respect the prior decision. Precedent is very important to these guys. Once chimpy appoints him he doesn't have to do what chimpy says.

It is a concern that this guy is very pro business and that can really hurt us.

[spancks]

38. I just love these discussions

in which people from my own party start arguing over which rights we ought to be willing to sacrifice in order to ensure our political advantage.

It makes me sick to my stomach, and I wonder why the fuck I am a Democrat anyway.

Until we can all agree that winning is not worth betraying the rights of vulnerable people in the party we will never move forward, nor ever enjoy LEGITIMATE success.

Jebus, I am so sick of this kind of shit.

[daa]

40. I guess you never heard chose your battles wisely

the minority party doesn't call the shots and must appeal to more poeple to become the majority. Its not sacrifice, its called compromise.

[cassiepriam]

42. yah, it also decides who will be president.