America divided on Alito...

[Moooooo]

From the Wall Stree Journal:

Americans lack consensus on whether the Senate should confirm Judge Samuel Alito as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, a Harris Interactive poll shows.

Almost equal thirds of all adults believe that Judge Alito should be confirmed (34%), should not be confirmed (31%) or say they aren't sure (34%), according to the poll. A majority of Republicans (65% vs. 9%) favor his confirmation, the polls shows, while a plurality of Democrats (48% vs. 14%) oppose it, and Independents are split (34% for confirmation; 38% against).

However, nearly 70% of those surveyed in the online poll of 1,961 adults would oppose Judge Alito's confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal. That percentage rises among Democrats (86%) and Independents (74%), compared with 22% of Republicans. More than half of Republicans polled say they would support his confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal, compared with 14% of Democrats.
-----

Has putting off the nomination process hurt Alito's chances of being confirmed?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From the Wall Stree Journal:

Americans lack consensus on whether the Senate should confirm Judge Samuel Alito as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, a Harris Interactive poll shows.

Almost equal thirds of all adults believe that Judge Alito should be confirmed (34%), should not be confirmed (31%) or say they aren't sure (34%), according to the poll. A majority of Republicans (65% vs. 9%) favor his confirmation, the polls shows, while a plurality of Democrats (48% vs. 14%) oppose it, and Independents are split (34% for confirmation; 38% against).

However, nearly 70% of those surveyed in the online poll of 1,961 adults would oppose Judge Alito's confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal. That percentage rises among Democrats (86%) and Independents (74%), compared with 22% of Republicans. More than half of Republicans polled say they would support his confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal, compared with 14% of Democrats.
-----

Has putting off the nomination process hurt Alito's chances of being confirmed?

Basically that other almost 40% needs to learn that Alito would make abortion illegal.

[Emsworth]

Basically that other almost 40% needs to learn that Alito would make abortion illegal.

Um, overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal. It would merely leave the issue up to each state, as the Constitution requires.

Alito might support laws banning abortion, but that is merely a personal view with no relation to judicial philosophy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Basically that other almost 40% needs to learn that Alito would make abortion illegal.

Um, overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal. It would merely leave the issue up to each state, as the Constitution requires.

Alito might support laws banning abortion, but that is merely a personal view with no relation to judicial philosophy.

Wrong, it would immediately become illegal in a number of states.

Why do you pretend to be socially liberal, when you're clearly just a crazy right-winger?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For people like Emsworth who support activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore, but oppose constitutional rulings like Roe vs. Wade, do you support inter-racial marriage being up to the states? How about slavery?

[A18]

For people like Emsworth who support activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore, but oppose constitutional rulings like Roe vs. Wade...

How is Roe v. Wade a constitutional ruling? You have never been able to intelligently back up that claim.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For people like Emsworth who support activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore, but oppose constitutional rulings like Roe vs. Wade...

How is Roe v. Wade a constitutional ruling? You have never been able to intelligently back up that claim.

Under the right to privacy, which is implicitly granted under the 9th amendment. Besides, abortion was legal up to "quickening" under English common law.

[Emsworth]

Wrong, it would immediately become illegal in a number of states.

It would not be illegal by virtue of the Supreme Court's ruling. Rather, it would be illegal by virtue of the state's own democratic decision-making process. State legislatures, not justices, would make abortion illegal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a nonsensical idea. I personally believe that all abortions whatsoever should be legal until birth. But I do not let my personal views cloud my interpretation of the Constitution. You, on the other hand, want me to adopt an activist and intellectually dishonest approach.

For people like Emsworth who support activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore, but oppose constitutional rulings like Roe vs. Wade, do you support inter-racial marriage being up to the states? How about slavery?

The equal protection clause bans racial discrimination, and the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery. No part of the Constitution, however, protects the right to abort a fetus.

Bush v. Gore was constitutionally unsound, but definitely in line with precedent (which neither party contested).

Under the right to privacy, which is implicitly granted under the 9th amendment.

The Ninth Amendment is a federalism provision; it guarantees no such right. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the first eight amendments, but it does not incorporate the Ninth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment. So, even if the Ninth Amendment protected the right to privacy, that right would be federal only.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So was wife beating.

[A18]

For people like Emsworth who support activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore, but oppose constitutional rulings like Roe vs. Wade...

How is Roe v. Wade a constitutional ruling? You have never been able to intelligently back up that claim.

Under the right to privacy, which is implicitly granted under the 9th amendment. Besides, abortion was legal up to "quickening" under English common law.

No, the Ninth Amendment is a federalism provision, and does not even apply to the states. Even if it did create new, judicially enforceable rights, a generic right to privacy clearly would not be one of them, given that states punished things like sodomy by death.

Statutory law trumps common law.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wrong, it would immediately become illegal in a number of states.

It would not be illegal by virtue of the Supreme Court's ruling. Rather, it would be illegal by virtue of the state's own democratic decision-making process. State legislatures, not justices, would make abortion illegal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a nonsensical idea. I personally believe that all abortions whatsoever should be legal until birth. But I do not let my personal views cloud my interpretation of the Constitution. You, on the other hand, want me to adopt an activist and intellectually dishonest approach.

Bullsh**t, you support unconstitutional activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The equal protection clause bans racial discrimination, and the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery. No part of the Constitution, however, protects the right to abort a fetus.

[/quote]
So how come inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states until the comperatively recent SCOTUS ruling?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Ninth Amendment is a federalism provision; it guarantees no such right. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the first eight amendments, but it does not incorporate the Ninth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment. So, even if the Ninth Amendment protected the right to privacy, that right would be federal only.
[/quote]
And federal SCOTUS rulings can apply to the states.

[Emsworth]

So how come inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states until the comperatively recent SCOTUS ruling?

Well, even John Marshall Harlan thought that laws banning interracial marriage were constitutional, since they did not discriminate against any single race, but rather against all races. This interpretation held sway until the Warren Court came along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is obvious that the equal protection clause does not apply to voting. If you look at Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it talks about votes being "denied, or in any way abridged." It specifically recognizes that states are allowed to deny the right to vote. Thus, Bush v. Gore was erroneous in holding that votes are subject to the equal protection clause.

However, past Supreme Court rulings have held (inexplicably) that voting is covered by this clause. Neither Bush nor Gore challenged these precedents. When neither party wants a precedent overturned, the Supreme Court has no choice but to leave the precedent untouched.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course they can, but the Supreme Court's function is interpreting the Constitution. If the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states, then the Supreme Court has no basis for establishing a constitutionally protected right to privacy (unless one believes in the dubious doctrine of substantive due process).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Emsworth is a clown who supports activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Being mostly pro-choice, I still want him on the bench.

He will be confirmed........though the Libs will make a good show of it.

[Frodo]

Has putting off the nomination process hurt Alito's chances of being confirmed?

Maybe, but it won't change the fact that he will likely be confirmed.  Instead of perhaps 65 Senate votes, he will likely get somewhere in the range from 55 to 60 instead -and nothing has yet come up that would support a case for a filibuster.  Republicans will win on a mainly party-line vote with some Democratic crossovers.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Has putting off the nomination process hurt Alito's chances of being confirmed?

Maybe, but it won't change the fact that he will likely be confirmed.  Instead of perhaps 65 Senate votes, he will likely get somewhere in the range from 55 to 60 instead -and nothing has yet come up that would support a case for a filibuster.  Republicans will win on a mainly party-line vote with some Democratic crossovers.   

Hopefully we can get 41 to block this extremist. We're been a rubber stamp for far too many Bush appointees.

[Brandon H]

Based on past rulings, it does not appear that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade. So I would vote against Alito because of that. Granted he can always say he was just following precedent.

[riceowl]

Emsworth is a clown who supports activist conservative rulings like Bush vs. Gore.

!!!

I'm so glad you're back!!

[AuH2O]

Emsworth SMOKED jfern. Nice going.

[riceowl]

Emsworth SMOKED jfern. Nice going.

I just love that he's back so he can entertain me.
...hope you caught that.

[Gabu]

Emsworth SMOKED jfern. Nice going.

I just love that he's back so he can entertain me.
...hope you caught that.

I dunno, I kind of liked it when he was away; the Democrats were finally beginning to gain in credibility.

[opebo]

Emsworth SMOKED jfern. Nice going.

I just love that he's back so he can entertain me.
...hope you caught that.

I dunno, I kind of liked it when he was away; the Democrats were finally beginning to gain in credibility.

Please change your avatar to Religious Party, Gabu.  jfern is a real Democrat.

As for Emsworths arguments, they are as usual nonsensical.  Basically he is saying 'my interpretation is right, and yours is wrong', which is of course of no more value than jfern or anyone else claiming their interpretation is right.  The interpretation that has the most votes is the 'correct' one, Emsworth.

Emsworth, why should anyone care that an overturning of the constitutional right to abortion would not directly make abortion illegal?  It is the only thing standing between much of the benighted US illegalizing the practice and leading to the deaths of countless women.

[Emsworth]

As for Emsworths arguments, they are as usual nonsensical.  Basically he is saying 'my interpretation is right, and yours is wrong', which is of course of no more value than jfern or anyone else claiming their interpretation is right.  The interpretation that has the most votes is the 'correct' one, Emsworth.

What a ridiculous idea. Objective facts do not change just because a majority of the people believe otherwise. If we put the issue of God's existence to a vote, then theism would obviously win; does it follow that the theists are correct and the atheists wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am merely stating the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade will not automatically make abortion illegal. Whether you care or not is up to you.

[opebo]

As for Emsworths arguments, they are as usual nonsensical.  Basically he is saying 'my interpretation is right, and yours is wrong', which is of course of no more value than jfern or anyone else claiming their interpretation is right.  The interpretation that has the most votes is the 'correct' one, Emsworth.

What a ridiculous idea. Objective facts do not change just because a majority of the people believe otherwise. If we put the issue of God's existence to a vote, then theism would obviously win; does it follow that the theists are correct and the atheists wrong?

Laws are not objective facts, but impositions by the State.  They are whatever those in control of the State say they are.