Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Those Pesky Women...

Friday

Friday

Bazinga!
...are at it again.

Sorry, 6, but I gotta call a spade a spade here.

The IWF is sanctioning suppresiion of information in this article, to influence the appointment of Judge Alito:

The Left is Already Talking Filibuster…:

(Washington, DC) – The Independent Women’s Forum urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the loaded rhetoric and manufactured charges being bandied about by special interest groups to derail the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With nearly 30 years of judicial service and a record of the utmost fairness and professionalism, Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court. Nevertheless, he is opposed by members of the far Left who view the courts as a means of promoting their own social agenda.

“We are concerned that some on the Left are already discussing a possible filibuster of Alito’s nomination,†said IWF visiting fellow, Jennifer Braceras. "These special interest groups are not interested in whether this nominee is qualified or whether he will serve the nation with integrity and respect for the judicial process. They care only whether he will rule the way they want him to rule in specific hot button cases.â€

The Independent Women’s Forum urges the Judiciary Committee to reject litmus tests and to avoid questioning Judge Alito about specific matters that may come before him in the future. Judge Alito deserves a fair process and a straight up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
Click to expand...
IMO, this is unethical. The IWF is encouraging a definite right slant of information by discouraging the left's right to discuss pertinent issues in the hearings.

Shouldn't the public be well informed about all the issues pertinent to Alito's probable voting tendencies?
 
No, they shouldn't. So long as Alito promises to rule according to the precepts of law, it's none of their fucking business what his politics are.

You don't confirm or deny a nomination because a person might rule in a way you like or don't like. The Supreme Court is not the presidency, and it's not the legislature. It doesn't make law--or at least it shouldn't--it rules on the Constitutionality of laws made by legislatures.

The over-politicizing of the confirmation process is an obscene perversion of the process.
 
But we've seen how those "precepts of law" are interpreted according to who's in charge at the moment. Of course each side is going to want a Supreme Court justice that will rule in favor of their own agenda. The politicisizing is going to happen, no matter what.

What gets me angry is the underhanded way IWF is promoting suppression of information, in favor of their right leaning ideals. They have no right to try and influence what is discussed, and what isn't.
 
The left had no problem with this when it was Ruth Bader Ginsberg refusing to tell Congress how she'd rule on hypothetical cases. It ain't suppression of information; it's refusing to answer a hypothetical question on ruling, the answer to which would depend in no small part on how the case was argued.

Alito could find himself in a position of having to rule against the dictates of his conscience, should a case be presented to him in such a manner that the law demands he so rule. He has stated that he is prepared to do so, and that should be sufficient answer for idiots like Chappaquiddick Ted.

The real problem here is that Roe vs. Wade is pretty shaky law, and it wouldn't really take much to topple it. Pro-abortionists know this, and that's why they are always running scared that their "right" will be taken away from them.

Not that abortion would become illegal should Roe vs. Wade be overturned. Rather, the decision would go to the States--where it Constitutionally belongs--which would then be free to create whatever abortion laws they see fit. True, some would go all the way and make abortion illegal, but I don't think many would be able to do so. The genie's out of the bottle, and putting it back in will prove difficult.

You will see more curbs on the "right" to abortion should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, to be certain. But outlawing it outright? Maybe in Alabama. Definitely not in New York.

But none of this really matters, anyway. Or at least it shouldn't to the Supreme Court. Their function is to determine whether or not Roe vs. Wade was a Constitutionally justified decision, should its Constitutionality come before the court. Period.

Alito's views on abortion are of no consequence, and questions regarding them are improper. Questions about how Alito would rule on a hypothetical case are also improper.
 
Number_6 said:
No, they shouldn't. So long as Alito promises to rule according to the precepts of law, it's none of their fucking business what his politics are.

You don't confirm or deny a nomination because a person might rule in a way you like or don't like. The Supreme Court is not the presidency, and it's not the legislature. It doesn't make law--or at least it shouldn't--it rules on the Constitutionality of laws made by legislatures.

The over-politicizing of the confirmation process is an obscene perversion of the process.
Click to expand...

It's so good to see you back!!!! :bigass:

OH, and I agree with you 100%.
 
Number_6 said:
Not that abortion would become illegal should Roe vs. Wade be overturned. Rather, the decision would go to the States--where it Constitutionally belongs--which would then be free to create whatever abortion laws they see fit. True, some would go all the way and make abortion illegal, but I don't think many would be able to do so. The genie's out of the bottle, and putting it back in will prove difficult.

You will see more curbs on the "right" to abortion should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, to be certain. But outlawing it outright? Maybe in Alabama. Definitely not in New York.
Click to expand...
See, this is what I'm afraid of. If the states become the ultimate arbiters of abortion, this would put at a severe disadvantage those women who are most likely to seek abortions. Specifically, the poor who possibly wouldn't be able to afford to cross state lines to obtain one. And what if the closest clinic were two or three states away?

Giving states the power to make abortion illegal will bring back those back street alley butchers that are right now, mercifully, but a footnote in the annals of history. Also consider the burden on the state if these women bring their children to term, by default. The welfare rolls would increase dramatically.

Of course I'm going to want to put into position someone who will insure that this will never occur, someone who will vote to have Roe v Wade decided on a federal level. And the best way to insure this is to be able to ask these questions without fear of obstruction by the right.
 
Don't get too used to it. The term has begun, and this one is going to be a pain in my ass, I can already tell.

I've been teaching for 15 years. I need a sabbatical.

Plus, I had a paper accepted to a conference. Trouble is, I haven't written it yet.
 
Friday said:
See, this is what I'm afraid of. If the states become the ultimate arbiters of abortion, this would put at a severe disadvantage those women who are most likely to seek abortions. Specifically, the poor who possibly wouldn't be able to afford to cross state lines to obtain one. And what if the closest clinic were two or three states away?

Giving states the power to make abortion illegal will bring back those back street alley butchers that are right now, mercifully, but a footnote in the annals of history. Also consider the burden on the state if these women bring their children to term, by default. The welfare rolls would increase dramatically.

Of course I'm going to want to put into position someone who will insure that this will never occur, someone who will vote to have Roe v Wade decided on a federal level. And the best way to insure this is to be able to ask these questions without fear of obstruction by the right.
Click to expand...

But that's not what the Supreme Court is there for. It's not the legislative branch of government. Roe vs. Wade was, in the mind of many legal scholars and in my own, a grievous example of legislating from the bench.

As for these poor women who can't afford to cross state lines, maybe they should try not to fuck without protection, eh? Not a particularly difficult task to perform, even for the impoverished who would be lost without you to act as their guiding light.

And the stories of back alley butchers are sooooo exaggerated. Not saying there weren't incidents, but nothing like the pro-abortionists want people to believe. Don't buy into all of NARAL's bullshit.

Besides, none of this is what nomination hearings for the Supreme Court are supposed to be about. You want legislation that follows your ideological bent? You go to the LEGISLATURE.
 
Friday said:
A paper on what topic, if I might inquire? And shit, you'd better start writing. :D
Click to expand...

I can't really say, since the topic is quite specific and the program will soon appear online.

But, as you say, I'd better start writing. Well, researching, really. Then writing.
 
Number_6 said:
As for these poor women who can't afford to cross state lines, maybe they should try not to fuck without protection, eh? Not a particularly difficult task to perform, even for the impoverished who would be lost without you to act as their guiding light.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Double Sigh.

Protection isn't always 100% effective. People get stupid. Are we to punish the poor because they can't afford to rectify those same mistakes their better-off-financially counterparts make? Think. Life is not some middle class surburbia. There are poor out there, and they deserve the same opprtunities as the rest of us. That includes tha availability of abortion, if needed.

And the stories of back alley butchers are sooooo exaggerated. Not saying there weren't incidents, but nothing like the pro-abortionists want people to believe. Don't buy into all of NARAL's bullshit.
Click to expand...
You bet your ass I'm going to research this, and get back to it.

Besides, none of this is what nomination hearings for the Supreme Court are supposed to be about. You want legislation that follows your ideological bent? You go to the LEGISLATURE.
Click to expand...
If I feel strongly about a law, I want to insure that the right people are in place to enforce it, from the local sheriff all the way up to Supreme Court justice.
 
Found an interesting article:

When There Was No Choice

This article tells stories of life before Roe v Wade:

At 77, Dr. Harry S. Jonas can still pinpoint the exact moment when he understood the importance of making abortion legal. The year was 1952 and he was an eager, young obstetrics-gynecology intern in Independence, Miss.. The specialty promised exciting pregnancies and bouncing babies, but his very first patient entered the hospital extremely sick. A mother of 12 children, she had tried—unsuccessfully—to induce an abortion. "She came into the hospital with her intestines hanging out her vagina," recalls Jonas. "Then she died."
Click to expand...
Almost one in 10 low-income women in New York City reported having attempted to end a pregnancy with an illegal abortion, according to one study done in the 1960s. In 1962 alone, almost 1,600 women were treated for incomplete illegal abortions in at Harlem Hospital (who do you think lives in Harlem...the Rockefellers?). And there's plenty of current evidence showing the danger of outlawing the procedure. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 80,000 women around the world still die each year of complications from illegal abortions.
Click to expand...
I realize this is a women's issue, thus the gravity of it escapes you. However, trust me when I say these atrocities will begin happening once again in the US if Roe v Wade is overturned.
Roe v. Wade quickly cleared up this country's illegal-abortion mess, almost overnight. Deaths from botched abortions slowed dramatically. The number of women admitted for unexplained miscarriages dropped precipitously. And doctors could finally spare their patients the dangers of untrained, illegal practitioners or self-inflicted injuries without risking jail time or their medical licenses.
Click to expand...
We both know abortion is one of the major issues the IWF wants to suppress. It would be a very dangerous thing if they are allowed to accomplish their goal.
 
It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems.
Click to expand...

You know, even when I was a very socially liberal college student, very much pro-choice, I always had this nagging problem with the way abortion was being misused. The above quote states my problem far better than I ever could.

Aren't we, human beings, better than abortion? Can't we, in all our vast intelligence and ingenuity, come up with a better alternative that wanton destruction? If we take doctor Nathanson at his word, that he knows that life begins at conception (please, for argument's sake, let's believe him), then isn't abortion akin to ethnic cleansing, or genocide? Both are acts of destruction aimed at getting rid of "undesireables". What's the difference?

BTW, I wholly agree with Number 6's overall point. A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed with no regard to his personal beliefs or politics.
 
Friday said:
See, this is what I'm afraid of. If the states become the ultimate arbiters of abortion, this would put at a severe disadvantage those women who are most likely to seek abortions. Specifically, the poor who possibly wouldn't be able to afford to cross state lines to obtain one. And what if the closest clinic were two or three states away?

Giving states the power to make abortion illegal will bring back those back street alley butchers that are right now, mercifully, but a footnote in the annals of history. Also consider the burden on the state if these women bring their children to term, by default. The welfare rolls would increase dramatically.

Of course I'm going to want to put into position someone who will insure that this will never occur, someone who will vote to have Roe v Wade decided on a federal level. And the best way to insure this is to be able to ask these questions without fear of obstruction by the right.
Click to expand...
The Right will always obstruct. What do they really want? Children without stretchmarks. Does the term wet nurse ring a bell?
 
NeonMercuryASH said:
The Right will always obstruct. What do they really want? Children without stretchmarks. Does the term wet nurse ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Uh...huh??? It's the Leftys who are obstructing the confirmation of Judge Alito.
 
Friday said:
Sigh. Double Sigh.

Protection isn't always 100% effective.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, abstinence always is.

If I feel strongly about a law, I want to insure that the right people are in place to enforce it, from the local sheriff all the way up to Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...

That's fine -- but pressing a candidate for answers on hypotheticals isn't the best way to get the answer to that question. I'm sure you know this yourself, but they can always just lie.
 
NeonMercuryASH said:
The Right will always obstruct. What do they really want? Children without stretchmarks.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with them on this point. Children without stretch marks are happy children. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top