Letters to the Editor
-
Scalia by any other name?
Has anyone bothered to read Alito's opinions? While he did vote that spousal notification was not an "undue burden" on the right to choose as that term was used in O'Connor's opinions (before her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in any event), that is a very narrow ruling.
In fact, most of the cases that have been criticized by the Democrats today were based on very restrained readings of prior Supreme Court or 3rd Circuit precedent. While they were conservative readings, they weren't from far out in right field. Once Alito is given a chance to discuss them, I suspect all of his "controversial" decisions will look pretty tame, even by those who wish he'd ruled differently.
If Democratic senators and their supporters start painting Judge Alito as an extremist wingnut, I am afraid they are going to damage their credibility while still failing to prevent his confirmation.
I have no doubt that Alito will be more conservative than Senator Schumer would like; but so far the only evidence I have seen that Judge Alito is the next coming of Scalia is his nickname, "Scalito." By all reports, Judge Alito dislikes that nickname because he feels it mischaracterizes his judicial philosophy.
-
Lose the battle, Win the war!
It appears that Bush has pulled a rabbit out of his hat. He has galvanized support in his base and has distracted the fickle main-stream media from his many recent failures. The Senate Republicans, fearful of recent disorder and rancor will surely huddle together, trying to hide their disquiet behind wall of unanimity.
So what should Democrats do? Here is the Democrats' opportunity to play the first card in their 2006 campaign strategy: oppose the nomination mightily. Accuse Bush of packing the court with right-wing zealots (which at least has the virtue of truth), then remind the voters that it is the Republican controlled Senate that is willing to rubber-stamp Bush's erratic, misguided, and ultimately nefarious policies.
All we need to do is run a few adds with machine guns, battered wives, and theocratic crazies, and we can have the Senate back in Democratic hands.
-
A Taliban mentality
I find it sad that some people think the spousal notification law is defensible. Put into a related context, would men appreciate a law that requires them to notify their spouses if they got a vasectomy? A penile implant? A prescription for Viagra? How would a man react to a law that absolutely requires him to notify his wife that he's taking the Little Blue Pill? He'd feel insulted, angry, even outraged that the government is trying to mandate what he has to tell his wife about his own health decisions.
Judge Alito is not only short-sighted, but clearly views wives as the marital property of men. Interestingly, we went to Afghanistan to overthrow people who thought that way.
-
Notification
The type of reasoning that Kate has exhibited is precisely what is wrong with how many women think today.
Apparently, it is perfectly fine to still consider the man as the main provider for the family and take half of his assets in case of a divorce. It is OK to be outraged when the divorced father does not participate in the upbringing of his children (including financial support), but making it a law for a woman to consult her husband about a major decision in regards to wether to keep THEIR child is somehow Taliban mentality.
This is a completely idiotic line of reasoning. This has nothing to do with women being men's property. It has everything to do with the child not belonging solely to the woman. To think otherwise is illogical and hyppocritical. While I'm not a big fan of Alito (from what I've read so far) in this case he is absolutely correct. If women today used a little more logic and a little less emotion when coming to conclusions such an inadequate reaction would not be so prevalent.
If I were ever in a situation such as this I would sincerely hope that the woman I'm with has the decency to consult with me, so that we can make a major decision like that together. The analogy with Viagra is completely moronic. A child is not a health problem and is as much a child of the father as of the mother. And if the woman is too embarrassed to talk about something like this perhaps she should see a counselor in regards to her communication skills.
-
Follow up
I would like to apologize for the tone of my letter below. It was a knee jerk reaction to what Kate wrote. I stand by what I said though, just not by the way I said it. Normally I try to be more reserved, but the way in which the comment was written provoked my response. I will try to leave emotions out and just state my logical argument.
A child is not property of the woman and the decision to abort it is not a woman's health decision. I am pro choice, as I don't think a government should tell people how to run their lives (and I don't consider abortion a murder), but there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring this decision to be made by the two people who produced the child in the first place. When the child is born the father usually feels that it's his as much as the mother. As a man I would be extremely angry if my wife made the decision to abort OUR child on her own without consulting me.
This is a completely normal desire and has nothing to do with looking at women as men's property. Kate's reaction is that of an extreme feminist who, for whatever reason, sees men as evil creatures that women have to constantly fight against. I see women and men as equal partners. As such all family decisions (especially as major as abortion) should be made in cooperation with each other. That is what people in good relationships do.
-
Alito to the Right
You see, the problem with America is that 'pop' religions, like those of the Bush coalition, don't actually have 2000 years of thought behind them. So, when someone (well, Bush) says Ms. Miers passes some sort of religious litmus test, no one buys it. On the other hand, if you want truly conservative religious folks, guys who can do the doctrinal blocking and tackling, a quick trip to Rome will pretty much get you where you want to be, philosophically.
So, we are basically getting a Catholic court. Why? Because there are enough thinkers in the Catholic church to make some sense of nebulous issues that leave most people indifferent. Can you build a better world on centuries of philosophical inquiry? One wonders. Only the Catholic church could have a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, and yet have it pervade the Church the way it did in America. Most churches would have seen one case of child abuse and gone bonkers. The Catholics seem to have had endless philosophical discussions and, sadly, it doesn't seem to have solved the problem. Now, in essence, America will get another version of this in the form of Supreme Court doctrines. Is this even good for Catholicism? Good for separation of church and state?
In Europe, there is blatant Anti-clericalism, anti-Catholicism. The Socialists in Spain pass the most liberal gay marriage laws, the Pope responds by attacking secularism. There is genuine hatred on both sides, I think. I fear. America risks creating a political landscape with real industrial strength secularism, activists who openly hate churches, if it makes religion the only test. The Right thinks there are people like this, out there, right now, but the right is wrong.
It's really time for the kinds of Protestant denominations that so dominate the Bush administration to produce their own political and judicial thinkers. It's not entirely logical to outsource your philosophy to the Vatican if you are nominally Protestant. Maybe it's time to identify the Protest in Protestant?