Letters to the Editor
-
Get it over with.....
So go ahead and overturn Roe V Wade and turn multiple states into abortion battlegrounds.
That will truly be the end of the Republican Party and they KNOW IT.
Not to mention the splits in families that are inevitable.
-
Alito and Roberts aren't there for the abortion battle...
...although they will do that too. They were put on the court to uphold signing statements and the unitary executive. Alito invented the current invocation of the signing statement. These guys are into power. Once in a while they throw a bone to constituencies like the Christians to keep them coming to the polls.
-
Right on ondelette
The Bush regime uses Christian conservatives to get into office, but they probably respect this constituency less than liberals. While I might argue that Roberts and Alito actually care about abortion (they aren't throwing a bone, they have dual roles, one as the bone), I do agree with ondelette that this is not why they were appointed. They were appointed to support business, an unchecked military and a right-wing Executive Branch eager to shred the Constitution.
-
What utter nonsense
Alito invented the current invocation of the signing statement.
Baloney ten times over, you paranoid know-nothing. Every president since James Monroe has used signing statements. Bill Clinton alone issued hundreds.
-
Anonymous...
Do you know what the words "current invocation" mean? Samuel J. Alito, Jr. is the author of a paper outlining the use of signing statements to give the executive branch "equality" with the "intent of the Congress" which is evaluated by the Supreme Court in determining the use of laws. The idea is to have an "intent of the Executive" in signing the law.
This is a new use of signing statements, and does not date back to James Monroe. Previous presidents used them to indicate areas where they thought a law might be unconstitutional or unclear.
It is both why Alito and Roberts are needed on the Court, and why even the most innocuous bills get signing statements -- in case they are brought to the high court. One acknowledgement of their validity and the whole face of government changes.
Yes, I'm probably a bit paranoid about it. I don't want the whole face of government to change. But an idiot...I wasn't the one who opened his mouth before he knew the relationship between Alito and the statements.
-
Half?
Ohio Dr. Martin Ruddock said that more than one-half of his partial-birth abortions involve normal fetuses. (David Brown, "Late Term Abortions," Washington Post, September 17, 1996, p. Z12.)
Okay, let's accept that statistic for the sake of argument. This means that, in half the cases, this new ruling will prevent mothers from receiving the medical treatment that they require. Can someone explain how that is a good thing?
-
no it won't
This means that, in half the cases, this new ruling will prevent mothers from receiving the medical treatment that they require. Can someone explain how that is a good thing?
No it won't, because the American Medical Association said that partial-birth abortion is never medically justified.
-
10
That's how many months I believe should be available for terminating the life of your child. I'm not really wrapped up in setimentality over life and death. As we've seen, people die all the time, for nothing, or for a bunch of lies. Babies come out all fucked up, use them for research.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
-
On voting for Nader in 2000
I was on the side of "Damn those Nader voters!" up until the last few years, when I started to see the bigger picture: the 2000 election was the result of decades of work by a determined, well-funded movement of extremists, and this nightmare would have begun sooner or later anyways.
The first step was to put the nation to sleep -- that would be the 1980's. (Actually, I suspect the Fairness Doctrine itself was partly to blame for this as well, as it effectively meant that radio talk shows and the like just didn't *do* political talk at all, thus allowing the notion that "politics don't matter" to become entrenched in the public (sub)consciousness.)
The second step was then to manipulate the public's opinion with tools such as fear, hate, and Fox News (along with absolute dominance in talk radio, and a neutered Mainstream Media). Thus, we had the 1990's.
By 2000, the population was thoroughly drenched in hateful soundbytes and fragmentary/dissonant thought processes, especially when it came to matters political. It was only a matter of time before 50%+ of the voters bought into it enough to start voting for Conservatives.
The fact that it was really just *below* 50% at the time is little comfort. Yes, if we didn't have Republican Party hadn't engaging in election fraud in Florida (and, I'm sure, elsewhere); if the votes had been re-counted fully/properly; if Nader hadn't been on the ballot; or any number of other factors should have been "in the noise" in a sensible election -- we would have seen Gore win.
But that would have just delayed the inevitable by 4 or, best case, 8 years, until the Conservative Movement had comfortably more than 50% of the voters with them.
And then it would have been even harder to undo the damage.