On Alito

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:36 am

The storm around Alito possibly becoming a Supreme Court Justice seems to center around whether the US Constitution guarantees women the right to abort a pregnancy. To quote a highly respected Gardener (I stole this from the gun forum):

anastrophe wrote: rights are a priori - their existence precedes any description of them. the constitution describes some of our rights, but it doesn't guarantee them. it merely codifies those rights into writing, so that no [despot/dictator/fascist/tyranny] may say 'oh, we weren't sure about that'. I hold the right regardless of the existence of the constitution or the bill of rights. sort of along the lines of 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'. that they are written in the constitution is a grand thing - but it's not the fact that they are written that guarantees them.

the biggest failing people have in this regard is in saying 'hey, see this, it says right here i have this right - the government says i have this right, and it's written down for all to see'. but the government didn't write the constitution, the people wrote the constitution. the people grant the government certain powers but the rights we hold ourselves. the government does NOT grant us our rights.
As I see it - and I'm no lawyer - laws are de facto created to restrict rights and freedoms. If rights are a priori, and I agree that they are, the Constitution does not need to enumerate it for it to be true. Therefore, in a Constitutional sense, the 'right' to abortion is moot.

Should Roe v. Wade be a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice?

Note that I find abortion in general to be abhorrent (sp?) and would support most any law that recognizes the life and inherent rights of the pre-born human being.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:12 pm

As I see it - and I'm no lawyer - laws are de facto created to restrict rights and freedoms. If rights are a priori, and I agree that they are, the Constitution does not need to enumerate it for it to be true. Therefore, in a Constitutional sense, the 'right' to abortion is moot.
I agree. Our founding fathers did intend for there to be a separation of church and state, however, and the anti-abortion stand is rooted in religion. So, from that perspective, it is a constitutional right.

The 1st Ammendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:19 pm

Benjamin wrote: I agree. Our founding fathers did intend for there to be a separation of church and state, however, and the anti-abortion stand is rooted in religion. So, from that perspective, it is a constitutional right.

The 1st Ammendment states:

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:That's crap. The right to worship is also rooted in religion. Most art is rooted in religion. Don't fear religion.

Or do I misunderstand your statement?

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:27 pm

Accountable wrote: That's crap. The right to worship is also rooted in religion.
Nobody's trying to ban your right to worship

Most art is rooted in religion.
That's crap.

Don't fear religion.
I fear religion in my government

Correction: Abortion is not a constitutional right but it IS unconstitutional to ban it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:29 pm

Carter was religious. He was an ordained minister, if I'm not mistaken.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:31 am

Okay, back on the point.

From the National Constitution Center

Schumer repeatedly pressed Alito on whether he still believes that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, a question Alito declined to answer. At one point, Schumer got Alito to agree that the Constitution does protect free speech. So why, Schumer demanded, "can't you answer the question of 'Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion?' " When Alito hedged, Schumer charged that "any idea that you are approaching this fresh, without any bias" has gone "by the wayside."

Alito noted that as an appellate judge, he twice voted against proposed abortion restrictions he considered unlawful. That was proof, he said, that he had no "agenda" to chip away at abortion at every opportunity.

I ask again. Should Roe v. Wade be a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice?

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:14 am

Sorry guys I put up these hearings somehwre else.

IMO ( it wont count because of being a Brit and all) no single issue should be a decider. In addition how can he be judged as impartial if he is willing to say how he will decide a case bfore he hears it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:19 am

Bothwell wrote: Sorry guys I put up these hearings somehwre else.
I put this here just to separate out the abortion issue as it pertains to the hearings. I don't think this is a good place for a general discussion.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:10 pm

Benjamin wrote: I agree. Our founding fathers did intend for there to be a separation of church and state, however, and the anti-abortion stand is rooted in religion. So, from that perspective, it is a constitutional right.

What is a constitutional right? The right not to have an abortion or the right to have one?

Fred