Alito to be the new justice - Page 2

ben_dy · #16 Oct 31, '05, 7:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatholicMetis

Fox News is reporting Bush will choose Alito as the new SC justice! A great choice that will make liberals cry!!

A wonderful choice - someone all can support, with a proven track record. And democrats dare not play the religion card here: implying that the Court would be 'loaded' with five Catholics would be political disaster - I just heard the news and have to run... will be back later to hear others comments. I think we'll hear some hollow threats of filibuster, but - unless he has skeletons in the closet - I don't see how this nomination will not, ultimately fly. For a number of reasons. Be back later!

HappyCatholic01 · #17 Oct 31, '05, 7:08 am

Anyone know if Alito was on the "filibuster list" from the Miers nomination?

If he isn't that will make it harder for the left to justify attacks.

swampfox · #18 Oct 31, '05, 8:39 am

Excellent choice.

Brad · #19 Oct 31, '05, 8:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampfox

Excellent choice.

I agree and pray that we can get him through.

All conservatives need to be just as diligent in getting the Republican 7 to change their mind regarding allowing a filibuster as they were in opposing Miers.

manualman · #20 Oct 31, '05, 8:47 am

I would agree that contraception is the root of the abortion phenomenon in America on the moral front. I would entertain the thought that outlawing abortion while the contraceptive mentality is still intact would likley be a short-lived victory that would create a political backlash against conservatives.

But I don't understand why you couldn't, from a legal perspective, outlaw abortion before contraception?

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being! Contraception (UID's excepted) generally is the avoidance of creating a new human being.

A court of strict constructionists is most likely going to rule that abortion is not addressed by the constitution and is the purview of the states. I find it highly unlikely that even if the new guy is a Scalia clone, the SC would suddenly define human life as beginning at conception and that all civil rights begin then. While I personally would vote this way, it is not a 'strict constructionist' point of view! (I confess, I'd be a loose constructionist for Christ!)

5 catholics on the court! I can just hear the Opus Dei conspiracy theories now! (Instructive that the culture never worries about jesuits anymore, isn't it?)

Hildebrand · #21 Oct 31, '05, 8:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaymart

Let's hope and Pray he will help over turn Roe vs. Wade.

If he is anti-Roe, he'll help, but he won't be the 5th vote we need. He'll be the 4th vote.

If he is confirmed, we go back to the court raw numbers of 1992.

In 1992, we had:

Rehnquist - age 68
White - age 75
Scalia - age 56
Thomas - age 44

After Alito is confirmed (and that's a big if):

Roberts - age 50 (hopefully he is anti-Roe)
Alito - age 56 (hopefully he is anti-Roe)
Scalia - age 69
Thomas - age 57

shannin · #22 Oct 31, '05, 8:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatholicMetis

Alito is also a Catholic! This is great! All you Bush bashers have to eat crow now because this will be 2 Catholics Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court!! I figure this will be a tough fight but he will get confirmed.

Four Catholics will be on the bench and at least 3 of them are conservative

Hildebrand · #23 Oct 31, '05, 9:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioCatholic

you cant overturn Roe v Wade without overturning Griswold v Connecticuit.

and who in today's age is going to find a take a case before the courts that outlaws ALL contraception?

First, a state has to try and outlaw contraception. that means even condoms. do you really think there is even a chance that a legislature is going to try and do that? there isnt hardly any support to make all contraception illegal.

assuming that does happen, it then has to work its way through the courts, and the court has to rule that the original ruling of Griswold was flawed.

This is wrong. It is not as black and white as you portray it.

You can decide that Griswold v. Connecticut held the correct decision, but the majority opinion creating a "right to privacy" was wrong. Two justices (White & John Marshall Harlan II) voted with Griswold, but disagreed with the majority opinion written by Justice Douglas.

Quote:

Justices John Marshall Harlan II and Byron White concurred in the judgment invalidating the Connecticut law, but based their opinions relying on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Harlan, in particular, urged that the Due Process Clause protected liberties unenumerated in the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. White's opinion argued that the Connecticut law served no coherent purpose.

source

Hildebrand · #24 Oct 31, '05, 9:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by shannin

Four Catholics will be on the bench and at least 3 of them are conservative

Five Catholics: Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito

Hildebrand · #25 Oct 31, '05, 9:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

I agree and pray that we can get him through.

All conservatives need to be just as diligent in getting the Republican 7 to change their mind regarding allowing a filibuster as they were in opposing Miers.

Traditional Ang has been pointing out, there are potentially 7 more were those came from. Names like Specter, Murkowski, & Voinovich.

miguel · #26 Oct 31, '05, 9:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlindSheep

Why do you say this?

The logic behind both decisions is similar, equally bad, that there is a Consitutional right to privacy. If they overturn Roe, and in doing so, repudiate the so-called Constitutional right to privacy (which doesn't exist), then the logic of Griswold is also up for grabs. It is important to understand that overturning Griswold would not make contraception illegal and overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal. It would simply put the authority to decide these issues back in the hands of the legislative branch where it Constitutionally belongs.

Hildebrand · #27 Oct 31, '05, 9:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by manualman

5 catholics on the court! I can just hear the Opus Dei conspiracy theories now! (Instructive that the culture never worries about jesuits anymore, isn't it?)

It's all the albino monk's fault! He lurks around the White House late at night, going from room to room. Heck, you can probably make a good novel about the albino monk. "It was a dark and stormy night. George W. Bush was up late... when all of a sudden, the albino monk appeared."

miguel · #28 Oct 31, '05, 9:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by manualman

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being! Contraception (UID's excepted) generally is the avoidance of creating a new human being.

The pill also thins the uterine lining rendering it incapable of implantation. As such, it is an abortifacient like the IUD.

http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/index.php

miguel · #29 Oct 31, '05, 9:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hildebrand

Traditional Ang has been pointing out, there are potentially 7 more were those came from. Names like Specter, Murkowski, & Voinovich.

Yes. It is important to remember that there are several pro-choice Republican senators. Let's hope the conservative revolt over the Miers nomination convinces them that it is in the best interest of the Republican party to get pro-life conservatives on the court. Conservatives will jump ship otherwise.

Arba Sicula · #30 Oct 31, '05, 10:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix

It is not some arbitrary religious precept.

No, it's not. But, it's our doctrine, and I don't see the Evangelicals and such deciding to renounce the use of contraceptives, which they consider good family stewardship, to follow what the Vatican says, even as so many Catholics don't follow the Vatican ruling on contraception.