Samuel Alito

[Delmar]

OK - say Alito gets filibustered out of his nomination - who would you have nominated next?

Crash

 

[Delmar]

On second thought I'd pick Dread Helm. He would be on the court longer!

 

[drbrumley]

Woo Hoo, Alito is gonna be appointed! :banana:

To America's demise.

 

[koban]

That's right! They declared that it was less than a person and since only people have rights...

Actually, they ruled based on existing law.

When weighing the competing interests the Court also noted that if the human fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, given the relatively recent nature of abortion criminalization, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not include the unborn. It should be noted that the Court's determination of whether a human fetus can enjoy Constitutional protection is separate from the notion of when life begins. To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution defines a citizen of the United States as:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Like it or not, that's where the law needs to be changed. Legislatively.

 

[Delmar]

Actually, they ruled based on existing law.




The fourteenth amendment to the constitution defines a citizen of the United States as:



Like it or not, that's where the law needs to be changed. Legislatively.

No no no! Non citizens are people and they still have the right to life if they have not committed a capitol crime! SCOTUS made a huge leap in declaring that an unborn baby is not a person! (for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment)
It is true that Congress should have passed a constitutional amendment declaring that an unborn baby is a person. It is equally true that SCOTUS should clean up there own mess! Every judge or Supreme Court Justice who ever heard an abortion case without declaring that an unborn baby has the right to life has innocent blood on his hands just as does every congressman who has neglected to propose such a constitutional amendment!

 

[Delmar]

If the only way to outlaw abortion is in the Legislative branch, then getting these "pro-life" judges into the Supreme Court is a complete waste of time.

Then I said
"No! if they were actual pro life judges they would rule that an unborn baby is a person. If they did that no law could be passed allowing abortion!"

I think you missed the "If the only way to outlaw abortion is in the Legislative branch..." part of that statement.

Here is the part of your original statement that I do agree with

"getting these "pro-life" judges into the Supreme Court is a complete waste of time."

 

[Lucky]

Then I said
"No! if they were actual pro life judges they would rule that an unborn baby is a person. If they did that no law could be passed allowing abortion!"



Here is the part of your original statement that I do agree with

"getting these "pro-life" judges into the Supreme Court is a complete waste of time."

Cool... I think. My point is just that if SC judges have to follow precedent (as many Republicans are saying), then even having a true-blue pro-life judge would be pointless because they wouldn't be able to rule that an unborn baby is a person.

 

[elohiym]

On second thought I'd pick Dread Helm. He would be on the court longer!

Dread's thinking about converting to Catholic. Please, we don't need yet another Catholic on the Supreme Court. Crash was a better choice.

If Alito becomes associate justice, we will have a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. Imagine, the majority of our Supreme Court justices will be primarily loyal to a foreign head of state--the Pope.

 

[elohiym]

BTW, Doc, thanks for posting the information in the OP. I had a feeling Alito was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Too late now.

 

[BillyBob]

Dread's thinking about converting to Catholic. Please, we don't need yet another Catholic on the Supreme Court. Crash was a better choice.

How about picking someone who actually knows law and has practiced it?

If Alito becomes associate justice, we will have a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. Imagine, the majority of our Supreme Court justices will be primarily loyal to a foreign head of state--the Pope.

Was JFK 'primarily loyal to a foreign head of state--the Pope'?

 

[Frank Ernest]

If Alito becomes associate justice, we will have a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. Imagine, the majority of our Supreme Court justices will be primarily loyal to a foreign head of state--the Pope.

:darwinsm: You gonna accuse several million Catholics of treason? Better yet, write the Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, and tell him that Catholics owe their political allegiance to the Pope. OH! Wait! He's Catholic too! :rotfl:

How many times have I heard this one over the years? Similar argument was used when Nixon ran in '68. Nixon was, or had been, a Quaker. Since Quakers are pacifist, the liberals questioned his fitness to be CiC. At least he wasn't Catholic, eh elohiym?

From Article VI, US Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That help ya?

To be even more helpful, I've included the following:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

 

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

 

[JoyfulRook]

How about picking someone who actually knows law and has practiced it?

How about picking someone who actually knows how the law should be applied, and how it should be practiced?



Alito :down:

 

[CRASH]

How about picking someone who actually knows how the law should be applied, and how it should be practiced?
Alito :down:

Or simple right and wrong, you know, like a six year old.

 

[elohiym]

:darwinsm: You gonna accuse several million Catholics of treason? Better yet, write the Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, and tell him that Catholics owe their political allegiance to the Pope. OH! Wait! He's Catholic too! :rotfl:

Frank,

I understand what you're saying, but you don't understand what I am saying, nor do you know all the facts I am basing my statements on.

How many times have I heard this one over the years? Similar argument was used when Nixon ran in '68. Nixon was, or had been, a Quaker. Since Quakers are pacifist, the liberals questioned his fitness to be CiC. At least he wasn't Catholic, eh elohiym?

Why have you heard this so many times over the years? Have you thought to ask that, or have you simply assumed that people who object to Catholics holding political office are all nuts?

From Article VI, US Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That help ya?

No. But it should help you, if you ponder why such a clause would be added to the constitution.

King George of England was against Catholic Emancipation. Why? Think about it.

To be even more helpful, I've included the following:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

Thanks, but we're talking about Supreme Court Justices, and Alito will make a Catholic majority.

Also, you might check out the number of Catholic Governors and legislators for a surprise.

 

[elohiym]

Was JFK 'primarily loyal to a foreign head of state--the Pope'?

Initially, yes, or he never would have gotten in office. Are you saying that Kennedy didn't claim to be Catholic, or follow Catholic doctrines? Are you claiming that the Catholic Church did not endorse Kennedy's candidacy?

Kennedy made the mistake of trying to go against the will of the Pope, whether or not he understood that was what he was doing. The Vatican wanted the United States to escalate the war in Vietnam, and Kennedy was about to pull us out. Immediately following Kennedy's assasination, Johnson escalated our involvement in Vietnam.

Truly, this is such a big topic and covers so much history, you are not going to understand my position in a few short posts.

 

[BillyBob]

Initially, yes, or he never would have gotten in office. Are you saying that Kennedy didn't claim to be Catholic, or follow Catholic doctrines? Are you claiming that the Catholic Church did not endorse Kennedy's candidacy?

Kennedy made the mistake of trying to go against the will of the Pope, whether or not he understood that was what he was doing. The Vatican wanted the United States to escalate the war in Vietnam, and Kennedy was about to pull us out. Immediately following Kennedy's assasination, Johnson escalated our involvement in Vietnam.

So it turns out that Johnson, not Kennedy, was loyal to the Pope.

Truly, this is such a big topic and covers so much history, you are not going to understand my position in a few short posts.

OK.

 

[BillyBob]

How about picking someone who actually knows how the law should be applied, and how it should be practiced?

If that's what you want, Alito is your man! :up:

 

[elohiym]

So it turns out that Johnson, not Kennedy, was loyal to the Pope.

Please don't think I miss your point, BB. Johnson wasn't a Catholic. I realize that.

My problem with Catholic candidates is that they claim to be loyal members of a Church which is also a foriegn nation, with its own head of state. I would have just as much problem with any dual national holding office.

 

[JoyfulRook]

If that's what you want, Alito is your man! :up:

Except he doesn't know how the law should be applied, or practiced. He's a rabid pro-abort! R v. W should not be applied or practiced.