Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why not, if breast implants are legal, then the government should not involve itself in the decision of what people discuss with their parents.




I posted my list, in order or preference, over the weekend. Go back and re-read or read for the first time if you like. Or not. I believe he was between my 11th and 17th choice. That speaks relatively clearly to my opinion.

I was more or less correct, he's tied for 14th. Here's my list again:

1. Janice Rodgers Brown
2. Edith Jones
3. Sam Alito
4. tie: either one of
(i) John Roberts;
(ii) Michael McConnell; or
(iii) Emilio Garza
7. Michael Luttig
8. Larry Thompson
9. tie: either
(i) Harvey Wilkinson; or
(ii) Ted Olson
11. tie: either one of
(i) Richard Epstein
(ii) Richard Posner or
(iii) Frank Easterbrook
14. tie: either
(i) Edith Clement; or
(ii) Alberto Gonzalez
16. Ken Starr
17 tie: either
(i) John Ashcroft
(ii) Robert Bork

In the case of two consecutive nominees getting shot down I would opt for the nuclear option, Orrin Hatch.

Anyone else care to go on record?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
There is no slippery slope at all. You are confusing notification and consent.

If the law says that a kid cannot get her ears pierced without parental consent, then we've made a particular judgment, one I have no problem with.

If the law says that a kid needs her parents' consent to get an abortion, then we have made another judgment. One that I do have a problem with, not because I think that abortion is a less significant decision than ear-piercing (I state the obvious there because certain posters will otherwise claim that I do think that), but because I don't think someone should be forced to bear a child because of her parents' religious beliefs. She can get her ears pierced when she's 18, but she can't not have a baby.

If, on the other hand, the law says that a kid can have an abortion without her parents' consent, then having the state jump in and play family counselor ("well, you have to tell your parents, unless you can convince a judge that the family dynamics are such that you should not have to") seems, to me, an unwarranted extension of government into the home.

I am for both notification and consent.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why not, if breast implants are legal, then the government should not involve itself in the decision of what people discuss with their parents.

Penske, read what I posted. If parental consent is required, then breast implants are not legal for that individual.

If we've decided, for whatever reasons, that a girl has the right to decide whether or not to bear a child, without getting her parents' approval, then the discussion should end there. The government should not be telling families what to talk about.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Penske, read what I posted. If parental consent is required, then breast implants are not legal for that individual.

If we've decided, for whatever reasons, that a girl has the right to decide whether or not to bear a child, without getting her parents' approval, then the discussion should end there. The government should not be telling families what to talk about.

Fair enough, I am against that right.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am for both notification and consent.

That's an entirely different issue.

The right does not lose me when it calls for parental consent -- I can understand that view, I just disagree with it.

What I can't understand is parental notification -- except to the extent that it's a surrogate for consent, it seems to me to be promoting a level of government interference with the family that conservatives especially should not be advocating.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Fair enough, I am against that right.

Fuck you, you Nazi-loving, America-hating pig.


Sorry. I just felt that the tone was getting all unfamiliar, and weirdly rational.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That's an entirely different issue.

The right does not lose me when it calls for parental consent -- I can understand that view, I just disagree with it.

What I can't understand is parental notification -- except to the extent that it's a surrogate for consent, it seems to me to be promoting a level of government interference with the family that conservatives especially should not be advocating.

That is a fair distinction that I don't wholly disagree with. My view would probably never get to consent, because I stop with notification, although, while I see the point about notification being a surrogate for consent and if you have the right why require the notification, I think it is a big enough issue and a serious enough medical procedure that putting in place a system where the parents have to be notified (and non-prejudicially delaying the procedure by that process) might not be bad thing. The family should be involved in the process at least to advise (but, if its a right, not prevent) on the procedure.

[gotta take a call, bye bye]

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The family should be involved in the process at least to advise (but, if its a right, not prevent) on the procedure.

As a matter of family relations, absolutely.

As a matter of the government directing family relations, no. IMHO, and so forth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Funny -- it's where the right loses me, with the notion that the government should be involved as family counselor, requiring a pregnant woman to talk to her parents, or requiring her to convince a judge that her relationship with her parents is such that doing so would place her in danger.

If a woman is mature enough to carry a child, she is mature enough to decide, on her own, whether or not to discuss it with her parents.

But isn't that the fundamental question here - whether anyone has the right to decide whether she has to go forward with a pregnancy? No, wait... Actually, the real crux of the divide in this country is that some people believe its an infringement on their rights to be told they cannot infringe on the rights of others. Am I just citing the obvious when I say I'm fucking baffled... One side of this argument is saying "You are infringing on my right to tell you what to do, how to live, how to behave." Doesn't this strike anyone else as absurd? I don't get an inch of what the Right wants, or how they get up the nerve to ask for it. They're essentiaally seeeking to be made cultural/social rulers over people who share none of thier values. It'd be like the Left saying "Its an infringement on my rights to not be able to tell the Jesus Loons they cannot go to church." Yet the right straightfacedly makes exactly that argument against abortion, gay marriage, etc.... The debate shouldn't even recognize such an argument. The intellectual dihonesty of the way the argument is postured aside, its a fucking unconstitutional demand by one religious sector to control the whole of society. No one argues that point. Why?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"Organized Left?" That's an oxymoron. Like moderate Republican.

Are you saying I don't exist?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you saying I don't exist?

Not in your present form.


I mean, c'mon -- the Bambi posts were a dead giveaway; you're really a 57 year old retard living in an institution and pretending to be a lawyer (when you aren't on the married lesbian chatrooms or whatever others you troll on).

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
No, the Baby Jebus crowd then will simply register "stopgonzalesforJesus.com" et seq.

(and "gonzalesmakebabyJebuscry.com", "Godhatesgonzales.com", etc.)

Per Byron York:

NARAL has also purchased the web addresses "stopowen.com," which refers to Judge Priscilla Owen, "stopmcconnell.com," which refers to Judge Michael McConnell, and "stopgarza.com," which refers to Judge Emilio Garza.

People for the American Way has purchased "stopluttig.com," for Judge Michael Luttig, "stopwilkinson.com," for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, "stopalito.com," for Judge Samuel Alito, "stopbrown.com," for Judge Janice Rogers Brown, and "stopjones.com," for Judge Edith Jones.

----
Quick Penske - you better buy www.stophatch.com before they beat you to the punch.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my experience, on this board, facts that support ones own argument are considered causation, and facts that support somones elses argument are correlation.

Well, that's a good board motto, or mantra or something. And it explains why Clinton's policies didn't create the robust economy of the 1990s, although tax-n-spend W did energize the new millenium's.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But isn't that the fundamental question here - whether anyone has the right to decide whether she has to go forward with a pregnancy? No, wait... Actually, the real crux of the divide in this country is that some people believe its an infringement on their rights to be told they cannot infringe on the rights of others. Am I just citing the obvious when I say I'm fucking baffled... One side of this argument is saying "You are infringing on my right to tell you what to do, how to live, how to behave." Doesn't this strike anyone else as absurd? I don't get an inch of what the Right wants, or how they get up the nerve to ask for it. They're essentiaally seeeking to be made cultural/social rulers over people who share none of thier values. It'd be like the Left saying "Its an infringement on my rights to not be able to tell the Jesus Loons they cannot go to church." Yet the right straightfacedly makes exactly that argument against abortion, gay marriage, etc.... The debate shouldn't even recognize such an argument. The intellectual dihonesty of the way the argument is postured aside, its a fucking unconstitutional demand by one religious sector to control the whole of society. No one argues that point. Why?

I don't understand what you are saying here. Parents have no parental rights vis a vis their minor children?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't understand what you are saying here. Parents have no parental rights vis a vis their minor children?

Didn't you, I'm mean NotMe, have this whole debate with Sidd before?