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

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So it's no longer "settled law"?

I don't think anything is ever "settled" with finality and thank god for that or we would have never had Brown v. Board of Ed.

[SlaveNoMore]

Front page of NOW's website:

Bush Picks Anti-Roe Judge...Women's Lives on the Line

---

People for the American Way:

"Bush Nominates John Roberts for Supreme Court -
Nomination raises serious concerns, questions

People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues – it will be extremely important for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing O’Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans’ rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe"

----

NARAL:

HELP SAVE THE SUPREME COURT FROM PRESIDENT BUSH - TELL YOUR SENATORS TO OPPOSE ANTI-CHOICE JOHN ROBERTS

[form letter attached]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The constitution says nothing about the responsibility of the Senate to make sure that the consent is given via an up or down vote of each of its members. In conjunction with the fact that each House may make its own rules on how to carry out its business, the Senate could determine consent on a coin toss if it so chose.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but if you take this view, then I think you must also take the view that the Senate could pass a rule that says that it only takes 40 votes to approve a bill or imposes a supermajority vote to approve a bill. Do you agree?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
C'mon. It's Drudge. Deep in your heart, you know he's wrong. Again.

eta: OTOH, CNN is confirming. Stopped clocks and all that.

Translation: Drudge's source was CNN.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the CON requires the advise and consent of the "Senate" not a committee thereof. Ty takes the view that the Senate can make it's own rules governing how it gives or does not give it's consent. I question the Constiutionality of that. A committee structure in general does not raise similar concerns because the Senate does not have a Constitutional obligation to pass laws.

Nothing says advise and consent means only a majority. Nor does anything say they must consent to a nominee. The president can propose nominees; the senate can vote them down. The president can propose laws; the senate can refuse to pass them. You have a distinction without a difference. what matters is, when the Senate decides to take action, must it always have an escape-valve that ensures a simple majority can take action, regardless of whatever rules it has in place that might prevent that? In other words, you're still missing the point: The Senate (and to a lesser degree teh House) has a host of rules and structures that mean the majority may not get its way. Committee structure is but just one.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So he went with Roberts, the Rehnquist clerk, over Luttig, the Scalia clerk.

Perhaps the strategy is to save Luttig for when Rehnquist leaves and Scalia gets promoted to CJ - thus replacing Scalia with a protege.

I was wrong, but not unhappy at the choice.

PS - Estrada was a joke.

I say here first that Roberts will ultimately be the next Chief Justice. Either Rehnquist will die or resign sufficiently soon that this nomination, which will go along easily, will get converted (either in reality or effect) to one for the Chief's seat. Then Luttig, or Jones sweeps into the empty associate chair.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I say here first that Roberts will ultimately be the next Chief Justice. Either Rehnquist will die or resign sufficiently soon that this nomination, which will go along easily, will get converted (either in reality or effect) to one for the Chief's seat. Then Luttig, or Jones sweeps into the empty associate chair.

PTL and pass the champagne! We win!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Nothing says advise and consent means only a majority. Nor does anything say they must consent to a nominee. The president can propose nominees; the senate can vote them down. The president can propose laws; the senate can refuse to pass them. You have a distinction without a difference. what matters is, when the Senate decides to take action, must it always have an escape-valve that ensures a simple majority can take action, regardless of whatever rules it has in place that might prevent that? In other words, you're still missing the point: The Senate (and to a lesser degree teh House) has a host of rules and structures that mean the majority may not get its way. Committee structure is but just one.

See my post to the Panda. What is your reaction to that?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Front page of NOW's website:
NARAL:

Slave/Penske -

Just out of curiosity... Both of you seem socially somewhat liberal. I read Roe to state that there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. Both of you, like me, probably value your right to engage in whatever sex or drug use you like in private, or at least be safe from having the state dictate what you do in the most private areas of your personal lives. I agree with you that Roe is not the best written ruling ever. I even understand the argument that states should be allowed to regulate abortion.

But what I don't get is why the two of you would celebrate - or anyone would celebrate - the possible rolling back of our right to privacy recognized (yes, I meant "recognized"... if you think the right to privacy wasn't implicit in the Constitution, then we may as well have no rights at all... crumble the document up and burn it), under Roe.

You do realize, don't you, that Roe goes far beyond a mere woman's right to choose? Privacy affects men, too. And it affects the sort of people like a lot of us here, who like to 'enjoy' our lives more than some think we should.

You all want a strong nasty govt and rigid rule authoritarianism (amazingly/absurdly misrepresented as states rights). But I wonder, what would you cry if the hardass policies you favor from afar were brought to bear on you? Everybody's real quick to govern others and take away tolerant policies... until those policies affect them. I hope you all never need to face the question of abortion, because I think you'd all show yourselves to be incredible hypocrites.

I guess I do predict a little bit,
SD

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
See my post to the Panda. What is your reaction to that?

That you're confusing the ultimate vote with the procedures that are used to reach it. The Senate does not require a supermajority for consent. But it may require a supermajority to get to the point of voting on whether it consents, just as it does in getting to the point of voting on any legislation.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Slave/Penske -

Just out of curiosity... Both of you seem socially somewhat liberal. I read Roe to state that there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. Both of you, like me, probably value your right to engage in whatever sex or drug use you like in private, or at least be safe from having the state dictate what you do in the most private areas of your personal lives. I agree with you that Roe is not the best written ruling ever. I even understand the argument that states should be allowed to regulate abortion.

But what I don't get is why the two of you would celebrate - or anyone would celebrate - the possible rolling back of our right to privacy recognized (yes, I meant "recognized"... if you think the right to privacy wasn't implicit in the Constitution, then we may as well have no rights at all... crumble the document up and burn it), under Roe.

You do realize, don't you, that Roe goes far beyond a mere woman's right to choose? Privacy affects men, too. And it affects the sort of people like a lot of us here, who like to 'enjoy' our lives more than some think we should.

You all want a strong nasty govt and rigid rule authoritarianism (amazingly/absurdly misrepresented as states rights). But I wonder, what would you cry if the hardass policies you favor from afar were brought to bear on you? Everybody's real quick to govern others and take away tolerant policies... until those policies affect them. I hope you all never need to face the question of abortion, because I think you'd all show yourselves to be incredible hypocrites.

I guess I do predict a little bit,
SD

I think my rght to privacy ends where it actively infringes on someone's right to quiet enjoyment of their same such right.

Drug use in the home by a consenting adult; sex acts in private between consenting adults...okay. Drug/alcohol abuse that endangers the life of an unborn child when pregnant? Haven't we said as a society that this is something that is not part of that right? I think I am okay with that......[slippery slope]killing an unborn child because its inconvenient???[/slippery slope]

I am not sure that is hypocritical. I might like to kill some people (or at least run them out of town-hi RT!)because they are inconvenient too but my rights don't extend that far. either.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


I am not sure that is hypocritical. I might like to kill some people (or at least run them out of town-hi RT!)because they are inconvenient too but my rights don't extend that far. either.

So long as no goats are harmed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think my rght to privacy ends where it actively infringes on someone's right to quiet enjoyment of their same such right.

Drug use in the home by a consenting adult; sex acts in private between consenting adults...okay. Drug/alcohol abuse that endangers the life of an unborn child when pregnant? Haven't we said as a society that this is something that is not part of that right? I think I am okay with that......[slippery slope]killing an unborn child because its inconvenient???[/slippery slope]

I am not sure that is hypocritical. I might like to kill some people (or at least run them out of town-hi RT!)because they are inconvenient too but my rights don't extend that far. either.

Well, this is where we split. The gordian knot. Me... I tend to like the women I know. And that tends to compel me to value them above the rights of whatever might be groing in them. Call that callous, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And I come down as pro-woman. Thats really what we're talking about here, isn't it? The way this issue has been drawn, one is either pro-woman or pro-unborn.

We should start using those terms. It'd keep a lot of hyopcrites from getting laid. Try to explain how you're "pro-unborn" while you're trying to get in any self respecting progressive woman's pants.

PS: My indpendent research, conducted over nearly two decades of trying to get in women's pants, indicates that the women who call themselves pro-life are not the women one wants to fuck.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well, this is where we split. The gordian knot. Me... I tend to like the women I know. And that tends to compel me to value them above the rights of whatever might be groing in them. Call that callous, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And I come down as pro-woman. Thats really what we're talking about here, isn't it? The way this issue has been drawn, one is either pro-woman or pro-unborn.

We should start using those terms. It'd keep a lot of hyopcrites from getting laid. Try to explain how you're "pro-unborn" while you're trying to get in any self respecting progressive woman's pants.

PS: My indpendent research, conducted over nearly two decades of trying to get in women's pants, indicates that the women who call themselves pro-life are not the women one wants to fuck.

Bless you.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Slave/Penske -

Just out of curiosity... Both of you seem socially somewhat liberal. I read Roe to state that there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.

1) I thought that was Griswold

2) Roe was, at best, bad law, and at worst, judicial legislation at its worst with a bunch of "old, white men" interpreting medicine.

3) I think that one can determine a "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights/14th that doesn't go anywhere near the recent expansion by the Court

Both of you, like me, probably value your right to engage in whatever sex or drug use you like in private

Is it now legal to sniff meth while jerking off to child porn in your home? Plated will be excited.

or at least be safe from having the state dictate what you do in the most private areas of your personal lives.

Here is the line where Federalism and Libertarianism meet, and without getting into a long discussion (b/c I type poorly, and its better over a few drinks- I'll leave it with "there are competing pluses and problems with both")

I agree with you that Roe is not the best written ruling ever. I even understand the argument that states should be allowed to regulate abortion.

But what I don't get is why the two of you would celebrate - or anyone would celebrate - the possible rolling back of our right to privacy recognized (yes, I meant "recognized"... if you think the right to privacy wasn't implicit in the Constitution, then we may as well have no rights at all... crumble the document up and burn it), under Roe.

I disagree (see above) the Tenth Amendment was written to cover that which was not enumerated

You do realize, don't you, that Roe goes far beyond a mere woman's right to choose?

No, it doesn't. I'm probably as pro-choice as you, yet I've stand by the assertion that (i) Roe is awful law and (2) it's because of this "law by judicial fiat" that abortion is such a divisive issue in this country. If people got to actually vote on the topic (shocking, eh), you'd see that 70% are in the middle and the 15% of the fringe dictate the current conversation

Privacy affects men, too. And it affects the sort of people like a lot of us here, who like to 'enjoy' our lives more than some think we should.

Again, not this case - not this concern

You all want a strong nasty govt and rigid rule authoritarianism (amazingly/absurdly misrepresented as states rights).

Vox Populi = rigid rule authoritarianism? Maybe in Philly.

But I wonder, what would you cry if the hardass policies you favor from afar were brought to bear on you? Everybody's real quick to govern others and take away tolerant policies... until those policies affect them. I hope you all never need to face the question of abortion, because I think you'd all show yourselves to be incredible hypocrites.

So the 7-11 was out of rubbers Prom Night. We get it.