No Right To Abortion, Alito Wrote...

[bridgit]

(CBS/AP) "Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, wrote in 1985 that he's a lifelong conservative and that he believes "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

He also expressed opposition to racial and ethnic quotas."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/14/politics/main1041728.shtml

here's the part i do not get, and i am a catholic; but if it is at all entertain-able that a woman has no constitutional right to an abortion...call me simple; how & why is it not equally maintainable that she does :shrug:

free our judiciary of politics!!! end the notion of right-wing & left-wing jurisprudence say i

[patrice]

1. So, are you saying, if there isn't a right to begin with, how can it be

negated?

I think it's about Privacy and Discrimination; how are vasectomies paid for? And other forms of birth-control. If the Fed govt is in the business of subsidizing in any manner, i.e.saying how its medical dollars are spent, then why is Abortion singled out? What about other kinds gynecological and whatever-the-male-equivalent-of-that-is procedures? - all kinds of medical procedures may affect innocent others, and, of course, fetuses, why aren't they of concern?

[bridgit]

2. we have a right to medical procedures, i cannot endorse to save...

entry into an tight fitting evening gown. but it is 'on the table' as a procedure, and so, is easy for me to reckon as an option yes imo

my further sense is that as woman we have that as an inalienable right yes again

[patrice]

3. Exactly, so why are we being Infantalized by the Government?

Votes. This issue would have gone away long ago were it not such a vote getting cow.

[bridgit]

5. that sounds right to me...

my intent is to start voting republicans out of office election 2006

[dsc]

9. actually

many if not most doctors require, yes require as in make the patient provide proof of, notification of spouses before they will perform a vasectomy. In addition, most if not nearly all insurance will not cover elective vasectomies.

[Czolgosz]

4. This is just the tip of the Alito iceberg

He's an extremist on many issues:

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991). Instead of following the law, he tried to let the politicians re-write the Constitution to restrict a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), where he tried to ignore almost 70 years of cases which had clearly decided the scope of Congress's authority. Here's a bonus: Judge Alito doesn't think Congress has the authority to regulate private citizens' ownership of machine guns.

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in Banks v. Beard, 399 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2005), where he tried to re-write the law so prisoners didn't have access to newspapers or family photos.

Finally, read Judge Alito's dissenting opinions in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996), and Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997), where Judge Alito served as an apologist for corporate racial and gender discrimination.

Even Judge Alito's Republican-dominated court of appeals and our Supreme Court thought Judge Alito's ideas were radical, out of the mainstream, and maybe a little bit crazy.

Envision an America where each of these dissenting opinions by Judge Alito has become the universal law of the land, and you will know why he must be stopped.

Plus, he's lied to Congress before so why should anyone trust him this time? Here's an account of his lie to Congress:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company. . . . lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant" in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee.

Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal . . . ''I just started seeing Vanguard after Vanguard, and I almost fell to the floor," she said in an interview at the Jamaica Plain home she shares with a friend after losing her own home in the course of the prolonged litigation. ''I just couldn't believe that it could be so blatant."

In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge, he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

. . . .

In the 1990 questionnaire, Alito was asked how he would resolve potential conflicts of interest. He responded: I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

[bridgit]

6. there it is, friend, this guy is an odd one...

:hi:

[patrice]

7. Thank You!! Thank You! That's the kind of stuff I like to be able to

cite in a letter. You are very generous!

I'll blog it elsewhere too.

[Czolgosz]

8. Those are just a few examples from his more notorious dissenting opinions

Here is a more complete analysis: <http://media.pfaw.org/stc/AlitoPreliminary.pdf>

[patrice]

10. Thanks again.