Posted on 10/31/2005 3:32:05 PM PST by neverdem
So what are his Down-Side issues?
In other words, WHY is the the third nominee? Why not the first?
How old is Ginsberg, and how is her health?
Well, I should hope so, though the word "even" sounds a little out of place. Rehnquist always seemed to be the weakest of the three mostly reliable conservatives. Though, that may have been due to some of the strategery he had to pull as the CJ to contain the liberals damage, like voting with the liberals so he could pick the writer of the majority opinion, etc.
Karl Rove for President in 2008!
LOL! For the rats, liberals, and left, this has turned into a very, very scary Halloween.
Hey Rats... BOO!
You're absolutely right...we need Alito and one more.
Actually, keeping attention on corruption and (sometimes) incompetence is usually the best strategery for Republicans.
Fortunately Alito was not under oath, or Fitzgerald could launch a two-year investigation into whether he committed perjury (if his mother's birthday actually is in December). Alternatively, if Alito was right and Bush got it wrong, Alito's mother may have been upset while watching the announcement, so the 'Rats would have a new slogan: Bush lied...Mama cried!
Yeah, I love how quivering respect for stare decicis somehow is an overarching goal only now that the Marxist wannabes have been raping and pillaging the Constitution for 60 years. And somehow, respect for precedent that has stood only 60-70 years is so much more critical than respect for the precedents that held sway for the previous 160. The latter would seem superior to me both in terms of chronology and duration, but not so with the liberals.
Dude... even afeter a "huge" double-nomination year, the Court is going from 4-2-3 (Left-Center-Right) to 4-1-4... Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer are all still there, and Kennedy is now the sole "Centrist swing vote"... not exactly a rout for us, or anything.
(Sorry to rain on the parade, but IMHO, they still have the advantage, since Kennedy is rarely on "our" side. I'm also intrigued by the venom the Left unleashes for this very small change in the balance. It's not like it went from 4-2-3 to 2-2-5!)
That's faulty reasoning. One doesn't have to disagree with Roe to vote with PA in Casey. The two cases were about different issues.
1. Individuals
2. Employers
3. States
4. Feds
5. Foreigners
6. Drug Warriors
7. Any legislation approved of by MADD.
no doubt it is not over...but a step in the right direction
Good question. I can see Roberts getting in there first...and Alito being the second choice.
The previous nominee was a disaster and there is no rational explanation. Let's just pretend it didn't happen.
Things won't really start happening until Bush puts Luttig and Karen Williams on the Court, to replace Stevens and Witchberg. It could happen!
Maybe Kennedy will follow the crowd. I wouldn't count on it, but one can dream.
Today I decided, for at least the day, not to be mad at President Bush. I think I won't be mad at President Bush tomorrow either. I might give him the whole week off from me being mad at him, I'm in such a good mood about this. Roberts & Miers looked so dismal. Roberts & Alito shine like a diamond.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL NEW JERSEY v. JOHN FARMERNote that Alito applied Part II-B of Carhart to the New Jersey ban on partial birth abortion. He agreed the ban placed an undue burden on the woman's ability to choose the method of abortion. He gave no challenge to the notion of abortion as a protected right.Filed July 26, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
ALITO, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.
I do not join Judge Barry's opinion, which was never necessary and is now obsolete. That opinion fails to discuss the one authority that dictates the result in this appeal, namely, the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 WL 825889 (U.S. June 28, 2000). Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent. I write briefly to explain why Carhart requires us to affirm the decision of the District Court in this case. This is an appeal by the New Jersey State Legislature from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey holding the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, 2A:65A-5 et seq., unconstitutional and permanently enjoining enforcement of the Act. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 41 F. Supp. 2nd 478 (D.N.J. 1998). The New Jersey statute closely resembles statutes enacted in recent years in many other states.
On January 14, 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 S.Ct. 865 (2000), which presented the question of the constitutionality of a similar Nebraska statute. The Supreme Court recently held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional. Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 WL 825889 (U.S. June 28, 2000).
The Court based its decision on two grounds. First, in Part II-A of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. See 2000 WL 825889, *9-*14. Second, in Part II-B of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose the method most commonly used for second trimester abortions, the "dilation and evacuation" (D & E) method. See 2000 WL 825889, *14-*18.
Under Carhart, the decision of the District Court must be affirmed. First, the New Jersey statute, like its Nebraska counterpart, lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. Without such an exception, the New Jersey statute is irreconcilable with Part II-A of Carhart.
Second, the Supreme Court's holding in Part II-B of Carhart is also applicable here. As noted, in that portion of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska statute applied, not only to the "dilation and extraction" or D & X procedure, but also to the more commonly used D & E procedure. The wording of the relevant provisions of the Nebraska statute is nearly identical to that of the New Jersey statute. Thus, the Supreme Court's holding in Part II-B of its opinion in Carhart must be regarded as controlling in this case.
In light of this interpretation of the New Jersey statute, the Legislature's argument that the plaintiffs lack standing must fail. As noted above, the New Jersey statute must be interpreted, in light of Carhart, as applying to the D & E procedure, and the plaintiff physicians in this case perform that form of abortion. The Legislature's argument that this case is not ripe because the New Jersey statute has not been authoritatively interpreted by the state courts or state enforcement officials must also fail. In view of the interpretation in Carhart, there is no reason to wait for interpretation by state officials or judges.
In a post-Carhart filing, the New Jersey Legislature has urged us to certify questions concerning the interpretation of the New Jersey statute to the state supreme court. In Carhart, however, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down a similar request for certification by the Attorney General of Nebraska. 2000 WL 825889, *18. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to deny certification in Carhart must be regarded as controlling here, both with respect to the Legislature's request for certification and with respect to its closely related argument that the District Court erred in refusing to abstain pursuant to Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. , 312 U.S. 496 (1941).
In conclusion, Carhart compels affirmance of the decision of the District Court.
By contrast, when Emilio Garza voted with the majority to strike down an abortion restriction, he said it this way: "For the second time in my judicial career, I am forced to follow a Supreme Court opinion that I believe to be inimical to the Constitution."
I disagree that either man had to apply an unconstitutional precedent. They in fact swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to apply anything that contractdicts it. That point aside, however--at least with Garza we knew his true opinion, that he felt forced to uphold a precedent he considered unconstitutional. With Alito, his opinion of Roe V. Wade is anyone's guess.
Forgot the spellcheck.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
One problem with that notion is that any judge who openly goes against clear precedent--no matter how wrong that precedent is and no matter how clearly he explains its wrongness--is guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. So a judge who does so imposes considerable extra legal expense on everyone to no lasting end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.