I'm pleased, not the least because he seems to very pro-First Amendment:
In the 2001 case, the 3rd Circuit struck down on First Amendment grounds the anti-harassment policy adopted by the State College Area School District in Pennsylvania. The policy, which prohibited harassment on the basis of "one's actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other personal characteristics," had been challenged by two children who said they feared it would get them into trouble if they gave voice to their religious belief that "homosexuality is a sin."
The 3rd Circuit overturned the policy because, in Judge Alito's words, "there is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause." Alito's opinion also cited a 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of public-school students in Iowa to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. In that ruling, Alito noted, the justices had said that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Hopefully, he feels similarly about the inappropriateness of the government regulating political speech via campaign finance "reform."
The overturning of Roe v. Wade and related decisions should be a scary proposition for the state organization. Roe gives women the freedom to vote GOP without worrying about loss of liberties. Without Roe, every GOP candidate for the state legislature or state senate will run under threat of an abortion ban, and a lot of women are going to defect at the ballot box. Do we really think many women are going to keep voting GOP knowing that it might lead to themselves or their daughters losing access to contraception or abortion?
One, I don't think voting for the GOP automatically means anything like allowing "themselves or their daughters losing access to contraception or abortion?" Every GOP candidate makes up their own mind on abortion, just as does every Democrat candidate. Do you think supposedly Pro-Life Democrats like Mike Frerichs are going to lose votes?
Second, is there a better way to decide the abortion issue than at the ballot box? Let's fight this battle out in the open, in the arena of ideas. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not afraid of the GOP losing votes because of abortion. If it happens, so be it. But I don't think it will, and if it does, at least we're losing votes for a good cause.
In the "arena of ideas" I think it's already been decided--a majority consistently says that abortion should be legal. I'm serious when I say that I think Roe has let the GOP attract a lot of women who support conservative causes, and that in a post-Roe world a lot more women are going to become single issue voters. I think when Frerichs can vote to ban abortion then yes, Frerichs will lose votes. Worse, high-income and high-education women tend to skew pro-choice, which could cause fund raising problems with professional women and organizations with professional women as members.
A lot of abortion related poll results:
Polling Report: Abortion
In the “arena of ideas” I think it's already been decided”“a majority consistently says that abortion should be legal.
Thanks, but for me the arena of ideas isn't polling, but elections between candidates with different positions. Elections matter. Polls are interesting, but only in that they provide some insight into elections.
I respect that you think the polling indicates majority support for legal abortion, and that you think there'll be a pro-choice backlash if Roe is overturned. I disagree with your analysis in that I doubt there are really all that many who will become single-issue abortion voters who aren't already there. It's not like abortion hasn't been portrayed as a life-and-death issue by both sides in recent elections.
Wait a minute, anon. I thought the GOP was sweeping thru the national elections because people were fired up about Roe v Wade? I have heard some folks from the left say that the GOP doesn't really want Roe overturned because it keeps the base fired up.
Or are you saying that just in ILLINOIS, the anti-abortion plank won't sell?
It's a good thing the Warren court didn't allow the "arena of ideas" to decide desegregation cases in the South. Of course it was a good idea to let the court decide Bush v. Gore instead of allowing the "arena of ideas" to decide, right? etc. etc. etc...
Where exactly do conservatives draw the line between what's in the jurisdiction of the judiciary and what is supposed to be left up to the voters? Seems awfully politically motivated to me. Whatever is convenient for protection of political power?
I agree that polls don't tell the whole story. It's all speculation, and there's only one way to find out. The Law of Unintended Consequences gets us all in the end!
It's a good thing the Warren court didn't allow the “arena of ideas” to decide desegregation cases in the South. Of course it was a good idea to let the court decide Bush v. Gore instead of allowing the “arena of ideas” to decide, right? etc. etc. etc”¦
If it had been left to elections, then the South would have been desegregated in 1961 by JFK or 1964-5 by LBJ at the latest. I'm not saying that waiting the extra years would have been a good thing, but the problem would have been solved by elections eventually, and I think some would have us believe that the Supreme Court was the only way that problem could have been solved. That said, I think the voting rights, Jim Crow laws, and denial of franchise issues were clearly appropriate for the courts to address.
And the Bush v. Gore race was settled by elections. Every recount showed Bush winning, even those months after the fact. The court should never have gotten involved, but if I remember correctly, the Gore campaign sued to get the Florida courts involved, and the Bush campaign took it to the Feds. It should have never gone to court in the first place, and it was bad for the Country that it did - it undermined faith in our elections, in the courts, and has given rise to an entire tinfoil-hat brigade who are convinced that Bush stole the election.
Where exactly do conservatives draw the line between what's in the jurisdiction of the judiciary and what is supposed to be left up to the voters? Seems awfully politically motivated to me. Whatever is convenient for protection of political power?
The judiciary should get involved when a duly elected legislature passes a law that oversteps the bounds of government authority based on what's written in the Constitution. Some would say that abortion and desegregating schools fall into that category, and I respect that opinion, but I disagree. My view is that the Constitution specifically limits the power of government to infringe upon the enumerated rights in the Constitution. It's the role of the Courts to enforce those limits. In the absence of clearly deliniated rights within the Constitution, We the People can either elect legislatures who don't infringe upon those rights, or amend the Constitution to enumerate them.
Original Anon here again. redstate--yes, I was talking about the Illinois GOP specifically, but any swing states could suffer from women defecting from the GOP. Roe makes abortion a theoretical issue, like gun control to non-gun-owners or gay marriage to heterosexuals. Once Roe is gone the debate will move closer to home.
First he has to get on the court. Then we won't know how far he will go in voting against abortion if he will. Then we don't know if there is enough votes on the court to throw the balance against the abortion and how far. Will they vote to overturn all abortions or just say partial birth or require parental notifcation. Then it may take years for case's that the court thinks full fills the requirements to make a decision on the abortion issues to get to the court because the groups envolved won't file suit to bring them unless they are strong case's. Then the decision will be left up to the states. I might see some change in my life time.
My view is that the Constitution specifically limits the power of government to infringe upon the enumerated rights in the Constitution. It's the role of the Courts to enforce those limits. In the absence of clearly deliniated rights within the Constitution, We the People can either elect legislatures who don't infringe upon those rights, or amend the Constitution to enumerate them.
Limiting the govt's power to infringe upon our rights is exactly what Roe (for example) is about. It also what Brown v. Board was about. It was not, in any way, what Bush v. Gore was about (I won't go into that debate here, but let's just say it is not in any way clear the voters chose Bush in Florida).
If I am a homosexual and I want to get married to my partner of 20 years, the constitution can easily be read to support that right. There is no segregation in the consitution by sexual preference. If the government does not allow me to marry, is it not infringing upon my right to self-expression, to freedom of religion, to pursuit of happiness (admittedly not in Constitution, but a basis of our government)?
Perhaps the difference here is in perspective. My take has always been that a citizen has all rights unless the consitution forbids it (impossible), or the legislature has specifically passed a law taking that right away. The courts then judge those laws and decide if they are constitutional. So Roe, for example, was decided on the basis of the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The states had created laws making the practice illegal, thereby taking that right away from the women in those states. The court intervened on behalf of the women, and disallowed the government from infringing upon their constitutional right to liberty.
So the glass is half full, the glass is half empty? You see the courts granting new rights, I see the courts protecting rights that have (theoretically at least) been there from the beginning?
the Brown case was enforcing the Constitutional provisions which were approved by the several states. the Brown case did not find any new "rights".
The Gore Bush case rests on another constitutional principle, namely that the state legislatures shall determine the manner of selection of the electors. The Bush Gore case rested primarily on this issue. SEVEN of the supreme court justices, including Steven Breyer, agreed with this argument.
The guy has a nickname of "Scalito" - what else does a good conservative really need to know about the guy?
The Bush-Gore case forced an end to the recount and was a 5-4 decision along ideological (political) lines. Regardless of their posturing on electors, it was an election decider (if there is such a term :))
"the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The states had created laws making the practice illegal, thereby taking that right away from the women in those states"
Of course, some on the other side might say the court stepped in and took away the right of millions of children to be born.
by a 7-2 decision, including Breyer, the supreme court said that the Florida supreme court had violated the constitution in the way they handled the election recount. this was clearly not a state's rights issue but rather an interpretation of article II.
"Um hi there" has absolutely no grasp of the Bush v. Gore case, and it's clear he's never read it. Bush v. Gore was not based on Article II, but on a completely novel interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment which the five-justice (not seven) conservative majority dreamed up to stop the counting of votes.
Those votes were being recounted according to settled Florida state law, which the Florida Supreme Court had interpretted pursuant to its authority as the final arbiter of the meaning of Florida law. (The U.S. Supreme Court cannot tell the Florida Supreme Court what a Florida statute means.)
Bush v. Gore is the most rank example of conservative judicial hypocrisy. Republicans are for states' rights unless state law means counting more Gore votes. They are against activist judges unless they're needed to appoint a president. They favor a narrow reading of the 14th Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) unless they can contort it to steal an election.
Mr. Lewis,
I don't think you read anything I wrote above about Bush v. Gore.
The guy has a nickname of “Scalito” - what else does a good conservative really need to know about the guy?
That's not his nickname that's a name the lib's have given him to define him as to conservative.
I read your mistaken view that all of the media recounts confirmed a Bush win. That's incorrect, but even if true, it does nothing to fix the utter hypocrisy and legal error of Bush v. Gore.
I'd like to see you try to defend Bush v. Gore from your current posture as a "strict constructionist" who believes in states' right and who believes that judges should not get involved in political decisions.
I read your mistaken view that all of the media recounts confirmed a Bush win. That's incorrect, but even if true, it does nothing to fix the utter hypocrisy and legal error of Bush v. Gore.
I'd like to see you try to defend Bush v. Gore from your current posture as a “strict constructionist” who believes in states' right and who believes that judges should not get involved in political decisions.
You're quite determined this evening to see only what you'd like to see.
I wrote this: "And the Bush v. Gore race was settled by elections. Every recount showed Bush winning, even those months after the fact. The court should never have gotten involved, but if I remember correctly, the Gore campaign sued to get the Florida courts involved, and the Bush campaign took it to the Feds. It should have never gone to court in the first place, and it was bad for the Country that it did - it undermined faith in our elections, in the courts, and has given rise to an entire tinfoil-hat brigade who are convinced that Bush stole the election."
It spells out quite clearly why the courts should not have gotten involved, but that goes for the state court as well, which if you're going to claim that the Fed court was partisan, you have to say the same thing about the FL court - which I doubt you'll admit. The courts should have never gotten involved - neither the state courts nor the federal courts. There were procedures in place for the recounts and certifications, and getting the courts involved was changing the rules after the election.
Please show me a single credible media recount that showed Gore winning under any of the scenarios for which Gore was pushing during the recount.
When you say that the courts in general should have stayed out, you are painting with too broad a brush. There was a genuine dispute as to the meaning of Florida's recount statutes. It was a matter of state law for state courts to decide which did not present any basis for federal jurisdiction until the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court invented one out of whole cloth by giving an impossibly contorted reading to the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment which most of them had spent their legal careers derogating. Bush v. Gore legitimately belonged in state court, but not federal court.
As to the media recounts, the following may be instructive:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4109842,00.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/03/recount/index.html
There were procedures put into place by the elected representatives of the people, and both the Florida and Federal courts sought to intervene in order to overrule the processes approved by the voters and their representatives. Neither was appropriate.
And I asked for credible media recount, and you bring me the Guardian and Salon, and in both articles you cite, the "unofficial" recount isn't yet complete yet they've seen enough to declare Gore the winner. That's about all I need to know about how credible they are.
True to form, you just now summarily decreed that that it was somehow "inappropriate" for the Florida courts to resolve a dispute about the meaning of their own state's recount statutes. Just a conclusory repitition of something I've already refuted.
Again, it has always been the role of state courts to resolve genuine disputes over state law. That is what the Florida courts were doing. The U.S. Supreme Court had no authority to intervene in Bush v. Gore until it invented an entirely new theory of the 14th Amendment in order to defeat Florida's interpretation of its own law.
Bush didn't win? This change's everything. I guess we will have to leave Iraq.
The very intersting thing will happen if abortion does come up before the court again. Scalia and Thomas, along with Alito, all base their rulings on history and precedent. That is why they hated the Roe v. Wade decision in the begining, and the precursor to that decision Griswold v. Conn., which first established a right to privacy within the constitutional framework. But now Griswold is over fifty years old, and a precedent that many, many courts have used to rule on thousands of cases. It would be against everything that Scalia, Thomas and Alito believe in to overturn the right to privacy ruling. I guess we will see if these three are truly what they state in lectures and written opinions that they are, or if they are the true judicial activists and overturn 50 years and thousands of cases worth of precednet to apease the base of a political party that appointed them. And, honestly, I don't know the answer to that question. My guess would be that Roberts won't, Scalia will, and Alito is up in the air.
Law student-- your right, that's why you never know as a conservative if you send someone that is a strict constitutionalist if they will help you or not. The Judge could find that they don't want to change precedence to keep continuity. But at least you know were you stand.
The 5-4 majority in B v G stopped the recount, the 7-2 just declared the way of recounting to be unconstitutional along equal protection lines (from my recollection).
Either way, it was the 5-4 decision that handed the election to Bush. Reading it any other way is erroneous and disingenuous. The votes could have been recounted.
It is also wise to keep in mind that the majority in the 5-4 declared that what they were doing was not to have any effect on any other case ever - a trademark of judicial activists who know they are overstepping. Otherwise I think every other election that had ever been held in Florida (including Jeb's wins) would have been ruled unconstitutional.
Talk about your double standards. But I guess it's par for the course in conservative land. Say one thing when convenient, do the other when pressed, and always have an irrational jusitification on hand when needed. Sigh.
Goerge Bush is president you will have to live with it.