Hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito

[nbcrusader]

good point.

i also think the country would benefit from a real discussion on abortion.

With the current state of our politcal process, I'm not sure we will ever have a real discussion.

 

[the rockin edge]

i also think the country would benefit from a real discussion on abortion.

With the current state of our politcal process, I'm not sure we will ever have a real discussion.

unfortunantly that's probably true

 

[deep]

What would this "real discussion" include?

 

[nbcrusader]

Democrats force delay on high court nominee vote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats on Monday forced a one-week delay on a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but the 55-year-old conservative was still expected to be confirmed by the full Republican-led Senate.

Why?

Can't we get on with the business of running the country?

 

[Irvine511]

Democrats force delay on high court nominee vote



Why?

Can't we get on with the business of running the country?

because somewhere someone is getting a blow job.

 

[deep]

Why?

Can't we get on with the business of running the country?

Why?

Can't

we = neo-con Mafia (forget the plantation)

get on with the business of ruining the country?

 

[deep]

Bill seeks abortion's end in Ohio

Backers say it could help overturn Roe v. Wade

By Jon Craig

COLUMBUS - A Cincinnati legislator's bill to ban abortion in Ohio drew widespread support here Wednesday from a dozen groups eager to trigger a review of Roe v. Wade by what they see as an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

At a Statehouse news conference marking this week's 33rd anniversary of the landmark 1973 decision, opponents called on the Ohio General Assembly to debate a bill banning all abortions.

Introduced nine months ago by Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Mount Lookout, House Bill 228 would make it a felony to carry out abortions or transport a woman across state lines to have one. It would allow abortions only to save the life of a mother.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, warned that anti-abortion advocates "are using the states as laboratories" in their efforts to overturn Roe. Indiana, too, is considering a ban on abortions, and other states are adding restrictions to when abortions are allowed.

Mark Harrington, executive director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest, called Brinkman's bill a test case. Anti-abortion groups say that a Supreme Court reshaped by President Bush - with new justices John Roberts and, expected soon, Samuel Alito - will be inclined to overturn Roe.

 

[nbcrusader]

Two US Senate Democrats break ranks, back Alito

Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, joined Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who had earlier declared his support.

 

[nbcrusader]

Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

 

[deep]

GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island also announced that he would vote against Alito's confirmation. Chafee, a self-described "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican," is the only member of the Republican Party so far to announce that he will vote against the conservative judge.

history will record
he had the courage to do the right thing

 

[nbcrusader]

Anti-Alito filibuster soundly defeated

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Judge Samuel Alito stands just one step away from a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court after a spirited ninth-inning campaign by some Democratic senators to block his nomination fizzled Monday evening.

The final vote on Alito's nomination is now scheduled for Tuesday morning, and, with at least 57 senators on board, approval is virtually assured.

Alito's supporters in the Senate, as expected, cleared the final roadblock Monday when senators, by a vote of 72-25, decided to cut off debate and proceed to a final vote, rebuffing an attempt by a cadre of liberal senators to talk the nomination to death.

 

[Irvine511]

 

[nbcrusader]

And they say the GOP envokes fearmongering...


Actually, if Roe is overturned, it would be the best thing for the Democrats since Watergate.

It would energize the party and maybe they could even win offices.

 

[Irvine511]

And they say the GOP envokes fearmongering...


Actually, if Roe is overturned, it would be the best thing for the Democrats since Watergate.

It would energize the party and maybe they could even win offices.

i was being ironic. hopefully a little bit humorous.

yes, the end of roe would be good for the dems.

the real damage that Alito -- while i disagree, i can't think of a real reason that he shouldn't be confirmed as i tend to think we need to defer to the executive here, this is why elections really are important -- would and could do to the fabric of american society is his deference to executive power and his apparent willingness to further enable president bush to transform into King George.

 

[melon]

Why?

Can't we get on with the business of running the country?

In most countries, being an opposition party actually means opposing the policies of the party in power. Funny how that's such a foreign concept here in America these days.

Kerry et al. knew that such a filibuster would never work, so it was a safe bet that having one wouldn't involve Frist changing the rules to end filibusters. However, such a filibuster attempt, at least, makes the party faithful happy. However, I tend to say it's a game of "too little, too late," as you have to wonder why the "opposition party" bothered to wait until his confirmation was assured to actually start "opposing." Ah...how trivial American politics looks at times.

Melon

 

[karls77]

He was approved by a margin of 58 to 42. I'd really like to see the breakdown of who voted for and against.

 

[nbcrusader]

history will record
he had the courage to do the right thing

His action will only be remembered in the next primary - then forgotten.

 

[financeguy]

There could be trouble ahead.



http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060131-090347-1251r.htm

 

[Irvine511]

There could be trouble ahead.



http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060131-090347-1251r.htm

 

[Sherry Darling]

NBC, it's only fair to accuse Irvine of fearmongering if he was suggesting something that had not previously happened. What he's implying DID happen and will again if (which I think still very unlikely) abortion is made completely illegal.

For those who want to illegalize abortion totally: what makes you think making it illegal will make it go away? We actually tried that before, and it was about as effective as prohibition.

(WTF am I doing on an abortion thread???)

 

[the rockin edge]

He was approved by a margin of 58 to 42. I'd really like to see the breakdown of who voted for and against.

breakdown of votes

 

[nbcrusader]

NBC, it's only fair to accuse Irvine of fearmongering if he was suggesting something that had not previously happened.

Fearmongering has been used against the GOP regarding the fight against terrorism. I do believe that we have previously experienced acts of terror.

 

[Sherry Darling]

That's besides the point. You're working from a "tit for tat" place here, rather than from an analytical or problem-solving place. Hence no attempt to respond to my point that prohibiting abortion, as evidenced by history, is unlikely to solve that problem.

 

[nbcrusader]

That's besides the point. You're working from a "tit for tat" place here, rather than from an analytical or problem-solving place. Hence no attempt to respond to my point that prohibiting abortion, as evidenced by history, is unlikely to solve that problem.

That was the point of my interchange with Irvine. He even stated that he was being a bit humorous.

If you want to start a thread on abortion, do so. I'm not sure an independent evaluation of my interchange with Irvine is the best place to start.

 

[Irvine511]

okay, i'm not going to post the pick, but i'll leave the link here:

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/back-alley-abortion.jpg

as for Sherry and NBC, there's elements of truth to both. in the terms of the argument/discussion being held here and a reference to how both political parties use fear to motivate the base, i was being flippant, just a bit.

however, comparing terrorism to abortion is way, way incorrect, and the fearmongering used to justify the "war on terror" is far more suspect than the years of evidence of back-alley abortions and their disasterous effects.

besides, not many of us know someone who has been in a terrorist attack. i'm willing to bet that ALL of us know a woman who has had an abortion.

 

[angel_of_L.A.]

does he remind anyone else of Milhouse?

Yes he does!!!

 

[nbcrusader]

as for Sherry and NBC, there's elements of truth to both. in the terms of the argument/discussion being held here and a reference to how both political parties use fear to motivate the base, i was being flippant, just a bit.

however, comparing terrorism to abortion is way, way incorrect, and the fearmongering used to justify the "war on terror" is far more suspect than the years of evidence of back-alley abortions and their disasterous effects.

besides, not many of us know someone who has been in a terrorist attack. i'm willing to bet that ALL of us know a woman who has had an abortion.

Why is it when the principle applies both ways, we get a "but my side is more important" without any substance to the argument?

And I would suggest that we all have witnessed a terror attack (perhaps even live on television), but few of us actually know someone who has had a "back alley" abortion.

 

[yolland]

I do, and I'd be willing to bet quite a bit you do too, but don't know it. The thing is that these are mostly older women who had abortions pre-Roe, and they are even less likely than younger women to discuss it openly. Just because it's legal doesn't mean women feel safe talking to anyone else, even their close female friends and relatives, about it.

 

[Irvine511]

Why is it when the principle applies both ways, we get a "but my side is more important" without any substance to the argument?

And I would suggest that we all have witnessed a terror attack (perhaps even live on television), but few of us actually know someone who has had a "back alley" abortion.

there's no merit to applying "the principle" to two entirely different situations. none.

your second statement is probably one only a male could make. and i say that as not only a male, but a male who is not in danger of getting anyone pregnant, ever.

 

[anitram]

your second statement is probably one only a male could make. and i say that as not only a male, but a male who is not in danger of getting anyone pregnant, ever.

No kidding.

Because a woman who went through something like that would run to a man who is firmly set against her right to choose so she could share in the intimate details of the event. Let's get real here.