Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
John G. Roberts, Jr. Nominated to Succeed Sandra Day O'Connor

By TheNoxx in News
Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:46:38 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

As reported by several sources, Bush has nominated John G. Roberts, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, the highest federal court in the United States.

While he's not as ardently conservative as some of Bush's previous judiciary nominees have been, his short case history leaves him cast in a slightly unpredictable light. He led the anti-trust case against Microsoft and supported the law criminalizing flag burning. He argued against Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that incepted the legality of abortion, but has publicly stated that the ruling is "the settled law of the land", and he won't try to change it because of his personal viewpoint. Other instances prove fairly odd, ranging from civil rights of 12-year-old girls with french fries in the subway to clergy-led prayer at public school graduations.


In addition to receiving unanimous support from the Republican aisle of the Senate, Roberts also received endorsements from a few Democratic officials, including Senator Patrick Leahy (the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee), who asked for "the cooperation of the nominee and the administration" in the confirmation process while adding that Roberts would still receive vigorous scrutiny. Many national publications have already lauded his record and character, however, the running major criticism is that his time on the bench has been too short to produce a sufficient representation of his character.
The relatively small sampling of his activity as a judge has not kept O'Connor from remarking upon her successor as "first rate" and is further quoted: "I have watched Judge Roberts since he has been an advocate before our court, and I and my colleagues have been enormously impressed with his scholarship and his skills."


He joined the appellate court for the District of Columbia in 2003 after two years of being blocked by the Democratic Senate, and in the time since has voted in support of the use of military tribunals in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, but in doing so also ruled that the rights afforded to prisoners of war in the Geneva Convention do not apply to al'Qaeda and its members. Last year, he helped overturn a judgement awarding $959 million to American prisoners of war that had been detained in in Iraq for inhumane treatment, ruling that the US had never sanctioned legal action for damages against foreign governments. On the subject of the environment, Roberts issued a dissent in a case involving the Endangered Species Act protection of a rare amphibian in California which ruled against the commercial developer plaintiff.

By far the most bizarre case ocurred when he joined in the unanimous decision of a panel that the arrest and handcuffing of a 12 year old girl for eating a single french fry in a subway station in Washington did not constitute a breach of her personal rights.

In private practice, he argued on behalf of companies before the Supreme Court for the legal right to end "illegal" strikes with contempt charges. In 1990, he argued successfully in front of the Supreme Court in a case which decided that private citizens cannot sue the US federal government over environmental violations unless they could prove that the government's actions had directly affected them. According to CourtingInfluence.net, his only lobbying activities have been on behalf of various peanut growers' associations, and his current net worth is $3,782,275. Roberts is also a practicing Catholic.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o sources
o John G. Roberts, Jr.
o "the settled law of the land"
o national publications
o character
o quoted
o CourtingIn fluence.net
o Also by TheNoxx


Display: Sort:
John G. Roberts, Jr. Nominated to Succeed Sandra Day O'Connor | 254 comments (215 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden)
JOHN G. RAPED AND MURDERED YOUR WIFE (1.13 / 15) (#8)
by Lanes Inexplicably Closed to Traffic on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:19:59 PM EST



careful now (none / 0) (#9)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:24:50 PM EST

remember what happened the last time you played this gmae with him...

The reason for this is simple: we're all full of shit ~ circletimessquare
[ Parent ]

lol what (none / 1) (#12)
by Lanes Inexplicably Closed to Traffic on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:35:41 PM EST



[ Parent ]
what (none / 0) (#13)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:38:33 PM EST

lol?

The reason for this is simple: we're all full of shit ~ circletimessquare
[ Parent ]

Should have been (none / 0) (#39)
by LodeRunner on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:51:00 AM EST

EFIW ROUY DEPAR DNA DEREDRUM .G HNOJ

Props for the Memento reference. I just watched it this week -- yep, 5 years late -- following a recommendation I got here on K5.

Really amazing movie.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

glad you enjoyed it! n/t (1.50 / 2) (#97)
by frijolito on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:46:26 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Well, you know my wife (none / 1) (#46)
by Tragedy of the Kurons on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:07:09 AM EST

I call that "passing the litmus test."

"That is a mean website. Some people are just mean and rude."
[ Parent ]

Litmus Test (3.00 / 2) (#11)
by hackwrench on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:34:16 PM EST

The Bush administration has just declared that their test for appointing justices is not a "litmus test". What does "litmus test" really mean and how is it different from just an ordinary test?

''litmus test'' (2.66 / 6) (#14)
by glor on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:53:22 PM EST

Litmus paper changes colors when exposed to acids or bases.  Typically acids turn it one color, bases turn it another.  You can buy litmus paper that works over all sorts of pH ranges.

Like most things, when applied to politics, the phrase becomes entirely devoid of meaning.

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
[ Parent ]

Issue v. Skill (3.00 / 5) (#17)
by TheNoxx on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:54:43 PM EST

A political "litmus test" refers to the using a single topic or issue to determine a candidate's eligibility for office. A standard test would look solely at their experience, knowledge, and character as qualifications.

[ Parent ]
It's like "activist judge" (2.66 / 6) (#47)
by mcc on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:40:15 AM EST

A "test" is one you approve of.

A "litmus test" is one you disapprove of.

The words used to mean something more meaningful, but that was so long ago it doesn't matter.

[ Parent ]

doubly disturbed (none / 1) (#27)
by Eight Star on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:08:55 PM EST

I'm not exactly sure why, but his lobbying for peanut growers is what I find most disturbing about him, and the fact that it is disturbs me even more.


It's just a shrewd move (3.00 / 2) (#61)
by Ignore Amos on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:30:23 PM EST

designed to garner support from Jimmy Carter.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

i always found it interesting (1.87 / 8) (#33)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:57:35 PM EST

that sandra day o'connor voted conservatively, except on the issue of abortion

it's easy for men to condemn abortion

such that even among social conservatives, women will probably tend to have more empathy for the plight of a woman who got pregnant by mistake, strictly because they can understand the situation far better than a man ever could

(and in the interest of family values, this hypothetical woman would be forced to raise a child alone that she does not want and therefore does not love? what are those vaunted family values again?)

i have an idea for you braindead social conservatives: women shouldn't condemn men because they have a dick, and men shouldn't condemn women because they have a womb

on the issue of abortion, that is what most socially conservative men do: they just don't fucking get what it is like to get pregnant by mistake (usually at the urging and insistence of some horny man, might i add, who won't be around to raise that child)

and this lack of empathy informs their opinion on abortion more than anything else, such that their opinion is effectively useless on the question of abortion

as for socially conservative women who condemn abortion, well, there were blacks before the civil war who thought their enslavement was natural too


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

it's not clear that she voted conservatively (2.80 / 5) (#34)
by aphrael on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:55:02 PM EST

on every other issue. She seemed to be a bit of a swinger, in fact.

[ Parent ]
Hard being right all the time? (3.00 / 3) (#50)
by kero on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:33:55 AM EST

"as for socially conservative women who condemn abortion, well, there were blacks before the civil war who thought their enslavement was natural too"

You are so sure you are right in your stance on abortion that anyone who opposes your view is just misguided or doesn't understand the issue? No way a woman could have serious ethical and moral issues over when life begins and what it means to terminate a pregnancy? Abortion is hard enough to discuss without automatically assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand the issue.

[ Parent ]
oh yeah, you're right (1.33 / 3) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:43:11 PM EST

forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't love rather than terminating a globule of cells is so much more of a loving arrangement

how could i be so misguided

clearly those who have more sympathy for a ball of cells rather than a living breathing woman, who equate her part in the whole arrangement as little more than breeding pod chamber, are so much more loving and sympathetic than me

if women laid eggs like lizards, you would win this argument

they don't

so i win

have a nice day moron

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Touche (3.00 / 3) (#76)
by kero on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:08:29 PM EST

In your poorly punctuated world there is just no way someone could possibly mistake a "globule of cells" for a human being. And once making that unthinkable mistake there is no way they could then be justified in thinking that terminating a human being may not be something that society should be doing willy-nilly instead of taking some responsibility for our actions? No, the very act of not being on your side makes them idiots who just don't understand.

You have pretty much missed the point though. I'm not anti-abortion, I am against assuming people who disagree with me have no possible logical reason for it and are dumb.

[ Parent ]
Welcome to the unloved middle (3.00 / 5) (#82)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:33:27 PM EST

where the leftists will attack you for being a right wing shill and the rightists attack you for not endorsing theocracy.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
Excuse me but, WTF (none / 1) (#83)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:53:15 PM EST

Are you trying to say we shouldn't yell our beliefs discuss things with eachother here anymore?

Cos', I mean thats what we're supposedly doing here, right?

The reason for this is simple: we're all full of shit ~ circletimessquare
[ Parent ]

hey you fucking moron (none / 1) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:28:21 PM EST

IT'S

A

FUCKING

GLOB

OF

CELLS!

it has no consciousness!

it is not human!

do you fucking understand?!

because those who don't understand that are willing to treat LIVING BREATHING ADULT HUMAN WOMEN LIKE UTTER SHIT

the balance of abuse of the sanctity of life LIES WITH THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES

they speak of having no regard for the consequences of your actions

like rich chicks fleeing to canada and europe to get their abortions, and poor chicks dying with coathangers up their twats or forced to support children they don't love and have no economic means to support and who got pregnant from men who pressured them and are now long gone

compassionate conservativism my fucking ass!

more like FUCKING BLINDNESS TO REALITY, AND CHILDISH IDEALISM

conservatism is founded on hatred for real human being and the suffering they are in rather than attempting REAL LIFE solutions to their suffering, and are instead fixated on the death of innocent souls... read, FUCKING GLOBS OF CELLS WITH NO CONSCIOUSNESS

social conservatism=hatred


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hey fucktard clear the placenta from your ears (none / 0) (#142)
by kero on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:01:01 AM EST

Or maybe your eyes and look at what was posted. I don't give a fuck if you think you are the savior of all women because you are so pro-abortion. But you're not really helping though because you are a zealot. Oh sure, you are amusing and offset one of the religous zelots on the other side, but that's about it.

Again and again you refuse to even consider that there is room on the other side of the argument for rationality. Does anyone know when that glob of cells becomes a human? If that GoC is a human at what point does it's rights equal those of the mother? There are real areas of uncertainty on both sides that will need to be cleared up before any kind of clarity can be reached on the topic. But you go ahead and refuse to listen to anyone on the other side, and probably people on your side. Your powers of rhetoric will surely win the day and all the moron's and confused thought-they-where-happy women come to their senses and realize you aren't really an asshole, you just play on on K5.

[ Parent ]
my pov (none / 0) (#178)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:49:28 AM EST

says that people decide on their own what to do

their pov says they decide what to do for other people

and i'm the zealot?

there are also morons who want to analyze the intentions of fundamentalist islamic militants before we can condemn them

guess what?

i already have enough evidence

i condemn them

and i condemn prolifers

for the same reason: they have the arrogance to decide for others

so you go on and continue condemning me

just bear in mind who you are not condemning

and where the value of words, rather than my personality, lies

fuck my personality, i couldn't give a fuck if it rubs you raw

i'm not here to make you like me

understand asshole?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So let me get this straight... (none / 0) (#238)
by ckaminski on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 12:43:56 PM EST

in all seriousness here...

Prolife == anti-abortion?  Right?

Because while I'm certainly prolife, I'm most definitely pro-choice...  

[ Parent ]

prolifer=everyone (none / 0) (#246)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 04:13:38 PM EST

but in the argument over abortion, prolife = not ( prochoice )

therefore, consider the context the word is used in before drawing more broad conclusions that have nothing to do with what i am saying


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You do realize (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by LilDebbie on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:56:39 PM EST

there's this thing called adoption.  I know this might sound crazy to you, but there are couples out there who can't have children of their own due to biological reasons but still want kids so they "adopt" them from mothers who don't want their kids.

The more you know!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

man i love this shit (none / 0) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:21:49 PM EST

so tell me if i got this straight:

rather than expel a glob of cells, you would rather:

force the woman to go to full term with a child, with all of the life altering social changes that goes with that

tell the woman it's ok to give up the child: the father is long gone, she doesn't have the economic means to support it, but, in perfectly callous disregard for anyone's emotions, especially the mothers, she can just give it away like an old pair of shoes?

that's what blows my mind about social conservatives, they speak so much of the sanctity of life, but their consideration lies for a glob of cells, and they are willing to treat a living breathing adult woman like utter shit and with utter disregard for her life... and of course HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ON THE ISSUE OF THE FATHER WHO GOT HER IN THE MESS

so do i about understand this mythical compassionate conservativism i hear so much about but never seemed to actually see until now?

fucking moron: you're nothing more than a shill for male chauvinism

that's what social conservatism means to me

bring out the coat hangers girls, the social conservatives are rising again, and in their eminent regard for compassion and the sanctity of life and taking resonsibility for the consequences of your actions, they'd rather see you bleed to death with a coat hanger up your twat

all it means is that the rich chicks will flee to canada or europe and get their abortions there, and poor chicks will be saddled with children they don't want, fathered by men who pushed them into sex and are long gone

dear social conservatives: how much evil will your hopeless idealism about human behavior allow before you learn?

how much suffering of women will you stomach because you have so much regard for a glob of protoplasm?

as far a si am concerned, social conservatism is the biggest evil around, and has no compassion, has no regard for life (A WOMAN'S LIFE) and certainly doesn't understand ANYTHING of the real life consequences of their actions and policies

fucking

morons


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Since you asked so nicely (3.00 / 2) (#89)
by LilDebbie on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:35:05 PM EST

A) We do have something to say about the father who got her into that mess. He is just as responsible as she is (biology aside) for the child.

B) with all of the life altering social changes that goes with that - exactly.

C) In case that last piece wasn't obvious enough, let me elucidate: we are disgusted by modern society's blasé view of sex and wish to bring back some of the consequences associated with it in order to bring society back in line - consider that coathanger up your twat an injection of fucking humility you godless heathens.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
ah you show your true colors ;-) (none / 0) (#107)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:13:43 PM EST

A) yeah right. he's 3 states away. he got her into the mess, she pays for it. but you keep up with the lipservice, it's very impressive, really.

B & C) how do you defeat your ideological opponents?

just let them talk ;-)

you can't say the words you just said above and expect people to have any sympathy for your concern for innocent dear unborn life

because your true colors are showing in your words above: you hate life

you're morally and ethically bankrupt

you're full of shit, and my position is the only caring and morally and intellectually honest position

in short, you lose

have a nice day ;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You know, in my personal experience (none / 0) (#100)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:48:52 PM EST

the women I knew who gave the children up for adoption ended up a lot more happy and sane at the end than the women I knew who had abortions.

This isn't the middle ages any more you know - they don't go branding pregnant chicks with scarlet letters and send them to nunneries. Each time I single woman I knew got pregnant everyone rallied around and supported her.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

what about the mother's life/ feelings? (none / 0) (#104)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:10:21 PM EST

it is more important to you that an unconcious blob go to term than the effect of that unwanted child on the woman's life?

why?

AND you expect the woman to just give birth to the child and just give it up like a pair of shoes?

that's compassionate conservatism in action? that's family values?

what a load of horsecrap

THINK for once

than let your idealism about unconscious blobs enter the fray

what the fuck is wrong with you that your compassion and concern for innocent life NOT EXTEND TO THE FUCKING LIVING BREATHING MOTHER?????????????????????


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Errr... (none / 0) (#109)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:20:48 PM EST

I think you replied to the wrong post, 'cause it was the health of the  mothers that I was talking about.

Nice rant tho.


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

interesting (none / 0) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:17:06 PM EST

"the women I knew who gave the children up for adoption ended up a lot more happy and sane at the end than the women I knew who had abortions."

you know blacks were happier and saner under slavery, once all that nastiness about freely choosing what to do with their own bodies was removed they were allowed to relax in the certainty that someone else had their best interests at heart when deciding what they should do with their own bodies

i'm so silly, thanks for correcting my lightheaded misinterpretations with your random anecdote


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Snort. (none / 0) (#143)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:13:41 AM EST

You know, I know at least four people, including a cousin, who were raised by adopted parents. I have two relatives who've given children up for adoption. I have friends who gave children up for adoption and I have relatives and friends who chose to be single mothers.

I'm sorry if their lives offend your preconceived notions of right and wrong.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

and i'm also sorry (none / 0) (#177)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:43:56 AM EST

that you think that your anecdotes give you the right to decide what to do with other people's lives


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
ROTFL (none / 0) (#185)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:46:08 AM EST

At what point did I say anything about deciding things for other people?

If you actually read what I wrote I was simply pointing out that adoption isn't the hate-filled slavery-based process you seem to think it is.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

ok, so you just have anecdotes without meaning? (none / 0) (#198)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 05:54:34 PM EST

or did you bring up your anecdotes to suggest an idea?

that's what i originally though

but now i'm confused

i thought you were trying to say something

now you say you are just saying nothing, just throwing out random stories with no connection to the issue at hand?

grow a fucking backbone, say something

because backing away from what you are trying to say, what you are implying with your bullshit anecdotes, doesn't mean you've defused anything i said, it means you've proved what i've said about you, because you are clearly backing away from making a statement now, because you see my words are correct about your pov

so you lose

have a nice day loser


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

globule of cells (none / 0) (#152)
by Anonymous Lemming on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:05:01 PM EST

Since you are a globule of cells, I guess you wouldn't mind if I terminated you?

[ Parent ]
i have a consciousness (none / 0) (#176)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:42:56 AM EST

any other brain dead obvious kindergarten level observation i can help you with?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Well, it's not obvious to me (none / 0) (#188)
by roystgnr on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 11:30:43 AM EST

But I suspect that to someone with your exceptional brilliance this is just another kindergarden level observation:  When (feel free to round to the nearest day) in the womb (or out, if I'm assuming too much) did you become conscious?

Since you seem to agree with my belief that this is the key question behind abortion, and you are in the habit of calling people who disagree with your views on abortion "brain dead", "childish", and "moron"s, I look forward to hearing the obvious answer which has nonetheless eluded me for so long.

[ Parent ]

black and white (none / 0) (#197)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 05:49:46 PM EST

both exist

within the subtle shades of grey in between

can you point at the point at which balck begins? at which white begins?

i can't

but according to you, that's a basis for denying the existence of balck or white

put another way: we can argue about where the line exists for 20 years

but that argument doesn't mean the line doesn't exist

understand?

because you seem to be saying that because we can't nail down exactly where the line is, there is no line

wrong


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Thank you for not calling me names (none / 0) (#217)
by roystgnr on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:10:18 AM EST

But you did invent an argument out of thin air and put it in my mouth - strange, since the statement I did make, "[consciousness] is the key question behind abortion" would seem to contradict the statements you made up.

Stripped of the straw men, your post boils down to "I don't know".  That's fine - I'm no biologist either... but do you at least know enough about the beginnings of consciousness to apply them to this problem?

"I don't know exactly, but I'm sure (or N% confident) it's after X weeks and before Y weeks" would be a start; and "currently at least X% of abortions occur before it and at least Y% occur after" would be even better.

[ Parent ]

there is a line (none / 0) (#219)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:49:08 AM EST

stop trying to argue against it's existence because you and i can't pin it down

there is a point at which the effect on the woman's life is more important than the nonconscious blob in her belly

if women laid eggs like lizards, you would win this argument

but they don't, so you don't

so stop trying to argue against the existence of the line because you and i can't pin it down

welcome to reality: no easy answers, no position where no one gets hurt

so drop the fucking idealism already and grow up and develop a real moral integrity about abortion: women have rights, and they trump the blob's rights sometimes

god or evolution created mammals, and so for a time, two entities are tied together, and you don't win any arguments on abortion by siding 100% with the mother's rights or 100% with the fetus's rights

idealistic uneducated extremes on the issue have no moral or intellectual authority over the question of abortion

women don't get abortions so they can go party at the disco the next day and get pregnant again

and the fucking blobs in her belly aren't little bundles of precious innocence: life and joy: it's just a fucking blob

get over yourself

grow the fuck up

develop a real morality


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Apparantly I spoke too soon about the names (none / 1) (#228)
by roystgnr on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:54:50 PM EST

And you didn't even stop with the straw man arguments, either; yet again you attribute opinions to me which I do not hold.  Oh, well.  I suggest you continue having a conversation with the persona you have constructed in your head; I won't be responding however, because you apparantly neither need my input to reply to me nor use my input to make that reply relevant.

[ Parent ]
i'm having a conversation with you (none / 0) (#230)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:44:47 AM EST

not a persona in my head

quote:

"But I suspect that to someone with your exceptional brilliance this is just another kindergarden level observation:  When (feel free to round to the nearest day) in the womb (or out, if I'm assuming too much) did you become conscious?
Since you seem to agree with my belief that this is the key question behind abortion, and you are in the habit of calling people who disagree with your views on abortion "brain dead", "childish", and "moron"s, I look forward to hearing the obvious answer which has nonetheless eluded me for so long."

follow up with my observation that because you can't nail down the line, doesn't mean the line doesn't exist

anything else i can help you with retard? you seem to be having trouble following the conversation

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Conversation? (none / 1) (#234)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 10:43:10 AM EST

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

You attack, insult, imply, verbally assault and demean, but I have never seen you actually converse with anyone.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

you seem to have a problem (none / 0) (#235)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 10:47:28 AM EST

you want people to talk about things they have passion for, without actually showing any passion

work that out, and get back to us


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#243)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 03:45:07 PM EST

I'm pretty sure you can have a passion for something without denigrating people who disagree with you.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
i'm pretty sure (none / 1) (#245)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 04:11:44 PM EST

you can't be passionate about anything without getting angry at someone

please tell me how to get angry at someone in nice dispassionate sterile language

otherwise, suck my dick asshole

;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0) (#231)
by Anonymous Lemming on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:30:41 PM EST

You at least appear to have one, but what is it about consciousness that makes it wrong to terminate you? When did you attain this level that made it wrong to kill you? When you turned 2 or 3?

[ Parent ]
because we can't identify where the line lies (none / 0) (#237)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 10:52:50 AM EST

does not mean the line does not exist


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Therefore (none / 0) (#241)
by Anonymous Lemming on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 03:23:17 PM EST

Anyone who doesn't agree with your position and pre-supposed thought on the matter is wrong. Sure, makes perfect sense to me.
Why not readily admit that you don't know and soften your stance? Doubt should lead one to be more humble rather than lambasting anyone who has an opposing view or a more cautious view than your own.

[ Parent ]
i agree 100% (none / 0) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 03:45:02 PM EST

except that those who don't agree with me are the absolutists: they deny the existence of the line

they say that because you can't pin down the line, the line doesn't exist

it's the basis of the way you are trying to argue with me on the issue as well: look at your posts above: you are suggesting that we kill a 2 year old simply because i am accepting that abortion is acceptable under certain conditions

the only reason you would bring up any of the posts you have is because you think that accepting abortion under any circumstances is accepting abortion under every circumstance

that's the point you were trying to raise in your posts above, right?

did i misread you?

otherwise, what is the point of suggesting it is ok to kill 2 year olds?

were you trying to show my position was absurd?

well then you haven't thought out the implications of your own post, and you haven't even understood that i've logically contradicted you already

of course, your posts about killing 2 year olds is absurd, but your posts are only possible if you think that simply because we can't draw the line, then the line doesn't exist

tha'ts not what i am saying, for the third time now

what was that you said?: "Anyone who doesn't agree with your position and pre-supposed thought on the matter is wrong."

"Why not readily admit that you don't know and soften your stance?"

you need to listen to your own advice

because your point about killing 2 year olds doesn't even touch what i am saying

so if you are willing to accept that the line exists, even though we can't pin down it's location, then you agree that there lies an area where abortion is acceptable

and you wind up agreeing with me

glad you've come to your senses and seen things my way

anything else i can help you with retard?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

100%? (none / 0) (#248)
by Anonymous Lemming on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 04:13:46 PM EST

You really didn't agree with anything that I can tell. *sighs* I'm not sure why I bother to entertain a discussion with someone who can't see past the end of his own nose.
"that's the point you were trying to raise in your posts above, right?"
nope, I'm not even sure what an "absolutist" is according to you. But you've pigeon-holed me in this camp, and this was a bad move on your part.
"did i misread you?"
Yep, I have not offered a replacement position as you falsely assert, just poking in yours.
"otherwise, what is the point of suggesting it is ok to kill 2 year olds?"
It is the result of your reasoning that "conscienceness" is what makes it wrong to kill, if a human were never to "cross the line", whatever that is, then you could justly kill him at any age. A proposition rather rediculous to most but it has growing segments in society. I pulled it arbitrarily out of the air, and it should NOT be used to attempt to infer my position.
"were you trying to show my position was absurd?"
Yes, generally. Since you can't backup your reasoning yet have to slap down everyone who might disagree. Hence the suggestion to "soften" your stance.
"well then you haven't thought out the implications of your own post, and you haven't even understood that i've logically contradicted you already"
Implications you created out of thin air? The intent of my posts is for what I intend, not what you might infer based on your own assumptions. I have quite purposefully ommitted my stance on the issues and sent probing questions, to which I receive insults. This discourages me from further entertaining this... "discussion". I would find this a convenient time to bow out, but alas, I will finish this responce.
"of course, your posts about killing 2 year olds is absurd, but your posts are only possible if you think that simply because we can't draw the line, then the line doesn't exist"
If you don't understand where the line is, why mess with the process at all? This was a partial point. I might note here that the more important line of reasoning I was trying to ask (which you ignored completely) is why does "conscienceness" make it wrong to kill to begin with? Why does the line matter at all? Besides, it's not exactly quantifiable in the first place. So this whole line of reasoning is rather without basis.
"you need to listen to your own advice"
Ignorance in action... You've assumed a great deal about my position that I have not revealed. I'm not nearly as agressive as you are, either. Just look at the rest of the thread.
"so if you are willing to accept that the line exists, even though we can't pin down it's location, then you agree that there lies an area where abortion is acceptable"
The point of "there exists a line" and therefore it's right to kill is rediculous. If you don't KNOW, shouldn't you err on the side of caution and deal with the consequences? Caution does not seem to enter the picture, and I some how must agree with you. I'm disagreeing with your logic here, don't take this as a personal attack on your position. I think it's unbased and flawed, on things you don't seem to understand or be able to quantify. There is no caution, you're just *right* because you feel you are.
"anything else i can help you with retard?"
You can please stop with the insults. Given your prior observed behavior at other times, this seems unlikely. So I guess que sera, sera.

[ Parent ]
i'll stop insulting you (none / 0) (#249)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 03:45:08 PM EST

when you give me a reason to respect you

you haven't given me a reason to respect you yet

you can start by stating what you believe

otherwise there has been no discussion, nor have you effectively criticized anything i've said

it's like this: i hate osama bin laden, but i respect him

because he will state what he believes and he will fight for it: that position is worthy of my respect (as well as my withering hatred for believing in what he believes)

meanwhile, someone who when confronted with the rise of global islamic militant fanatacism, who doesn't believe in fighting it or fighting for anything or condemning anyone or taking a stand or believing there is a problem, etc.: they're not worthy of hatred... there's nothing to hate

but also there's nothing to respect about their position: they're just a fucking child still working it out, stammering about pointless bullshit, who hasn't arrived yet at a position that fights for something, ANYTHING

do you understand the allegory?

good, then you understand that the latter is the position you are in in this conversation

you're asking me to state my beliefs and you will cloak yours, and then you will criticize me

como?

how the fuck does that work?

what is basis in your mind for why i should i respect that?

who the fuck are you and why have you nominated yourself judge of my beliefs?

sorry asshole, state your beliefs or shut the fuck up

otherwise, your current position is for nothing but my derision, and my beliefs have not been effectively criticized by you one iota: you can't criticize a belief, any belief, on any issue, without a position of your own

all criciticism, in all ideological arguments, is done from one position as it views another position

always

forever

do you fucking understand?

therefore, i would rather piss on your face before i listen to you criticize me when you refuse to state your own beliefs: that's complete and utter bullshit

and, if you choose not to state your beliefs, then my beliefs have stood completely unchallenged in this entire thread

which speaks volumes, if you ask me

so give me something to respect, or go fuck yourself asshole

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 1) (#254)
by Anonymous Lemming on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 12:27:55 PM EST

Can you not see how futile this has become? This is not even a discussion. I never said I wouldn't state my position. You never asked, you assumed, this is what I found deplorable. The truth is, from what I understand, you don't want to hear my point of view, you would rather assume what you will. I'm not trying to totally redicule you, we have points of agreement and disagreement but your manner is so hostile that discussion becomes quite impossible.

[ Parent ]
Ummmm (none / 1) (#124)
by dcm266 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:38:43 AM EST

There are cases such as rape where a woman is not responsible for the fact that she is carrying a child. In that case, it is not her fault. Other than that, it pretty much is, and people should learn to behave more responsibly. If people aren't prepared to have a child, maybe they shouldn't have sex, instead of having sex and saying, "It's ok. If we get pregnant, we can always kill the kid before he's born while it's still legal."

It's also unfortunate that women are forced to raise children alone, but that doesn't justify abortion. Perhaps we might fix society by ensuring that people are more responsible rather than allowing them to kill off their children. If you believe that a fetus is not human life, that is another matter and you can attempt to argue for that, but if we count a fetus as human life, then killing a fetus is murder, and "Times will be tough" isn't an excuse for such a crime.

Before we have liberty and even consider abortion as an issue involving freedom to choose, we have to discuss it as a human rights issue and determine if it involves taking a life. Life takes priority over liberty, and as we do not allow people the freedom to murder someone who annoys them, we should not allow people the freedom to kill a defenseless developing human.

If you've got a good argument for why we should only consider life as beginning after birth or at some particular point during pregnancy, I'd spell it out. If you can't make a good argument for this and why a fetus is not human life, then I'd consider changing your opinion.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

ok (none / 0) (#126)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:50:44 AM EST

consciousness

your average jellyfish has more awareness and is closer to human existence and value as a human life than a fetus

anything else i can help you with?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

that would depend (none / 0) (#147)
by aphrael on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:22:13 AM EST

on when during the pregnancy we're talking about.

[ Parent ]
well that's exactly the point (none / 0) (#175)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:41:32 AM EST

we could say that survival outside the womb is a good cutoff point... of course, with improving medical technology, even that is a moving point

but it's like most problems people have on issues like this: just because you can't confidently decide exactly where the continuum of color from grey to black turns to black, that doesn't mean black doesn't exist


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0) (#153)
by dcm266 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:11:08 PM EST

So, that's fine if we decide that the degree of consciousness defines human life. How about looking at potential? There may be a point where a jellyfish has more consciousness than the unborn child, but the difference is that the child will develop full human consciousness provided that it is permitted to live. So it seems that your argument centers on the idea that abortion is acceptable provided that you do it early enough when you can still defend your consciousness standard.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

potential? (none / 0) (#174)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:39:24 AM EST

you mean the potential of a woman not burdened for 18 years by a child she does not love with the father long gone?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I have to wonder (none / 1) (#192)
by dcm266 on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:53:31 PM EST

What sort of moral code allows someone to murder a helpless victim in order to make their own life more convenient. You absolutely cannot look at ease of life for the mother as a consideration unless you can prove that the developing child does not deserve to be considered as human life.

It is clear to everyone that life at some level has to begin at conception, because it is from that moment that cells develop into what will, if not medically eliminated, develop into an infant, which will in turn grow up and develop further into an adult. Arbitrarily picking birth or some point in the middle of pregnancy overlooks this fact so that some people might justify abortion as being acceptable. After all, you're only killing off a group of cells. Right. The only definition of life that is not arbitrary recognizes that life begins at conception. If you follow the path of the developing child, you can see there's a starting point. Picking an arbitrary cutoff point just isn't convincing.

If a woman is going to be inconvenienced by a child she doesn't want, then perhaps she should avoid engaging in activities from which the conception of a child may result. I realize that saying people should be responsible and prepare for the consequences of their actions may seem like blasphemy these days, but it does tend to solve a lot of problems.

[ Parent ]

fucking hilarious (none / 1) (#196)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 05:47:06 PM EST

i got this far and stopped reading:

"What sort of moral code allows someone to murder a helpless victim in order to make their own life more convenient."

put down the hamburger

because what was killed to make that had more right to live than an unwanted blob in a womb that will destroy a woman's life

really

that's the truth


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ah Yes (none / 0) (#200)
by dcm266 on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 06:28:07 PM EST

Pick one tiny snippet of an argument, interpret it how you choose, and ignore every point that might contradict you. Voila, instant victory in debate, at least in your mind. Enjoy it.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

au contraire mon freir (none / 0) (#203)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:33:21 PM EST

pick the most salient point you were making and judge you on that

so i should excuse your interpretation and focus on your verbiage or something?

silly me, i thought the idea of what you wrote was "communcation"

well, you effectively communicated to me your bullshit

and i've found it lacking in moral and intellectual consistency

anything else i can help you with?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

BZZT Wrong answer (none / 1) (#199)
by godix on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 06:21:45 PM EST

It is clear to everyone that life at some level has to begin at conception, because it is from that moment that cells develop into what will, if not medically eliminated, develop into an infant, which will in turn grow up and develop further into an adult.

It's astounding how many different ways you can be wrong in one sentance.

First off it is NOT clear to everyone that life begins at conception. Personally I think 'human life' begins with brains waves (roughly the end of first trimester). Before brain waves it isn't capable of thought and if it isn't capable of thought then it isn't yet a human life. This arguement is the very core of most abortion debates and the fact you blindly assume everyone must think like you says a lot about why you just don't get it.

Second off those cells will not definately develop into an infant. They MIGHT develop into an infant but then again, they might also develop into a still birth. They have the potential to become human life but that doesn't mean they are a human life right then.

Third off, and just to be a pedantic asshole, not every infant grows and and develops into an adult. A depressingly large amount don't make it that far.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Let me clarify (none / 0) (#201)
by dcm266 on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 06:38:30 PM EST

When I said that life begins at conception, I was referring to the fact that before adulthood, before birth, before brainwaves, there has to be a beginning where all of that develops from. That beginning is conception. I can see where you'd get the interpretation you did, but it wasn't what I intended. Everyone can see that there is a start of some kind at conception. What abortion debate is about is when we count the fetus as human life, not that conception puts everything in motion. I apologize for the confusion.

You're right that not every fetus is going to survive and become an infant, and that not every infant will become an adult. So there's not 100% certainty on each of the links I mentioned. I was just trying to chart the development from conception to adulthood briefly. Still, saying "There's a small chance the fetus might not become an infant" doesn't logically lead to "kill the fetus." There's a small chance that I might get hit by a car and killed tomorrow, but that doesn't give someone the right to kill me today. Not a perfect analogy because there is debate over when human life begins in pregnancy, but you get the idea.

Interesting post, though. I hope this helps clarify my writing which sometimes is clear to me only.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

Still not quite right (none / 1) (#207)
by godix on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 06:18:56 AM EST

I was referring to the fact that before adulthood, before birth, before brainwaves, there has to be a beginning where all of that develops from.

If you really wanted to get into it the fetus isn't 'the beginning' then consider that the sperm and egg came before it. Which, of course, brings up the parents and where they came from. If you follow the chain back to 'the beginning' you end up either with Eve or a clump of amino acids (depending on your particular belief). Conception isn't the beginning, it isn't even close to it.

However that isn't what you really meant, what you probably meant was that conception is a clear change from what came before. Of course, so is turning food into sperm and eggs. And the first detected brainwaves. And birth. In the reproductive cycle there are quite a few definate changes from what was 'before'. Why is conception the magical change that counts while these other changes are discounted? I personally have picked a different changing point but I'll freely admit that's based in my biased and unproven belief that what makes something 'human' is the ability to think so I don't expect others to blindly agree with my division. And I certainly wouldn't try to use the law to force others to follow my division even if they disagree with it.

There's a small chance that I might get hit by a car and killed tomorrow, but that doesn't give someone the right to kill me today.

Tommorow you may or may not die, but RIGHT NOW you are a living human being. A fetus on the other hand MIGHT become a living human tommorow but right now it isn't (refer to above point for that arguement). I was pointing out that it can't even be said that a fetus WILL become a living human, just that it might. And if my wife didn't have a headache I might create a living human tonight. Forcing a woman to carry to term because of that possability makes about as much sense as forcing your date to fuck you because she might get pregnant. Possabilities are destoryed all the time and usually we don't even notice, in the case of abortion we do notice but that doesn't really change anything morally speaking. Future potential to be something isn't the same as actually being it and shouldn't be treated as such. That's why we don't go to Best Buy and spend $1000 on sand even though it has the potential to be a high end computer.

Besides, no matter how you phrase it at the extreme position of the pro-life arguement is the belief that a clump of a few cells is superior to and overides the wishes of a fully developed living human being. I find this so absurd that it isn't worth consdering. Pretty much the same as if someone took the extreme pro-choice side and said that as long as a child was dependent on their parents (until 18 usually) then the parents can kill him isn't worth consdering. They're both logical extremes of the arguement and they're both stupid beyond belief, clearly the resonable position lies somewhere in between.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

so do you propose banning infanticide? (none / 0) (#209)
by Delirium on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 10:44:15 AM EST

IMO, newborn infants are not "persons" properly speaking, as they lack any serious mental capacity or ability to do anything besides lie helplessly. They are, by and large, fetuses outside the womb, whose primary (perhaps sole) value lies in the fact that they have the potential to develop into persons (much like fetuses in that respect).

Would you agree on this point also that, regardless of your personal view on the personhood of infants, "I certainly wouldn't try to use the law to force others to follow my division even if they disagree with it". That is, do you oppose laws banning infanticide?

(This isn't actually a leading question. I happen to think that either consistent position—opposing both abortion and infanticide, as the Christian right does, or supporting both being legal, as Peter Singer does—are plausible.)

[ Parent ]

logic doesn't equal right (none / 0) (#210)
by godix on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 01:33:29 PM EST

IMO, newborn infants are not "persons" properly speaking, as they lack any serious mental capacity or ability to do anything besides lie helplessly.

The proof something can think is brainwaves therefore once the fetus develops brainwaves I consider it 'human life'. What it thinks about is it's own concern and if I started adding a lower limit on how developed the thought process is I'd end up endorsing killing Star Trek and wrestling fans. Which, admittedly, wouldn't be a great loss for humanity but it's still something that probably shouldn't be done.
That is, do you oppose laws banning infanticide?

Laws are in essence just a common agreement amoung society on what's right and wrong. There's no requirement they fall under the stric bounds of logic and actually they usually don't. So while there are disagreements on where exactly a clump of cells transforms into human life the one thing almost everyone can agree with is that that point is before birth. Since there's nearly universal agreement amoung society at the point it should serve as an upper limit to when abortion is acceptable to society. Besides, can you seriously consider it a termination of pregnancy after there's no fetus in the females body?

I happen to think that either consistent position--opposing both abortion and infanticide, as the Christian right does, or supporting both being legal, as Peter Singer does--are plausible.

I find the extremes of either end are fairly logical, assuming you accept the base premise of either arguement. Of course, so is Xeno's paradox. It's possible to be logical and wrong. The extremes of the abortion arguement would be one of those situations.



- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure how to reconcile these (none / 0) (#213)
by Delirium on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 06:14:49 PM EST

Now you say that "Laws are in essence just a common agreement amoung society on what's right and wrong." So then you have nothing against laws banning abortion, I take it, so long as they are passed democratically? I thought in the comment of yours I was replying to you were arguing that using the law to enforce your own view of when life begins was immoral? My argument is that banning infanticide is precisely that; banning abortion is just drawing the line somewhere else.

I would personally draw the line at around a month or two after birth.

[ Parent ]

Kinda sorta (none / 0) (#214)
by godix on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 09:26:18 PM EST

Since we're bringing the law into it, instead of just my personal opinions on when life starts, things get more tricky. I believe laws should permissive to individual freedoms up to the point where it would directly harm someone else or violate what the vast majority believe (in this case I mean like 90% of the population or more). Just to pick random examples, rape should be illegal for the obvious reason it directly harms someone else. Consentual homosexual sex should be allow because while there is a majority that thinks is should be illegal it isn't even close to 90% of the population.

As for how this interacts with abortion, the vast majority would agree that a child that's born is a human life. Sure there might be some that would argue differently but over 90% would agree therefore bitch should be the absolute upper limit acceptable to society. Before birth there is no vast majority belief, it ranges all over the place from anything up to the minute the kid is born should be ok to anything done after the second conception happens is murder. Since there isn't a clear majority for any point prior to birth there is no reason to lower the upper limit. Meaning, legally speaking, after birth it's murder and before birth it's fine. Morally speaking may be different but it's up to each person to decide that themselves.

Abortion is complicated by the fact that I personally believe 'human life' starts with brainwaves (end of first trimester) and anything after that constitutes direct harm to another person. However I fully well there aren't enough facts to conclusively prove my belief (or anyone elses) is correct. Lacking those facts I place my belief in the same catagory as the people who believe Jesus appeared in a muffin and told them abortion is bad. It's nice that we have beliefs and to ourselves they're very important but we don't have the moral right to force everyone to follow our personal beliefs.



- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

then late-term abortions should be illegal (none / 0) (#218)
by Delirium on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:34:24 AM EST

Most polls find very little support for late-term abortions; a poll that came up when I googled found that when asked whether abortion should be permitted past 6 months' pregnancy, 11% of people said yes, and 86% no (3% undecided or didn't answer). That's very close to your 90% threshold. There'a almost certainly a near-unanimous majority if you bump that up to, say, 7 or 8 months—only the very fringe (NARAL Pro-Choice America) appears to think that birth is a reasonable cutoff.

[ Parent ]
True enough (none / 0) (#222)
by godix on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:46:15 AM EST

late term is pretty close to what I'd consider enough of a majority to overide an individuals rights. Then you see polls where they specified 'in cases of the womans health' for late term abortions and the majority disappears again. Unfortunately a lot of the polling done (on any subject, not just abortion) depends on how you ask the question.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
yeah, but that happens for infanticide too (none / 0) (#233)
by Delirium on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:53:29 PM EST

If you qualify a question on very early infanticide (i.e. the first day, or perhaps even the first few hours) with a stipulation that the infant has severe birth defects, the margin against infanticide drops back under 90%.

[ Parent ]
Some More Thoughts (none / 0) (#216)
by dcm266 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:24:47 AM EST

I'll admit that at some level it may seem rather absurd to protect what you refer to as a clump of cells over the wishes of a fully developed human, but I really don't think it is. My reasoning is that I've yet to see an argument that life begins at some point after conception that doesn't have some issue. Your brain wave argument is interesting and well thought out, but you even admit that it's biased and imperfect.

As for the clump of cells, I think it's fair to consider it a stage of human development. In most cases, nine months after conception, the clump of cells becomes an infant. Nine months after birth, the newborn infant becomes a nine month old infant. I fully admit that there is a much bigger difference between the newly conceived child and the newly born child than there is between the newborn child and the nine month old child. I think that it can still be viewed as a path of development.

My concern essentially comes down to this. I really don't think that there's a perfect argument as to why life should begin at some chosen point after conception. We'll never agree on this. We can agree that conception marks the very beginning of the development of a human life. Since we can agree on the latter point, but not on the former point as to when life should begin, I think the law should treat define human life as beginning at conception. When something as important as human life is involved, I think it is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting said life. It may seem extreme in a sense, but we must also remember that it is much easier to see the consequences for the mother than for the fetus. I believe this leads to a bias favoring the rights of the mother over the life of the fetus.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

what a fucking moron (none / 0) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:01:03 AM EST

you realize that your position, so loving and empathetic as it is, reduces a woman to nothing more than a breeding chamber?

that in your effort to remove bias towards the mother, your pov entails the exact opposite: completely destroying any rights the woman has at all

over her own body?

are you an utterly blind male chauvanistic pig or what?

you realize that your pov would result in woman dying in alleys with coathangers up their twats in a desparate attempt to assert some control over her own body?

excuse me: poor women dying

the rich ones would just fly to canad or europe, and return, and pay lipservice to morons like you, and you'd be none the wiser

you're utterly blind as to reality

you are a hopeless idealist

in your effort to reduce unnecessary suffering, your uneducated extreme take on the situation only results in more suffering

and you're so fucking full of yourself you can't see that

do you want to know who creates suffering in this world?

look in the mirror: people like you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And there's the difference between us (none / 0) (#223)
by godix on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:12:19 AM EST

Any bias should be towards what we know for sure rather than towards what can not be proved. We KNOW the mother is a living human, we don't know for sure the fetus is. I see nothing wrong with the laws favoring the rights of the mother over the fetus.

As for the brainwave thing, there's one more major consideration I haven't really gone into since I haven't defended or explained my belief. Death is, obviously, the loss of what makes us living. Medically speaking, death is declared when the brain stops. There are exceptions and complicated cases around this (EG Schivo) but as a general rule brain dead = dead. If I accepted your premise that life starts with conception and the creation of what will become the body then the inverse of that would be that life doesn't stop until that body is decomposed and that's plainly not a definition of death many would agree with. Since we, mostly, define death as the loss of brain waves doesn't it make sense that human life is the presence of them, meaning before a fetus shows brainwaves it isn't a human life?


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Brainwaves (none / 0) (#229)
by dcm266 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:43:14 PM EST

There's one reason why the example of the definition of death doesn't exactly work. If you're an adult human and your brain stops working, then you are effectively dead; however, a fetus simply hasn't reached the point of having brainwaves as it hasn't reached that stage in human development.

If you kill a fetus, you are cutting off the beginnings of what will very likely become an infant, and are in effect ending a life. Also, a fetus who doesn't have brain waves is still growing and developing and is showing other signs of life. A dead person decomposing isn't quite the same.

The brain wave argument is as good of an argument as any to attempt to define the beginnings of human life, but I think even it is somewhat arbitrary. Our society is based off of the idea that someone's right to live is more important than someone else's right to do anything they please, such as killing someone else. Given the importance of human life, I don't think it is wise to risk killing an innocent human.

With a topic like this, minds are not likely to change instantly, but I think a civil discussion is a good thing. If you have any more ideas or issues you feel like exploring, post a reply and I'll get to it at some point.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

I don't know... (none / 0) (#240)
by ckaminski on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 01:35:12 PM EST

I've always placed more importance on animal life than human.  Could be because an animals never betrayed me, lied to me, stolen from me, hurt me, or tried to sell me something over the phone during dinner.  I don't necessarily think human life is worth saving.  Especially a human who has NO chance whatsoever of surviving without it's human incubator.

Once you invent the artificial womb, you can legislate abortion away with my blessing, for no child would ever again go unwanted, but as long as women control the baby-making apparatus, I say we have no right whatsoever to tell them how they can operate it.

[ Parent ]

Subtle Yet Important Difference (none / 0) (#247)
by dcm266 on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 08:23:52 PM EST

"Once you invent the artificial womb, you can legislate abortion away with my blessing, for no child would ever again go unwanted, but as long as women control the baby-making apparatus, I say we have no right whatsoever to tell them how they can operate it."

This sounds sort of like the "It's the woman's body" argument. If you're talking about something like birth control, then I think this argument has a lot of validity. The problem is that the fetus isn't part of the woman's body, but a new life form that happens to be growing within the woman's body.

Here's an example. There's nothing wrong with me punching the air in front of me, but it's a different story if there's someone in my path and I hit them. So, as long as there's not a developing human life growing in the uterus, there's nothing wrong with a woman doing what she sees fit to it, but the second you have to consider a third party, the story changes.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

I wonder as well... (none / 0) (#251)
by MrMikey on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 08:15:19 PM EST

"What sort of moral code allows someone to murder a helpless victim in order to make their own life more convenient."

Lest we get lost in a sea of generalities, I'll state my position: A fertilized egg is not a baby, any more than the cell at the end of my nose is a baby, or an acorn is an oak tree. A nine-month-old fetus is, quantitatively and qualitatively, a baby. In between, we have a "sliding scale of status." A fertilized egg does not warrant the same moral status we'd give a baby, but a nine-month-old fetus does. While I believe a clear, bright line is inaccurate, I'm statisfied with "start of the third trimester" as being the dividing line between "abortion on demand" and "abortion only in cases in which the mother's life or health are in serious jeopardy."

Given this is the case, abortion before the start of the third trimester is not accurately described as "murder of a helpless victim", so your question is rendered moot... IMO.

"You absolutely cannot look at ease of life for the mother as a consideration unless you can prove that the developing child does not deserve to be considered as human life."

You've got it wrong way 'round... the burden of proof is on those who assert that a fertilized egg or a zygote or an embryo should be given the same status as a baby. Also, it's a very poor choice of words to refer to this difficult choice as being merely a matter of "ease of life." It's a hard decision, one most women do not make easily, and you risk tainting your argument with misogyny when you use that particular choice of words.

"It is clear to everyone that life at some level has to begin at conception,..."

Full Stop! No, it most certainly is not clear, if by "life" you mean "existence such that it warrants the moral status we humans choose to assign to newborn babies."

"...because it is from that moment that cells develop into what will, if not medically eliminated, develop into an infant, which will in turn grow up and develop further into an adult."

Fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine wall all the time. Blastocysts, zygotes, and embryos spontaneously abort. Genetic defects result in non-viable fetuses. The development of a baby is a complex process, with plenty of ways to go wrong. As I said, a fertilized egg is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree... or an ingot of iron is a Mercedes-Benz.

"Arbitrarily picking birth or some point in the middle of pregnancy overlooks this fact so that some people might justify abortion as being acceptable."

"Hey, goldfish! That's water you're swimming in!"

It's a tad hypocritical for you to choose a point which you believe is the "beginning of 'life'" (with the truckload of moral assumption you've got hidden behind the word 'life') and then chatise everyone else for picking an "arbitrary point" which, since it differs from the one you picked, must therefore obviously be wrong.

"After all, you're only killing off a group of cells. Right."

That's all a blastocyst is. You're free to disagree, of course.

"The only definition of life that is not arbitrary recognizes that life begins at conception."

This is your assertion, not mine.

"If you follow the path of the developing child, you can see there's a starting point. Picking an arbitrary cutoff point just isn't convincing."

Not convincing to you, you mean.

"If a woman is going to be inconvenienced by a child she doesn't want, then perhaps she should avoid engaging in activities from which the conception of a child may result."

I'm sorry, but the subtext I read here is "If the bitch was such a whore as to actually have sex, then she deserves to stay pregnant no matter what she wants." This may not be what you believe, but your choice of words certainly implies this is your message.

"I realize that saying people should be responsible and prepare for the consequences of their actions..."

See, why the hell didn't you just say that?!?!?!? Why layer on all that moralizing and "well, of course, all right-thinking people agree with me" nonsense? You could've had yourself a strong statement.

"... may seem like blasphemy these days, but it does tend to solve a lot of problems."

It isn't blasphemy (a victimeless crime, IMO). It never has been. Most people wholeheartedly agree. We just disagree as to what constitutes "responsible behavior" or "preparing for consequences."

[ Parent ]

Well, we might agree on responsiblity... (none / 0) (#252)
by dcm266 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 08:56:39 PM EST

"Lest we get lost in a sea of generalities, I'll state my position: A fertilized egg is not a baby, any more than the cell at the end of my nose is a baby, or an acorn is an oak tree. A nine-month-old fetus is, quantitatively and qualitatively, a baby."

The cell on your nose is a part of your body, not a separate being growing without one's body. There's an obvious difference.

"Fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine wall all the time. Blastocysts, zygotes, and embryos spontaneously abort. Genetic defects result in non-viable fetuses. The development of a baby is a complex process, with plenty of ways to go wrong. As I said, a fertilized egg is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree... or an ingot of iron is a Mercedes-Benz."

Fertilized egg is to baby as ingot of iron is to a car. This is just silly. An ingot of iron has no natural tendency to develop into a car. We have to make it happen. A fertilized egg, however, does have a natural tendency to develop into a baby.

Ok, so you mentioned that things can go wrong in pregnancy. I could get hit by a car tomorrow, but that gives you no right to pre-emptively kill me. You'll argue of course that I am a human life while the fertilized egg is not, but it is nevertheless an example of faulty reasoning on your part. The possibility that death will occur is not justification for murder. You have to base your argument on other points for this analogy to be worthwhile.

"It's a tad hypocritical for you to choose a point which you believe is the "beginning of 'life'" (with the truckload of moral assumption you've got hidden behind the word 'life') and then chatise everyone else for picking an "arbitrary point" which, since it differs from the one you picked, must therefore obviously be wrong."

It's not hypocritical because the point I pick isn't arbitrary. The moment of conception is a point where there is in fact a new beginning of a new developing human life. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Picking a point along the path of pregnancy is in fact arbitrary.

"I'm sorry, but the subtext I read here is "If the bitch was such a whore as to actually have sex, then she deserves to stay pregnant no matter what she wants." This may not be what you believe, but your choice of words certainly implies this is your message."

How about this. The choice to have sex involves certain risks and people who are not willing to accept these risks should not have sex. Also, the man is every bit as responsible as the woman, if not moreso, because the man makes less of an investment in that he doesn't have to carry a child for nine months.

As for your ending point, I'm glad that you think that many people agree that they should accept responsibility for their actions. I have my doubts, though, about how many people actually do so without hypocrisy or fully believe it. The main reason I didn't just mention that point is because abortion really is a question of life and death, and when life begins. If life begins at conception, then that is the only argument that is needed. Most irresponsible actions pale in comparison to the taking of a human life. Since many do not believe this, there are other arguments against abortion that don't depend on that assumption. Simply saying people shouldn't take actions when they are not responsible enough to deal with the consequences is a fine example of this. Still, it's the life issue that makes abortion so heated as a topic and that issue makes it different from other questions of responsibility.

-dcm266


[ Parent ]

Indeed... (none / 0) (#253)
by MrMikey on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 09:53:18 PM EST

"Lest we get lost in a sea of generalities, I'll state my position: A fertilized egg is not a baby, any more than the cell at the end of my nose is a baby, or an acorn is an oak tree. A nine-month-old fetus is, quantitatively and qualitatively, a baby."

"The cell on your nose is a part of your body, not a separate being growing without one's body. There's an obvious difference."

If I take a syringe and remove blood from one of my veins, is the blood in that syringe part of my body? What about when I inject it back in?

No, the differences aren't obvious, but they may seem so to you given your viewpoint. To me, it is "obvious" that a fertilized egg isn't a baby, and doesn't warrant the moral status of a baby.

"Fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine wall all the time. Blastocysts, zygotes, and embryos spontaneously abort. Genetic defects result in non-viable fetuses. The development of a baby is a complex process, with plenty of ways to go wrong. As I said, a fertilized egg is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree... or an ingot of iron is a Mercedes-Benz."

"Fertilized egg is to baby as ingot of iron is to a car. This is just silly. An ingot of iron has no natural tendency to develop into a car. We have to make it happen. A fertilized egg, however, does have a natural tendency to develop into a baby."

A fertilized egg that isn't in a very particular environment doesn't have a tendency to produce a baby... it has a tendency to produce inert organic matter... as do many fertilized eggs even in a very conducive environment.

Fertilized eggs are complex cells, but there is no magical elan vital inhabiting them. They are machines whose components are molecules. Those molecules interact with their environment, and, given the right environment, are a part of a process which may produce a baby. But, a fertilized egg itself is not a baby, any more than any of the other parts of that process are.

"Ok, so you mentioned that things can go wrong in pregnancy. I could get hit by a car tomorrow, but that gives you no right to pre-emptively kill me."

My point is that the path from fertilized egg to baby is not the inexorable, inevitable process you seem to imply.

"You'll argue of course that I am a human life while the fertilized egg is not, but it is nevertheless an example of faulty reasoning on your part."

I'll ask you to let me make my own arguments, rather than you telling me what I'm going to say... that's a peev of mine.

What I'm actually going to say is that adult humans possess self-awareness and consciousness (or seem to, at any rate), just as I do. It is those qualities of self-awareness and consciousness that lead me to grant personhood to humans. A fertilized egg has neither of those qualities.

"The possibility that death will occur is not justification for murder."

True... and irrelevant to my points.

"You have to base your argument on other points for this analogy to be worthwhile."

You misunderstood me.

"It's a tad hypocritical for you to choose a point which you believe is the "beginning of 'life'" (with the truckload of moral assumption you've got hidden behind the word 'life') and then chatise everyone else for picking an "arbitrary point" which, since it differs from the one you picked, must therefore obviously be wrong."

"It's not hypocritical because the point I pick isn't arbitrary."

It isn't arbitrary in that you believe you have justifications which lead you to choose that point. It is arbitrary as you seem to dismiss that everyone else has their justifications, and that they are just as much, or as little hypocrites as you.

"The moment of conception is a point where there is in fact a new beginning of a new developing human life."

"The point at which an unborn baby's heart first begins to beat is a point where there is in fact a new beginning of a new developing life."

"The point at which a newborn baby first takes a breath is a point where there is in fact a new beginning of a new developing life."

"The point at which an unborn baby's brain first shows signs of complex activity is a point where there is in fact a new beginning of a new developing life."

"The point at which a newborn baby first shows signs of self-awareness is a point where there is in fact a new beginning of a new developing life."

I could create arguments to support each of those positions. For others, one of those is their position, and they are as certain that that is the point as you are of yours.

"This is a fact that cannot be disputed."

I can and do dispute it. QED.

"Picking a point along the path of pregnancy is in fact arbitrary."

We're just picking a different point from you...

"I'm sorry, but the subtext I read here is "If the bitch was such a whore as to actually have sex, then she deserves to stay pregnant no matter what she wants." This may not be what you believe, but your choice of words certainly implies this is your message."

"How about this. The choice to have sex involves certain risks and people who are not willing to accept these risks should not have sex."

I agree... but some see abortion as an acceptable way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, and see this as being a responsible choice. You may disagree with them, but that is their position.

"Also, the man is every bit as responsible as the woman, if not moreso, because the man makes less of an investment in that he doesn't have to carry a child for nine months."

The man is as responsible, but the woman is taking all of the health risks.

"As for your ending point, I'm glad that you think that many people agree that they should accept responsibility for their actions. I have my doubts, though, about how many people actually do so without hypocrisy or fully believe it."

OK...

"The main reason I didn't just mention that point is because abortion really is a question of life and death, and when life begins."

I see the abortion debate as being primarily a matter of control and power. It is a vestige of our patriarchal roots, of the days when women were property, the means of producing male heirs, cementing clan ties, expanding empires, etc. It is also an extension of some organized religion's lusts for power, and the expansion thereof. And yes, there is the issue of morality, and the status of biological entities (and I do consider this an important issue, just not, IMO, what is primarily driving the abortion debate).

"If life begins at conception, then that is the only argument that is needed."

Some of us find this to be emminently unsatisfactory. An amoeba is alive. A parakeet is alive. A cat is alive. A fertilized egg is alive. A blastocyst is alive. A fetus is alive. A baby is alive. All of these entities are alive, are "life", yet we assign them differing moral statuses. To be "life" is not a sufficient condition for the granting of personhood.

"Most irresponsible actions pale in comparison to the taking of a human life."

I agree.

"Since many do not believe this, there are other arguments against abortion that don't depend on that assumption."

If you wish to support your position, and argument A is not pursuasive, it is sensible to put forward arguments B - whatever.

"Simply saying people shouldn't take actions when they are not responsible enough to deal with the consequences is a fine example of this."

I think this statement stands on its own. Most people can grasp the notion of negative consequences.

"Still, it's the life issue that makes abortion so heated as a topic and that issue makes it different from other questions of responsibility."

My view differs...

[ Parent ]

how about (none / 1) (#208)
by Delirium on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 10:40:14 AM EST

The potential of a man not burdened for 18 years by a child he does not love with the mother mooching off him for its care via alimony?

[ Parent ]
fine by me, glad you're prochoice (nt) (none / 0) (#220)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:50:24 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
indeed (none / 1) (#232)
by Delirium on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:51:44 PM EST

But I think people should take responsibility for their choices. If the mother chooses not to have an abortion against the father's wishes, she should bear full financial responsibility for the child. This does not currently appear to be the case.

Of course, if the father wishes to have the child and the mother doesn't, she may abort the child, since it's not reasonable to force her to carry to term a child she doesn't want. However I might allow for her to, at her option, carry the child to term and turn it over to the father to be fully responsible for it.

[ Parent ]

corollary (none / 0) (#236)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 10:51:25 AM EST

if you stick your dick into something, be aware of the potential consequences


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
For once cts and I agree... (none / 0) (#239)
by ckaminski on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 12:52:51 PM EST

Life does NOT take precedence over liberty.  Liberty should always be our highest goal.

And the life of the mother, physical, mental, emotional, takes precedence over some growing fetus in her abdomen.


[ Parent ]

completely wrong, we don't agree (none / 0) (#244)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 04:09:25 PM EST

if you're dead, liberty doesn't matter

so you may restrict liberty in the fight for life

if terrorists are bombing your city for example, you may restrict the liberty of everyone slightly in order to potentially save some lives (i said restrict the liberty of everyone slightly... inspecting bags on the subway for example qualifies despite what some hysterical morons would qualify as severe/ slight restrictions on liberty)

but a fetus doesn't qualify as human life before a certain time, and therefore can be aborted

so fuck you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Weak premise, strawman analogy. (none / 1) (#135)
by vhold on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 06:46:05 AM EST

You make it sound like it's mostly a man thing to be against abortion..

Washington post phone poll of 1,113 adults

Hmm, only a 4% difference of women favoring abortion.  Also notable that when it comes to pregnency after 6 months, men favor abortion nearly twice as much as women.... huh?  In your man oppression mindset, why are women not unilaterally favoring abortion more then men under all circumstances?  Could it possibly be that there are women that are sometimes against abortion for ... reasons?  Wait, did that also mean there are more absolute extremist prochoice men then women?  Woah... umm.

So basically you've got this fantasy about this retarded minority of women who oppose abortion, and you analogize them to blacks that agreed with slavery?  Do you think that 42% of slaves thought slavery was good?

So all this stuff about men condemning women for having a womb, lack of empathy, or whatever it is you are ranting about, where do you come up with it?

And no I'm not against abortion as you seem to think everybody who responds to you is, so please spare me your theatrics about uncouncious goo and coat hangers, the point here is that once again you are attacking our mutual intellectual opponent with weird uninformed ranting, thus undermining our .. sorta .. shared position.

Also note from the poll that peoples' views aren't nearly as polarized on pro-life/pro-choice as your view would seem to make it out.  Note the huge difference between -always- allow abortion and allow abortion to save a woman's life.  Also note there is practically no difference between men and women in those highly supported cases.. Hmm.  

Your absolute extremist, no abortion -period-, pro-life opponents lie in relatively equal numbers of men and women in around a 12% minority.

If the abortion issue were as simple as an extremist sees things, then it'd be solved right then and there.

Let me remind you again, what you need to do here is back up your notion that pro-life men are oppressing (both pro-life and pro-choice) women with their unsympathetic pro-life agenda, moreso then pro-life women are, which seems hard, seeing as how they are nearly equal numbers.

[ Parent ]

eh? (none / 0) (#179)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:52:11 AM EST

are you prolife or prochoice?

how is it possible to be criticized by someone who will not state their own beliefs?

you have a nive bunch of factoids up there

now kindly draw a conclusion and attack the issue

because attacking me is rather retarded, no?

try to find a backbone to go along with that brain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised. (none / 1) (#38)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:53:39 AM EST

Mostly that the Bush administration would flaunt my prediction. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are so supremely confident that Rove will get away with it, that they don't feel the need to divert attention with a frothing far-right maniac nominee.

As for Roberts, a religious conservative who can't see a problem with theocracy is not surprising to me. I was expecting one who was more rabid about banging the drum and chanting "onward Christian soldiers". On the one hand, his mysteriousness could conceal another Antonin Scalia. On the other hand, recent Republican-nominated Justices have had a tendency to meander leftwards as time passes (ie. Souter and O'Connor).

The thought of 25-35 years of this guy is creepy, especially considering Scalia has a good 10 left in him and Clarence, maybe 25. I agree with what is said here. Who here thinks either a twenty-year term limit or a mandatory retirement at 70 would be in order?


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Saving political capital for Rove? (none / 1) (#40)
by cburke on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 02:42:58 AM EST

I don't know if I agree.  When it comes to war the Presidential strategy may be all bravado and zero strategy, but politics is a different matter.  The Bush administration is weakening, and it isn't clear that it would be worth the political capital to force a truly nasty fight over the nomination that Senate Republicans may not want to go along with.  The calls for moderation were coming from both sides of the aisle, and I view this mostly as a capitulation to that reality.

That's what political compromise amounts to these days.  A Justice who is anti-Roe vs Wade but isn't necessarily pro-reversal.

The question of term limits for Justices reminds me of an old (I think it was) SNL sketch about Clarence Thomas.  It had him (played by the black guy who isn't Tim Meadows) serving the rest of the S.C. coffee and snacks and basically kissing their asses and being a yes-man.  Then O'Conner lets slip that appointments are for life.  The subject of discussion was the Rodney King trial, and Thomas kicks back and puts his feet on the table and says "What we have here is an obvious case of po-lice brutality".  Of course it'd be funnier if it was true.  Maybe just because it kinda bothers me that the first black Justice was extremely conservative, but maybe that's what it takes.  I still think Powell would have made a fine first black President.  But now I'm getting off topic.

[ Parent ]

It's not what it takes. (2.00 / 2) (#45)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:55:09 AM EST

It's a deliberate propaganda move. Republicans have found a brilliant way to escape the bad karma of their policies that directly harm blacks and women. It's simple, all you have to do is find a black willing to sell out their race, or a woman willing to assist the patriarchy. The Bush administration presents possibly the most multicultural group on TV outside of Sesame Street, meanwhile doing everything it can to undo past progress towards racial and gender equality. (Sesame Street beats them on diversity, IMO, because Sesame Street has a gay person or two. It was still a close call.)

And of course, the other similarity is that both are fantasies. :P


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Maybe they have one in the closet (missus) (3.00 / 3) (#48)
by spasticfraggle on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:52:18 AM EST

After all, dividing by 7 and translating badly into Swedish:

Karl = Man
Rove~= Röv = Ass

Karl Rove ~= "Man Ass"

I rest my case m'lud

--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]

After the '04 election ... (2.50 / 2) (#57)
by Ignore Amos on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:28:42 PM EST

... people kept talking about Bush's man-date.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

lol, I'm gonna have to use that one -nt (none / 0) (#60)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:53:05 PM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
The Bush Administration is not that multicultural (2.00 / 2) (#58)
by Tragedy of the Kurons on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:35:28 PM EST

It's got a black (Condi) and a hispanic (that new attorney general) but apart from that it's all WASP, AFAIK.

And Condi got drafted by the white team anyway. (Chapelle show reference).

"That is a mean website. Some people are just mean and rude."
[ Parent ]

I love that show. (none / 0) (#59)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:52:43 PM EST

Especially Rick James. "Motherfuck your couch!!"


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Ummmm... (none / 1) (#106)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:13:39 PM EST

Have you ever checked?

Looks like 4 women, two blacks, two hispanics and two asians.

Yup. WASP to the core.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Ouch (none / 1) (#133)
by Tragedy of the Kurons on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 05:26:08 AM EST

I got owned. Yeah, well, I guess AFAIK is about two millimeters.

"That is a mean website. Some people are just mean and rude."
[ Parent ]

typical identity-politics nonsense (none / 1) (#128)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:12:27 AM EST

I consider myself left-of-center and usually for for the Democrats, but this sort of identity-politics nonsense irritates me to no end. Simply because you happen to have more melatonin in your skin should not remove your freedom to formulate political opinions. Someone with dark skin is no more obligated to vote for a particular political party than someone with light skin. Though I suppose you, as a white person, certainly have the right to tell a black person that they're "selling out their race". After all, it's the white man's burden to tell the other races what's best for them, right?

[ Parent ]
You can call it whatever kind of politics you wish (none / 0) (#131)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:59:09 AM EST

Yes, I'm a white man. And blacks do have the freedom to formulate their own political opinions. I wasn't saying they shouldn't. I also didn't, and don't, feel the need to go into why I consider the Republican Party's antipathy to blacks and women to be manifest. It's my studied opinion that that is fairly obvious to anyone who reads the newspaper beyond the front page top fold.

I'm just constantly puzzled by people who are not white males voting for a party which consistently chooses to give white males preferential treatment in all things. I'm both disgusted and offended by people who are that foolish (imo). I don't tell them how to vote, but I reserve the right to call them idiots after the fact.

It's also a bit funny to me that it's all ok for Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas" to basically call Kansan crackers idiots for supporting the Republicans who screw them over, because Frank is of the same race as those he's investigating. That's all well and good, and Frank is now the darling of the intelligentsia. But lo, stop the presses when a white man dares to say that women and minorities are being snookered by an Administration that dresses itself up in a fake diversity show for TV so it can use their votes to gain a mandate to destroy them.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
it could be people don't care about race (none / 1) (#159)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:56:54 PM EST

I know plenty of people, both white and non-white, for whom their race is not even close to the top of their list of interests. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are people with dark skin who do not primarily identify as "black people". They will probably agree that they are "black people" if asked, but have many other factors they care about much more than what color their skin happens to be.

It's also a little weird to generalize about how policies "affect black people". Unless you're talking about specific policies like segregation, I'm not aware of any policies that specifically affect black people, and certainly not uniformly. A poor black person, in general, has more in common with a poor white person than they do with a rich black person or a rich white person.

Also, I think Thomas Frank is an ass for pretty much the same reasons (condescending liberal fuck who doesn't know what he's talking about telling others their opinions are stupid), so I don't see how my viewpoint is hypocritical.

[ Parent ]

It's not a surprise to me. (none / 0) (#170)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 12:50:22 AM EST

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are people with dark skin who do not primarily identify as "black people". They will probably agree that they are "black people" if asked, but have many other factors they care about much more than what color their skin happens to be.

But the problem is, the racists in positions of power do identify blacks as a group by their skin color alone, and to oppose them, those who are being championed must be identified by the anti-racists. You can't struggle for a group's rights if you're unwilling to take the radical step of defining what that group is. :P Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but your viewpoint seems to be that white liberals should quit meddling and let blacks fight for their rights alone, because to you any involvement or attempt at activism is "condescension". What makes you think I don't have black friends myself, that I want to help out in whatever way I can? Just because you or I don't think of them primarily as black, doesn't mean there aren't people out there who *do*.

A poor black person, in general, has more in common with a poor white person than they do with a rich black person or a rich white person.

Definitely true. However, due to racism, blacks are proportionately more likely to be poor than whites. So I could have made my initial point differently. I could have said, "I don't understand why poor people vote Republican," but there are no poor people in the Bush administration, so it would be kind of pointless. My point about the Republican diversity parade is meaningless when we're talking about blacks who don't identify primarily as blacks, after all - why would they care about Rice and Powell? The entire point of my remarks was about those who *do* so identify themselves, and possibly come to some self-defeating conclusions.

I'm trying very hard not to snap at you, because I've come to respect you here at k5, but goddamn it gets under my skin when my own skin color is used to declare I have no right to try to convince people of another color to share my views.

Yes, there's a certain element of condescencion whenever you try to convince someone else that *you're* right and *they're* wrong. It's not an easy thing to take from someone else, but where would the world be if no one with a bright idea ever challenged widespread ignorance? The fact that you find Frank and myself equally repugnant isn't really the point. I would probably be equally lambasted for being "patronizing" by the general public if my views were published, while as I said, Thomas Frank's were accepted and hailed as visionary. The only difference is that Thomas Frank claimed that most poor people were wrong and he was right, where I claim that a few black people were wrong and I am right. For all anyone outside Frank's skull can tell, he could be doing this out of an honest desire to improve the world, or merely to use the forum of public debate to masturbate his ego. My motives are equally unprovable.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
I guess I disagree on the race issue (none / 0) (#172)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 02:48:40 AM EST

I don't think there are racists in position of power. There are certainly racists in politics, but I don't think they set the agenda (in both parties, mind you—Jesse Jackson is an outright anti-Semite and he's still tolerated and even welcomed at Democratic Party functions).

For example, I seriously don't think that, even if it weren't for political appearances, Bush gives a fuck that Alberto Gonzales is Hispanic; by all accounts, they've been friends for a long time. Jeb Bush is even married to a Hispanic woman, which seems like a bit far to go if he were really a closet white-supremacist who only pretends to be nice to other races for political reasons.

I think there's a better argument for class, although I'm skeptical of that too. But, by and large, I think the current business elite in the United States doesn't care about race—the white, asian, hispanic, and black businessmen are all usually found on the same side, patting each others' backs and helping to stuff each others' pockets. (And they're the real power behind the Republican Party's upper echelons, not the Christian Right.)

So, in essence, I think a wealthy person of any race that votes for the Republican Party is voting in his or her interests.

[ Parent ]

oh, I think this might be the main disagreement (none / 0) (#173)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:00:49 AM EST

to oppose them, those who are being championed must be identified by the anti-racists. You can't struggle for a group's rights if you're unwilling to take the radical step of defining what that group is. :P

I strongly and fundamentally disagree with this. Identifying subsets of Americans by irrelevant characteristics like skin color and treating them as groups is the problem, and cannot be any part of the solution. I don't think there is any such thing as "a group's rights", only the rights of individuals.

This is essentially the viewpoint taken by James Meredith, the first black student admitted to the University of Mississippi, who takes offense at being called a "civil rights hero". He describes his lawsuit not as a "civil rights struggle", but as "my goal of forcing the federal government to use the U.S. military to assert my rights as a citizen", and furthermore says that "Nothing could be more insulting to me than the concept of civil rights. It means perpetual second-class citizenship for me and my kind".

So I certainly support individuals like Meredith who wish to overturn laws that discriminate against them for some irrelevant reason like skin color; of course, overturning such laws will have the effect of helping everyone unjustly discriminated against by such laws. But I don't support the attempt to actively delineate people into groups based on such irrelevant characteristics, form organizations for them, and so on, because I think such taxonomy of the human race is precisely the root of the problem.

[ Parent ]

For him and his kind? (none / 0) (#180)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:57:57 AM EST

Hmm, what definition of his "kind" is he working on, I wonder?

This isn't an issue of politics, it's one of semantics. Simply attempting to discuss the issue involves certain acts of mental categorization. How can you discuss the problem of racism against blacks in America without at least considering the categories proposed by those you are arguing against? It's like telling someone not to think of a pink elephant.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
by opposing race itself (none / 0) (#181)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 04:33:54 AM EST

I think you're defining the problem wrongly—the problem is not "racism against blacks in America", but "the perpetuation of the myth of race in America". When people identify themselves and others based on irrelevant features like levels of melatonin, racialism of all sorts follows. The problem cannot be solved until people realize skin color is approximately as important as hair color. From that perspective, many "black" groups in the United States are part of the problem, not its solution.

There are really no significant similarities that are universal within skin colors; a Nigerian immigrant, supposedly "black", has more in common typically with a Bulgarian immigrant, supposedly "white", than either has with other members of their supposed "races". Groups like the NAACP, however, try to tell people otherwise, sending propaganda out to Nigerian immigrants about how terrible the United States's race relations are, and how they ought to join in solidarity with other people of similar skin shades to fight for their rights. This has confused no small number of Nigerians with whom I'm personally acquainted.

If there is no race, there is no racism; strengthening "racial" identity perpetuates the myth of race and is therefore a problem, so I oppose those who attempt to strengthen "racial" identity.

[ Parent ]

Agreed on all points. (none / 0) (#182)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 04:41:55 AM EST

But it's rather a long-view approach, isn't it? You seem to be saying we should focus on educating the young to be color-blind. But when I look at schools and what is being taught to children, I see things like Black History Month and political correctness and Ebonics classes. I don't think there's much hope that the next generation will be *less* race-conscious with that teaching, as wholesome as its motivations may be.

So, in theory, I agree with you that racial identity is *itself* the problem, but the fact remains that people are being discriminated against and maltreated, and you haven't proposed a workable way to end that wrong.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
well, that's sort of my point (none / 0) (#184)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 04:53:50 AM EST

These days, the anti-racism side seems to be creating more of the problems than the racists; the KKK and Neo-Nazis aren't really threats anymore, but Ebonics classes and Black Studies professors are very much mainstream, implanting ridiculous racialist ideas into kids' heads as you noted.

I also don't really buy that there is racial discrimination on nearly the scale that you seem to think. I think most of the problems are misidentified socio-economic problems; poor inner-city blacks are poor and unable to escape poverty for pretty much the same reasons poor Appalachian whites are poor and unable to escape poverty, not because of their skin color—a mixture of lack of resources, a culture that doesn't value education, and poor parenting.

Perhaps the most striking evidence for this is that none of the problems supposedly caused by racism in America seem to affect African immigrants—by and large, post-1950 or so immigrants from Africa succeed at levels comparable to Asian immigrants. If there were discrimination based on skin color itself, Nigerian immigrants would run into it, but on the contrary, they seem to be sought ought because they've developed a reputation as hardworking and incredibly intelligent people.

[ Parent ]

as a more hopeful further aside (none / 0) (#183)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 04:43:31 AM EST

This problem is steadily correcting itself through "interracial" marriages; already, there are few people in the United States who are exclusively from one ethnic heritage (most "black" people in the U.S., for example, have "white" ancestors, sometimes in larger proportion than their "black" ancestors).

Interestingly enough, the most resistance to such marriages, despite a few well-publicized exceptions like Bob Jones University, comes from groups other than "whites". I know fairly well one couple that is a "black" woman and a "white" man, and they get no end of shit from "black" men—the woman is supposedly betraying her race, and the man is "stealing" a woman than for some unfathomable reason "rightfully" belongs to someone with darker skin color. You see similar behavior from Asian-Americans—it is typically the Asians who are much more disapproving of Asian-White relationships (and don't even think about Asian-Black relationships).

[ Parent ]

I should add to this (none / 0) (#160)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:58:24 PM EST

That I'm appalled by how any non-white person could vote for the Democratic Party, the historical and continuing bastion of state racism in the United States; the party of Lester Maddox and Jesse Jackson; the party of identity politics and keeping people in cycles of dependency.

[ Parent ]
First black justice? (3.00 / 3) (#62)
by flimflam on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:35:22 PM EST

Forgot about Thurgood Marshall?


-- I am always optimistic, but frankly there is no hope. --Hosni Mubarek
[ Parent ]
Big oops (nt) (none / 0) (#85)
by cburke on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:55:58 PM EST



[ Parent ]
The first black justice (3.00 / 2) (#68)
by aphrael on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:57:32 PM EST

was extremely liberal. He was appointed by President Johnson, whom he had previously served as  solicitor general, and had been the chief lawyer for the NAACP for many a year.

Thomas is the second black justice.

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (none / 1) (#74)
by LilDebbie on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:11:39 PM EST

Remember, Judge Roberts is what, 50? He's going to be on the bench a long friggin' time. During that time, Rehnquist will no doubt retire/croak and another may also. That's when you drop in another Scalia and burn what capital you have left.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Er... (3.00 / 2) (#99)
by trhurler on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:47:24 PM EST

How can the thought of 25-35 years of this guy seem creepy to you when you don't even know what his positions are? You accuse him of approving of theocracy on WHAT basis exactly? There IS no basis. Yet anyway - who knows what comes up in the next few weeks, but right now, there is none.

It sounds to me like we've got a bit of knee jerking going on here. "Ooh, not a leftist loser. BAD. BAD. BAD."

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
actually, it was based on the wikipedia article (none / 0) (#122)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:13:30 AM EST

While your comment seems to be knee jerking your opinion that leftists never research before speaking.

We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. [9]

--from a brief co-authored by Mr. Roberts, who I clearly know nothing about...


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
is this some sort of non-sequitur? (3.00 / 2) (#130)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:22:09 AM EST

What in the world does that have to do with approving of theocracy?

Hell, I support legal abortion and even I agree "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled". I'd vigorously oppose outlawing abortion were a legislature to attempt to do so, but the only way I could possibly support Roe is if I were to discard all legal principle and go on a strict "ends justify the means" basis.

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying Roberts has that as a goal (none / 0) (#132)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 04:01:38 AM EST

That was my prediction, and Bush surprisingly defied my expectation.

Rather than laboring for its creation, Roberts instead will merely look on, with an approving air, as the theocracy is inaugurated. Rather than, say, opposing it, as any moderate, centrist, or constitutionalist worth the name would do.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0) (#163)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 07:33:42 PM EST

Your research does not support your claims. Typical leftist nonsense. Next you'll start talking about sociology.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Pfft. (none / 0) (#169)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:50:40 PM EST

From his pro-business rulings it's already pretty clear he doesn't care much about individual liberty. And I was once a Catholic myself. They may be more "liberal" than Evangelicals by today's twisted standards, but most of them certainly wouldn't *mind* theocracy.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Er... (none / 1) (#193)
by trhurler on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:56:18 PM EST

I'm not sure how "pro business" attitudes and individual rights conflict. Maybe you have some examples?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Um (none / 0) (#164)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 07:36:57 PM EST

First of all, a lawyer writes the viewpoint of the client. That's his job - period. He COULD agree with that viewpoint, but he certainly does not have to. The idea that a brief Roberts wrote in the service of people who DO believe something means that he also believes it would, were it applied to Democrats, disqualify all but maybe one in twenty or so of them from any office where we can't tolerate "extremists." Roberts has flat out stated that Roe v Wade is settled law. What part of that don't you get?

BTW, wiki reading does not constitute "research" for exactly the reason you have just shown: the authors of articles make no attempt at presenting the facts, and simply present a view they desire others to hold. Any reasonable assessment of Mr. Roberts MUST include the relevant details from his confirmation as an appeals judge.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I don't get (none / 0) (#171)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:02:27 AM EST

the part where Roberts was *forced* to take that client's case. In fact, he chose to take their case, which in itself says something about his beliefs.

I also have much more faith in wikipedia than you, apparently. I have seen many attempts at altering articles to represent extreme views fail, usually within hours. IMO the wikipedia system works, with a few minor flaws. I'm aware that not everyone shares my faith in it - yet - so I don't use it as a source very often.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Ummm... (none / 0) (#191)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:47:51 PM EST

Probably because he was an employee?

If we're talking about the abortion case, he was an employee of the government, arguing the government's position.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

You aren't getting it (none / 0) (#194)
by trhurler on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 02:00:56 PM EST

Lawyers have clients. The clients have positions. It is not the job of a lawyer to question those positions. In fact, if they do, they can be disbarred. This guy was working for the government. The government had a position. He argued for it. Similarly, had he been a prosecutor, his job would not have been to DECIDE if someone was guilty, but to pursue a guilty verdict regardless - and the defense attorney's job is not to DECIDE whether his client is innocent, but to argue for an innocent verdict. It really is that simple. Lawyers do not kill people, torture people, and so on - they are not criminals regardless of their arguments - and as such your comparison to Nazis is simply ridiculous.

Some lawyers take cases they believe in, and refuse other cases - in order to do so, they pretty much HAVE to refuse to take any regular employment or retainers. MOST lawyers simply do their jobs, and that's what we as a society expect from them.

As for wikipedia, the problem is that the wikipedia crowd's notion of "extreme" is not the same as that of society in general. You may happen to agree with them, and you may think everyone else does too, but it ain't so. Wikipedia tends to be fairly far to the left, because it is edited by young people whose motivations are often self-described as "noble," and most such people are fairly far to the left. It is that simple.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
As far as the french fry girl (1.66 / 6) (#41)
by NaCh0 on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 02:46:41 AM EST

Was she a retard? Could she not read the no food signs?

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
Yes, she was retarded (2.50 / 2) (#42)
by cburke on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 02:56:58 AM EST

Cuff the bitch!

[ Parent ]
Thanks Corky! (none / 1) (#43)
by NaCh0 on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:08:59 AM EST

I loved your TV career.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
No, thank you. (none / 0) (#44)
by cburke on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:16:09 AM EST

I always appreciate a fan, even if it is surprising how many of them are more retarded than I am.

[ Parent ]
So (3.00 / 5) (#49)
by mcc on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:03:37 AM EST

Who the hell is this guy?

No, seriously.

This is a candidate with

  1. Eleven years of experience working for republican presidential administrations
  2. One year as a clerk for a supreme court justice
  3. ...Two years as a judge.
Aside from the obvious question as which of these three things he was chosen on the basis of, one has to ask exactly how we can make an informed decision about someone whose judicial career dates to 2003.

Almost any objections to something (anything) he did in the last 25 years before 2003 gets brushed off as either "well, it wasn't his opinion, it was just the opinion of the administration" or "well, it wasn't his opinion, it was just the opinion of his private practice clients". Almost all we're left with to judge him are two years of judgehood and some feel-good comments he's been making to the press while, um, trying to make himself look good for the confirmation process... and we have no idea how truthful he's being with these, or (even in the very likely case he's being truthful!) whether he'll still feel the same way after he gets a seat on the bench, because we haven't meaningfully seen how he reacts in real-world on the job situations.

Oh, and then there's the question of whether you want the highest court in the land being operated by someone with so little directly germane experience. But I guess I'm just not supposed to bring that up?

Really I guess there's any number of concerns I could express here, but my primary two concerns are that

  1. We're getting a supreme court candidate that there is simply not enough information about to make an informed decision on-- indeed, quite possibly a candidate partially chosen because (like George W. Bush himself) his record is so scant as to leave nothing to attack
  2. Instead of the normal, expected supreme court confirmation process in which judicial candidates are subjected to, you know, screening to see if they're right for the job, we're just going to get a rubber stamping process. The current political climate is such that anything other than total agreement with the current executive branch, from anyone, for any reason, can get smeared as partisan obstructionism, and the media will play right along.
Or, in short, I'm concerned that we don't know what we're buying here and Congress isn't going to bother to find out.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
Directly germane experience (3.00 / 4) (#51)
by rusty on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:42:01 AM EST

I believe I saw it noted somewhere that he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme court. That's about 39 more times than most lawyers ever appear before the SC, and 36 or 37 more times than even the very top lawyers get.

While not judicial experience, that is certainly directly germane experience.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

He also clerked for Rehnquist (none / 1) (#63)
by WetherMan on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:49:39 PM EST

and continued to maintain a genuine personal friendship with him afterwards.  this may be a partial reason why.
---
fluorescent lights make me look like old hot dogs
[ Parent ]
The non-partisan court watcher weblogs (2.66 / 3) (#67)
by aphrael on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:56:09 PM EST

All seem to think he has a reputation of being an extremely good litigator before the court. O'Connor was reportedly thrilled at the nomination.

[ Parent ]
That's not the way I heard it... (none / 1) (#70)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 02:11:50 PM EST

I heard she thought he was a fine choice but she was disappointed with his gender - like a lot of people she expected to be replaced  by another woman.

I'm wondering if Bush is saving the woman (Edith mumble-something) for the chief justice post...

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

I thought (none / 0) (#73)
by LilDebbie on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:06:18 PM EST

they generally elevated an Associate Justice and nominated a new one for the old chair?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
not usually. (3.00 / 2) (#81)
by aphrael on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:23:02 PM EST

It has happened a few times - Rehnquist was one. But both of his immediate predecessors (Burger, Warren) were not.


[ Parent ]
He was picked for a reason (none / 1) (#52)
by feline on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:47:01 AM EST

And that reason was precisely what you seem to be concerned about: no one knows who he is. The Wall Street Journal yesterday suggested that a primary reason that this guy was selected was precisely that no one new who he was. Why? If the Dems don't can't say 'Hey...look what he did? That's no good.' then it makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to justify rejecting him.

[ Parent ]
Well, they confirmed him once before (none / 1) (#65)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:52:12 PM EST

so they have to have some idea who he is...

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
Same Story Then (none / 1) (#69)
by feline on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 02:08:37 PM EST

If they know very little about him now, they must have known less then. So it's the same story of not having any choice.

[ Parent ]
Blame the opposition groups (none / 1) (#80)
by NaCh0 on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 05:35:00 PM EST

As others have pointed out, the man has spent enough time arguing in the courtroot and working in the back chambers to know how the court works.

The real concern is that tens of millions of dollars are being spent to find a 25 year old mistake that can be spun into a media circus.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]

Timing (1.66 / 3) (#53)
by Ignore Amos on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:17:14 PM EST

I find the timing of the selection to be nearly as telling as the nominee himself. Bush could have waited another two or three weeks before announcing his nomination and still had ample time for the confirmation process prior to the Justice taking the bench in October. But with the whole Rove-Plame situation dominating the front pages last week, it's not too hard to guess why the Administration threw Roberts up when they did.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero

Bush originally said (3.00 / 2) (#54)
by LilDebbie on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:21:37 PM EST

he'd announce when he got back from the G8 summit around the ninth. I think they held off on that to let the media get the London bombings out of their system.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Ah, yes ... (none / 1) (#56)
by Ignore Amos on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:25:33 PM EST

I think I vaguely remember hearing that. Still, one has to admit that it's a convenient diversion.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

It took Clinton an average of 58 days to... (2.50 / 2) (#64)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:51:29 PM EST

get a nominee confirmed for anything - and the Democrats have been making noises that they will make the process hard no matter who the nominee is.

So it isn't really that early.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Especially when you add in (3.00 / 2) (#66)
by aphrael on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 01:55:03 PM EST

that Congress will recess in August.

[ Parent ]
Stance on transhumanism? (1.00 / 5) (#71)
by Fen on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 02:50:14 PM EST

Well, scince funding, stem cell stuff. Tax cuts if anything should help as people will have more to fund transhuman causes like singinst.org. The switch from Sandra will probably be transhuman-neutral however. So no big deal or big story overall.  This is fun. I'm typing on a new kinesis keyboard. What a joy.
--Self.
Singinst (none / 0) (#168)
by Holonic Zenmaster on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:37:09 PM EST

I will be the first to say the Singularity is very important, but that money really should be going to reducing reliance on Oil. If that does not geet curbed, I dont think singinst will have enough time to succeed.

[ Parent ]
Day O' Connor (none / 0) (#77)
by Ignore Amos on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:17:23 PM EST

For a long time, when I heard "Day O'Connor" invoked in the media, I thought they were talking about an Irish guy doing Harry Belafonte covers.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero

Too late for editorial. Next time: (none / 0) (#78)
by sudog on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:32:17 PM EST

"and character, however, the running major"

"and character; however, the running major"

Doh. Oh well.


In the french fry case... (3.00 / 8) (#90)
by eeg on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:58:41 PM EST

...he chastised the Metro police saying they were rude and made children cry, but he found that the girl had no constitutional right to eat french fries on the subway.

That makes complete sense, and it is nice to see a judge following the law instead of following his own personal beliefs.

-- eeg3(.com)

Link? (none / 0) (#92)
by TheNoxx on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:24:54 PM EST

I never came across that at all. In my research all I came across was that he noted "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" but that he wasn't allowed to second-guess the appropriateness of the District's policies. I thought that was exactly his job. Furthermore, the girl wanted the arrest expunged from her record and an apology so it wouldn't taint her record with both schools and employers, but the court found it would somehow implicate the District and the transit authority (page 7 and 15 of the court's record). While it notes that the transit authority has sinced changed its policy, the court found that there was no need to expunge the arrest and its legality. How?

[ Parent ]
Wowzers. (none / 1) (#94)
by eeg on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:36:57 PM EST

but that he wasn't allowed to second-guess the appropriateness of the District's policies. I thought that was exactly his job.

You must not understand the judicial system at all. Judges ARE NOT legislators. They are JUDGES. That's why there are different branches.

-- eeg3(.com)
[ Parent ]

Pardon? (none / 0) (#98)
by TheNoxx on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:47:16 PM EST

What? Where do you get that? They don't write laws, that much is obvious; judges are supposed to evaluate laws and their legal application. Ever notice when a Judge declares a law or government practice unconstitutional?

[ Parent ]
LoL. (none / 0) (#101)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:54:03 PM EST

Do you even know what that means?

The Constitution is, in fact, a law. When two laws come into conflict, a judge decides which one takes precedence. What a judge cannot do is override a law because he doesn't like it - even if he thinks the law is morally repugnant, practically crazy or anything else.

This case is a perfect example - which is why the decision was unanimous. Just because it was ridiculous to bust a girl for eating french fries doesn't mean the judge can throw it out - the law might have been stupid, but it was still the law.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Misinterpreted... (none / 0) (#105)
by TheNoxx on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:10:52 PM EST

I am in no way implying that the judge come up with some new law out of thin air, but merely stating that precedence more than supports the case for a judge to intervene when a law is issued that uses excessive and unreasonable force, such as handcuffing and arresting a 12 year old girl for eating a french fry. If you read the court record, it states she wasn't even past the turnstyle when she ate a single french fry. After the arrest, the officer took her personal belongings and searched through them. This is clearly, clearly an example of a writ of attainder in the use of excessive force against a minor, if in fact the officer was carrying out the letter of the law. The law, which has since been revised, previously stated that any adult caught on the subway was to be issued a $10-50 dollar fine for eating on the subway, but that children under 18 should be arrested and brought to a District holding facility.

[ Parent ]
It saddens me... (none / 0) (#114)
by eeg on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:35:24 PM EST

...that the education system has failed people like you so terribly.

Go buy a US Government & Politics book and read up, please.

-- eeg3(.com)
[ Parent ]

Yeah, well, after reading your diaries... (none / 0) (#121)
by TheNoxx on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 12:42:07 AM EST

I'm tempted to lambaste your curricular activities listed on your blog and moral predisposition towards something so grotesque as bigotry. However, this would not be productive; I would find myself no closer to such profound matters as faith and philosophy, and if I were to face mortality, I certainly could not state I had acted in my capacity to contribute to humanity's moral standing. Surely, mankind's compunctions are a mystery, and the only one greater is the lack of them in so many. As for legal appreciation, it may not be perfect, but it is more than enough to comprehend legal precedent and judicial obligation. I would recommend that you find a greater interest in compassion.

[ Parent ]
Judges aren't law-makers. (none / 1) (#123)
by eeg on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:22:53 AM EST

What does that have to do with me being a cold hearted asshole lacking compassion?

Nice usage of lambaste, though.

-- eeg3(.com)
[ Parent ]

Again... (none / 0) (#141)
by TheNoxx on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 09:47:41 AM EST

Your assertion seems to mainly stem from the right wing's less legally inclined notion that because judges aren't in the legislative branch that they have no control over interpretation or revision of the law, which is, of course, patently false. Pointing out the obvious fact that members of the courts are not elected into any legislative body has absolutely no bearing on legal precedence, namely every case that has brought about massive change of the legal system in the United States, such as Brown v. The Board of Education or Plessy v. Ferguson. This process is called judicial review, which is defined as an overriding constitutional or statutory right to determine if a legislative act or administrative decision is defective for jurisdictional or other reasons.

[ Parent ]
Do you have any idea what Judicial Review is? (none / 0) (#167)
by eeg on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 08:24:37 PM EST

It is simply the authority to declare unconstitutional the actions of other branches.

Plessy v. Ferguson and other laws were over turned because they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you know what that means? It means they violated the constitution. The judges didn't overturn them because they thought they were bad, they did so because it violated the highest law of the land. The constitution trumps any other laws, and the Judge must make the ruling that the lesser law does not stand.

Judges can not say "eh, you know, john, I don't like that law that much, I think i'll end it."

Once again, go read up.

-- eeg3(.com)
[ Parent ]

Monkeys (none / 0) (#205)
by calumny on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 10:13:05 PM EST

[ ] Constitutional
[ ] Not Constitutional
[ ] Somewhat Constitutional

We just train them to check the boxes!

[ Parent ]

What's a writ of attainder? (none / 1) (#137)
by maniac1860 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 08:49:11 AM EST

You've used this a bunch of times but I'm not clear on what you mean. A bill of attainder (what is banned in the constitution) would be when the legislature passes a law which declares someone guilty of a crime, and thus bypasses the justice system. This is nothing like that. You might argue against it on equal protection grounds, but all sorts of laws are different based upon age and have been upheld.

[ Parent ]
Attainder (none / 0) (#162)
by TheNoxx on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 05:19:11 PM EST

A writ of attainder, or bill of attainder, is defined as when the legislative body oversteps the courts and passes an act that issues undue and unfair punishment on one or more persons, particularly when used in reference to a certain group based on ethnicity, personal belief, sex, and/or legal status. My argument would be that to order someone arrested, searched, and detained on site of a violation that is tantamount to an infraction even smaller than a parking fine (as it was stated in the court record the fines ranged from $10-$50 for adults) certainly constitutes undue punishment for something so trivial, particularly as it applied only to minors.

[ Parent ]
Holy shit. (none / 0) (#95)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:44:05 PM EST

/I thought that was exactly his job. /

You slept all the way though civics class, didn't you?

The Legislature makes the rules. The Executive enforces the rules. The judges verify that the rules are being followed.

Judges aren't supposed to "second guess" anything.


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Again, pardon? (none / 0) (#103)
by TheNoxx on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:00:57 PM EST

The Judicial Branch is made to interpret the law and determine whether or not it is constitutional. From Wikipedia's summary: "A common misperception is that the Supreme Court is the only court that may determine constitutionality; the power is exercised even by the inferior courts. But only Supreme Court decisions are binding across the nation. Decisions of a Court of Appeals, for instance, are binding only in the circuit over which the court has jurisdiction."

[ Parent ]
So, then what's the problem? (none / 0) (#108)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:18:23 PM EST

First - sorry for the insults in the first post, that was uncalled for.

But you certainly seemed to be arguing that things should be declared unconstitutional simply because you find them ludicrous - and judges do not have that power. The constitution outlines a set of rights, and eating french fries on the subway isn't one of them - which is why the decision was unanimous.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#110)
by TheNoxx on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:41:03 PM EST

Heh, hate to double post even somewhat, but my problem is that the law had been changed because it was found to be ludicrous in its use of excessive force, but that he found it would somehow implicate the District and the transit authority to expunge the record of her arrest and issue an apology. After the arrest and handcuffing, the officer took her personal belongings and searched through them. This is clearly, clearly an example of a writ of attainder in the use of excessive force against a minor, if in fact the officer was carrying out the letter of the law. The law, which has since been revised, previously stated that any adult caught on the subway was to be issued a $10-50 dollar fine for eating on the subway, but that children under 18 should be arrested and brought to a District holding facility. Her arguement was that this violated equal protection under the constitution, and if anything, minors shouldn't be punished more than adults for an offense.

I just don't see how clearing her permanent record and issuing an official apology would harm the district or the transit authority, let alone for an infraction against a rule which has already been dismissed.

[ Parent ]
I see. (I also see where we differ) (none / 0) (#113)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:27:53 PM EST

I just don't see how clearing her permanent record and issuing an official apology would harm the district or the transit authority, let alone for an infraction against a rule which has already been dismissed.

And, actually, those things would be fine - but it would be the legislature's job to issue them. After all, they wrote the law, not the judges. The judges didn't have anything to apologize for.

And, in fact, legislatures do that sort of thing all the time - she could also look to the governor for a pardon; which would have the same effect. I'm not sure which would be faster, but neither would have required a multi-year court battle.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

DC doesn't have a governor (none / 0) (#149)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 12:16:34 PM EST

She'd have to get a pardon from Dubya.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Interesting point... (none / 0) (#151)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 12:52:06 PM EST

Hrm.

Well, wait - if the law wasn't a federal law, Shrub wouldn't get involved, would he?

I dunno - can mayors pardon people?

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

The District (none / 0) (#155)
by aphrael on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:31:26 PM EST

is technially under federal jurisdiction. Congress meddles with its local government all of the time.

[ Parent ]
Remember 'No Taxation Without Representation'? (none / 0) (#156)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:10:36 PM EST

Neither does Congress, which controls the District. The Mayor and City Council have just as much power as Congress allows.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
The council could (none / 0) (#161)
by maniac1860 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:06:09 PM EST

pass a law pardoning her, which the mayor could then approve. The power of clemency is given to state govenors by clauses in the state's constitution. Since DC is not considered a soveriegn entity, it does not have one.

[ Parent ]
Hah, stupid leftist turds (1.50 / 6) (#96)
by trhurler on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:45:42 PM EST

All those posting comments about how this guy is evil and must be stopped and/or who think his nomination is a media focus exercise can now stop and think to themselves, "Ah, so it is ME they mean when they say "knee jerk liberal." Talk about prejudging a situation... morons.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

So... (none / 1) (#102)
by ubernostrum on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:58:15 PM EST

We should be providing knee-jerk support instead, to a guy who has more experience as a corporate trial lawyer than he does as a judge?




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
(3) Encourage (none / 0) (#112)
by mtrisk on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:23:47 PM EST

Well said my friend.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
You are not LANES INEXPLICABLY CLOSED TO TRAFFIC (none / 0) (#139)
by maniac1860 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 09:20:35 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 1) (#166)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 07:38:50 PM EST

He aptly points himself out as a fool, and now you do too. You don't have to be for OR against something you don't yet understand, idiot.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
He's argued a lot more cases before that court (none / 0) (#115)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:36:07 PM EST

than most, and there's no requirement that someone even be a judge before they're appointed to the court. I believe others have mentioned Warren and Marshall as examples. (although I think Marshall had been a judge for a couple of years first). Ginsberg also seems to have only been a judge for just a few years before moving up to the supreme court. Neither O'Conner nor Rehnquist seem to have been federal judges at all. Heck, the only one that seems to have spent a lot of time judging before being put on the supreme court is Kennedy.

Check out Oyez you can learn the dirt on every Justice there ever was.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

of course not. (none / 0) (#146)
by aphrael on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:17:54 AM EST

We should be skeptical but not oppositional. We should say, ok, look, this guy is highly respected in washington legal circles, and the supreme court justices seem to like him, but what do we know about him? And then we should push our congresspeople to find out.

I don't know enough about the man that I could in good conscience vote for or against him, were I required to do so.

[ Parent ]

He was nominated by Bush (none / 0) (#215)
by bhirsch on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 11:29:27 PM EST

That is all that matters to just about every one of his critics.

[ Parent ]
Hmm (1.50 / 4) (#165)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 07:37:42 PM EST

Have you considered waiting until you have enough information to form an opinion? Oh, wait, you're a leftist. Nevermind, I forgot that you have the mind of a six year old.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Hm. (none / 0) (#206)
by ubernostrum on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 01:06:21 AM EST

Have you considered the entire position? Oh wait, you're a $EPITHET. Let me fling $CHILDISH_INSULT at you because I'm so self-evidently better than you.




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#111)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:45:26 PM EST

Theres not a lot to 'prejudge' him on...

I dont live in america so I have little understanding of the situation, and this article doesn't give a lot of information.

I say whatever, you voted for your president and this is what you'll get.

Remember you're not trying to reach for the best and brightest representatives anymore...

Who knows this guy could be the best judge ever, it's all a matter of politics, and perception.

This kind of thing always is...

The reason for this is simple: we're all full of shit ~ circletimessquare
[ Parent ]

Forget the french fry -- you don't live here (3.00 / 2) (#116)
by michaelmalak on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 10:41:23 PM EST

Have you ridden the DC Metro? Have you ridden any mass transportation in your life? Not having to smell McDonald's -- let alone have it spilled on you -- is a godsend on the DC Metro compared to other forms of mass transportation, especially Greyhound.

But let's just read the front page Nov. 16, 2000 Washington Post story for ourselves, shall we?

Commuter complaints about unlawful eating on Metro cars and in stations led McDevitt to mount a week-long undercover crackdown on violators last month, and a dozen plainclothes officers cited or arrested 35 people, 13 of them juveniles. Only one adult was arrested.

[...] [Metro Transit Police Chief Barry J. McDevitt] said, it is department policy to handcuff anyone who is arrested, no matter the age. "Anyone taken into custody has to be handcuffed for officer safety," McDevitt said. Youngsters "can kill you, too."

[...] [Ansche Hedgepeth] said she never talked to the officer, although Metro police insist that she was asked whether she knew eating was against the law and that she said she did. They said anyone who doesn't know about the law usually is given a warning first.

[...] Metro spokesman Ray Feldmann said yesterday: "We were tired of people eating and drinking on the train, spilling things and leaving partially eaten food and containers. People complained last spring about how debris gets on the third rail and starts minor fires." Signs warning that it is illegal to eat or drink on the cars and in the stations are posted in the Metro system.

Ansche -- like everyone in the DC area knew the law and broke it. The law is not a silly law, as it might seem to those who do not use DC Metro or perhaps not even any mass transportation at all.

Oh, to get back to the real topic here... Judge Roberts? That he was nominated by both elder Bush and GW Bush should give us pause.

For those unfamiliar with my positions, I must give some background so the following won't be so confusing. I voted against and continue to blog against Bush because Bush is pro-choice (and I am pro-life) and because Bush is a pro-war imperialist.

As Brownback said, Roberts could be another Souter. To highlight one of the bullets from my blog article linked above, of the five justices seated by the supposedly pro-life Reagan and elder Bush, three voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. Souter was one of them.

Even if Roberts is not in Bush's pocket and somehow finds it in himself to overturn Roe v. Wade (or even sometime in the next four decades of his likely term find for the constitutional rights of the pre-born), Bush will be sure to nominate pro-choice from here on out. This is commonly accepted wisdom in Washington -- that the Democrats may "give" Bush this one slot, but from here on out it's going to be pro-choicers only.

Even before Bush announced Roberts, National Right to Life called me asking for money to get Bush's pick in. At the time, I told them I had to wait to see if Bush would even pick someone pro-life. I still don't know. And I have a lot of reasons to suspect ulterior motives. So I'll put my money elsewhere.

--
BergamoAcademy.com  Authentic Montessori in Denver

This isn't a problem in civilized areas of the USA (none / 0) (#118)
by GNUStallman on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:17:52 PM EST

Boston allows people to eat food on all the mass transportation and it doesn't cause problems.

[ Parent ]
I forgot to mention... (none / 1) (#120)
by michaelmalak on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 11:32:51 PM EST

...that the DC subway is more crowded the Tokyo subway. Yes, I've ridden both. (As well as many others around the globe.)

Besides, your opinion is irrelevant. As the Post article stated, the consensus of the public in DC is "NO EATING". If you're one of those who advocates universal smoking even if most of the people find it offensive, then I can see where you're coming from.

--
BergamoAcademy.com  Authentic Montessori in Denver
[ Parent ]

but consensus is unimportant (none / 0) (#127)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:09:42 AM EST

Individual rights ought to trump public consensus.

Now if it were a privately-owned subway, I'd say they could impose whatever laws they want, but that's not the case.

[ Parent ]

they ought? (none / 0) (#136)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 06:59:43 AM EST

Last time I checked, individual rights are balanced against the individual rights of others.

The only person who is completely free is the guy on the desert island.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

in a democracy (none / 1) (#145)
by aphrael on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:16:36 AM EST

do the citizens of the polity - and DC is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of a state - have a right to ban behavior they find obnoxious?


[ Parent ]
no (none / 0) (#157)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:51:48 PM EST

I'm speaking of course of "right" in a general sense here; they may well legally have the right to do so in our current political system.

"It's obnoxious" is not even close to a valid reason for banning behavior, or else Greece would be justified in banning public affection between gay people (which it does), because the majority of its citizens find such public shows of affection obnoxious.

[ Parent ]

Your right to swing your fist (none / 0) (#150)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 12:23:39 PM EST

ends where my nose begins...

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Public spaces do not mean... (none / 1) (#154)
by bobpence on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:11:26 PM EST

... you can do anything. As a new DC-area resident I am surprised to learn this, since for example the London subways have vending machines. But my on one trip on Metro so far, on what was said to be a busy day, I noticed that it was quite clean and comfortable.

Now does my comfort trump the girl's right to eat on the subway? No; but as the judge observed, that is not a right. The courts are public, yes? Can you bring your Value Meal into the gallery? Municipal museums? Council chambers?

As to handcuffing anyone arrested, okay, but the offense of eating on the subway should result in a citation, in my opinion, not in arrest.


"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

Who decides what constitutes a right? (none / 0) (#204)
by calumny on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:43:56 PM EST

Public consensus is what makes human rights. Don't forget that even the U.S. constitution, that oft-quoted bastion of "your rights and freedoms," can be amended by a two-thirds majority. Or a popular revolution - or military dictatorship - could rise up, overthrow the government and write its own constitution.

Of course, if the girl's father had been able to hire an expensive lawyer or was himself a political celebrity, she might have seen a little remuneration for her inconvenience. So let's say that human rights are defined and made equal by the majority in the best case scenario.

[ Parent ]

Here's a thought (1.50 / 2) (#125)
by Stickerboy on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:41:01 AM EST

Aspiring physicians are accredited by a group of established, reputable physicians.

I was sitting on the fence on Judge Roberts - until I heard Sandra Day O'Connor loved his choice, and most of the other Supreme Court Justices had nice things to say about him as well.

If the other Justices think highly of him, as both a person and as a potential colleague, doesn't that say a lot?
 

Agreed (none / 0) (#140)
by TheNoxx on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 09:25:40 AM EST

I do like his record and character, and am anxious to see what his viewpoint will contribute to the Supreme Court. However, even O'Connor's praise does not exclude Roberts from intensely acute scrutiny. Associate Justice on the Supreme Court is an extremely important job, one I hold higher than the presidency; namely as people on that bench have a thousand times the character you'd ever find in any candidate for president, and their knowledge of legality and morals dwarfs that of the current commander in chief.

[ Parent ]
Link, please. (none / 1) (#144)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:15:41 AM EST

The one reference I heard (and mentioned elsewhere in this article) was that O'Connor thought he was qualified but was disappointed that a woman wasn't chosen.

That doesn't mean he's unqualified, but it hardly squares with her "loving the choice".

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Here's a link (none / 1) (#226)
by issachar on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:00:42 PM EST

"I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent, but I can't be disappointed in the quality of person nominated. He's first rate,"

I believe that the original post was referring to O'Connor calling Roberts "First rate". Not the same as "loving the choice", but a bit higher than saying that he's qualified.
---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Roberts and Gitmo... (none / 0) (#186)
by claes on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 10:46:47 AM EST

From slate:
Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. Tonight when Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.

Slate Article

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Coincidence? You be the judge. Just thought you folks would like to know.

-- claes (where is the outrage from the right?)

If we want to change the way Bush is handling (none / 0) (#190)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:40:51 PM EST

"detainees" then why hasn't Congress drafted a law defining their rights?

I mean, the whole problem is that they don't fall under existing laws because the Geneva convention doesn't apply and they aren't US citizens either - so why hasn't anyone tried to create a law defining their rights?

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Say goodbye to Roe (1.00 / 2) (#187)
by shinshin on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 10:49:47 AM EST

I find it funny that the Democrats are getting all optimistic about this guy. They are secretly hoping that since he is a "stealth candidate" (someone without a very long paper trail of writings that can be used to determine how he will decide future cases) that he will turn out to be another David Souter (who was appointed by a Bush Sr. under the assumption that he would be a conservative, and turned out to be much more left-leaning than expected).

What they don't realize is that the righties have learned their lesson: Roberts, while he doesn't have a long paper trail per se, is well known to be "one of them". His wife is a raging anti-abortion activist. He speaks before the Federalist Society (whose sole purpose is, let's be honest, to overturn Roe). He wrote that he thought Roe was "wrongly decided" and "should be overturned" (hint: when a judge publicly states that a precedent "should be overturned", and you appoint that judge to the Supreme Court of the United States, then you can bet on that precedent being overturned in short order). Granted, while he was being confirmed for the appellate, he said that Roe was the "settled law of the land", but that was when he was being confirmed for a post where he would not be in a position to do any overturning of SCOTUS decisions.

Roberts is unstoppable for confirmation, so there's not much point in carping over it. To be honest, I gave up caring about Roe a long time ago (as a matter of fact, I think it is going to wind up being a losing issue for Republicans, because the day Roe gets overturned is the day 20% of the Republican party switches sides). I just think it's weird that everyone is whispering with nervous and hopeful anticipation that "maybe he won't overturn Roe". Roe is dead. It just hasn't been buried yet.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

How true. (none / 1) (#189)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:37:48 PM EST

/He speaks before the Federalist Society (whose sole purpose is, let's be honest, to overturn Roe). /

Yeah, it's pernicious the way those libertarians want to restrict a woman's right to choose.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

When the Federalist Society starts (none / 0) (#195)
by shinshin on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 02:29:20 PM EST

speaking out against obscenely anti-Federalist decisions like Bush v Gore, then you can talk about what a high-minded libertarian institute it is. Until then, it's simply ridiculous to take their stated agenda at face value. They are little better than RNC apparatchiks.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Errr.... (none / 0) (#211)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 01:34:50 PM EST

In what way is saying that a state's own laws and decisions takes precedence an "anti-federalist" decision?

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
Come back (none / 0) (#212)
by shinshin on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 05:21:58 PM EST

after you've read the opinions in Bush v Gore.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Yah. (none / 0) (#224)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:39:10 AM EST

Sure, Ginsberg and Stevens claimed "federalism requires state law to be respected" yet the main conclusion was that the Florida court was trying to overturn state laws, not enforce them, so, sorry, I don't think that's federalism.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
This is exactly (none / 0) (#225)
by shinshin on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:31:17 AM EST

the sort of hypocritical massaging of history that the Fed-Soc members are always spouting off about.

The only fact you need to take away from Bush v Gore is that the Supreme Court intervened to stop a state from internally dealing with its own matters, and the Federalist Society and other faux-libertarian groups didn't make a peep.

You libertarians are suckers.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Imperial competence (none / 1) (#202)
by badtux on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 06:53:11 PM EST

In the end, it boils down to imperial competence. Like many mad sons of great rulers, Dear Leader values loyalty over competence, and has appointed many nominees to higher office who are incompetent to perform their job. For example, Condaleeza Rice's reward for ignoring hints of an upcoming terrorist strike while National Security Advisor was to be promoted to Secretary of State. Paul Wolfowitz's reward for screwing up planning for post-war Iraq and thus involving the U.S. in a land war in Asia was a promotion to the World Bank. John Bolton's reward for continuing Paul Bremer's legacy of screwing up in Iraq was to be nominated for UN Ambassador. Etc.

But Judge Bob Roberts, at least, is competent. Nobody denies that. When you have Mad King George upon the throne, having him accidentally appoint someone competent is almost a reward, even if the person being appointed is someone who I personally disagree with. I view Roberts as somewhat akin to the late Barry Goldwater. Goldwater did not agree with either the Civil Rights Acts or Roe v. Wade, saying that they interjected the federal government into issues that should be resolved by the states. But he was at least sincere in his belief in a small and highly restricted federal government, and that makes him 100% better than someone like Mad King George who talks the talk then embarks upon the greatest expansion of government spending since LBJ's Great Society programs.

In the end, Roberts is the best we're going to get out of Mad King George, and any other choices tossed out onto the confirmation table are likely to be worse. We might as well just ask our Senators to confirm him, and save up any political capital for confirmation battles for the next nominee, who is unlikely to be as competent as Roberts if the history of Mad King George's nominees to other offices is a guide.

- Badtux the Realist Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin

Mad sons of great rulers? (none / 0) (#227)
by niom on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:20:05 PM EST

Do you really think GHWB was a great ruler?

[ Parent ]
He was, at the least, a competent one (none / 0) (#250)
by badtux on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 06:25:42 PM EST

Which is more than can be said for his n'er do well son. It is arguably GHWB's tax hikes, privatization of the Internet, and military downsizing that led to the balanced budgets and economic boom under Bill Clinton. And it is arguably the quiet diplomacy of the Bush I administration that led to the final collapse of the Soviet Union. Not flashy. Not a President that's going to be remembered in the same breath as a Clinton or Reagan. But competent.

I voted for GHWB not once, but *twice*, BTW.

- Badtux the Former Republican Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

John G. Roberts, Jr. Nominated to Succeed Sandra Day O'Connor | 254 comments (215 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!