What ideas should the new SC Justice embody?

[Gabriella84]

I would hope the new Supreme Court appointment would vote to uphold all the existing rights and laws of the United States. Including, of course, the fundamental principle of Roe vs. Wade.
The importance of having a woman on the High Court was that the justices could finally hear the opinions and viewpoints of law from a female perspective. Because abortion rights is a female issue. I don't know why males should even be allowed a voice in the issue.
No male will ever get pregnant. Thus, no male will ever understand what transpires in the time from conception to birth. Nor will they ever understand the life-altering process of having a child to care for.
If abortion if made illegal, then every unmarried female who is forced to carry to term and give birth should be financially supported. That is the twist that few every worry about. They want women to have children, but don;t care what happens after that.
"Hey, we don't care how you manage to feed, house, clothe or take care of your child. You just have to do it. It's not our problem."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

IT should be a strict constuctionist. This means someone who makes decision based on the constitution instead of doing whatever they want and then writing some bullsnap opinion that a two year can tell is illogical.

 

[musicman]

During Al Gore's 2000 "keep counting votes till I win" campaign, his team advanced one argument - which reached the USSC - stating that Florida ballots did not contain "an objective standard".

Justice O'Connor - in shooting down this particular slapstick skit, said, simply, "If they want to find an objective standard, how about THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE WRITTEN ON THE BALLOT, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE??!!"

I consider this a high point in Justice O'Connor's career, a redemption of jurisprudence in general, and a resurrection of sweet, blessed, and all-too uncommon common sense.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll settle for justice for all and no bench legislation. The question is how big of a frenzy both parties are gonna whip up on this one and will we be able to stand all the BS.

 

[Gem]

I'll settle for someone who stops "finding" new rights and privledges in the Constitution that simply don't exist there.

If we want a new right or privledge to be constitutionally protected in this country there is a way to go about getting it...its called ammending the Constitution not simply stating, "Hey...the first ammendment clearly states that I have the right to kill my neighbor...just so long as I am doing so in order to express my freedom of expression!" There is a whole process that must take place in order to do so that involves more than simply the people sitting on the Supreme Court...just as there should be.

 

[Annie]

I'll settle for someone who stops "finding" new rights and privledges in the Constitution that simply don't exist there.

If we want a new right or privledge to be constitutionally protected in this country there is a way to go about getting it...its called ammending the Constitution not simply stating, "Hey...the first ammendment clearly states that I have the right to kill my neighbor...just so long as I am doing so in order to express my freedom of expression!" There is a whole process that must take place in order to do so that involves more than simply the people sitting on the Supreme Court...just as there should be.

Hell, forget new rights and privledges, I just want property rights put back where they should be. Kelo sucked!

 

[5stringJeff]

The next SCOTUS justice should prize federalism and strict construction of the Constitution above all else. To these ends, my ideal justice would (in the case of abortion, which Gabby brought up) overturn Roe V. Wade, and then rule that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion, effectively turning the legality of abortion over to the states. People would then be free to live in states where abortion is legal or illegal, according to their preference.

 

[Gabriella84]

The next SCOTUS justice should prize federalism and strict construction of the Constitution above all else. To these ends, my ideal justice would (in the case of abortion, which Gabby brought up) overturn Roe V. Wade, and then rule that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion, effectively turning the legality of abortion over to the states. People would then be free to live in states where abortion is legal or illegal, according to their preference.

I obviously don't agree, but I would go for that as opposed to a complete overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
But I believe any vote on abortion rights should be open ONLY to women. Since it only affects women.

 

[acludem]

Abortion is NOT only a women's issue. There is always a man involved in the reproductive process. I do not want a justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade, not because of the abortion issue, but because it would overturn a very basic freedom inherent in the Constitution, the right to privacy.

acludem

 

[Gem]

Gabby,

After reading your posts I really feel that we have a remarkable amount in common and your thoughts and opinions are very similar to where mine were when I was 21 (only 5 years ago...not too long ago!).

While I understand where you are coming from...I think that,you are neglecting to consider what such a decision: removing men from having any say in abortion rights, would mean in a bigger sense.

Yes, it would mean that women and only women, would be able to decide what to do regarding this issue. Considering that only women carry and bear children, and all too often, are the only ones raising their children, it might sound like a refreshing idea.

But in the larger sense, it would also remove one more layer of responsibility from men in our society. With birth control and the legality of abortion we have already raised at least two generations of men often do not feel a sense of obligation to the women they sleep with because 1) they are using protection so they don't get a girl pregnant and 2) because abortion is an option, if they do get a girl pregnant they can simply say that their choice is abortion...and if the girl disagrees then its her responsibility.

To add to this already dangerous equation that the man's role in a pregnancy is absolutely zero means that young men everywhere will feel absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for their actions at all...Why should they, when we women have erased their responsibility for them?!?!

While it sounds like a good idea to you now, the ultimate result of such a decision would be absolutely disasterous for a society that is already experiencing a HUGE crisis with young men not being willing to assist the women they "help" get pregnant. 75% of African-American children are presently born to single women, Gabby...their fathers run away because they don't feel any responsibility to stick around...your idea would just make it that much more acceptable for them.

 

[5stringJeff]

Abortion is NOT only a women's issue. There is always a man involved in the reproductive process.

Damnit, you stole my line!!!

 

[theim]

I just hope Bush utterly ignores all this crap about nominating a "moderate" to "mend fences". Why the hell should he make a compromise with people who are dead ass wrong?

 

[5stringJeff]

I just hope Bush utterly ignores all this crap about nominating a "moderate" to "mend fences". Why the hell should he make a compromise with people who are dead ass wrong?

The only fences that need to be mended are the ones that the Left has torn by stomping on Consitutional rights, like the right to own property.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Because abortion rights is a female issue. I don't know why males should even be allowed a voice in the issue.

Using this logic, would you also be in favor of passing a law that men don't have to pay for them? Should only tax dollars from women go to an organization like Planned Parenthood (an ironic name) since only women would have a voice in the matter?

Anyway...

I agree with Gem. Get somebody that can look at the Constitution with some common sense, and not say anything along the lines of, "Well, what they really meant was..."

I liked O'Conner, and thought she did a great job, for the most part. If they could find someone along her same lines, a man or a woman, that would be good for me.

 

[Hobbit]

I would hope the new Supreme Court appointment would vote to uphold all the existing rights and laws of the United States. Including, of course, the fundamental principle of Roe vs. Wade.
The importance of having a woman on the High Court was that the justices could finally hear the opinions and viewpoints of law from a female perspective. Because abortion rights is a female issue. I don't know why males should even be allowed a voice in the issue.
No male will ever get pregnant. Thus, no male will ever understand what transpires in the time from conception to birth. Nor will they ever understand the life-altering process of having a child to care for.
If abortion if made illegal, then every unmarried female who is forced to carry to term and give birth should be financially supported. That is the twist that few every worry about. They want women to have children, but don;t care what happens after that.
"Hey, we don't care how you manage to feed, house, clothe or take care of your child. You just have to do it. It's not our problem."

And you turn the issue into an abortion issue. Well, lemme explain a couple of things to you missie.

In no uncertain terms, I want you to know that this is quite possibly the most arrogant piece of crap I have seen drop out of that sewerpipe you call a mouth (guess it's your fingers in this case, but whatever). Abortion, a women's only issue? Surely, you can't be that stupid. In addition to what has already been said, do you forget that it's HIS baby, too? In your matriarchal regime, women could get an abortion on a whim to get even with the father, because even if he offers to care fro the child on his own, she can still have an abortion because it's "purely a women's rights issue," and "no man should have any say." That's bullcrap!! Now, on to the next thing. If you knew for a fact that fetuses were full blown people with souls just like you and me, a whole boatload of women's rights wouldn't be worth a sack of dirt next to the rights of those who had been slaughtered wholsale for the sake of convenience. At that point, it's a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and has nothing to do with the women that get the abortions, but the ones who are killed by them. It would be the equivalent of discovering that in order to make a birth control pill, a baby less than a year old had to be shot. It doesn't matter what kind of rights you think you're entitled to, because a person's right to live supercedes that.

Gabby, you speak of everything in these absolutes as if your view is the only valid ones and that all of your assumptions are true. Well, I hate to tell you this. This isn't Gabbyland, where Howard Dean is always right and everything works the way you think it should. This is the real world, where you are sometimes, quite often if I might add, wrong.

 

[KarlMarx]

I would hope the new Supreme Court appointment would vote to uphold all the existing rights and laws of the United States. Including, of course, the fundamental principle of Roe vs. Wade.

If we are lucky, the new justice will be a strict constructionist, not a "I will interpret the Constitution to satisfy my whims, or those of my political buddies".

Roe vs. Wade is the worst piece of jurisprudence handed down by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott Decision in 1857. Why? I've posted this before, but here goes.

1. The 5th Amendment states that no person shall be denied the right to life, property or liberty without due process of law. If you believe a fetus is a person as I do, then abortion should not be legal, since it denies the unborn the right to life without due process of law (OK, just to be somewhat flexible, I do believe that in the case of rape, incest and danger to the mother, abortion should be legal, but only after a legal process).
2. Even if you don't agree with the idea that the fetus is a person (which by the way, no criteria for personhood exists --- no, wait, it does, as in the case of Terri Schiavo --- more on that later), then Roe vs Wade violates the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states that those rights not specifically granted in the Constitution shall be left to the states to decide. Roe vs. Wade took that right away from the states. Most people don't realize this, but abortion was legal in certain states before Roe vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade took away the right for states to decide whether or not to ban abortion, so it denied the states the right to self determination as granted by the 10th amendment.
3. Back to #1.... Roe vs. Wade is just like the Dred Scott decision, it denies people their dignity as persons and relegates them to the status of property. In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. As in "Dred Scott", Roe relegates the fetus to the status of property, owned by its mother, who can dispose of it or keep it as she sees fit. In other words, the reasoning of an abortionist is the same as the slave owner, the unborn are not people, but property.

These are the reasons that pro-choice advocates state that the fetus is not a person (5th amendment), that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body should be her's, not her husband's (but then they neglect to consider that the body of the unborn infant is not her's, but that of the baby).

Now back to that "personhood" problem ---- remember Terri Schiavo? She was declared to be not a person any longer because she lacked certain responses that defined "personhood".

a) The embryo, fetus whatever, is not part of the woman's body. It is treated by the woman's body as a foreign body, the woman's immune system is coded to not reject the baby as a foreign infection and try to kill it.
b) The body of the fetus possesses its own genetic code apart from the mother (it also possesses genetic material from the father)
c) After a certain point in the pregnancy (which is fairly early), a fetus reponds to light, noise, touch, moves on its own, cries, yawns, sucks its thumb etc. These are hallmarks of a person.

The importance of having a woman on the High Court was that the justices could finally hear the opinions and viewpoints of law from a female perspective. Because abortion rights is a female issue. I don't know why males should even be allowed a voice in the issue.
No male will ever get pregnant. Thus, no male will ever understand what transpires in the time from conception to birth. Nor will they ever understand the life-altering process of having a child to care for.

G84, think about what you just posted here. You can't be serious, or else you are delusional! Are you advocating that our government should discriminate on the basis of sex? Because if you are, then you will have to rewrite existing law, specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution which gave women the right to vote.... here is the text of the 19th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If abortion if made illegal, then every unmarried female who is forced to carry to term and give birth should be financially supported. That is the twist that few every worry about. They want women to have children, but don;t care what happens after that.
"Hey, we don't care how you manage to feed, house, clothe or take care of your child. You just have to do it. It's not our problem."

Geez Louise!!!! No, if abortion is made illegal, then the mother and the father of the baby should be legally responsible for its support and care, as it should be. The baby is not a ward of the State! You also seem to forget that there is a thing called "marriage".... this is how it works.....
a) Boy meets Girl
b) Boy dates Girl
c) Boy wants to have sex with Girl
d) Girl says... "not until we're married"
e) Boy is forced to make a decision, he either decides to leave and try to impregnate some other woman (and consequently leave her). In this case, the Girl may meet someone else who would make a better husband and father because if he's willing put his desires on hold for her, then he must respect her. If she never finds someone like that, well, then she still is better off (anyone who is a single parent can tell you a million reasons why and I won't bore you with the obvious)

In the second scenario, the Boy decides to stick it out with the Girl and be a good husband and father. Either way, the Girl wins (and actually so does the Boy.... he gets a good wife in the process, someone who has some character that will pass it along to their children and thus not have to deal with having a daughter who is unwed and pregnant!)

Note: Why buy a cow when you can get milk for free?

G84 --- would you please act like the independent you purport to be and actually THINK about what you post instead of parrotting what the liberals and NOW and God knows who else WANT YOU TO THINK?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

And let's not forget the Scott Peterson case. He was convicted on two counts, recognizing that the killing of his unborn son was the killing of a person.

 

[manu1959]

my life is mine and do not tell me how to lead it

 

[Bonnie]

Jimmyeatworld

I liked O'Conner, and thought she did a great job, for the most part. If they could find someone along her same lines, a man or a woman, that would be good for me.

This comment surprises me, given that she made some very liberal decisions ie affirmative action, and declining to ban partial birth abortion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I just hope Bush utterly ignores all this crap about nominating a "moderate" to "mend fences". Why the hell should he make a compromise with people who are dead ass wrong?

Agreed! But the way he has been playing footsie with the Dems one might not even be surprised if he nominated Bill Clinton to the post.

If Bush does not nominate a solid constitutionalist/conservative, we might as well forget the next election too.

Although I doubt it will happen, I think it would be great if he'd nominate Justice Roy Moore - the "Ten Commandments judge".