Redstate

Agreed, an easy win here sets up an easy win later.

Let us keep in mind what just happened. Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by John Roberts. There has been a tendency for people to already be looking at Rehnquist's replacement, but the end form of the court once Bush leaves office is impossible to predict.

So the transaction that has indeed transpired (he will  be confirmed) is a very strong improvement that adds an intellectual heavyweight to the right side of the court.

To be honest, I would like Rehnquist's replacement to be to his right as well (Rogers Brown, Luttig, etc.).

I'm pleased. Clement definitely was worrisome and Jones is not the legal force Roberts is.

He's basically a young Renny.

I have no problem with that at all.

Renny was great on most issues.

Specifically on the life issue, Renny voted with Thomas and Scalia.

To each his own, but I won't be losing sleep over this nomination! :)

Also, I really think Bush did the right thing in disregarding identity politics.  In a way, Bush went to a more meritocratic way of selecting a nominee.  He picked a guy who was clearly qualified as opposed to a less-qualified demographic selection.

This begs the question, does Bush plan to do the same for Chief?

If so, we may just have to throw all the speculation about him appointing a woman as Chief out the window.

A few weeks ago, Hugh Hewitt said, "Give me Luttig and Roberts!"

He was pointing out that both are around 50 yrs old, and both are far more qualified to serve as intelligent originalists on SCOTUS than all of the demographic picks, like Owen, Clement, Garza, etc.

So I think that Bush should go with Michael Luttig for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when the spot opens up.

I suspect Roberts will get around 70 votes.  If so, exchanging Renny for a Scalia-type conservative shouldn't be that hard.

I also still like Mike McConnell, even though he has some nutty views on things like polygamy.

Bush can worry about appointing the first Hispanic Justice when one of the liberals retires.

I could be happier-I like Luttig a lot and would have liked to see him, but I think Roberts is a good replacement for O'Conner, and I think we will get a good replacement for Renquist when he leaves (although I don't think it will be Luttig then either, I suspect this is where Jones or Owen may come in maybe Brown or Garza).

I think Bush made a great move tonight.  He chose somebody who was well thought of and a strong conservative.  While I would love to see a court full of Thomas' or Scalia's philosophy on the court, I can take a few Renquists thrown in-I just don't want anymore O'Conners or Kennedy's and god forbid we get anymore Souters.

One thing Bush did was he refused to get into the PC identity politics, and he made it clear thta he was going to keep his promise to conservatives that he would appoint strong conservatives to the bench.

His wife was Exec VP for Feminists for Life?  WTF?

I believe that is a women's pro-life organization

Here.

Click on the link in my story, it will all become clear.

there isn't anything wrong with the organization other than it believes that women's rights involve something other than obtaining an abortion.

Re: your point below:

"there are two things that should encourage all of those who care about the life issue:

1. The close of Roberts remarks this evening - where he said: "I also want to acknowledge my children, my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack, who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy" - becomes more meaningful when you realize that his children are adopted."

---

Can you please describe EXACTLY what you are implying with this line in your analysis?  

I think it depends on whether Bush thinks he'll get more than two picks.  If Rehnquist retires alone, Bush will probably pick one of the judges you mentioned, in that order, to be Chief.  That's because he'll know that Rehnquist could be his last chance to appoint another woman or a Hispanic to the Court.

If Stevens retires with Renny in order to force Bush to appoint a moderate, Bush will then be free to appoint the younger, more qualified Luttig to be Chief and will probably find a stealth Hispanic candidate somewhere in the state courts for Stevens' seat.  

For anyone who is 1) pro-life 2) Catholic and 3) a parent of adopted children - all three are factors that are known to be true for Roberts' wife - the "institutions of democracy" line is a familiar one, one invoked with regularity in the activist community.  

It typically means: it is the duty of the institutions of government to protect the rights and freedoms of the weakest among us... and in the case of adopted children, the unwanted.

It's not code.  But it rings a bell.

but it isn't just a women's organization--they mean it when they say they're feminist.    I'm not a member myself, but I'm pretty familiar with them.  They don't necessarily strike me as very conservative.  (Link to their website here.)

OK, my heart skipped a beat when I saw "feminist".  It looks fine.  The group looks pro-women in a reasonable, good way.  Thanks for the info.

I have known many of people in my life who adopted and most are quite pro-choice, even "modern day (post child molestation scandal) catholics". I think you're making a stretch, that's all.  

Adoption does not necessarly equal a pro-life position, it's that simple.   I think the well worn line of "institutions of democracy" isn't as telling as you think.  It's the first words out of the guys mouth that the nation hears, he's not sending code for the right to cheer for.. he's got to be a straight plain dealer if he wants to get the job.

with one of the execs from Fem for Life.  She was also that TV character on the show Everybody Loves Raymond (she is Raymond's wife).  She was extremely lucid and I was quite impressed.  Anyone who is a big wig in that organization will be smart and OK.

ha, yea, god forbid "feminist" can actually be a POSITIVE word nowdays people.  We should all be on guard, god forbid the next thing these women will want to do is VOTE!  oh wait, that "feminist" agenda already made it through the court system.

RELAX.

That's WAY too much snark for a first-day poster. Provided Thomas doesn't get here first and flat-out club you (which I'd support) I'm gonna be generous and warn you to read this.

Or I'd note that "catholics" in your comment should carry quotation marks. Ta ta.

If Bush still wants nominating the first Hispanic to the court to be part of his legacy, then I hope it will be Garza, and not Gonzales.  It's been said that Garza was runner-up to Thomas way back when.  Why Bush the Elder didn't nominate him when the Souter pick came, I don't know.  

Was Garza one of the eleven or so up for this nomination?  

I think its a sad commentary on things that the GOP feels it must think in such leftist/Dem terms of ethnicity and gender when making picks, and for that reason alone Bush should be commended for picking a white male.  But if such considerations return for the inevitable Rehnquist pick, then so be it, just as long as Bush picks a conservative woman or a conservative minority candidate.  Hopefully Stevens will step down and he will have the opportunity to do both.

I ever commented at was Wizbang. I still spend a lot of my online time there, so I've gotten used to comment threads that were little more than Wild West shoot-outs. Having said that, could you please explain to me just what greyhound said or about the way he/she said it that got him/her banned? And yes, I've read the house rules for newbies that Leon linked to. Several times.

I don't want a conservative, I want an originalist.

Roe means almost nothing to me. Even if overturned, states will rush to add abortion guarantees to their own constitutions or state courts will interpret it into them. Maybe an Constutional amendment will be floated to enshrine rights to privace and abortion.

Everybody around here is speaking as if abortion is the only issue of importance. It isn't even the most important b/c so little will change even if Roe is tossed.

How does a social conservative rule on a case like Raich? Does he rule against pot? Does a conservative take an expansive view of the commerce clause when it suits his own beliefs?

How does a pro-business conservative rule on Kelo? For business development siding with the "we know better" government?

A "brilliant legal mind" to me means somebody who is able to build an interesting case for anything he wants to. I want a boring legal mind.

Unless an unmentionable thing happens (any Rove outcome is not unmentionable) I think this pick shows that Bush expects with high certainty one more pick soon (Rehnquist) and possibly 2 more (Stevens, and a surprise retirement Scalia/Souter/Kennedy - anyone is a surprise) before summer 2007.

That said - I think he's going in his preferred order - young heavyweight first, women/hispanic/harder-right candidates to follow. Knowing that if Robert's sails through (comparatively - say 65-35 or better) the later picks will be an excellent fight to have to close out the 7th year of his presidency and set up an lame duck year full of corrective executive orders.

You do realize that more than 20 states already have laws on the books designed to kick in when Roe goes down?  Most reasonable legal community estimates have moderate or complete bans in 37 states.

So, what's your constructionist view on pot?

I was referring to. I still don't see it. Oh well, a short life and a merry one, I suppose.

You do realize that more than 20 states already have laws on the books designed to kick in when Roe goes down?  Most reasonable legal community estimates have moderate or complete bans in 37 states.

I realized that some states had nets built in, but I didn't realize it was that high.

That still leaves 13 state that would not ban the procedure. And those states that would have a "moderate" ban, as you describe, would seem to still allow the procedure in most cases (first and part of second trimesters).

I doubt this situation would stand for long though.

So, what's your constructionist view on pot?

Huh? Raich was about how expansive the Commerce Clause is, not pot specifically. Lopez was already left most things open to regulation, but Raich even went beyond that. I don't have an originalist view of pot, but I do have one of the Commerce Clause.

It's your site and rules but not even a warning? That's just plain harse.

Some folks don't merit the time and effort.

Re:  And in his time as a judge, Roberts has built a record that has more in common with Rehnquist than Thomas or Scalia.

Why is this a problem? The CJ is not exactly known as a liberal!

I'm not sure there isn't an identity politics calculation to this choice.

That is, if Roberts is a minor war but the Dems "keep their powder dry" for the next fight, and the next nomination is the first black woman to every be nominated for the Supreme Court, and the Dems wage an all out war on her, real damage might be done to the historical effectiveness of playing identity politics for the left.

Which could be part of the calculation. And if the liberals are harder on a black, female nominee than that last straight white male . . . could be ugly for 'em.

Might be harsh, but . . . 1984? Dude, this is a website.

Double-plus bad, dude. Double-plus bad.

nm

He was snarky.

I'm known to be snarky myself (and I'm new here, nuff said), but I don't think I'd suggest that people worried over the use of the word "feminist" in a pro-life organization's name are backwoods, bible-thumpin' banjo-playing inbreds on the first day I was posting.

Also, in brief, I think it's an incorrect statement, as the vote for women was the suffragettes agenda, and they were, by and large, pro-life and Christian.

As an aside, Susan B. Anthony (the proto-feminist)  was vehemently opposed to abortion and referred to it as "child murder". In an interesting twist, most web biographies try to suggest that she didn't like it because it was an unsafe medical procedure at the time. Implying that if it was all clean and safe then like it is now, Susan B. Anthony would have been all for it!

Also, typing "RELAX" in all caps, to people you don't know, is just snotty. It implies that everybody in the conversation is monolithically oriented in one ignorant direction, requiring the enlightened admonition of "RELAX" from greyhound. Just my opinion, tho.

Unlike many Republicans, I think Bush plays identity politics to defuse and erode the power of identity politics as a Democratic and liberal tool.

I think making the democrats savage the first African-American woman nominated to the court would hurt the power of identity politics in the long run. And, given that the people Bush will likely pick or going to be more than qualified (Thomas is perhaps my favorite justice; tied with Scalia), it's not traditional identity politics in that identity is considered after qualifications are established, not (as it often is on the left) instead instead of qualifications.

would likely be from Texas-so maybe not so stealthy to Bush, but stealthy to the dems that like to throw hissy fits over anyone to the right of Ginsberg.

Bush promised to appoint a nominee in the mold of Scalia and Thomas - who are far more conservative than Rehnquist - throughout the 2000 campaign.

I think Roberts is a good pick.

Not one of my favorites, but I don't think we will get a Souter or Kennedy out of him either.

I think he will be much like Renquist and in the end be on the right side of the decision more often than not (and by Right I don't always mean majority, but the right side).

Roberts is a Catholic (don't know if his wife is too) - and so am I. Catholics do not excoriate feminism. The Ven. JPII of blessed memory told women in "Evangelium Vitae" that they had a duty to support a "Christian feminism" (that is a quote).

There are plenty of reasons feminism is still necessary today; in Iraq and Afghanistan we see many of them. Girls are burned alive by Saudi religious police. True feminism is against unjust discrimination against women and looks to a world where opportunity is based for all on merit alone, not sex (or race for that matter).

What feminism ISN'T is anti-men, pro-abortion. I am also, like Mrs. Roberts, a member of Feminists For Life. Check out their website. It has great quotes from all the founders of the feminist movement supporting the right to life of the unborn!

Guess what? Liberals have corrupted the original pro-women, pro-baby, pro-family spirit of feminism - the exact same way they've corrupted the original text of the US Constitution!

Funny co-incidence, that.

I appreciate your efforts to improve this site for all of us.  Keep up the good work.  (And tell Leon to shoot first and warn later.)

has a view of the Commerce Clause too.  The other day he said he thought it could (and should!) be used to pass a federal statute banning abortion - or making it illegal for an adult to cross state lines to get an abortion.

I think he actually said something along the lines of "federalism be damned" when it comes to abortion.  I can respect his opinion and passion on that issues but it means that you do raise a good point for conservatives whose primary concern is not Roe.

The Commerce Clause isn't implicated. The Fourteenth is.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush will nominate Brown.  And there is no doubt the libs will self destruct in attacking her.  You rabsolutely right about that contrast.  Nominating her would also deliver the sort of demonstrative judge who can provide more of the Scalia like language conservatives were looking for.  How bout her for cheif justice?  Let the libs assault her and treat her like they did Condi, Paige, Thomas et al- or for that matter any minority who ditests them.  Odds our this will happen before 06's midterms.

is it impossible to invoke the commerce clause here, or is it that it just hasn't been tried?

especially if he nominated her for CJ at the same time.

Watch the dems savage another intelligient African American woman.

The good news with her, is at least they would be unlikely to bring in an Anita Hill with coke cans and pubic hairs.

This is a huge can of worms. I summarize and sacrifice some accuracy for the sake of getting this done:

The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. In the last seventy years, that was read so broadly as to give Congress authority over anything that might possibly have anything to do with interstate commerce -- I mean, we're not far from toothbrushing (because people who brush their teeth engage in interstate commerce). Beginning in the early 90s, but especially with a case called Lopez, the court started to peel that back. A little.

The actual argument here involves whether Congress can regulate abortion through the Commerce Clause. I'm aware of no reasonable reading of the clause (medical instruments come from across state lines? people go state to state to have abortions? I dunno) that would allow this. Leon would, bless him, use whatever tool he can to win this. While not opposed to that at some level, I think he picked the wrong tool. The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with slaughtering innocents. The Fourteenth Amendment does.

I just skipped a lot and elided over a lot, so any other lawyers out there, give a little slack or fill in gaps.

are/or might try to use it, but in the end you don't think it is going to fly.

What about proposals that would prohibit adults from taking minors across state lines for abortions from states with some type of parental notification law or consent law to one that doesn't.

Or would that fall under some other law completely, or could the state just incorporate charges and penalty in their own laws.

I am not hugely in favor of broad commerce clause definitions-and while I am very pro life, I don't know that this is the route to go, I am just playing the what if game.

School, and it's been a while since then:

See, I just don't think taking minors across state lines for abortion is what the document meant when it referred to Commerce. Commerce was not the exchange of medical services for compensation; it was regular, commercial transactions, of the sort handled by merchants and wholesalers and dealers and buyers.

The Commerce Clause is a cruddy tool for doing anything but regulating commerce and avoiding economic Balkanization. Hence, the Fourteenth.

The State could itself impose penalties, to my mind.

I am mostly just trying to see how commerce could be used, and it sounds like it can be tried-although success is definitely another thing.

But seems to me commerce is broadly defined enough at the moment to the point that one could make the argument without looking the complete fool in front of the courts.

that if Congress were to get around to try and legislate on abortion at the federal level, Commerce Clause is almost definitely what it would invoke.

The attempt, I think, would be along these hypotheticals.

First, Roe v. Wade would need to be overturned -- as long as abortion is a constitutional right, no legislation can even start.  So assume it's overturned.

Second, in the aftermath, various and several states would pass laws outlawing abortion.

Third, as a direct result of such disparity in laws, an interstate commerce in abortion begins.  Women in (let's say) Pennsylvania cross into New Jersey to have abortions.  Bam, interstate commerce -- Congress may step in.

I don't even think this requires the "broad" reading of the Commerce Clause.  As long as any money changes hands -- insurance premiums, co-pays, transportation costs, or lodging costs -- I think Congress probably has the right to legislate the topic.

Am I missing something in this?

-TS

law school and don't know all the nitty gritty details.

But if we get originalists on the court (granted I mean originalists not conservatives, because a conservative is just as activist as a liberal), who overturn Roe (assuming they just overturned it, and didn't overturn it witha  finding of a right to life for the fetus), they are also likely to not read commerce with a broad definition, so I think in the end the feds would lose in that regard, since an originalist isn't going to be for broadening the commerce clause anymore than they would be for expanding abortion rights.

But I do think, from what I am reading that the commerce clause is how the Fed's could get involved with abortion law, and make a case to stay involved.

The 14 Amendment would allow for a federal anti-abortion statute, just as it allows for other federal civil rights legislation. Whether it would be practical or wise to pass such a law is of course another question.

On the other hand I don't know of anything in the Constitution that would allow the federal government to restrict travel of adult citizens from one state to another, except in exterme cases involving quarrantine in epidemics, felons under court supervision etc..

Re: What about proposals that would prohibit adults from taking minors across state lines for abortions from states with some type of parental notification law or consent law to one that doesn't.

These laws prohibit adults who are not the minor's parent or guardian. They do not prevent a parent or guardian from taking the minor to another state for an abortion.

Doesn't it seem likely that the federal government would have to regulate in lieu of the states?  I.e. - if a really restrictive law went into place in Kansas that tried to keep all women from crossing state lines to have abortions in Missouri, the federal courts would have to step in and invalidate the law because it places invalid restrictions by a state on interstate commerce.  The analogy would be to state tariffs on goods that occurred during the Articles of Confederation that the Interstate Commerce Clause was specifically designed to prevent and rectify.  Thus, a state could theoretically legislate on the issue for people acting within the state, but it would not be able to place undue restrictions on its own citizens crossing state lines.  Granted, I have only finished my first year of law school so there may be exceptions to this type of situation I am unfamiliar with, but I think my logic holds up there.  My other question (and I am not a big fan or reader of Thomas' thoughts so please fill me in, I'm seriously just a progressive who likes honest debate) is how the 14th amendment gets thrown into the mix if there is nothing within the text of the Constitution on the abortion matter?

this is exactly why I would much rather just see the matter left to the states.

Although there is that part of me that would love to see a right to life found in the constitution, I don't see that happening, and I don't see congress getting a ratifiable amendment on the issue passed-leaving the decisions to the states while the feds take a pass other than in issues of federal funding is the way to go.

their child anywhere they can legally get an abortion for them, if the child wants one.

I am very troubled by the idea that somebody who thinks they know better hauling my child to get an abortion without my knowledge across state lines to a state without consent or notification laws.  This should be prohibited period.

for this, but what the heck.

I took greyhound's comment (#17) to be a reply to iamright's comment (#5), which came across as panic-stricken and uninformed. Two minutes with Google would have allayed iamright's fears. (as it did mine; I had never heard of Feminists for LIfe either) I took that as being the cause of greyhound's sarcasm/snarkiness/snottiness. Would I have reacted in similar fashion? Maybe I wouldn't have been quite as caustic, but close.

Now obviously the people who operate this site have the right to make any rules they want and enforce them any way they see fit. But banning someone for remarks that were IMHO as relatively innocuous as greyhound's would leave some (or me, at least) with the impression that they're more interested in comity than debate. Which is why I said "oh well, a short life and a merry one, I suppose." I wasn't referring to greyhound; I was referring to what I expect will be MY short life as a commenter here. (My mother always said my shanty-boat Irish roots would be my undoing; I guess I'll find out if she was right.)

Greyhound had, in his first day of commenting, already established snarky trollish tendencies. Comment 17 was completely out of line for a first-day poster, as was most of the rest of his material. The rule generally is that trolls get worse, not better, so we nipped his posting career in the bud.

Some good discussion points here, and I hope I'm remembering my Federalism readings correctly.

Doesn't it seem likely that the federal government would have to regulate in lieu of the states?  I.e. - if a really restrictive law went into place in Kansas that tried to keep all women from crossing state lines to have abortions in Missouri, the federal courts would have to step in and invalidate the law because it places invalid restrictions by a state on interstate commerce.  The analogy would be to state tariffs on goods that occurred during the Articles of Confederation that the Interstate Commerce Clause was specifically designed to prevent and rectify.  Thus, a state could theoretically legislate on the issue for people acting within the state, but it would not be able to place undue restrictions on its own citizens crossing state lines.

There is, to start with, a distinction between Congress' power to legislate and a requirement to legislate.  Just because the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to write abortion-related legislation at the federal level does not mean that it has to.  It can leave the matter at the hands of the state.  In order to take the matter out of the hands of the states, Congress would have to pass a law that either (a) by its very nature would pre-empt the field entirely, and/or (b) express an intent to so pre-empt the field.

Bringing the federal courts into it is a tricky matter.  The result should depend upon whether there is a federal law that has preempted the field or not.  Assuming as per our hypothetical that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, but as yet, no federal legislation on abortion exists, then there has been no pre-emption regarding abortion per se.  So a federal court could not (well, "should not") step in and invalidate a Kansas law outlawing abortion no matter how "restrictive" it is, in the absence of some federal law that would preempt it.

However, if that Kansas law had elements that were so preempted -- for example, if it contained some language that criminalized the use of Kansas highways or some such thing for the purpose of travelling to Missouri to have an abortion -- then there are other federal laws, not the least of which is the U.S. Constitution, that do preempt such a restriction on travel.  But note, this is a restriction on travel, not on abortion per se, that would be challenged and likely thrown out.

So the answer really depends on what the "restriction" is, and what the overall legal environment surrounding the issue is.

My other question (and I am not a big fan or reader of Thomas' thoughts so please fill me in, I'm seriously just a progressive who likes honest debate) is how the 14th amendment gets thrown into the mix if there is nothing within the text of the Constitution on the abortion matter?

I am not all that familiar with this line of reasoning, but presumably, it would have to do with the fact that an unborn child, if considered to be a human being, would have all the rights of citizenship under the 14th Amendment, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law.

Anyone with a better law background want to comment on either of these issues?

-TS

and I couldn't agree more with this:

What feminism ISN'T is anti-men, pro-abortion.

I really like FFL--I'm on board with just about everything they have to say.  When I said that they didn't seem conservative, I was referring to their "abortion is a sign that we've failed women," "no woman should have to choose between her education and her child," and their advocacy for things like daycare in dorms.  I'm on board with that, too--but I'm not a conservative.  Though of course I couldn't make any broad statement and assume it applies to all their members, they've struck me more as liberals who are pro-life, not as conservatives.

anything that the states have differing laws on - guns, lottery tickets, or liquor, for instance, could be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause.  Such an argument would, frankly, gut the entire idea of federalism.  That way madness (or tyranny) lies IMHO.

Like Thomas I was into all of this years ago.  The sane position is that the Commerce Clause shouldn't be used to regulate anything that isn't bona fide interstate commerce.  I thought it was wrong when the Warren Court perverted what constituted "interstate commerce" for their own purposes and I'll think it's wrong if the  conservatives do the same.  No matter how noble the purpose.

I would like Thomas to explain his 14th amendment argument.

That would require two doses of conservative judicial activism.

First, if you hoping to use Section 5 of the 14th, it seems like it would be a repeat of RFRA.

Second, where are you going to find a "right to life from conception" in the Constitution to attach an exercise of the 14th S.5 to? You would have to read it into maybe the 14th S.1, but that seems like a strech.

the Commerce Clause, but still... I don't know that even the 18th century interpretation would yield a different result.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that we limit Commerce Clause to be only pertinent to "bona fide interstate commerce".

Abortion could still be regulated under the Commerce Clause powers, because presumably the medicine, the medical equipment, the computers, the bedding, the supplies used in an abortion clinic are all products of bona fide interstate commerce.  If Pfizer -- a New Jersey company -- sells fewer doses of XYZ medication as the result of abortion laws in one state or another, Congress clearly has the power under Commerce Clause to step in and regulate the topic.  (This doesn't mean that Congress should regulate abortion; just pointing out that it could.)

It is when the Commerce Clause is "interpreted" to have federal regulation apply to marijuana grown in one state for the express purpose of consumption by the grower, and that activity has been declared lawful by the state in question, that one could say it has been stretched too far.

I don't think federalism is gutted because of the Commerce Clause; perhaps federalism is imperiled because our economy continues to get more and more interlinked.  Hard to argue that what happens in San Francisco, like a housing bubble that drives up wages in local tech companies, thereby driving them out of business, resulting in fewer innovations included in a PC made by Dell, a Texas company, doesn't impact the national economy in this day and age.

I believe that one can be extremely faithful to the ideals of federalism and still believe that the Commerce Clause does in fact grant extraordinarily broad powers to Congress.

Guns, lottery tickets, and liquor can in fact be regulated by Congress, imho.  Again, that doesn't mean that they should be regulated, but I think it would be hard to argue that the Commerce Clause powers would not apply to those categories.

-TS

the website as a whole now as much as where this website can lead to. Before yesterday I have never seen anybody get banned on here for just a non-conformity post. Usually users have to start personal attacks on admins or regulars before they get banned. Maybe Thomas was having a bad day or what not, but if the admins of this site are going to ban users for non-conformity posts than I think 1984 is a good description.

I don't want to tell you how to run your webpage, but I assume deep down you don't want every that thinks different gone and only be left with some intellectual sausage party.

ought do more to highlight groups like this, so as to demonstrate that the pro-life cause is not simply a wholly owned subsidiary of the Religious Right. Feminists, Democrats, gays, atheists and any other pro-life sub-group not normally associated with the cause needs to be put front and center.

 from me on this.

that the media has a tendancy to think pro life=religious right winger.

I have several internet friends who are atheist/agnostic that are also pro life.  I have seen them get lumped in with the religious in debate after debate-part of the problem is there is a bias built in that the two go hand in hand.

Feminist for life do a very good job of explaining the history of the women's movement and how the early sufferage supporters were pro life.

But it is hard to get this out there, when the media sees a pro life issue and immediately heads to the usual suspects-somebody on Fox even is far more likely to get Dobson's opinion on an abortion issue than somebody from feminists for life.

I'm not saying we need to read the amendment to mean something it never did, merely to say that we're more aware of certain facts that change who comes under the protection of the amendment. I do not doubt that the scientific illiterates (by our standards) who drafted the Fourteenth would never have conceived (no pun) of an unborn child as a "person"; however, I can't (again, no pun) conceive of an argument that isn't merely arbitrary value-making that an unborn child isn't a person. (I know, brain waves, heartbeats, only a potential person, spare me.) The activism is only there if we stick with 19th century science, rather than 19th century concepts of what a person is.

I read a right to life into the Ninth. I don't need the constitution to enumerate my right to breathe.

There were a couple of discussions that touched on your point here awhile ago (here and here) that I found really interesting.

religious pro-lifers have been at fault too. On several occasions gay pro-life groups have been dumped from public rallies and marches because some of the pro-life religious groups have refused to tolerate homosexuals in their midst.

With all due respect, Justice Scalia disagrees with you: http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/dom2sp97.html

As much as I don't like abortion, it is a matter for the states.  I would be just as unhappy with a federal outlaw of abortion as I am with the current situation with Roe.

The primary function of government is to protect the lives of its citizens.

If a state government fails that basic responsibility, the feds are fully justified in intervening, just as they would be if a given state didn't have, say, an anti-lynching law.

Federalism is nice and all, but it's blatantly ridiculous to elevate it to a position where it trumps the right of U. S. citizens to not be killed by their mothers.

Just a clarification of terms.

The Democrats should filibuster Brown if Bush goes there.  I don't think he will.

Stanford