Houston Democrats

I agree, but will Senate Democrats have the stones to filibuster him, or will they give him a free pass like they did John Roberts? Roberts never answered a single question of any substance posed to him but rather evaded questions he didn't want to answer, and he wasn't filibustered. What makes you think they'll filibuster the Scalia clone? After all, the Dems wouldn't want the Rethugs to think they were being obstructionist, now would they? They want to play nicey nice and allow the Supreme Court to be stacked with ultra conservative right wing Neanderthals.

My my, what tangled webs you weave. Here is a more truthful perspective:

Distorting Sam Alito

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A23

Pop quiz: Which of the following abortion regulations is more restrictive, more burdensome, more likely to lead more women to forgo abortion?

(a) Requiring a minor to get the informed consent of her parents, or to get a judge to approve the abortion.

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
The Political Pit Bull :: Main Page
Guarding the Henhouse
Guarding the Henhouse

Full List of Blogs (54 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

(b) Requiring a married woman to sign a form saying that she notified her husband.

Can any reasonable person have any doubt? A minor is intrinsically far more subject to the whims, anger, punishment, economic control and retribution of a parent. And the minor is required to get both parents involved in the process and to get them to agree to the abortion.

The married woman just has to inform her husband. Even less than that. She just has to sign a form saying that she informed him. No one checks. Moreover, under the Pennsylvania law I draw my example from, she could even forgo notification if she claimed that (1) he was not the father, (2) he could not be found, (3) he raped her or (4) she had reason to believe he might physically harm her. What prosecutor would subsequently dare try to prove to a jury that, say, she actually had no such fear of harm?

Remember: The question is not whether (a) or (b) is the wiser restriction. The only relevant question is which is more likely to discourage the woman from getting an abortion.

The answer is obvious.

Why is this the relevant question? Because when, in 1991, Judge Samuel Alito was asked to rule in Planned Parenthood v. Cas ey on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement, Supreme Court precedents on abortion had held that "two-parent consent requirements" for a juvenile with "a judicial bypass option" do not constitute an "undue burden" and thus were constitutional. By any logic, therefore, spousal notification, which is far less burdensome, must also be constitutional -- based not on Alito's own preferences but on the Supreme Court's own precedents.

This may all seem arcane, but it requires slogging through arcana to see just how dishonest, disreputable and disgraceful is the charge, trumpeted by just about every liberal interest group, that Alito is so extreme and insensitive to women's needs that he supports spousal notification for abortion.

Alito's Casey opinion no more tells you whether he "supports" the policy of spousal notification than whether he likes foie gras with his pudding. The only thing it tells you is that based on scrupulous parsing of Supreme Court precedents -- or more particularly, of Sandra Day O'Connor's precedents on permissible restrictions on abortion -- he concluded that spousal notification met the court's own standard for constitutionality.

The O'Connor standard was that the law could not impose an "undue burden." What did that mean? She spelled it out and set the bar pretty high. A state regulation that "may 'inhibit' abortions to some degree" was not enough to create an "undue burden." It required more. It required "absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision."

So how to apply this test? Alito said: Let's see how the Supreme Court applied it. The court had found in previous decisions that there was no undue burden when you require a minor to notify or get consent from both parents, or to get judicial authorization. So surely, spousal notification, which is obviously less burdensome, was also constitutional.

Ah, say the critics, but when Casey ultimately came up to the Supreme Court, O'Connor disagreed with Alito and found that spousal notification is indeed an undue burden.

To which I say: Such is Alito's reward for having tortuously tried to follow O'Connor's logic. Brilliant Alito is, but alas not brilliant enough to divine O'Connor's next zigzag -- after Alito had blown hundreds of neurons trying to figure out the logic of her past (pre- Casey ) rulings.

In the coming days you will hear that Alito "supports" strip searches of 10-year-olds and the private possession of machine guns. The Brady anti-gun campaign has already called Alito "Machine Gun Sammy." You will also hear that he is hostile to minorities, immigrants, women, workers, the disabled, the environment . . . you name it. These claims are based on the same distortion that we see in attacks on Alito's abortion ruling in Casey -- the deliberate confusion of a constitutional judgment (almost invariably based on the Supreme Court's own precedents) with a personal policy preference.

It was disgraceful when that same deliberate distortion was used in television ads to accuse John Roberts of "supporting" people who blow up abortion clinics. It remains disgraceful today.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Ms. Diamico, You're pasting Charles Krauthammer onto a Democratic blog as proof of your case? Krauthammer 's comparison of the constitutional similarities of a 14 year old with a 34 year old are without merit. The dependent standing of minors before the courts has been long established. Alito himself argued in his lone dissent at the Third Circuit that 95% of all (adult)women seeking abortion do share that information with their spouse. What he neglected to say was that 100% DO NOT need spousal consent. I would go further. What the hell business is it of the state of Pennsylvania to force the other 5% to comply with an intrusive obstruction into their private lives?

Ron you are distorting the facts again.
Let me ask you this though; Do you think it is fair for a woman to have a child without the fathers consent?

I don't see where he's distorting the facts at all. It is most assuredly fair for a woman to have a child or not have a child without the father's consent. What a woman chooses to do with HER body is her own business. It is NOT the business of any man or any government to tell her whether or not she can or must carry a child to term. Do you want the government sticking its long nose into your uterus, Jennifer? Do you want any man telling you what to do with your body?

It is strictly a woman's decision whether or not she chooses to carry a child to term or abort it. It is a very personal decision. One would hope a woman would consult not only with her spouse or partner but also with her physician and possibly her clergyman if she is a religious person before she makes a final decision, however, in the end it should be the FINAL decision of the pregnant female whether or not she chooses to continue the pregnancy. There should be NO LAW stating she MUST consult with her spouse or anyone else before making that very PERSONAL decision.

Ok Kris,

Since you think "It is NOT the business of any man or any government to tell her whether or not she can or must carry a child to term" then I guess you would agree that the Government should not force the father of a child who was not asked if he wanted it or not to pay to raise that child.

I did not distort the facts. My comments are from supreme court decisions in the cases of minors (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/0responses/2002-1676A.resp.pdf) and Alito's own words. Krauthammer was using illogical comparisons of minors and adults to support Alito's decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey. Do I think it is fair for a woman to have a child without the consent of the father? I think that whatever the woman decides to do concerning her pregnancy is fair. But fairness is not at issue here. It is the constitutionally protected right to privacy that is in jeopardy. Besides, the Pennsylvania statute in question was a thinly veiled attempt to block abortion by addressing spousal rights not issues of paternity. I grow weary of providing factual evidence and logical retorts to someone who cuts and pastes from the Free Republic website. I have a protest to plan. Bye, Bye.

Au contrere. If a woman bears a child it is the father of that child who is also responsible for the financial burden of that child. A grown man has the responsibility of putting on a raincoat if he's going to dip his wick and he isn't interested in impregnating his partner and if he's concerned about STDs or AIDS. A woman should also demand a man wear a condom if he wants to have sex. If for whatever reason his partner/wife becomes pregnant and the child is carried to term and born then the biological father of said child should bear the burden of providing for that child financially.

How on earth can you compare having the government interject itself into a woman's uterus and expecting a man to provide financially for a child he helped create whether he wanted that child or not? It is totally irresponsible of you to think a man should not have to provide for the welfare of his own child even if he wasn't exactly thrilled about having the child.

Your arguments hold no water, Jennifer, and frankly, I'm tired of debating someone who tries to compare two things that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I am talking about women having rights over their own bodies while you seem to be concerned with men having rights over women's bodies. Do you have any children, Jennifer? If so were those children wanted? Would they have been wanted if one of them had been the product of rape? Would you have aborted a baby who was conceived through an act of violence or would you have had the child? Would you have wanted the government to FORCE you to have that child? Would you have wanted to be able to make that very personal decision yourself? What if you knew the child would be born with a neurological defect or other type of anomaly and would not be able to survive long outside the womb? Would you choose to carry that child to term or would you choose to abort it?

All of these questions are very relevant to this topic. My point is the government has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER telling women what to do with their own bodies. A government comprised mainly of men has NO BUSINESS telling women whether or not they can or should have children. Nobody on earth, man or woman, should be able to tell another human being what he/she can do with his/her own body.

Step into the 21st century, Jennifer. People like you and Judge Alito want to send us back into the Stone Age.

I don't have a problem with a woman terminating her child's life, that's up to her. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of a man being forced by the Government to take care of a child he may not want but the same Government not making a woman to notify the father before she terminates their baby's life. What about a fathers choice too?

I don't like the term "terminating her child's life". During the first trimester, the child would not be able to live outside the womb; therefore, in my opinion, using the term "terminating her child's life" is akin to comparing abortion to murder. I don't believe abortion is murder in the sense that I don't believe a woman CHOOSES to murder her unborn child out of a sense of malice. I guess one could say "terminating the embryo" or "terminating the fetus", but I suppose it's really semantics. If you choose to view abortion as murder, I suppose that's your prerogative, however , I don't see it that way. In my view, the fetus has rights when it emerges from the mother, the umbilical cord is cut, and that baby cries and breathes on its own. Until then, it is solely dependent upon its attachment to the mother or its host, if you will, by the umbilical cord. It is entirely dependent upon her for nourishment and oxygen. In effect, it is a parasite dependent upon a host. In my opinion, it would be murder to kill a child who has emerged from the womb, had its cord cut and taken its first breath and cried its first cry. Then, and only then, does that child have rights. Then and only then, is that child a viable, living, breathing human being, which as such, is afforded the right to life.

Fathers have rights once that baby is born. Even though a man contributes the sperm that helps create the blastocyst, which then becomes the embryo and eventually becomes the fetus, it is still the mother's decision whether or not to carry the child to term since it is her body that is the vessel for that developing child for the next 9 months. Remember, other than contributing his sperm, the man has very little to do with the whole process, really; therefore, in my opinion, it is SOLELY up to the woman to decide whether or not to continue on with the pregnancy for its duration.

You must be an attorney or you are the person who writes those creative descriptions of wine at Specks.

I have no problem with abortions but lets be honest, it is what it is. If it makes it more palatable for you to break down the biology fine.

But, pregnancy is a 50/50 thing. We can't do it without them, and they can't do it without us. We should have equal rights with equal responsibilities.

Today's Houston Chronic:

As a lawyer in the Reagan administration, Samuel Alito advised the FBI that it had broad power to investigate government employees as security threats, even if they had no involvement in national security matters.

In a second memo, he told the Internal Revenue Service that its lawyers may secretly record conversations with taxpayers.

The memos were among 470 pages of files released Monday from Alito's service as a deputy attorney general at the Justice Department in 1986 and 1987.

An FBI lawyer sought Alito's advice after lower courts ruled that the government violated the rights of workers by investigating them. The first case involved two lawyers at the Education Department, the second a librarian who joined the Young Socialist Alliance.

Alito discounted both decisions, saying on Sept. 9, 1986, that they were based on "erroneous interpretation of the applicable legal authorities."

Also in 1986, a lawyer for the IRS asked whether the government's tax lawyers must comply with a formal opinion issued by the American Bar Association that prohibited a lawyer from secretly recording a face-to-face conversation.

Alito advised the IRS that it need not abide by "this broad ban on electronic surveillance." He noted the ABA itself had said there "may be extraordinary circumstances" when a secret recording is permissible.

This is my last comment on the abortion issue, Jennifer. Nothing makes abortion more palatable for me, okay? The Democratic Party is NOT pro abortion. We are pro choice meaning we believe a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body with respect to pregnancy. No one in this party advocates murder. Personally, I would prefer it if women would simply have their babies and then put them up for adoption if they cannot or do not want to care for them, however, I know this is not realistic. Ultimately, I believe it should ALWAYS be up to the woman to decide whether or not to have a child, and I don't believe the Congress or the Supreme Court or anyone else for that matter should make laws prohibiting women having control over their own bodies.

Pregnancy is NOT a 50/50 thing. As I mentioned before, men have very little to do with the whole process other than supplying the sperm. It is left up to the woman to carry the child, ensure she takes care of herself thereby taking care of the unborn child, go through labor and ultimately, deliver the child. I have had 2 children, and believe me, my ex husband could do little or nothing for me during the pregnancy and delivery other than offer moral support. I did appreciate that, however, in the end, I carried my children, labored and delivered them on my own. After my kids were born, their father did try and help me with them as much as he could, but I still ended up doing most of the child rearing as he worked from sun up to sun down.

In this life, nothing is really equal. In the case of couples with children, usually one partner ends up doing more than the other. I find the split to be more along the lines of 60%-40% or 70%-30%.

Now, I've grown weary of this conversation. I hope you are a little more enlightened as to my position on the abortion issue.

understand your position completely. I have no problem with women terminating their children. I must however, disagree with the responsibility and rights percentages. Because as women we know what may result after a romp in the hay, it is up to us to go the extra mile to prevent unwanted pregnancies and not leave it up to, or blame, the man alone. We have to agree to disagree on this one..

As a lawyer in the Reagan administration, Samuel Alito advised the FBI that it had broad power to investigate government employees as security threats, even if they had no involvement in national security matters."

What is wrong with that? Just because someone is a Government employee that are excluded from scrutiny or investigation?

What about the Military man who through a handgrenade into his "friends" tent in Iraq?

What about all the nut job postal workers?
They were both Government employees. You've been to a Government office right? I would check out those losers first.

All of these questions are very relevant to this topic. My point is the government has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER telling women what to do with their own bodies.

So if a woman has AIDS, would you say the government has no business requiring the woman to use a condom, or to at least notify her partners of her condition? Or is that also an unreasonable encroachment of her freedom of choice?

Thanks, CAP:

The White House portrays Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's views as in the "mainstream." That claim is not supported by his judicial opinions or his activities prior to being nominated. In his 1985 application for a high-level job the Reagan administration, Alito touted his membership with "the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University." The group was "a far-right organization funded by conservative alumni committed to turning back the clock on coeducation at the University." Alito is now desperate to "distance himself" from his 1985 application, and it's easy to understand why. When Alito appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Stephen R. Dujack writes that he "will have to explain how he permitted himself to belong to an organization that was overtly racist and sexist for its entire 14-year existence."

BILL FRIST CONDEMNED ALITO'S GROUP: Alito joined Concerned Alumni at its founding in 1972. The organization, co-chaired in the beginning by Asa Bushnell and Shelby Cullom Davis, put forth a magazine called the "Prospect," espousing right-wing views against the inclusion of women, minorities, and other groups into Princeton. The New York Times notes, "The magazine's content also grew increasingly provocative under the editorship of conservative rising stars, including Dinesh D'Souza and later Laura Ingraham." The magazine was so extreme that a 1975 alumni panel including Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) refused to support it, concluding "that Concerned Alumni had 'presented a distorted, narrow and hostile view of the university that cannot help but have misinformed and even alarmed many alumni' and 'undoubtedly generated adverse national publicity.'"

GROUP SOUGHT TO KEEP WOMEN OUT: In 1973, the Concerned Alumni executive committee published a statement advocating exclusion of women in higher education: "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." Also that year, Davis said he longed for the days when the university was "a body of men, relatively homogeneous in interests and backgrounds." The magazine concluded that the makeup of Princeton, which began admitting women in 1969, "has changed drastically for the worse." Diane Weeks '75, a former colleague of Alito's when he was U.S. Attorney General for New Jersey said, "I once joked to him [Alito] that he must be very disappointed that women were admitted to Princeton and he just didn't have a response."

GROUP SOUGHT TO KEEP MINORITIES OUT, ALUMNI CHILDREN IN: Women were not the only group of people not welcomed by the Concerned Alumni group. A 1983 Prospect essay, "In Defense of Elitism," wrote, "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. ... Everywhere one turns blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." Another 1984 news item in the magazine, reacting to a gay student group's protest to being denied permission to hold a dance at a campus club, concluded, "Here at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage." But Concerned Alumni did advocate quota systems so that student athletes and children of wealthy alumni continued to attend the university and that right-wing faculty members would populate the humanities and social sciences departments.

So if a woman has AIDS

Off track. This conversation is about a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth, not disease transmission.

Because as women we know what may result after a romp in the hay, it is up to us to go the extra mile to prevent unwanted pregnancies and not leave it up to, or blame, the man alone

It hasn't always been that way. Technology has advanced in this century to give women more choices, but they're still under the thumb of the men (as with emergency contraception -- Plan B -- currently).

Terry Barhorst recently wrote this, and I excerpt it here:

The teaching of the history of abortion in all of our schools receiving any state or federal funds would have an argument much more solid than the proponents of "intelligent design." Abortion has been a historically universal procedure throughout the populations of the world even in the earliest times when communication between the various populations was nil.

Pregnancy could slow a Neolithic tribe or kill a fertile woman during arduous and dangerous treks. Raping women of another tribe was a common coup between competing tribal males as far back as history has been recorded. This kind of rape is also common today.

Women raped and made pregnant by the rape were and still are made objects of ridicule and sometimes criminal punishment. However, a quick and secret abortion has always been a way to circumvent bigoted actions by the male controllers of the tribes, cities, countries, and religions.

Abstention has no historical validity that can be taught. Abstention has no perfect evidence of constant reliability, because abstention can and has always been prey to rape and many other situations faced by women. Therefore, if abstention is to be taught at any level, it should be taught as a subtopic of abortion.

If we are to teach anything of sexual encounter in the schools, we should be teaching all the ramifications and history. Our children should be made aware that many of our cultural and religious mores are the byproducts of primogeniture and male ego.

The most important -- indeed, the ONLY thing -- that a man responsible for a woman's pregnancy should do is vigorously support her choice, whether it is to give birth or not.

So if a woman has AIDS

Off track. This conversation is about a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth, not disease transmission.

It is not off track. When a person makes a claim that woman absolutely always has the right of choosing how she uses her body, that raises the specter of a wide range of issues, not just abortion. If the claim was that a woman absolutely always has the right to choose about abortion, that would narrow it. But it was not narrowed! So we have the right to ask about all the other situations covered by this "absolute".

Am I the only person to notice how many Democrats are just as absolute in their positions as Republicans? Just as unbending? Just as unwilling to think about the full implications of their words?

Just because I think men should be involved in the decision to terminate the child or not doesn't mean I'm anti-abortion.

In my own humble opinion (after raising a couple of them) I think a woman has the right to terminate them up to 18 years of age. I think all Andréa Yates did was perform 5 very, very late term abortions.

But, pregnancy is a 50/50 thing. We can't do it without them, and they can't do it without us. We should have equal rights with equal responsibilities. (Jennifer)

Face it, Jennifer, these folks do not believe in sexual equality -- they want men relegated to second class status as punishment for all of men's historical sins. It's OK for women to vote exclusively for women because they are women, but men are supposed to have an open mind and vote "for the best candidate". It's the New Equality.

When a person makes a claim that woman absolutely always has the right of choosing how she uses her body

But she didn't make that claim, except 'with regard to pregnancy'.

Please focus and stay on topic (the topic precisely being Samuel Alito's unfitness to serve on the Supreme Court).

That's the only thing I will be unbending about.

In my own humble opinion (after raising a couple of them) I think a woman has the right to terminate them up to 18 years of age. I think all Andréa Yates did was perform 5 very, very late term abortions.

That sounds alarmingly perverse to me. Is that the rationalization you folks use for capital punishment also?

OK, then, Alito is obviously fully fit and qualified to serve on the Supreme Court -- as much as I hate to say it. I hate to see his views propagated, but he is as fit as anyone nominated in the last half-century.

Face it, Jennifer, these folks do not believe in sexual equality -- they want men relegated to second class status as punishment for all of men's historical sins.

Oh not at all. You completely misunderstand.

I don't see what led you to this rather odd conclusion, either.

OK, then, Alito is obviously fully fit and qualified to serve on the Supreme Court

Oh, we disagree. And I have posted numerous reasons why I believe he is not.

If you'd like to post some evidence (not opinion -- yours or others -- as we're already clear about that) as to why you believe he may be, then feel free.

Is Alito anymore conservative than Ginsberg is liberal? She advocated that 14 years of age should be the legal age of consent for sex? Is that what we want?

Is Alito anymore conservative than Ginsberg is liberal?

This is a straw man argument (or straw woman, as it were), and has nothing to do with Alito's incompetence to serve on the Supreme Court.

If 'balance' on the Court is something you are concerned with, then replacing O'Connor with Alito should concern you greatly (and not just from the standpoint of gender).

She advocated that 14 years of age should be the legal age of consent for sex

Cite the case or legal opinion or judgment for this contention. Not that I don't believe you or anything...

Still more than a little irrelevant to Alito's incompetence.

I don't want balance (a pre-determined outcome), I want a Supreme Court that interprets the laws made by the legislature that was voted in office by the citizens of the United States. You remember what a representative republic is don't you?

You remember what a representative republic is don't you?

I'm certain I know precisely, and I also suspect that my definition of a representative democracy -- I'm always amused by the word games you people play -- differs greatly from yours. Care to enlighten us all with your interpretation (but only as it specifically relates to Samuel Alito's disqualifications to serve on the Supreme Court)?

And BTW: you need only submit the same comment once.

Some on Ginsbergs arguments:

1. Protecting Prostitution. Ginsburg had opined that several federal laws against prostitution “are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” In support of this proposition, Ginsburg cited only two cases involving contraception (Griswold and Eisenstadt) and one involving abortion (Roe). She further recommended that the federal laws against prostitution be repealed.

The right to contraception for married persons in Griswold was based squarely on the marital relationship — not something that prostitution is generally thought to promote. The extension of that right to unmarried persons in Eisenstadt invoked the right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child” — again, not something generally thought to be involved in prostitution. And while the “right of privacy” that Roe relies on is entirely amorphous, there is nothing in its discussion that would appear to extend that right to include prostitution. Thus, the most natural reading of Ginsburg’s proposition that prostitution is arguably constitutionally protected is that Ginsburg had strong sympathy for that proposition.

2. Protecting Bigamy. Ginsburg had opined that a law restricting the rights of bigamists “is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships.” Ginsburg offered only a weak “Cf.” cite to Griswold and Eisenstadt in support of this proposition. But the marital relationship that Griswold celebrates is plainly the traditional one-husband, one-wife version: marriage is “an intimate relation of husband and wife” and a “bilateral loyalty.” And Eisenstadt speaks of the “right of the individual, married or single,” not of the bigamist. Again, Ginsburg’s constitutional argument is an extreme one that makes it most reasonable to conclude that Ginsburg had strong sympathy for that argument.

3. Abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Ginsburg had stated, “Replacing ‘Mother’s Day’ and ‘Father’s Day’ with a ‘Parent’s Day’ should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles.” I have previously parsed the question whether Ginsburg was proposing to abolish Mother’s Day and Father’s Day or was instead merely proposing that abolition “be considered.” Suffice it to say that, either way, hers is not a mainstream position.

4. Criticizing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. According to Ginsburg: “The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes.”

5. Urging Co-Ed Prisons. This one may be my favorite, as it starkly illustrates how far removed Ginsburg was from the real world: “Sex-segregated adult or juvenile institutions are obviously separate and in a variety of ways, unequal.… If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”

6. Reducing the Age of Consent to 12. Ginsburg had recommended legislative changes that would reduce the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12.

(The documentation for items 1 through 6 is provided here. See pages 69-71 and the specific recommendation regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2032 on page 76 for item 6.)

7. Requiring Taxpayer Funding of Abortion. Ginsburg strongly criticized the Court’s ruling that taxpayers are not constitutionally required to subsidize non-therapeutic abortions. (See Ginsburg’s chapter on the 1976 Term of the Supreme Court in a book titled Constitutional Government in America.)

8. Practicing “Limousine Liberalism.” Ginsburg had opined that an employer who had a manifest racial imbalance in the composition of his work force could be subjected to court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on his part. But Ginsburg herself, at the time of her Supreme Court nomination, had operated her own judicial office for over a decade in a city that was majority black, but had never had a single black person among her more than 50 hires. (Senator Hatch established this glaring inconsistency at the outset of Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing.)

Republic v. Democracy

by David Barton

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text

Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy" 12); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.13

The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

America's immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesquieu identified as the "principles that do not change."14 Benjamin Rush similarly observed:

[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.15

In the American republic, the "principles which did not change" and which were "certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community" were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained:

To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.16

The Founders echoed that theme:

All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.17 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

[T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.19 Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution

The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.

A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government conducted by popular feeling); anarchy (a system in which each person determines his own rules and standards); oligarchy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a government run by a single individual). As John Adams explained:

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.20

Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.

Endnotes

1. An example of this is demonstrated in the anecdote where, having concluded their work on the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin walked outside and seated himself on a public bench. A woman approached him and inquired, "Well, Dr. Franklin, what have you done for us?" Franklin quickly responded, "My dear lady, we have given to you a republic--if you can keep it." Taken from "America's Bill of Rights at 200 Years," by former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, printed in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. XXI, No. 3, Summer 1991, p. 457. This anecdote appears in numerous other works as well.

2. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 53, #10, James Madison.

3. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. VI, p. 484, to John Taylor on April 15, 1814.

4. Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809), p. 24, Speech on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.

5. Ames, Works, p. 384, "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.

6. Gouverneur Morris, An Oration Delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814, at the Request of a Number of Citizens of New-York, in Celebration of the Recent Deliverance of Europe from the Yoke of Military Despotism (New York: Van Winkle and Wiley, 1814), pp. 10, 22.

7. John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), p. 53.

8. Benjamin Rush, The Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 523, to John Adams on July 21, 1789.

9. Noah Webster, The American Spelling Book: Containing an Easy Standard of Pronunciation: Being the First Part of a Grammatical Institute of the English Language, To Which is Added, an Appendix, Containing a Moral Catechism and a Federal Catechism (Boston: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews, 1801), pp. 103-104.

10. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 101, Lecture 12 on Civil Society.

11. Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1795), Vol. I, p. 19.

12. See, for example, Benjamin Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 498, to John Adams on January 22, 1789.

13. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.

14. George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1859), Vol. V, p. 24. See Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, pp. 17-23, and ad passim.

15. Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 454, to David Ramsay, March or April 1788.

16. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.

17. James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation."

18. Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.

19. Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.

20. John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. I, p. 83, from "An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807," written on August 29, 1763, but first published by John Adams in 1807.

Thanks for the Ginsberg data, jennifer.

What is the link for the source of this? Put it in your next post.

It contains someone's personal opinion ("Practicing "Limousine Liberalism") in addition to Ginsberg's legal opinion, which tends to invalidate whatever it is that you are contending.

And once again, by bringing Justice Ginsberg in the discussion, what's the point? If the Republicans in the Senate had an issue with her legal opinions, why didn't more of them vote against her at her confirmation? [b]What do Justice Ginsberg's opinions have to do with Alito's incompetence?[/b]

This is water under the bridge and years out to sea.

Do you even know what a straw man argument is, and that you are making one, and that it is fallacious?

In my own humble opinion (after raising a couple of them) I think a woman has the right to terminate them up to 18 years of age. I think all Andréa Yates did was perform 5 very, very late term abortions.

That sounds alarmingly perverse to me. Is that the rationalization you folks use for capital punishment also?

Posted by: PDiddie at November 29, 2005 01:10 PM

No, capital punishment is what a jury decides is the correct punishment for a act commited in a state where the citizens decided death was the correct punishment.

Abortion should not be the debate. Even the left wing rag Houston Chronicle's readers think so:

Should senators vote against a Supreme Court nominee because of his perceived position on Roe v. Wade?

Yes:
41%
No:
49%
It depends:
10%

Total Votes: 2154

*whew* That must have been tiring for Mr. Barton, and you as well. It's missing a link, but the footnote material is sufficient.

I think I can be briefer than that without losing the meaning:

The Founders designed a form of government where the People would elect Representatives to act on and in their behalf in all manners of governance. A bicameral yaddayaddayadda...

So is it then, your intention -- not David Barton's, yours --to establish that we live in a democratic republic?

If so, agreed.

Back to the topic now, please.

What evidence can you supply that would support a contention -- or was it Dalicious' -- that Samuel Alito is fit to serve on the Supreme Court?

Conversely, what rebuttal to the evidence I have submitted would convince someone that he is qualified to serve?

"And once again, by bringing Justice Ginsberg in the discussion, what's the point? If the Republicans in the Senate had an issue with her legal opinions, why didn't more of them vote against her at her confirmation?"

It shows the obstructionism coming from the Democrat Party. The Republicans had enough respect for the President to honor his nominations. Elections do matter, its a shame the Democrats won't honor traditional respect.

Abortion should not be the debate.

No litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, then?

That's not what Dr. James Dobson and the rest of the extreme religious fundamentalists controlling Bush and the Republican party believe.

I suppose the readers of the Chronicle -- at least the ones who voted in that poll -- are out of step with the Republicans. Whooda thunk?

It shows the obstructionism coming from the Democrat Party.

Republicans voting en masse for Ginsberg shows nothing of the kind. And it's Democratic Party.

C'mon now. You can do better than invective.

Alito?

What evidence can you supply that would support a contention -- or was it Dalicious' -- that Samuel Alito is fit to serve on the Supreme Court?

Conversely, what rebuttal to the evidence I have submitted would convince someone that he is qualified to serve?

Posted by: PDiddie at November 29, 2005 02:45 PM

Like the Republicans did for President Clinton, the Democrats should let the nomination go to the full Senate for an up or down vote. The highly partisan Senate Judiciary Committee does not serve the country well (both parties equally to blame)

As a Conservative, I would have to say the full approval of Alito from the highly liberal ABA is enough to scare me that he is not Conservative enough but I still say take it to our elected Senate.

Like the Republicans did for President Clinton, the Democrats should let the nomination go to the full Senate for an up or down vote.

So why didn't the Dobson Republicans allow Harriet Miers to have an up-or-down vote?

You will have to ask them. If I remember correctly she withdrew her nomination didn't she?

Surely your recall doesn't end at the reason why she withdrew, does it jen?

Hint: the Dobsonites forced her out because she failed the litmus test on abortion. That isn't supposed to be "the debate", according to you.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

DAVID BARTON??!! Isn't this the same numbskull who thinks the USA is a Christian nation? Of course the US is a republic, a representative democracy held in a precarious balance of separation of powers by a sacred constitution that begins, "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Benjamin Franklin was right........"if you can keep it." Never has it been more in jeopardy than now!

Surely your recall doesn't end at the reason why she withdrew, does it jen?

Hint: the Dobsonites forced her out because she failed the litmus test on abortion. That isn't supposed to be "the debate", according to you.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

Posted by: PDiddie at November 29, 2005 08:02 PM

I don't think the "Dobsonites" are members of the full Senate. I think all nominations should have an up or down vote from the entire Senate not just the hard core partisans on the Judiciary Commitee from the 2 sides. If we want judges from the "mainstream" we are not going to get them from the 14 or so hard core party liners.

DAVID BARTON??!! Isn't this the same numbskull who thinks the USA is a Christian nation? Of course the US is a republic, a representative democracy held in a precarious balance of separation of powers by a sacred constitution that begins, "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Benjamin Franklin was right........"if you can keep it." Never has it been more in jeopardy than now!

Posted by: Ron Graham at November 29, 2005 08:57 PM

Don't shoot the messenger Ron. His sources are included in the article. Why do you hate Christians so much? Where's the tolerance?

Why do you hate Christians so much?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that he hates Christians at all, much less 'so much'? Another false accusation and a fallacy. Shame on you.

You're just not very good at this debating thing, jen. You're not convincing anyone, and you come across as terribly embittered.

Don't you have something better to do with your time online than be spiteful at people with whom you disagree politically? (I have to be here, but you don't.)

Run along and play, now; it's a beautiful day outside.

David Barton would have you believe that our government was founded by Christians and that therefore we are and should be a Christian state. Here are a few quotes from our founding fathers that might lead me to disagree with him.

George Washington, "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803
"I will never, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

Thomas Paine, "As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case. You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New."

James Madison, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Benjamin Franklin, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

John Adams, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

Many of the writers of the Constitution were not Christian but Deists. Nonetheless it did not hamper their founding of a great nation one iota.