I believe the financial disclosure report is actually refering to The Constitution Project's Sentencing Initiative. It is based at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute and specializes in "creating bipartisan consensus on a variety of legal and governance issues."

Here's the link: http://www.constitutionproject.org/article.cfm?messageID=20

President Bush's choice of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court was an excellent move in my view. Judge Alito believes highly in judicial restraint; he is a strong defender of the view that government is restrained by the chains of the constitution; and most of all, he is a strong defender of property rights, states rights and liberty. He will interpret the constitution strictly and fairly.

I have to be honest, however: I was hoping President Bush would have chosen Janet Rodgers Brown, a well know libertarian-conservative. Nevertheless, I am not disappointed. I hope that President Bush will nominate her in the future. Hopefully she can replace Justice John Paul Stevens.

I don't see any negative issues in connection with the Financial Disclosure Report. I am searching for transcripts of any remarks he may have made at the Federalist Society, which would be a big clue as to whether he is a strict constructionist or conservative activist. It is probably quite safe to say he isn't a liberal activist. :)

The big issue of course that the talking heads have already jumped on is his opinion in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, but I think the talking heads may be reading more into that than what is justified.

Alex:

I agree with you 100% on Janice Rogers Brown. She is my Dream Justice for the Supreme Court.

The real question for Alito (or any other nominee) is where does he stand on the issue of a President hauling people away to Cuba or to military brigs and holding them indefinitely without bringing them to trial, as the 6th Amendment requires.

Conservatives are always calling for "strict constructionists", yet they are more than willing to toss aside the strict construction of the Bill of Rights because they live in fear of the bogeyman.

I was reading MSNBC and they cited these three as his most well known cases:

" * In 1999, Alito ruled against the city of Newark, N.J., after it dismissed two Sunni Muslim police officers who refused to shave their beards.

Newark police department regulations required police officers to be clean shaven, but exempted officers who grew beards for medical reasons.

The officers argued that the Koran required them to grow beards.

Alito said, "the department has provided no legitimate explanation as to why the presence of officers who wear beards for medical reasons does not have this effect but the presence of officers who wear beards for religious reasons would ..."

* In 2004, Alito ruled that a Pennsylvania law banning paid advertisements for alcohol in college newspapers was unconstitutional. "If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment," Alito wrote for a three-judge panel.

* In 1996, Alito dissented from the majority on his court, when it upheld the conviction of a firearms dealer for selling two submachine guns at a gun show.
The firearms dealer argued that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, does not allow it to outlaw the selling of a particular type of gun within the borders of one state.

Alito cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Lopez which had been issued just the year before and which limited Congress’s power to pass laws banning the carrying of a gun near a school. Alito said the Lopez decision required the conviction of the arms dealer to be reversed."

I would agree with him in all three of those cases, he seems to at least understand the first two amendments, and he is a member of the Federalist society in good standing. He might be good.

The above post was me, by the way, I neglected to sign my name.

How 'bout that Judge Napolitano cat, eh?

I s'pose I could live with him.

One can expect the Democrats to appease their liberal base but their verbal cuts will produce less blood in the water to excite the sharks in their looney fringe.

A Janice Rogers Brown nomination would have been more comfortable for conservtive / libraterians but her volume of written opinions would be more difficult to defend from the same looney fringe's 527's adds.

Seems every time I become disenchanted with the Adminstration, it does something to being me back. Judge Alito's nominaton does just that!

Off topic a second, I take offense at Triumph the insulting dog's comments on Howard Stern this morning. He said that Libertarians are Conservatives who watch porn. I think the correct way to put that is "Conservatives who ADMIT to watching porn". :D
Funny stuff. Happy Halloween!

I'm going to do my research before I make a call on this one, but I will go on record as saying that any nominee that comes out of the Bush administration is probably NOT going to be someone who will simply interpret the constitution instead of legislating from the bench. I don't want to get all bleeding heart over here, but I doubt seriously that anyone without an agenda is going to find their way through the Bush whitehouse. I just don't trust the judicial nomination of somebody with preventative military policy and swell ideas like the patriot act. Does this make me one of those paranoid Libertarians?

Since I have had time to review summaries of opinions he has written plus his voting record on the courts I am ready to at least give this nominee a preliminary approval.

He is not a constructionist per se, but he has shown some constructionist leanings and has shown a due regard for the Constitution and rule of law. He writes his opinions in a dispassionite style, devoid of emotion, which indicates that he is ruled by the law and not by the whims of a personal agenda.

Still more research to do, but I think this nominee, while not the best possible, will be acceptable.

No, Chance, I think it makes you one of those realistic Libertarians.

Unless a Supreme Court nominee publicly admits that most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, and promises to decide against law that violates the Bill of Rights, he or she just isn't worth defending.

Arguing about Republican or Democrat judges is about as meaningful as arguing about Republican or Democrat politicians. With the exception of Ron Paul, it's a wasted effort.

Just reading the blogs here, I cannot help but think that most libertarians will vote for someone who might uphold governemnt encroachment of individual privacy as long as they are strong federalists or will repeal federal government in otehr areas.

What do you think? From what I have read of the libertarian philosophy I would say that unless yuo get the whole bag, you are going to end up with yet anotehr iniquitous system. If you get rid of social welfare, only to preserve corporate welfare and protectionism, the only gainers are the corporations. I guess what I am asking is cna you really tolerate a strict constitutionalist who might uphold a ban on gay marriage or limited liability.

PS. I like what you have written JT. The logic of your position is inevitbale if you are a libertarian.

Sometimes it seems like LP and cato.org are much more willing to forgive the unlibertarian social conservatism and strict law and order politics of the Republicans than they are to forgive the unlibertarian leftist economics of the Democrats (as the lesser of two evils). I worry a lot about the legacy of the Bush administration on the Bill of Rights...

I agree with you David. There is a definite rightish tinge coming out of both organizations.

I think it's too early to say whether Alito will be any good, but the odds don't favor it. Even if he is truly Scalia-esque, that still isn't a big endorsement, although Scalia is more favorable to us than most.

I'd also like to say that "strict construction" should mean that one finds the law as it is and finds the Constitution as it is. Strict constructionism should not mean to interpret or make the law. Nor should it mean to find in the Constitution powers that are exempted from 10th Amendment limitation. Interpretation is something the Court should never have become involved with in the first place.

If Alito favored honoring the 10th Amendment, I'd get excited...but I'm not betting on it.

Well, this is probably because a lot of newer Libertarians are Libertarian by way of such folks as Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz, who have some undeniable leanings to the right.

Myself, I am not willing to forgive either, but Libertarian economics definitely take priority for me over social Libertarianism, except in grave situations like the Patriot act and other harsh encroachments on the bill of rights, simply because that's the stage of my life I'm in right now.

I said this before, and think it applies to where this blog is going right now:

It seems we're more inclined to accept someone who leans more fiscally conservative and less socially liberal, then someone who is less fiscally conservative and more socially liberal.

Not every LP member agrees 100% with the platform. I think it's hypocritical to get upset about what they accept or not. If this is the case, then we need to establish the "priority platform". These will be issues that you MUST agree with in order to be Libertarian.

Is minimum wage more important than gun control?

If there is one thing conservatives are doing better then liberals it is choosing judges. Good luck to Alito!
I know it is offtopic (maybe starting a new thread on that) but what about the nomination of Bernanke at the Federal Reserve? It is at least as important as the Supreme Court. Democrats and Republicans have managed to put the issues of its existence and its policies off the table! I know Greenspan used to schmooze with Ayn Rand but that does not mean we should join the establishment in dodging those fundamental issues. "Gold standard" as Ron Paul or Mises argued or "guaranteed inflation" as Bernake seems to propose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito

Wikipedia is a fairly comprehensive encyclopedia of knowledge, including people. This link is to their entry on Alito, which I'm sure will be updated often, but has an extensive list of some of his decisions, dissenting and majority.

BPerry-
I am confussed by the minimum wage v gun control. If anything this proves why Republicans are more acceptable to libertarians than Democrats.There are alot of Republicans that are for elimination of minium wage and support gun rights both in agreement with libertarian platform. On the otherside alot of Democrats support government gun control and a "living wage" at 10.00/hr +,this is in complete contrast of the libertarian platform. I send the same challenge, show me one Democrat in Congress that has more than a 50% libertarian voting record and I will show you a list of 50 Republicans that have more than a 80% libertarian voting record(according to Ron Paul's liberty caucus).

MAtt,
I agree with your challenge. I should have said marijuana instaed of gun control. Either way, there are definitely more Republicans attracted to the LP as a whole than Dems.
The ironic thing about saying we are socially liberal and fiscally conservative is that the Dems are doing their best to create a "nany state" wwhich limits social freedoms, and the Reps are far from fiscally conservative right now. Which leaves us with nothing, obviously.

Since his job is to repeal Roe v. Wade, I don't like him. He's got an agenda, and it's not a libertarian one, whatever you'd like to think.

Just curious here, has the Libertarian Party an official position on abortion?

The official LP position is available on the Party's platform, available elsewhere on this site.

Essentially, the party is officially pro-choice, with the caveat that government funds not be used to perform abortions.

I have not seen any evidence that Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. His dissent in Planned Parenthood vs Casey is not in any way a good indicator of his views on Roe. The legislation in question merely required the husband be notified, but in absolutely no way required the husband to consent. As I get a further sense of Judge Alito's philosophy, I get the impression he would essentially maintain Roe vs Wade as is, on privacy grounds. His past decisions indicate he views the right to privacy very broadly.

Janice Rogers Brown would be nice, but my dream justice is still Randy Barnett.

I hope your right Mark.

"I have not seen any evidence that Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. His dissent in Planned Parenthood vs Casey is not in any way a good indicator of his views on Roe. The legislation in question merely required the husband be notified, but in absolutely no way required the husband to consent. As I get a further sense of Judge Alito's philosophy, I get the impression he would essentially maintain Roe vs Wade as is, on privacy grounds. His past decisions indicate he views the right to privacy very broadly."

Posted by Mark B.

There's no way Bush would appoint somebody who wouldn't overturn it, no matter what he's done in the past.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/31/D8DJADN01.html

In New hampshire, look at this article. GREEDY, GREEDY, what I would like to say, but I have to be polite. (Fumming)

Impeach bush

"Since his job is to repeal Roe v. Wade, I don't like him. He's got an agenda, and it's not a libertarian one, whatever you'd like to think."

There are pro-choice libertarians that oppose Roe v. Wade becuase it forced abortion on to the states and totally violated the 10th Amendment.

"There are pro-choice libertarians that oppose Roe v. Wade becuase it forced abortion on to the states and totally violated the 10th Amendment."

I've read the case; it doesn't force the states to pay for abortions. It merely says that Texas's former abortion law was unconstitutional because it impinged on Roe's privacy.

However you look at it I am a Pro-choice and it is my privacy that should be respected however it should be. I do not want my choice to be taken from me. I am sooo sick of this government. I feel so helpless I want to cry.

Judge Andrew Napolitano was guest hosting Bill O'Reilly's radio show today, and apparently he's known Alito since they were both 17 and freshmen at Princeton. His basic opinion is that Alito is a good guy who has an extensive understanding of the Constitution and the role of Judges in government, but also that alito does not really have a Libertarian streak in him as far as things like prisoner's rights go.

The basic gist of it is that Napolitano thinks he can be a good justice, and that he does not have an agenda to overturn Roe v Wade, though he seems to be highly conservative on the "fringe" issues of abortion, including parental notification, father's rights, and partial-birth.

I'm really not sure about Alito. I'm mainly concerned about judicial experience, and Alito has a lot of it. However, I'm concerned about his disregard for personal freedoms. Most importantly, I've heard bad things about his support for government-mandated searches (intrusion) and his hatred of abortion (a person's right). If he is a strict constructionist, that's very good. However, it seems like Alito is a very conservative judicial activist, and I'm worried that he will try to take away personal freedoms.

Pasy-
I agree that the right to privacy is implied through out the constitution but the right to life is spelled out in the document. All rights begin with this essential right to life. I think the Supreme Court does have a responsibility to define when life begins, how do you decide if the right to life is being violated if you have not decided when life begins? Using all available science I think the court should set that limit. The only part I'm not sure of is if the States have the authority to limit that further or if that would fall under the individual's right of privacy. I can say with as much confidence as one who doesn't have an MD,if you have to crack the skull of the fetus and then suck the brain out with a vacum ,as you would with a late term abortion, you are in violation of that baby's right to life.

Let me make this clear it is between me and the supreme being, not you or anyone else choice what I do with my body. There are babies being killed and thrown in the trash everyday, men being sent to war. Do not, not do you have the right to tell me what to do or dictate what I should do with MY BODY. Those who throw stones need to look in their own filthy back yard.

Pasy-
So when do you think that fetus gets the right to his/her own body? When does that fetus have the right to life? Should you be able to smash the crown as it starts to show, slit the throat of a baby as long as he/she is still attached to the cord? This just shows that both side are equal in it's irrational emotionalism.

Just a couple of points on the when does life begin. Actully I think the question is more approriately when does human life begin as clearly the sperm and egg are both "alive". Given that, from the time of conception, over 50% of the embryos will spontaneously abort seems unlikely to me on either scientific or religeous grounds that human life begins at conception. Since 100% of late term abortions are done for severe congenital problems, usually hydrocephalus with little if any brain left, I don't know where that fits. Most don't survive even if allowed to deliver (or more often taken by C section). The bottom line is it falls to "belief" until we have a better test for "human life" and therefore seems to me is prohibited from being legislated, as any such legislation clearly favors one "religion" over another.
Just my humble 2 cents worth.
chuck

No mind will ever be changed on abortion. Thats why it should NEVER be included in the platform as a issue, but mentioned that the party leaves the issue for it's candidates to decide.

The second you take a position on this, you alienate half of the voting public to the rest of your message. Faith based beliefs cannot and never will be addressed by politics anyway - it's not the right venue. It's for your church and yourself, not your political party.

That is why I hate this emphasis on abortion, when there are many more issues MUCH more important to deal with. Such as the nominee's view on property rights, protection against illegal search and seizure and protection against indefinate detention.

Resurrecting some questions I asked way back in the blog thread about John Roberts. These questions are much more important in the scheme of things than b*tching forever about abortion.

Would Judge Alito agree with me that rights are infinite and not enumerated and transcend even the Constitution?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that the Federal Government's powers are few and enumerated?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that the Commerce Clause is not meant to be an unlimited enumerated power to the Federal Government, but merely a mechanism to allow the Federal Government to prevent states from creating abusive restrictions to interstate trade ?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment should be narrowly interpreted and the Free Exercise Clause should be very broadly interpreted?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that the following Cabinet Departments, i.e. Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportaion and Veterans Affairs and most Independent Agencies, i.e. NASA, NOAA, etc, ad naseum, are not authorized by an enumerated power give to Congress and thus should be immediately abolished as unconstitutional?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that all Executive Orders in existence and the entire content of the Code of Federal Regulations are an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's lawmaking power and that they should immediately be abolished?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that all legislation in the United States Code, from the beginning of the Republic to the present day, that cannot be justified by reference to an enumerated power or that infringes on any enumerated or unenumerated right in any way, be immediately abolished?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that Social Security and Medicare are not authorized under any enumerated power and should be immediately terminated and their remaining assets credited back to the American people as a one time tax credit?

Would Judge Alito agree with me that any prisoner held by the Federal government, either be charged and tried within a lawful amount of time or be released back to their home country?

There are more questions, but that is a good start.

Right On Tim West.

I want to point out that there are a lot of hypocrites in religion.
How about those who want to save the babies. let us make a special fat tax for the pro-life to pay for those babies. Go save the the ones thrown in the trash, or starving, or babies being abused sexually by the father or THE PRIEST for that matter.
LEAVE MY STOMACH ALONE.
Women Rights and Pro-Choice.

Wow, you're certainly militant.

Would you be for abortion to determine the sex of the child? Abortion if it were possible to determine IQ and it was decided that the baby's IQ would be too low. Abortion based on if the child had the homosexual gene, if that gene were ever discovered to exist?

And what about the father's rights? If he is willing to take care of the baby doesn't he deserve some consideration? What's in that stomach could be considered half his. Both parents should have equal rights for the child. Carrying and delivering a child is very costly, but it is a cost that can be paid for completely monetarily. If the biological father will pay all costs incurred, does he have absolutely no rights to the child? I find it ridiculous that a mother gets %100 of rights by default.

Mark B., I hope you're not asking those questions seriously, because the answer to all of them is obviously "no." In fact, there's no justice on the Supreme Court, Republican or Democrat, who would agree with those positions. That's why this whole discussion is rather empty.

Also, I agree that abortion shouldn't be the first consideration here. But that's the issue with the most militant people on each side, so abortion is naturally at the center of the debate. That's not going to change anytime soon.

Matt and BPerry: where is your evidence that the LP is more attractive to Republicans than Democrats?

----------------------------------------------

Regarding abortion

I say that this is an issue where extremists on both sides of the fence have used hijacked the national debate about Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is about much more than just abortion, yet because the extremists on both sides refuse to recognize that the other side has a good point regarding rights, they have managed to limit all judicial appointments to this one issue. It's absurdity beyond belief.

The Constitution protects both life and property in the 5th and 14th amendments. A woman's body is her property, and therefore she should have complete control over deciding what grows inside it, including during pregnancy. I also think it's long past time that we grant human rights to fetuses. Further, the 9th amendment protects rights not specifically named in the Constitution, thus protecting the right to privacy, contrary to what an earlier poster wrote.

Until pro-lifers are willing to acknowledge that women have full and complete rights over what grows in their bodies at ALL times, AND until pro-choicers are willing to acknowledge that fetuses should be granted human rights, there can be no resolution to this issue.

Are we thus to be caught in an endless feud that will completely overlook such minor issues as having judges who honor and respect the Constitution?

I think the solution is to insist that both sides admit that the pro-life and pro-choice extremists are ruining this country and that BOTH their respective agendas should be REJECTED COMPLETELY unless and until they are willing to work together to resolve this issue.

Then, perhaps finally we can get back to chosing Supreme Court justices based on whether or not they believe in finding law rather than interpreting law and in honoring and defending the Constitution rather than trashing it.

I screwed up my first sentence in my abortion comments above. It should have read, "I say that this is an issue where extremists on both sides of the fence have hijacked the national debate about Supreme Court justices."

Then let the father get pregnant, with all the scientific finds they have, why not let the man get pregnant. I do not care what gay's do at home, that is their business. I do not care about the sex of the baby. There are many personal private reasons why a person would have an abortion. It is between me my doctor and the supreme being, and you stay out of my stomach PERIOD. You want a baby so bad you go get pregnant. Tell the government to create that possibility for you. You carry it, support it, and deal with how THE GOVERNEMENT tell you how to raise your own kid as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051101/ap_on_go_co/tax_overhaul

This stinks. The overhaul according to their needs not ours.

I'd be perfectly content to let women choose and then let God sort out the aftermath, IF taxpayer money isn't used to support their decision either way they choose. When it comes right down to it, it is a very small minority that would deny women have the ultimate say in whether or not to have an abortion. The question is who pays for the woman's choice. This issue will remain contentious until public funding is abolished for child welfare and abortions.

Kind of a crazy opinion here, but I don't think the Republicans really want to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They can use it as a wedge issue during election time to try and garnish votes in swing states.

I really don't know what to think of this guy. On abortion he made what could be considered a pro-life ruling on abortion in PA, but I also read today he made a pro-choice ruling in NJ. However, as many have said in this post, any person who has strong support from this Whitehouse, especially the social-conservative wing, has to be a little worrysome.

Oh, and the term "social-conservative". Isn't that an oxymoron?

There is a problem with both parties in regards to women who continually get pregnant and men who run around and get numerious women pregnant, men who cheat on women. Women who are poor. Women who have been housewives and they end up divorced with themselves taking care of the kids. It is hard enough with the Government taking all our rights away, high property taxes, let alone a women taking care of siblings by herself. I think it is more ridiculous when women continually get pregnant and having 6 to 8 kids.

Here what I see, bow down to the Government, government takes our money, government controls us and our kids. Government controls how we live. We are the submissive to government. End result, we don't have a life. If Government have their way, they will use china new invention to control our minds.

I agree with Walt. I hate abortion debates becuase they are such a expense of energy to no provable result. Only God knows, and he/she is not telling.

Soon we will be treated to yet another Senate Confirmation hearing pitting the Strict Contortionists of the GOPers against the Loose Contortionists of the DEMs.

For Libertarians, the only correct choice for the Supreme Court is as follows: impeach all the current sitting justices for various violations of their respective oaths of office; nominate and confirm Prof. Randy Barnett and eight (8) other Barnett clones.

The people mentioned herein, including Judge Brown and Judge Alito have violated their oaths of office many times over. There is no reason for Libertarians to support either of them.

Do we have a choice. We do not have enough Libertarians in office. Now they want to overhaul the tax system, according to them. I am tired of having something shoved up my you know where.

www.givemeliberty.org
www.paynoincometax.com

It's all hypocritical. When someone is happily 3 months pregnant, they talk about "the baby, the baby" and go gaga over the sonogram. When they don't want the "baby", then it's just an organism that won't feel a thing when it is aborted. When someone has a miscarriage, they say we lost the "baby". Everyone believes what they want to to suit their own needs and beliefs.

No matter how you may feel about abortions we have to be intellectually honest and admit that the current LP position is simply wrong. The current LP position is not that it is the candidate's choice, the postion is that government has no role. We have always interpreted the constitution honestly and no matter how decesive it may be(like the drug issue)we always take the document to it's logical conclusion. All libertarians (except some anarchist) believe that the federal government has a role to protect rights. The right to life is not only spelled out but is also the right that makes all other rights possible. You can't defend the right to life if you don't set the time when that life begins. My point is no matter how candidates feel about abortion, the current lp position is not consistent with the constitution. The constitution does give the government a role.

Actually, Matt, you're constitutionally wrong.

I personally believe the LP shouldn't take any position at all on abortion, leaving each Libertarian candidate to address the issue (or not). But the current LP platform IS consistent with the Constitution.

The federal government doesn't have any authority to address common crimes such as murder in any way. Murder is the province of each state government. So even if you believe that abortion is murder, it's still unconstitutional for the federal government to get involved. This fact is even recognized by Congressman Ron Paul, a pro-life libertarian who favors a "pro-life amendment" to the Constitution.

NO THE LP IS NOT WRONG, MATT ACTUALLY YOU CAN GO WITH THE LIBERALS, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE.
Maybe we should come into your house, tell you how to live, what foods to eat, put a leash on you. Take your money to pay for all the babies. Go get pregnant yourself. YOU ARE NOT the supreme being. You do not dictate to me. Stay out of my life.

I would definitely be in favor of an amendment that granted unborn children in the United States the same rights under the constitution as any citizen.

Libertarian TV-
My theory is that we can look at current Republican and Democrat voting records in Congress to see that 50 Republicans have a libertarian voting record of 80%+. On the otherside of the aisle only Fiengold has a libertarian voting record over 50%(best year was 62%)no other Democrat was able to crack the 50% mark. Plus the fact is libertarians came from the Republican Party and alot of libertarians stayed behind after the great Goldwater/Nixon split that caused the creation of the LP or came back to the Republican Party after the Reagan Administration. I have no poll numbers to show how many libertarians have remained in the Republican Party, it's just a theory.

First of all I'm Pro-Abortion.
I know a girl who's had an abortion because she didn't want the baby, and she is the most vociferous advocate of Pro-Abortion rights of anyone I know. Sometimes, however, I feel that her anger is hiding the guilt she has for the abortion. I think the women who get upset over people calling a fetus a human are the ones who feel guilty for their own abortion, or are trying to avoid feeling guilty.

Pasy-
If you want to have a debate use logic. I will not respond to that emotional tirade. You failed to answer the questions I asked before.When does the fetus have the same rights? Can you smash the skull as it starts to show,slit the throat as long as the baby is still attached to the cord?
JT-
If that is the case then why does it say right in the preamble of the Constitution that is the role of the Federal Government to protect "..life,liberty and the pursit of happiness."Don't mistake bad precedental law with Constitutional Law. So please explain to me how I am wrong. Is the right to life not a natural right or is protecting natural rights not the role of the federal government?

The pro-life amendment is ant-libertarian, here's the first result that shows up on google. http://www.catholicplanet.com/prolife/amendment1.htm Their is no reason why the states can't handle the abortion issue, so their is no need for an amendment.

The Constitution DOESN'T say it's the role of the federal government to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Matt.

First, those things are in the Declaration, not the Constitution. Second, the Declaration says government as such exists to protect individual rights, but not that the central government must do everything to accomplish that.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly spells out everything that the US Congress has the legal power to do. Legislating on abortion or murder isn't included. And no amendment has been passed as of yet that grants such power to the federal government. I hope that clarifies it.

Wow, just wow....you're not kidding about that consitutional ammendment are you?

I honestly wish people would stop this ranting about abortion, especially on an LP website. People on both sides of the debate can have a good faith argument on abortion.

The only thing that in my opinion is clear is the Constitution is, and should be, neutral on the issue.

JT: Take another look at the Constitution.

The 9th Amendment does protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when it says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, the 14th Amendment extends the protection of life, liberty, and property to the states to a degree when it says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Matt: regarding Reps and Dems in Congress...I'd like to know the source of your figures. Usually such surveys select votes on issues of interest to the surveyor. If the surveyor was conservative, there's a very good chance that they're going to select conservative-leaning bills. Check the issue selection of a liberal surveyor, and you'll get the Dems looking better while the Reps look worse.

Also, I very much doubt that these same Reps and Dems in Congress are reflective of their constituents' tendencies to move toward the LP. To the contrary, my own experience is that Dem voters are equally open to Libertarian ideas as Rep voters are and their political leaders are mostly out of touch with them.

Re the 14th amendment. Is an unborn human a "person" with rights? This is the issue we can't seem to resolve. When does a "person" come into being with his/her rights? When conceived?When viable (i.e. can exist independent of the mother's womb)? When it moves out of the birth
canal into the outside world? Me, I'll go with viable because then it can start to exert its
rights.

Wow, that ProLife Constitutional Amendment is totally nuts! No contraception? LMAO. Jeez...those pro-lifers are out of their mind! It is so wacko, I'd be surprised if one state ratified it...let alone 38.

LTV, why don't you take another look at my post.

I said that the specific phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution, which is what Matt claimed. It doesn't.

I also said that government per se exists to protect rights, but the federal government doesn't have absolute legal authority to do that. It doesn't.

The 14th Amendment says that "...no State may deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However, that doesn't explicitly authorize federal gov. action against abortion; it merely begs the question of whether a fetus is a "person." The Supreme Court has already said no. That's why constitutional loyalists such as Ron Paul support a "pro-life amendment."

Finally, I'm sorry that this thread has gone off in the direction of abortion, although maybe it was to be expected.

Matt I do not owe you anything, I don't have to explain nor do I have to answer to you. Yes the Pro-life are nuts. No contraception, destroy other people lives, and live in sin whatever they are in their own life by controdicting themselves. Now Matt stay out of my STOMACH.

LibertarianTV:

Invoking the 9th amendment to the Constitution to protect a woman's right to choose doesnt answer the question, since a pro-life advocate would simply say that the fetus is alive, and thus has its OWN right to privacy which abortion terminates without due process. Thus violating several amendments.

The question still ends up being: when does life begin?

As far as why more Libertarians have a background and more of a tendency to associate with Republicans rather than Democrats, I will quote Jefferson:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

That is, liberals and conservatives are both wrong. But I'd rather be ruled by someone who believes in a heaven in the hereafter, rather than one who is trying to create one in the here. If I had to be ruled by anybody, that is.

Funny how some of the post I have mentioned about saving the babies here that gets thrown into the trash and other things seemed to be ignored and a diversion is created by when does life begins, again STAY OUT OF MY STOMACH, hypocrites.

Jesus did once say, those who have not sinned may throw the first stone. How many here have not sinned.

Pasy,

You do realize babies don't grow in the STOMACH, right?

And most pro-lifers are not nuts. The group that wants contraception to be illegal is as far to the fringe as the group of pro-choice that wants full access no questions asked abortion on demand.

Pasy, everyone else is speaking politely and intelligently. You're being incoherent and yelling like a maniac.

You can feel strongly about something without behaving like a nutcase. Try it.

JT your entitled to your opinion about what you think a nutcase is.

But JT, you're still deliberately ignoring the 9th Amendment. Are you claiming that the 9th Amendment does not protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Anthony: I wasn't claiming to answer the original question. I was simply pointing out to JT that his claim about the Constitution not protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was wrong.

This now applies to Pasy:

"I know a girl who's had an abortion because she didn't want the baby, and she is the most vociferous advocate of Pro-Abortion rights of anyone I know. Sometimes, however, I feel that her anger is hiding the guilt she has for the abortion. I think the women who get upset over people calling a fetus a human are the ones who feel guilty for their own abortion, or are trying to avoid feeling guilty. "

Don't worry Pasy, you're not a murderer.

Sigh, unfortunately the pro-choice extremists are just as bad as the pro-life extremists. Neither will give the slightest bit of ground and both are willing to commit violence to get their way.

First of all, some definations.

Stomach: This organ is a component of the digestive system, filled with strong acids, used to digest certain substances

Uterus: This organ is a component of the female reproductive system, used to house and feed a developing zygote, embryo, fetus. Sometime referred to by the religious right as womb.

If your going to discuss an issue, at least try to use the correct terminology.

In any event, I avoid the extremists on other side and try to walk a moderate line. It would be nice if others put down their bibles or N.O.W. signs and tried to use a little reason instead of hysteria for a change.

LTV, I'm not deliberately ignoring anything. You clearly don't want to go back and read what I actually wrote. Okay, I'll copy it for you:

"The Constitution DOESN'T say it's the role of the federal government to protect 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' Matt."

In other words, Matt claimed that specific phrase came from the "preamble of the Constitution," and I pointed out that it came from the Declaration. I was correcting his source, not denying that the Constitution recognizes individual rights. Of course, the Constitution also limits what the feds can do to safeguard those rights, leaving other authority to the states.

You're arguing with an imaginary opponent.

Let's not sugar coat things:

Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion should be the terms people use.

Pro-Choice implies that if you're not pro-choice then you don't believe in any individual choices.
Pro-Life implies that if you're not pro-life, then you are for death of everything.

it is indeed a rare case where a supreme court judge has truly based their decision on his interpretation of the constitution. 99% of the time it is based on their potlitical ideology. the supreme court has become a political forum which is largely the reason why so many inappropriate cases are heard.

If you want to interpret the Constitution literally, fetuses are not granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. This is because "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Since the unborn are not citizens of the US, fetuses do not have constitutionally protected rights.

The most anti-libertarian ruling by Alito was the lone dissent requiring women to notify their husbands if they get an abortion. Firstly, this is just another example of huge government. We're requiring certain US citizens to alert other US citizens when they get a certain procedure? Should we suddenly force women to alert their mothers the first time they have sex? In most cases, a woman will tell her husband if she gets an abortion. If she doesn't, it's probably because she's afraid of violence. Alito was most likely hoping that such legislation might intimidate a frightened woman into not going through with an abortion, but legislation that encourages intimidation is hardly a good thing.

The only conceivable argument is that the fetus is partially the biological father's property. But considering that market value for one egg is at about 2-10 thousand dollars, surrogacy goes for upwards of 30 thousand, and the market value of one sperm is less than one cent, the monetary percentage of the fetus the father owns is 0%. If he incurs costs from her pregnancy, such as if she stops working and ceases to contribute to bills, then he could possibly demand compensation, but generally such things are done privately, not under the eyes of the government.

If you're interested in more libertarian arguments for abortion, here's an interesting one: http://www.zetetics.com/mac/abort.htm

A rational argument instead of hysteria. I am impressed.

I am not sure I am quite willing to take it all the way up to the moment of birth, although she does present a compelling argument. Anytime before total viability I will accept total and unrestricted access to abortion. Between that time and birth, well, got to think on that quite a bit.

I am of the opinion that the Libertarian Party should take a neutral position on abortion. That it should leave it up to each individual candidate for public office to decide whether he or she should take a anti-abortion or an abortion-rights stand. That is one.

Second, I am of the further opinion, that Roe v Wade should be overturned. That each state should be left to decide individually what laws concerning abortion would be best suited for their respected populations.

I personally look forward to the day when all unborn babies will be protected by law and by society. I will assist in that effort as best as I am able. Science has already proven to me that the being in utero is human from the moment of fertilization. Technology, such as fetoscopy, ultrasonic imaging, 3-D ultrasound and other, has shown me the undeniable truth of the unborn's humaness. I will continue to present that view and I will support groups and institutions that that help women and their unborn children. Also, I will continue to pray for abortion's end and for all to have a change of heart.

LIKE I SAID: Abortion arguments are a total waste of LP energy. Most arguments can be proven one way or another; abortion never will becuase you would have to know God's will on the matter, and that's quite impossible for humans to know.

Since I am not a christian of any sort, my views on this are not informed by that faith, nor is my conduct proscribed by it.

Deism offers no guidance in this matter, except that each person must live with the responsibility of their choices they make.

I agree with Tim West; abortion arguments are impossible to prove - which is why the government should keep its dirty little fingers out of it.

With the way this country is going, please tell me, how do we really know there is a higher being. In the bible man is ruled by money or the higher being. Well it is obvious who the government is ruled by. $$$$$$

"Science has already proven to me that the being in utero is human from the moment of fertilization."

Ironically, science has proven to me just the opposite. Our conception of the soul comes from our ability to think, reason, and use our will to effect change. Biology tells us all of this comes from the brain, and biology also tells that the brain is pretty much the last thing to develop. A a neurobiology major, I've learned that at birth, an infant barely has the neuronal organization to even see, let alone have cognition. An 8 week old fetus is less human than a cockroach. (This is not an insult. I'm actually quite fond of the order Blattodea)

I agree with everyone that this is a silly thing to debate, but it's fun so I'm perpetuating it!

JT: I stand corrected. I missed the part where he said it was in the preamble to the Constitution. Sorry.

Marielle: Excellent point about citizens being those born or naturalized, showing that the Constitution does not recognize the citizenship of the unborn. However, does this mean that they don't have rights? I don't think that argument holds up, given the 9th Amendment.

Once again, it's an argument over the humanity of a fetus - something impossible to prove as it has different definitions for different people. Stop arguing about it; it's about as productive as ramming your head repeatedly into the wall.

Personally I think abortion, after the first trimester, is wrong. I think people are using definitions as a way of justifying that its okay. Just because it can't reason yet, doesn't make it not human regardless of the official definition. Scientific definitions change and therefore are not entirely reliable. Furthermore, in a day and age where there is so many ways of preventing a pregnancy, I don't see abortion as a viable option except if the life of the woman is threatened or the pregnancy is caused by a rape incident. Regardless of definition, I think its pretty obvious that an infant is a living, breathing entity. It does have personality though it is expressed through limited means.
Personally, I wish there was a law against abortion passed the first trimester. However, I would be almost as satisfied if this issue was left out of government all together. I don't think it should be covered by insurance either unless a woman's life is at stake, its a rape baby, and possibly in the event of a teen pregnancy.
I find it interesting that if a woman is murdered and she is pregnant, they can charge the indivdual responsible with two counts instead of one count of murder.
I don't, however, vote on the basis of whether candidates are pro-life or not because there are so many other issues facing this country that are far more important right now. Thankfully abortions have become quite rare, or atleast that is what is publicized. The last time I knew, the stability of the nation didn't rest upon the frequency that abortions occur.

I think LP should take a stance of just outing the crack-pots on both side of this debate. On one side we have the nut jobs that won't answer a simple question about rather a person can slit the throat of a baby as long as he/she is still attached to the cord.To these people this would actually be an infringement on their rights. On the other side we have nut-jobs who think that they can stop a woman from taking a pill that washes her egg away because it might be fertilized. The slippery slope is scary on both sides, on one side one day we could have a feminazi arguing that she can kill her 7 year old son as long as it is done in the privacy of her own home. On the otherside I could be arrested for masturbating because some Christan right nut says that the sperm is life.

If I may try a more dispassionate approach to this dialong please.

There really should be no argument about when life begins. When the genetic cellular material joins, grows and divides into additional cells, according to science life has begun. If the genetic material is from a horse, it is equine life and so forth with the defination equally applying to plants, animals and humans.
One extream position seems to be: When it is born and can survive on its own a child has earned legal protection. Unless these two standards are met it is under the sole jurisdiction of the host.

One other extream position seems to be: When a human embryo is fertilized by a human sperm, divides into additional cells human life has begun so has earned the legal protection from being murdered.

If there is ever to be peace beween these two extremes, limits may be set within the growth sequence of gestation. For example trimester could be used as milestones to guarentee complete anynomity in the first, with some limitations during the second, with abortion performed only to protect the life of the host.

The Supreme Count put a previously unknown privacy right in the Constitution in an earlier case, then used that precedent while ruling, Roe Vs Wade. The ruling cutoff any public debate and legislation and resulted in a thirty year long civil war over abortion rights. It should be obvious by now that the court did not serve us well and this issue would be better debated in state legislatures so as to reflect regional differences.

I think those of you who are pro-lifers, really need to take a good look at your own dark closets, because you are not given the Lords right to be judging those women who are pro-choice. You cannot overlook your own skeletons and sins you have committeed. Otherwise you would be in the Lord place unless you are a non-believer. It is intersting how other religions such as christians have tried to control other peoples lives, bomb clinics and have priests in churches who are molestors. The are still practicing in some churches with ignorance people backing them up. It seems the christians want a lot of control. The lord did not give them this, they chose to have this. You need to stay out of the woman choice, you will have your own mess to deal with when you face the Lord yourself for your own sins. I am sure you have a lot of them.

And why do you assume that someone has to be Christian(or religous at all) to be anti-Abortion? I personally am a Christian but my anti-abortion beliefs do not stem from my faith. They just happen to coincide with it.

I honestly think that if he elected supereme court justice that it woulg become like the 1960's all over again. Because he gives the right to hire and fire whoever you want which as a african-american that seems really wrong now even with abortion law personally i dont think it's right to have a abortion but to me if the women honestly wants it I think that they be able to get it without the husband or anybody worrying about it in that matter. I think that he is bad canidate for the supereme court just because he will hurt everybody. From then it would become chaos because of racism and no women's rights so everybody gets screwed up in the end except for the rich white men.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/10/28/news/13656.shtml

Napolitano, the Fox News analyst, agreed, saying that Alito's decisions generally seek to resolve disputes between parties rather than set precedents.

Napolitano also said he wasn't surprised that Bush chose Alito.

"Sam Alito is just what George Bush is looking for: a big government conservative who will almost always side with the government against the individual, and the federal government against the state," Napolitano said.

Your right, the rich win and the rest of us get screwed, we become slaves to them, we don't have to be black either.

Well, the trick is to become rich. If you can't beat em, join em.

Stockman said:

One can expect the Democrats to appease their liberal base but their verbal cuts will produce less blood in the water to excite the sharks in their looney fringe.

A Janice Rogers Brown nomination would have been more comfortable for conservtive / libraterians but her volume of written opinions would be more difficult to defend from the same looney fringe's 527's adds.

Seems every time I become disenchanted with the Adminstration, it does something to being me back. Judge Alito's nominaton does just that!

The right isn't on the "looney fringe"? I like the misspelling in your diatribe. It's nice to know that right wing scum aren't disenchanted with the war criminals in the current administration. When's the impeachment of Cheney start? It's like he didn't know what his chief of staff was up to. Riiiight.

Re: Jay and Paul,

Are you familiar with Libertarians for Life? I believe that their website is www.l4l.org, but a simple google search would find them if not.

Also, Jay, some Christians or people who claim to be Christians don't act very Christian. Some professing libertarians aren't very libertarian, either, but that doesn't change the truth of the philosophical principles. True Christians want to follow God's principles in the Bible and be like Christ and have compassion for those in situations where they want to have abortions, but yet we believe that abortion is just the wrong solution, for moral but also scientific reasons. Christians aren't perfect, but those who are truly Christians are generally not the ones going around blowing up clinics, either.

Oops, sorry, forgot to sign my name :-)

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, researchers have uncovered some cases that Judge Alito decided in a more pro-choice based outcome. You can pick up the links to the articles on Drudge.

"There really should be no argument about when life begins. When the genetic cellular material joins, grows and divides into additional cells, according to science life has begun."

The flaw in that argument is that life doesn't begin at all. Before the joining of the gametes, each gamete was alive- those gametes are the result of other cells spliting, all the way back to when the parents was a fetus, and that fetus was made of two gametes. Life does not end- only cells or groups of cells do. Life began many many years ago and hasn't stopped since.

On November 1, 2005 01:42 AM, someone said:

==> Just a couple of points on the when does life begin. Actully I think the question is more approriately when does human life begin as clearly the sperm and egg are both "alive". Given that, from the time of conception, over 50% of the embryos will spontaneously abort seems unlikely to me on either scientific or religeous grounds that human life begins at conception. <==

Doris: It's important to get the scientific facts of human embryology correctly. The sperm and the egg are only germ _cells_. In contrast, the embryo, even at the one-celled stage (the zygote) is a whole _organism_. The member of human species (Homo sapiens) at the embryonic stage of development is already a whole human organism. The human at the adult stage of development is the same whole organism as the human embryo, only grown up. The human embryo is already a human being, a member of the human species. These are long-established, empirical, scientific facts of reality, not religious beliefs. See "How Do Humans Begin? by Dianne N. Irving on Libertarians for Life?s website, www.L4L.org.

On November 1, 2005 08:25 PM, richard t said:
==> If you want to interpret the Constitution literally, fetuses are not granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. This is because "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Since the unborn are not citizens of the US, fetuses do not have constitutionally protected rights. <==

Doris: A correction. The Amendment 14, Section 1, which you are quoting, does not define "person." It only defines "citizen." There are many human beings on the soil of the U.S. and its territories who are not citizens, foreign tourists, etc., yet the Constitution does not consider them to be non-persons. In fact, in the same Section 1 of this amendment, it goes on to say: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Also, I have found that some of the confusion on the question of the "person" stems from a failure to observe the distinction between "person" as a legal construct or artifact, and "person" as a fact of reality, what some have called the "natural person." Being a natural person with the unalienable right to life does not flow from government say-so. Since having the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property are pre-legal, , pre-government, then logically, so is our personhood, from which these rights flow.

I am no Constitutional scholar, but it does not seem to strain reason to read the "all persons born" words as recognizing that before we are born we are persons, too.

Doris wrote: "I am no Constitutional scholar, but it does not seem to strain reason to read the 'all persons born' words as recognizing that before we are born we are persons, too."

And this is where the whole issue becomes unsolvable. If we are persons before we are born, are we also persons before our bodies are conceived and begin to grow in a woman's uterus? This is where different religious and spiritual beliefs come into play, and few people will find total agreement. Even among those who believe that we are persons before conception, there are some who believe that spirits who were planning to be born to a particular woman leave the fetus upon learning that she plans to abort. Thus, from that point of view, there is no killing involved.

There are also opposite religious and spiritual views on the same point.

This raises a question in my mind. Does it really make sense to judge this issue based on religion and religious beliefs?

http://www.victorzammit.com/

For those who are not christians but might believe another way. This not relating to the abortion issue necessarily, just another concept of looking at things.

Pasy said: "I want to point out that there are a lot of hypocrites in religion. How about those who want to save the babies. let us make a special fat tax for the pro-life to pay for those babies. Go save the the ones thrown in the trash, or starving, or babies being abused sexually by the father or THE PRIEST for that matter."

You may wish to change your rhetoric a bit, Pasy. The vast majority of "fathers" are the best friends their child could have, despite the attempt over the past several years to paint them all as deadbeats and abusers.

In many species in the animal kingdom, incoming dominant males often kill outright the offspring of a previous dominant male.

Perhaps that is why it is most often a new man in the house - who is not a child's father - who is much more likely to abuse a child (sexually or otherwise).

Same story with stepmothers, also - believe it or not.

You also singled out priests. But what about our public servants in government schools? There is a reason why the government does not release any statistics showing how many incidents of illicit sex happens between school employees and students. Guess what it is! Fortunately, a trick Google search (teacher + arrested + sex + minor) reveals 1,570,000 stories about such incidents -- and most of those stories aren't more than a few years old.

When a private day care center, or church, or private school is found to have a criminal who commits non-consensual acts, the entire business tends to go under.

On the other hand, every year, every state in the nation has several widely-publicized incidents of non-consensual acts by employees, yet the government schools get to continue living and even get bigger budgets next year.

I wonder why.

The prospect of being put out of business is a tremendous incentive to minimize the likelihood of nonconsensual acts by employees.

Yet another great reason to remove education from the gnarly hand of government.

http://www.honestedu.org/

Using those search terms you may come up with a lot of entries you probably didn't want!

Granted, but if you sift through them, they will reveal an astonishing number of government employees who have been arrested for taking advantage of their situation.

The single greatest risk factor for child abuse is having a step parent in the home. Abuse by biological parents is very very low, although it does occasionally occur- but it is an anomaly. Treating step children poorly is the rule, although for the most part this does not shown in violence but rather a tendancy to not take children to the doctor, not paying for college, etc.

Deadbeat dads however are very common. In an evolutionary light, this makes sense. In a society where the threat of a male's offspring not surviving to adulthood is real, he will stick around and make sure his offpsring survive. But if the government will ensure that his child will be fine, then he has no incentive to stay- why pay for a child when the goverment will if you don't?

A fetus should not be granted rights even if it is "alive." Does a worm have rights? Do the chickens and cows we eat have rights? No. And the concrete reason for this, and the reason that African-Americans, Women, and other oppressed groups (homosexuals are on their way, no matter how much religious fanatics hate it) have been able to secure their rights is that they are rational beings who can DEMAND them. A chicken, cow, or FETUS cannot demand rights. If it can't talk, think, or write, and it lives inside the body of something that can, it is not a human being with rights yet.

Marielle: What is the source of your claim regarding step-parents and child abuse? I did some Googling, and the closest I could come to such a stat was from a study by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of McMaster University who analyzed murder records from the U.S. and Canada and determined that children under two years were at least 60 times more likely to be killed by a stepparent than by a biological parent. (http://www.stepfamily.net/Childabuse.htm)

However, there are serious questions as to the accuracy of this claim. For instance, a Canadian researcher's website says, "The actual number for 1997 statistics [in Canada] about known perpetrators of child homicide given to me privately was 21 biological fathers, 3 step-fathers, the number of mothers is somewhat clouded: it may be 23, 24 or 25 (including one step-mother), depending which of the several variations one believes."

So the evidence I've found it cloudy at best.

Further, child abuse goes far beyond murder, since the number of non-murdered abused children is estimated to be in the millions.

So again I must ask Marielle: what's your source?

To Bad Bush was not aborted.

I imagine people who believe in reincarnation would be against abortion too. After all, that could be them in there, and they have rights.

To Bad Bush was not aborted.

Posted by: at November 4, 2005 01:41 PM

Wonder who is this drive-by blogger anyway? Make a statement and not ready to defend it! Never seems to have any thoughts other that I hate Bush. That seems to be such pitifully small and unrewarding world to live in. May, I suggest you find someone to talk to, professionally!

What's to defend, You do see what is going on with Bush. Stockman, you can recommend, but you are not a professional.

so I go back to my orginal comment.

My religion does not believe in reincarnation.

The source for that data was actually from a lecture given by my professor, Stephen T. Emlem. I can ask him for that source of the data, but here's an interesting paper he published about the subject in general for the meantime-

Emlen (1997) The Evolutionary Study of Human Family Systems, Social Science Information, 36(4): 563-589.

so I go back to my orginal comment.

Posted by: at November 4, 2005 10:09 PM

So as I suspected, nothing much going on up there.

from
http://www.lewrockwell.com/huebert/huebert12.html

Alito and State Power

As others have observed, Samuel Alito has spent his entire adult life working for the federal government. Here again is his resume before becoming a judge:

Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976–1977

Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981

Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981–1985

Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985–1987

U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987–1990

Except for the clerkship, each one of these positions involved nothing but full-time advocacy for maximum federal government power. That's what U.S. Attorneys do: look for as many ways as possible to put as many people as possible in prison, as often as possible, for as long as possible.

Does that sound like the career choice of someone who would limit government from the bench? Or does it sound like someone who is going to side with government thugs against the individual more often than not?

Consider this passage from a recent Slate investigation of Alito's decisions:

Alito sat on a dozen panels in which judges disagreed regarding a citizen's Fourth Amendment rights. In each of those cases, Alito adopted the view most supportive of the government's position. Alito would have upheld the strip searches of an innocent 10-year-old girl, dissenting from the opinion by the well-known civil libertarian Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Alito crossed swords with two Reagan appointees in arguing that a jury shouldn't decide whether a police officer lawfully allowed his men to push to the ground, handcuff, and hold at gunpoint another innocent family. That case was echoed three years later when Alito, this time writing for a majority, found that in the course of an eviction, marshals could reasonably pump a sawed-off shotgun at a family sitting around its living room.

Given Alito's apparent lack of originalist credentials, maybe this is why Mr. Shapiro is so enthusiastic about him. After all, Mr. Shapiro is an avowed fan of the police state – witness here his defense of the idiotic and tyrannical New York City policy of randomly searching subway passengers, titled "This is a war, blockhead." He says in concluding that piece:

Myopic civil libertarians ignore the simple fact that effective law enforcement is the best way to promote civil liberties. If we live in a safe, secure country – if we rid ourselves of threats domestic and foreign – there is no need for harsh safety precautions. Habeas corpus was restored after the Civil War. Free speech protections were strengthened in the aftermath of World War I. Japanese internment ended after World War II. Temporary safety measures remain in force only as long as safety is threatened. If civil libertarians undermine such measures, they threaten our safety – and temporary measures become more and more permanent. The only way to fully restore civil liberties is to defeat our enemies.

Conclusion

Benjamin Shapiro and "the greatest president of the 21st century" want conservatives to believe that Samuel Alito is the kind of constitution-respecting originalist we arguably got in Clarence Thomas, or is at least as good as Antonin Scalia (who, by the way, proved himself to be not much of an originalist at all in his Raich v. Gonzales opinion allowing the federal government to prohibit medical marijuana use under the Commerce Clause).

The evidence, we have seen, does not support these claims. Instead, the evidence shows Alito to be exactly the sort of judge we would expect George W. Bush to appoint: in the words of his Princeton classmate Judge Andrew Napolitano, "a big government conservative who will almost always side with the government against the individual, and the federal government against the state."

paul

Comments by Judge Andrew Napolitano are often in line with libeterian principles. One of the reasons Fox serves as a primary news source.

Quite a thoughtful presentation about Judge Alito. Seems like after due dilligence you conclud Washington will continue to overshadow state governments and I am sure you are correct!