Alito statement

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by DC_DEEP, Nov 9, 2005.

  1. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Mr Alito was quoted in various news media today as saying he "respects" Roe v. Wade, due to its historic use as a precedent. Does it bother anyone besides me that his respect for the Roe ruling was not based in its recognition of specific rights, just simply on its merits as a precedent?

    I personally do not believe or accept "law by precedent." If it was a logical and meaningful method of judicial ruling, there would be no laws on the books except "The Code of Hammurabi", which, if I remember my history classes correctly, was the first written and codified and standardized set of legal mandates. Or if we wanted to go a little more recent, women would not have the right to vote, and it would still be illegal in several of our great states for a white to marry a nigger. Thank goodness there have been a few lawmakers who saw through the ruse and figured out that simply because a law was ruled one way yesterday, that does not mean it should stand today. Interracial marriage laws were unconstitutional when they were first passed; continuing to use them as precedent would be ridiculous at best, and (although I'm sure there are a few on this forum who would still have them in place) anyone who supported them would be ostracized in general society.

    (Comments only from someone with Doctor of Jurisprudence on this next set of statements, please) Precedent simply means a previous judgement in a particular case. If judges rule based on precedent, there is no need for the appellate court system, or even the Supreme Court, for that matter. If precedent actually holds any power, then appeals do not exist. Lawyers only cite precedent when it is convenient, when it is beneficial to one of their cases. Any legal entanglement should be based on its own merits, not on any previous judgements in another case.
     
  2. Matthew

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,374
    Likes Received:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I have to think the entire agenda is to overturn Roe v Wade or to completely undermine it somehow. I just interpreted his comments as devoid of meaning and intended to placate those who are now justifiably nervous about the loss of choice on the horizon.
     
  3. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    His "respect" for the Roe v. Wade ruling was not based on its merits as a precedent; it was based on what Arlen Specter told him to say. And why do people think Roe v. Wade is getting overturned? It's not. Democrats would win elections for the next 50 years if that happened. Specter knows this.
     
  4. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well, perhaps it was what Specter told him to say, but the point remains - his public comments regarding the issue had nothing to do with the merits of the constitutional implications of that ruling.

    I also doubt Roe will be overturned, it never crossed my mind that it would. Just simply commenting on Mr Alito's unfitness to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
     
  5. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which is exactly the point. Abortion should be a federal issue, thus it shouldn't be in his hands to decide ultimately.

    If the nation can indeed avoid so-called legislating from the bench we can actually get to the point where people can voice their opinion and influence legislation be they conservative, liberal, traditional, progressive or whatever label is in vogue at the time. Let's have them discuss this in the public sphere and keep it out of judges' hands as much as possible.
     
  6. steve319

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Exactly! Part of what we're trying to do as a society, as a civilization, is to become better and overcome the mistakes and poor choices of the past. I think that in order to have any hope at all, we have to be willing to look at these issues based on their merit rather than their age.

    Had this same discussion with a friend this past week about the societal influences on the Bible (which he vehemently denies). I mean, we have to see that humanity has made a few strides as the centuries have rolled past. Abandoning slavery (a scripturally supported, if only tacitly, practice) is a good example of how we've moved past what was once considered acceptable practice.
     
  7. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    A judge is a law-interpreter, not a lawmaker. Or at least that's how it's supposed to be.
     
  8. belinoitaliano

    belinoitaliano New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    45
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Roe vs. Wade is what put abortion in the hands of the Supreme Court in the first place. Overturning RvW by itself wouldn't make abortion illegal, it would only throw the issue back to states. The reason pro-choicers are so opposed to overturning RvW is because they KNOW that many state governments would make abortion illegal very quickly... and guess why? Abortion isn't very popular with many Americans and the politicians they elect.

    Pro-choicers like to make it seem that overturning RvW would automatically make abortion illegal, just because they don't like admitting that the "right to abortion" doesn't have the popular support they like to pretend it has.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted