Alito and the subjugation of women

Comments

16 comments posted
Media Girl and Alito

This is why the left will NEVER govern in this country again. The once proud party of FDR and Kennedy has degenerated into a bunch of mindless kool-aid drinkers that shout absurdities like, "Judge Alito is the same as the Ayatollah." I guess this is what happens when you run out ideas and bring zero intellectual heft to any argument. Get used to calling Mr. Alito, Justice Alito!

irishknight's picture
Posted by irishknight (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 11:01am
First you misquote me

...and then you engage in the kinds of ad hominem attacks you pretend to decry.

What I said was:

One might even call him Ayatollah Alito

Which is not the same as saying he's the same, and when you take what I said in context:

-- a fundamentalist zealot who considers women not only less than equal but, in fact, property of men.

...it should be quite clear to anyone who can read English that that is the real point of the sentence.

You claim to revere FDR and Kennedy. I suspect that's a pose for rhetorical purposes, because neither FDR nor JFK would have appointed Alito. Neither would have Eisenhower or Nixon or Reagan (who appointed O'Connor, whom the conservative elite now hate).

I would be interested in knowing exactly how, when it comes to women's rights, Alito and fundamentalist Muslims differ in view. Because based on his published opinions, it seems clear he considers married women to be the property of men. Am I to assume, Irishknight, that you concur?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 October 2005 - 11:15am
Hmm.

So am I to beleive that your refering to Judge Alto as "Ayatollah" is simply a refernce to ANY Ayatollah and not to the Ayatollah that terroized Iran for two decades? Hmm, Seems unlikely. Why do you presume to know who FDR or Kennedy would have appointed? Were you in their administrations? Are you even a student of history? Maybe you can inform us all as to why it is wrong to appoint a man that is HIGHLY qualified to hold this position. Should "Right Wingers" have excluded Ginsberg from the bench because she was a big wig at the ACLU? I think not. Judge Alto should be judged on his qulaifications and not simply on ONE of the countless decisions he handed down. Furthermore, am I expected to take seriously your comparison of Alto to fundamentalsit muslims? This is the stuff that make liberals seem laughable. I find it interesting that liberals will chirp about how tolerant they are until someone has the temerity to actually disagree with them. Then the dissenter becomes a Fundamentalist, or a Hitler or even an Ayatollah. As far as ad hominem attacks are concerned, your lambasting of Judge Alto based on an obvious minimum of information would certainly qualify.

Irishknight's picture
Posted by Irishknight (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 12:37pm
Do you even know what an Ayatollah is?

If you want to argue with a straw man, that's up to you.

Funny, how you seem to consider the ACLU, which does nothing more than defend individual rights against government force, some sort of extreme organization. Where do you get your information? Professor Rush?

Frankly, I don't expect you to take anything seriously, except perhaps yourself.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 October 2005 - 1:13pm
The Last Bastion of Fools

Personal attacks in response to an argumnet makes any point you wish to make immedialtly fallacious. Furthermore, this common liberal practice appears to be the citadel of the left. What else to do when failing in the arena of ideas? Attack, Attack, Attack.

As concerns Judge Ginsberg, would her belief that the age of sexual consent be lowered to 14 be considered radical? And she still recieved over 90 votes in the Senate; as she should have. As concerns the ACLU, this organization is considered by some to be far left in many, but not all, of their pursuits. Just as, oh I don't know, the Heritage Foundation would be considered right of center. But you already knew that, didn't you?

I thought this site would be an exchange of intelligent ideas, not the childish attacks of an articulate and obviously misinformed demagogue. If all you want is lap dogs to agree with your ideology and support your agenda you should post that on your homepage. Good Luck.

Irishknight's picture
Posted by Irishknight (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 1:37pm
I leave it to you as the expert

...on personal attacks. The right wing and friends have made a science of it. Ann Coulter has her picture in the dictionary next to the entry for "personal attack." You're whining about political rhetoric that conservatives have made the currency of the day. The only difference is that the conservatives are in power, and their ideology is about taking away human and civil rights from large demographics of people, and empowering the government with police state powers.

Making things up about Ginsberg doesn't really fly here. Dittoheads may fall for it, but not the rest of us. Neither did the 90 Senators who didn't fall for such nonsense. Of course, she's just a distraction to get us off the topic, right? After all, she's already on the bench. We're talking about Alito.

Calling the ACLU left I always thought was strange. They are nonpartisan, and would defend your right to spew your hate as much as your rights if you were arrested without warrant. If the Bill of Rights is a liberal doctrine, then I guess we really do have a liberal country with a liberal constitution, don't we?

Who's talking about the Heritage Foundation? I would agree that it's right of center, since that's how it defines itself.

Anyway, your attacks on me are beside the point. I'm not the one running this country. I'm not the one nominated to the Supreme Court. Support my agenda? Ha!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 October 2005 - 1:54pm
Typical.

You would do well to get your facts straight. I'm assuming you're referring to the case in PA where Alito attempted to protect a father's right to have a say in the fate of his unborn child. If this amounts to relegating women to "chattel status," then what does it say about the baby, who can be murdered if just one of his/her parents believes the child to be an inconvenience to the freedom of their lifestyle? Alito has ruled in defense of the rights of ALL Americans, not just the "women’s productive rights" that you hold so dear. It's a shame that hard-left fanatics such as you can't understand that conservatives are actually trying to protect America and what it has stood for over the past two centuries. To use the example of Kennedy, "Media Girl's America is one where women have free and unlimited access to medical procedures that end a human life, without the consent of the father of the child or the consent of the human being whose life will be ended. It would be an America where nothing would be considered "wrong," everything would be based on an individual's "personal beliefs," and no societal structure would be possible. In an America such as this, children would not be protected or cared for, personal responsibility would be a historical relic found only in museums and history books, and the "government" would become a faceless, secular humanist "god" who dispensed and withheld blessings based on its opinion of a citizen's worth rather than their inherent value as a human being."

I hope you're able to intellectually evaluate your position and realize that "right wingers" aren't the crazy, religious zealots you think we are. We have a logically supported, historically grounded view of how America should be, which very much parallels the ideas, beliefs, and visions of the founders of this country. Perhaps someday you will be able to see through the paper-thin veil of legitimacy the ideas of the left masquerade behind.

mike's picture
Posted by mike (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 11:34am
The pro-criminalization pose at logic

...includes notions that a blob of cells constitutes human life while a woman does not. By your logic, hair brushes should be outlawed. After all, you're aborting human life as human DNA is in every root ball.

Meanwhile, "children" are "born" at "childbirth." Life as a legally recognized person begins at birth. Before that, you're talking about a woman's own body, and your cavelier attitude towards that makes clear that your defense of Alito is based on sharing his misogynistic views towards women, who apparently must be treated as criminals-to-be and controlled by the government to pursue state interests in breeding control.

Your ignorant statements about what pregnancy is about reveal nothing but your ignorance and bias on this issue. "Inconvenience"? Apparently it's too inconvenient for men to refrain from knocking up women and girls.

Why do the "right wingers" oppose birth control? You'd think that if abortion really were the issue, the right would be pushing hard for approval and availability of birth control. But instead, the right wingers are fighting against it.

Of course, if you don't view women as human beings, then none of it matters, right?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 October 2005 - 1:20pm
It is typical. Very typical.

I can understand a man being upset about his wife aborting his baby without his say. I assume this means you are a caring father who would always be there for his child, boy or girl, healthy or imperfect, for the 18 years to the child's majority, and even help get them through college.

However, historically speaking, for the last 2000 years babies have been, and still are all too often, born where the man leaves the woman in the lurch. Leaves her to bear all the childrearing costs in emotion, time and money, where working means paying most of your income to a child care center. This is not an inconvenience to the freedom of a woman's lifestyle. It means a life in poverty for far too many woman and their 'born' children with no way out. AND whether the conception was from consensual sex or forced, the mother gets labeled slut or whore. This words often coming from the religious who are sure in their moral convictiom.

Prenancy is still a risky medical condition. If you can't afford a doctor's care, decent food, vitamins, if you don't have employment, or employment where you have no leave, it can be a life threatening process to both mother and child. Sperm donors don't face this threat.

When everyone takes responsibility for their sexual encounters, when everyone takes responsibility for raising a child as paramont, when everyone considers the child's life after birth as sacred as the 'unborn,' and ensures the care and education of every child already living, abortion will end.

Until then, women don't need a judge determined to overturn abortion rights on the Supreme Court.

Robin Lee's picture
Posted by Robin Lee on 31 October 2005 - 4:35pm
The Bush administration, if

The Bush administration, if allowed to do what it would like to do, would have women at home cooking and cleaning, because that's how God wants things in their view.

The new Supreme court nominee is dangerous.

Blue's picture
Posted by Blue (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 1:09pm
Alito doesnt sound that bad.

Alito doesnt sound that bad. I read that he has more experience than any justice in 70 years, so at least we know he has the experience necessary. He's definately conservative, but I guess thats to be expected since the President is. I'm not sure how he treats women and how he feels about abortion, its hard to say. I guess we'll find out soon enough though. I just hope he doesnt believe its ok for peoples homes to be taken away just cause the government says its ok.

stan's picture
Posted by stan (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 7:55pm
You're out of luck

If it comes to individual rights against government power or corporate power, the individual tends to lose, in his judgment. He does not believe in any right to privacy -- not even the right for married couples to obtain birth control. (See his opposition to Griswold.)

Hard to say how he feels? There's quite a track record. Some of it is posted here today. There will be plenty more.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 October 2005 - 8:10pm
One more time

Alito's opposition to Griswold is based on his beleif that the constitution should be interpreted literaly as the founders wrote it. Furthermore, if any of these cases were overturned the issues would go back to the various state legislatures, where they belong. I think it would be helpful to all to take a gander at the 10th amendment to our constitution. Then try and find in the first 15 amendments where it says anything about privacy. Alito's opposition, as well as Scalia's for that matter, is based largly on the above issues; NOT A PERSONAL WISH TO SUBJUGATE ANYONE! Read the decisions! Stop the scare tatics!!

Irishknight's picture
Posted by Irishknight (not verified) on 1 November 2005 - 11:21am
They're not scare tactics if he's scary

Part of American jurisprudence is stare decisis -- that Supreme Court precedent has weight and importance in how all courts, including the Supreme Court, interpret our laws. Alito's opposition to Griswold is a statement that he does not believe in stare decisis. That is called judicial activism.

What he's also saying is that women do not have any inherent constitutional right to their own bodies. That is just ridiculous! When a woman marries, she's not giving up her constitutional rights! And nowhere in the constitution does it say that the state gets special powers to abridge rights of citizens if they get married.

You seem to have a stunted understanding of what the Constitution is, anyway. It does not have to lay out specific rights. The people have the rights, unless they're given to the government in the Constitution. To say the constitution doesn't specifically grant a right to privacy doesn't mean that there is no right to privacy.

Thanks for the repeated lectures and sharing your exasperation at our refusing to buy into your dogma. But so far, your comments are most unconvincing.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 November 2005 - 12:28pm
Incomplete understanding

Thank for the lesson on stare decisis; which is latin, of course, for "let the decision stand." Of course precedent holds weight. However, Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that made Jim Crow laws constitutional, was also a precedent. Do you feel that Brown v. the Board of Ed was also judicial activism? Or sound Constitutional Law? You can beleive in stare decisis and still feel that a law was wrongly established. How you approach that precedent is a matter for the individul Justice. Precedent is not absolute;nor, for that matter, is stare decisis. Literally hundreds of cases that were at one time considered precedent have been overturned. What about Dred Scott? Again, a thorough understanding of constitutional law would help in this area.

Could you to quote specifically from one of Alito's cases or personal corrispondence when he says the words, "women do not have any inherent constitutional rights to their own bodies." Probably not. Instead of discussing judicial philosophy and the merits of particular decisions, you find it more to your liking to shout unfounded and incomplete slogans. Do you really believe that Alito has it out for women? That he spends his days thinking of ways he can oppress women and minorities? Tough way to go through life. The man is eminantly qualified. You may disagree with him, but that does not mean he won't make a good justice.

For the record, because you think you know me so well, I voted for Dukakis, Clinton twice, and Kerry. As a party we need to come up with competing Ideas that make sense to a majority of Americans. That is what Clinton did! Name calling does not help.

Once again, I refer you to Amendment 10 in the constitution. It would help tremendously if you would read the amendment befor pontificating on what the constitution does or does not say.

Irishknight's picture
Posted by Irishknight (not verified) on 1 November 2005 - 1:16pm
You should be teaching in law school

...and straightening out the court then. Maybe you should be the nominee, and instruct us all on what the Constitution says.

Meanwhile you keep coming back here, attacking me when the issue is Alito, not me. I'm not in power. Maybe you missed that fact, considering you think Clinton was someone with new ideas, when all he did was sign on to conservative causes and attenuate them. Meanwhile, the go-along-to-get-along approach didn't work for Congress, did it? You say the Dems need to come up with competing ideas. I agree. But then you attack anyone who doesn't think Alito will make "a good justice."

There are plenty of citiations here on this blog about Alito's views. You don't have to stray far to read his opinions, including his dissent on the matter of spousal notification, where he talks about "the husband's interests" as if men have de facto rights over women's bodies -- which means that women do not have inherent constitutional rights over their own bodies.

Maybe you could point out an instance where women have rights over men's bodies by merit of marriage, so that equal protection would be satisfied.

--Oh, but you're of the school that there are only 10 amendments, and that justices can throw them out willy nilly if it suits them, right? The 14th amendment just does not apply, right? Silly me. And here I thought women had rights in this country. But only if a man approves.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 November 2005 - 1:32pm