« This is Alabama football. . . | Main | Dumbest soundbite eva. . . »
October 31, 2005
Alito gets the nod. . .
The President has tapped Samuel Alito (here's the wiki on Alito and it's growing by the minute) to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. As many predicted (including me), Bush has selected an uber-lawyer and former judge. At first blush, I'm disappointed that we don't have a non-judge on the court, but Alito is a solid choice in terms of his credentials:
Clerked for the Third Circuits
U.S. Attorney for District of New Jersey
Assistant Solicitor General
Assistant Attorney General
Appeals Court Judge for the Third Circuit
The "gang of 14" can hardly duck their agreement to derail any filbuster, the Senate hearings will be mostly a replay of the Roberts confirmation hearings, so this fight is going to be held in the media. What this means in reality is that the left is going to mount a campaign to slander Alito, the media will pick it up and play it over and over. Alito will not have a chance to respond to any attacks on himself, his family or even his politics. The left will scream and moan, and the right will have to mount another campaign to counter. The media wins through increased ad revenue coming from the left and right political action committees and the public loses because Alito doesn't get to have a conversation with the Senate and through transferrence, no discussion with the American people.
Here are just a few of the issues that the left is going to take issue with:
1. Alito was on the dissenting side in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Alito's opinion upheld the Pennslyvania law that required spousal notification for women seeking abortions. The left is going to use this as their big stick in the opening stages of this fight. The left will argue that this amounts to a woman being the property of the husband, they'll allude to the Bible's references of a wife's subservience to the husband and claim that it's an affront to "choice".
The SCOTUS struck down the law, and Planned Parenthood declared victory. The law will almost certianly be in play again if Alito is confirmed.
My take on it? If you get married, you become a social unit. Abortion is a major decision, it touches on health matters, it touches on economic matters, it touches on religous matters and it's a decision that can affect the character and makeup of a family unit. I feel the spouse "should" be informed as the decision affects the family unit and the husband is part of that family unit.
HOWEVER, if the left is willing to give up "child support", I'd be content to let them have their "no spousal notification" rule. After all it's a woman's descision, a woman's choice, but it also becomes the husband's responsibility. The left has no qualms about going after sperm donors for child support, has no problem demanding child support for children born of adultery (arguing that the child may not be the husbands, but is nevertheless their responsibility as part of the family unit), or seeking child support for a one night stand. If you're going to make "child support" a responsibility of the male, the descision to have or not have a child should also be something the male is involved in.
I know that will rankle many of the pro-choice readers here, and I understand. I am pro-choice even though I hate the concept of abortion vehemently, but lets get real. If you want "CHOICE" then lets have "CHOICE", if you want to make this a "descision" and not a "child" then lets put all the players on the field. Upholding "choice" for women and "blind ignorance" for men doesn't seem like a very defensible position. They can have their "choice" but if they are going to put "responsibility" on the man, then they have to allow the man into the consideration of the "choice".
The "spousal notification" issue will be a big one, it should prove to be very confrontational and I'm quite sure it will be mischaracterized with TV, Radio and print ads showing an abusive husband, beating the wife and kids, then segwaying into a abortion question implying that if a woman has an abortion she's taking the honorable road and protecting a child and herself from said abusive husband. This imagery WILL be the dominant message the left tries to get out there, it's doubtful they'd consider showing a husband and wife making financial, ethical and moral descision leading up to the "choice", they'll use images of violence and abuse to hammer on this issue. That's just plainly NOT the real issue, the issue is about responsibilities taken on in the course of marriage and dealing with those responsibilities, together, as a family unit.
On a totally side note, why is it that "Planned Parenthood's" only "plan" is abortion? Why does "Planned Parenthood" violently dismiss any discussion of adoption in their "clinics". When laws have been suggested that any "planning" for dealing with unwanted pregnancies also mention adoption, Planned Parenthood positively goes bat guano. That's a curious thing to me. I makes me think Planned Parenthood is a bit deceptive in their methods and practices.
2. Religion and it's place in proximity to governmental activity will be another biggie. The left will dredge up ACLU v. Schundler in which Alito upheld that displays on government property that included secular images like "Frosty the Snowman" as well as religious symbols was acceptable. Personally, I agree here. If you put up a display of the "Nativity", I think you should also throw up a few symbols that are secular, like a snowman. If a Jewish group wants a manorah, let them have that too. I don't hold that we need to scrub any and all religious references from government property, we just need to be fair about it. If the community wants a "Nativity", let them have it, if members of that community come forward and want something else, let them have that too.
The left of course will go bat quano over this too. They'll bring up "In God We Trust" on our currency and they might event throw in Alabama Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument. This is clouding the issue though, it's coupling historical references and singular approval into an issue that is neither historical or singular. If you're following the standards of the community and make room for equal representation of other belief systems or no religious belief at all, that's quite different from putting a Christian monument in a central location in a courthouse.
Let the communities decide for themselves what their religious observances are, keep the federal government out of it until such time it becomes "endorsing" a religion. Recognizing that a religious sentiment exists in a community is not the same as endorsing one religion over another in the governance of the state.
3. The FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) - The left will try to argue that Alito is against Family Leave for medical emergencies, when it reality, Alito believes that Congress overstepped it's bounds by passing the law. I my opinion, and to many American's (including me) Alito is correct. Congress shouldn't expect to be able to determine the extent and nature of vacation and leave time with regard to private employers. A businessperson NEEDS to be able to make those descisions themselves. Many businesses cannot afford to have an employee off on 3 months leave, whatever the reason, it would simply bankrupt many small businesses who are new, struggling or exists on a small profit margin. The FMLA is poorly worded and doesn't take into account the financial stability of the business. The left will ironically argue that a business that cannot afford the FMLA has no right in business, this is ironic because it's the left basically arguing that only large corporations should be allowed in business, and that the small mom and pop grocery that's barely making it in the face of a Wal-Mart or Publix in proximity has no place in the marketplace. Yet when a Wal-Mart or Publix winds up running a mom and pop out of business they scream relentlessly.
The government should be making it easier and easier for businesses to start, run and add to the economy, not creating huge entitlement programs within private businesses. I'll be happy to see the FMLA go bye bye if Alito makes it to the court, let the market hash out things like payscales, leave, vacation and healthcare, the market has proven time and time again to be more effective in regulating business than the government ever has.
I'm all for employers granting medical leave to their employees, but I'm not a fan of forcing them to do so. It's a burden that many businesses and even some large corporations cannot afford, and of course, you know who winds up paying for that don't you? Yes, the consumer winds up paying for it. The goal is for the market to reduce costs to consumers, not for the government to raise costs for consumers.
4. Immigration - The left is going to characterize Alito as a hardliner on immigration. Boy do I hope they run with this one. Alito is hard on immigration, and rightly so. We need to take a harder line on immigration, we have a "grey area" in our employment sector which is too large. We need tighter control of the border, but we also need harsher penalties on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens, we need deportation of illegal aliens who have chosen to ILLEGALLY enter this country and deny opportunity to those that are seeking entry legally. We need a SCOTUS that will take a hard line on immigration and bring it back inline with those provisions for Naturalization that are laid out in the Constitution.
These aren't the only points of attack for the left on Alito. There will be discussions of race issues (of course), and there will be handwringing about another white male on the court, there will be calls for the release of thousands of documents from the Reagan adminstration from Alito's time there, these documents will be bantered about as "Alito's position" and we'll have to jump through the hoops again of pointing out that Alito was WORKING FOR REAGAN and Reagan's opinions and policies are not necessarily Alito's. We'll have to point out that a lawyer cannot be held responsible for every position that they argue, and we'll have to ask for (but we won't get) a fair hearing where questions that are able to be answered are given and not just soundbites and mischaracterizations parsed for the cameras.
I had hoped for a non-judge so that the hearings could be actually of use to the American people and not just a soundboard for partisan attacks and posturing, unfortunately, it appears the time of constructive, informative hearings has long passed. The media has taken control of the selection and approval process and whoever gets the best sound bites wins.
I support the President's choice for Justice to the Supreme Court, just as I supported the Miers nomination. On first glances, I like most of the major positions Alito has taken. I'll keep looking on my own, because I don't believe anyone in the media is going to fairly examine the nominee. Maybe I'll find something that will make me oppose Alito, maybe I won't. We'll just have to see.
What I do know is that the left is going to lament the choice, the moonbat fringe is already calling for a filibuster:
Start the filibuster now. Refer to the nomination as "dead in the water". No point in even discussing the nomination. No point in even delving into the personal/professional history of Alito. It's all moot. He won't serve on the Supreme Court, so there's no need to even discuss the issue. Start the filibuster now.
That should say it all right there, they don't care about "personal/professional history", they just want to filibuster and claim victory over the President. It's insanity really, but I do hope that they try to mount a filibuster, that could possibly be the best thing for the right if they did. We'd be able to finally take the filibuster out of the game and move issues forward without the threat of gridlock from minority special interests. Mount your filibuster moonbats, I dare ya, it'd be just another in a long series of gifts you've given us showing just how out of touch the moonbat fringe is when it comes to the average American.
Oh but, wait, there's more, the moonbats true to form also want to go after his family (from the same thread at DU):
Destroy him, destroy his family now, we must take him down through whatever means.
Sorta reminds you of when they wanted to go after Little Johnnie Roberts and hoped that he was gay so they could drag it out for the cameras (little did they care that Little John was a 4 year old child).
All in all, it's a good day for the Right, the President, and the Country, we're moving forward, getting things done and not being distracted by the moonbats attempt to create gridlock. Alito will most probably sail through, although there will be much ugliness and hate displayed on the left, we'll just have to take the high road and continue winning elections and running the country while the left tries to fracture the country and falls further into political irrelevance.
--Jason
Hey, Libertarians, get loud, this is your chance to make some hay and gain some ground. Pay attention to the left on this one, they'll give us plenty of ammo that you can use too. Get your ducks in a row and get in the game, the country needs a viable choice, and the Dems have given up, it could be your turn.
-JC
UPDATE: California Conservative is one among many rounding up opinion on the Alito nomination. More links to opinion can be found at The Political Teen.
Posted by JasonColeman at October 31, 2005 9:11 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/231
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alito gets the nod. . .:
» As usual my fellow liberals are embarassing me from The Real Ugly American
Going way over the top at Americablog With comments like this from anonymiss:
This nomination is an absolute wake-up call for both leftists and centrists. If are not to become Nazi Germany (and I know that's harsh, but it's honestly the way I'm fe... [Read More]
Tracked on October 31, 2005 1:25 PM
» More On Alito from Riehl World View
Jason Coleman has a thorough, well broken down round up of issues as regards Samuel Alito. We'll be hearing about them for a while, I suspect. Meanwhile, the ACLU is weighing in:“This is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history,” [Read More]
Tracked on October 31, 2005 3:14 PM
Comments
Good read Jason. I don't really have much of an opinion yet, except what I heard on NPR this morning. It was nice to hear something from someone else.
Posted by: Kyle at October 31, 2005 2:33 PM
That came out wrong; it should have read: I don't have an opinion yet because I haven't heard much about him, except what was on NPR this morning.
I trust NPR almost as little as I trust 101.1
Posted by: Kyle at October 31, 2005 2:34 PM
Well put Jason. I expect there will be a fight in the senate but I also expect to see him confirmed.
I think the neolibertarians were heard by the white house. I hope congress is hearing as well. If they are not it is going to be fewer RINOs in congress come jan 2007
Posted by: GUYK at November 1, 2005 6:58 AM
Planned Parenthood is one of this country's largest organizations to supply women with various methods of birth control (condoms, the Pill, etc), reproductive education, and let's not forget gynecological services, all on a sliding payment scale. They don't tell women to have abortions, they present it as an option non-judgmentally along with everything else. I understand that you'll never have had reason to use any of their services, but please try to educate yourself about what they do for the sakes of those of us who rely on them for our pills.
As for spousal notification, no. Sorry. Your terror imagery has been the reality for too many women I've known. With two exceptions, the married women I've known who have had abortions did so because they *were* escaping abusive husbands (they also had other children who were escaping with them) and spousal rape, while common, is next to impossible to prove in court. In the case of the exceptions, one was therapeutic (the child would have been born without several major organs) and the other was in fact a joint decision. In a healthy relationship, that's what happens. It's like you believe (and I'm not saying you do, merely that it's the impression you're giving off by your statements) that wives all over are scheming behind their husbands' backs. Because women always lie, you know. Spousal notification carries the terrible implication that while you can always trust a man to make the proper decision for his family, you can't trust the woman to make that exact same decision. And that's creepy.
On to child support. Did you have sex? Okay. That means you're responsible for the consequences. For the woman, that means the following potentials: pregnancy, risk of death, lifetime decrease in her wage-earning ability, increased likelihood of living in poverty, and responsibility for someone for the next eighteen years. She can deal with these by having an abortion, by giving the baby up for adoption, or by choosing to keep and raise the baby. All of these are legal options for her. The man, not being pregnant, does not have the option for an abortion because, let me repeat, he is not pregnant. Only someone who is pregnant can have an abortion. He can choose to stay with the woman and the child and raise a family, or he can choose to leave. Either way, he still has a responsibility to the child he fathered because he fathered a child. If he did not want to father a child, he should have taken steps to prevent this outcome. A vasectomy would be choice, but a condom would be a reasonable attempt, too. And if either method fails, he is still responsible for what he did because a man is responsible for the children he fathers.
Finally, FMLA only affects employers of a certain size and employees of a certain length of service and location relative to the other employees in the company. So please, stop pretending that Mom and Pop will go out of business for letting Sally off (unpaid) for a few weeks after she's recovering from delivering her baby unless of course you'd prefer she had an abortion). Mom and Pop aren't affected by FMLA, and implying that they are just confuses the stupid people.
Alito thinks I can't be trusted in my own relationship with my husband. He thinks my multi-billion dollar employer shouldn't be told they can't fire me just because I'm taking a few unpaid weeks off recovering from surgery. Why on earth would I want him helping to interpret the law of the land? Sounds to me like he wants me barefoot, pregnant, and unemployed. That makes him an ass. If you agree with him, well, birds of a feather, I guess.
Posted by: MM at November 2, 2005 9:24 AM
If you're interested, I responded to the comment in a separate post.
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2005/11/a_response_1.html
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at November 2, 2005 11:33 AM
