My Take on Alito Pennsylvania Abortion ruling....

[MsTryska]

ok y'all....I know this doesn't sound like a proper "liberal" viewpoint - but I am not entirely sure that Alito's ruling on Spousal Consent requirements in Pennsylvania is really any indication of whether he would overturn Roe V Wade.

IMO this case taken in context of Alito being a "strict constructionist" says that he upholds States Rights. Actually it prolly is a good signal that he would overturn Roe v Wade in favor of State-by-state abortion laws.


And yes - this does scare me - however - i think we on the left undervalue the whole States Rights issue - i think with Feds hijacked the way they are now - we should start to see the benefits of separate state statutes that are more in tune with the populations of those specific states.


This isn't to say that I think Alito is a good pick - i'm really not sure - just that we shouldn't necessarily use the Pennsylvania ruling as a litmus test for saying he is anti-choice.

[Shrek]

1. I tend to agree

I think this case is more about his willingness to show "restraint" in deferring to the legislature.

It would have been far more worrying if the legislature had opposed spousal consent and Alito had failed to defer. Now that would have been judicial activism of the worst kind.

Failure to overturn may have been wrong, but it wasn't conservative activism.

[MidwestTransplant]

2. What do you guys think about this ruiling

Conservitive activism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x19106

[insane_cratic_gal]

4. So basically

he's saying it's ok to harass Gay students

Nice guy eh?

[MsTryska]

7. Not exactly.....

i'd call it rude and insensitive - but i have a feeling he would have ruled the same way if it were blacks or women or the handicapped too.


Seems like he's holding to First Amendment rights on that one.

[NYC Liberal]

10. Oh perfect! It's so much better to know he'd be a-OK with

harassment of not just gays, but blacks and women too!

:sarcasm:

[MsTryska]

11. Well don't go assuming things......

we're talking about Judicial Activism.


I don't see that particular ruling as "activism".

[NYC Liberal]

12. Nope, it's just wrong.

[MsTryska]

14. I agree. nt

nt

[insane_cratic_gal]

3. Unless, like me you live in PA

or a state that doesn't favor woman's free will over her own body.

Simply put Ass hat needed to win back conservative support to weather the coming storm of Libby and Rove.. he chose the most appealing rigid conservative to that base. The number one issue for that biblical nut cases is Choice and Gays. Alito is an offering, a white flag for fanatical right to win back his fading support.

[MsTryska]

5. hell i live in georgia.....

so i understand what you mean....

but States Right's is sort of an escape clause for us all. (as long as we're ok with relocating)

[Walt Starr]

6. And I think that argument is a steaming pile of shit

:shrug:

We all have our opinions.

[MsTryska]

8. what? my argument?

or his ruling on the argument or what?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

9. So you support judicial intrusion into spousal communication?

Or judicial intrusion into Schiavo? Is there anything too private for judicial intrusion?:banghead:

[MsTryska]

13. well this is the thing...Since you brought up Schiavo....

if a husband has the right granted by marriage to make medical decisions for his wife, and vice versa - i can see the case for a husband being involved in the decision to abort a child. or rather i can see the legal case to be made. I am curious tho - if the case brought before him was one of a man needing his wife's permissions to have a vasectomy in the state of Pennsylvania, would he have still dissented in favor of the State?

Personally i think that decision is a woman's alone - but i am a woman. Men tend to have a different perspective.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

18. One is MAKING law and one is observing existing law

Schiavo was an example of the zealots wanting judges to rule against EXISTING legislation granting spousal decision making for those incapacitated.

Requiring spousal notification (aka permission) is an example of wanting to use the judiciary to MAKE law.

[insane_cratic_gal]

20. also one is about

having no mind to make a choice for yourself.. so you've appointed someone to do so for you.

I'm quite sure rescinding my right to choose to my martial partner over my own body being of sound mind and judgment is quite different then being a vegetable.

[MsTryska]

21. I'm not sure I understand.....

The Penn law was already on the books. soemone else made it. He just chose to uphold it.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

23. Federal always trumps state law

He was upholding something that was obviously unconstitutional from the perspective of existing federal law.

[MsTryska]

25. to you.

to a conservative we live in a representative republic, and state law trumps federal.

and i definitely see the merits in that position. (like gay marriage, medical marijuana, gun control, etc etc)

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

26. For your reading pleasure....

The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two.



If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.

According to FindLaw, State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature.

According to LectLaw, Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme."

[MidwestTransplant]

15. Exactly....the RW judges are totally results oriented.

They may make decisions based on the merit of say the 1st Amendment to say schools can't make a policy against harassing gay students but are happy to abandon constitutional principles of allowing judicial intervention in the cases you mention.

[Lexingtonian]

16. dunno about that

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.

The problem with 'states' rights' objections by 'conservative' judges is that they always are about one party in the dispute, in eyes of a fairminded person, getting screwed out of the completeness of civil rights protections outlined and demanded by this bit of the Constitution.

Apply this (14th Amendment protections) to the husbands in the case, and then to the wives, and then see whether you can agree with Alito's view that a state law can/should settle the matter as he says it can/should. He's a smart guy but he tilts the table.

As for what constitutes tradition, in 99+% of cultures in human history, their pregnancies and infant children are the one thing women have not been deprived of final say and possession of to men or other women.

[tx_dem41]

17. Would you feel the same about birth control...and voting rights...

and slavery? These were all states-rights issues at one time as well. (In fact the birth control ruling, Griswold v. CT is what Roe V. Wade is based on).

I'm sorry, but some rights are federally-guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and should not be ceded to state legislatures.

[ultraist]

19. Good point. Jim Crow laws were state statutes too.

It took federal level interference to end segregation (Brown vs. Board of Edu, the Civil Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act).

[MsTryska]

22. I know they were....

and of course i think all of those laws are "wrong" however - that's not my point.

my point is - the right knowns how to use States Rights to their advantage.

and the left keeps expecting the govenrment to step up and tell everyone what they need to do.


I'm in favor of the left stealing a page from the rights book - ie gay marriage laws, their own abortion statutes, medical marijuana laws etc.

[tx_dem41]

24. There are certain rights, like the ones I mentioned AND the right..

for a woman's reproductive system not to interfered with by the Government , that are universal, and that I refuse to cede over to the State. We will agree to disagree on this matter.