Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Whoah Nellie! The Alito battle is about to heat up. The DrudgeReport currently has the following at the top of the page:

[ QUOTE ]
WASH TIMES: Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view... Judge Alito, Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that 'the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion' in a 1985 document obtained by the WASHINGTON TIMES.... 'I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position... Developing...

[/ QUOTE ]

www.drudgereport.com

How awesome would it be if Bush had two consecutive failed Supreme Court nominees?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Excellent! If you think about it, Alito is really replacing Rehnquist's ideological position because Roberts was initially nominated to replace O'Conner, so it makes sense that he'd be against the belief that abortion is a right. But maybe we can get a good ol' fashioned scrum on this.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

As elliot said, don't feed the trolls.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Actually, I was rather hoping there might actually be some discussion of a nominee to the SUPREME COURT! For Pete's sake how often does this happen and we can't get a single thread on it? If it takes a little meat to the liberal jaxmike, so be it! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Sure as hell hope he doesn't make it through. I'm not huge on politics, but this opinion alone has me holding my breath.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure as hell hope he doesn't make it through. I'm not huge on politics, but this opinion alone has me holding my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Planning on having an abortion in a red state sometime in the future?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure as hell hope he doesn't make it through. I'm not huge on politics, but this opinion alone has me holding my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Planning on having an abortion in a red state sometime in the future?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not, but I'm sure there are thousands of women who are.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Where in the constitution does it say that a woman has a right to end the life of a fetus? Which amendment was that again?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Regardless of whether you think abortion is right/wrong or should be legal/illegal, you have to be a complete moron to think there is a contitutional right to abortion.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

While I certainly agree with Roe v. Wade and think that women should be able to have an abortion, from a constitutional standpoint, it's pretty clear that women don't have a constitutional right to an abortion. Now, whether or not the SC should take a strict constructionist view of the matter is completely different.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
While I certainly agree with Roe v. Wade and think that women should be able to have an abortion, from a constitutional standpoint, it's pretty clear that women don't have a constitutional right to an abortion. Now, whether or not the SC should take a strict constructionist view of the matter is completely different.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

He doesn't believe in the right to privacy either. GWB would not have nominated him if he believed in that right.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

No human has the right to end the life of another unjustly, so the right to an abortion is not protected by the 9th amendment. I can't use the 9th to say I have a right to your car.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Your response is dependent on defining a fetus as a person. Because the constitution uses the concept of person (individual, etc.) it is well within the responsibilities of the court to define that term. If the court defines it such that a fetus is not a person (as they have, for all intents and purposes) your argument, surprisingly, falls apart.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Is it possible that the Court could/has ever be wrong on something (maybe even something as innocous as defining who counts as a person")?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Yes, I think they were wrong in Roe. That doesn't change the fact that your argument was weak.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Could someone who is an originalist (either original meaning or original intent) give a plausible argument that the constitutional meaning of person (or individual, or other similar words) includes a fetus?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your response is dependent on defining a fetus as a person. Because the constitution uses the concept of person (individual, etc.) it is well within the responsibilities of the court to define that term. If the court defines it such that a fetus is not a person (as they have, for all intents and purposes) your argument, surprisingly, falls apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

His argument is not dependent on the status of a fetus. the 9th amendment doesn't imply that he has a write to steal someone's car, or kill a spotted owl, and neither of those are people.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where in the constitution does it say that a woman has a right to end the life of a fetus? Which amendment was that again?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's this thing in the constitution which gives the judiciary the power of judicial review. Then there's these things called amendments, several of which collectively have been found time and time again by judges to establish a right to privacy. And basically what these judges said was that there are limits to governmental power and one of those limits was to tell women whether or not they can have an abortion in the first trimester.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

So why don't I have the right to "privately" murder someone else?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

Well actually you do have certain rights that might make it hard for the state to find out that you murdered someone else.

But the core answer lies in the facts that there is no debating whether in fact the other person exists and that the other person is not living off your body.

It's not like I'm guilty of murder if I don't offer someone five bucks for lunch and they starve to death later in the afternoon.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well actually you do have certain rights that might make it hard for the state to find out that you murdered someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has little to do with whether I have a "right" to murder someone else.

[ QUOTE ]
But the core answer lies in the facts that there is no debating whether in fact the other person exists and that the other person is not living off your body.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't follow. Is there much difference between a newborn being dependent on its mother for food and shelter and a fetus dependent on its mother for food and shelter? The only difference I see is that with a fetus, the mother is the only one capable of providing such things, while with a newborn others are also capable (but not responsible) for providing for such things. I also think it's obvious that that fetus exists as a seperate entity from its mother. It's not another internal organ.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like I'm guilty of murder if I don't offer someone five bucks for lunch and they starve to death later in the afternoon.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would be guilty of neglect and murder if that someone was your child and you just stopped feeding them.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

There is a debate over whether or not a person exists during the first trimester.

Obviously, I can't change your mind about your views, but given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus. As just about everybody recognizes, the further along in a pregnancy you go, the less obvious it is that there is debate.

Question for you: do you believe that the fetus has a constitutional right to be protected from the woman, and if not, why not?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I can't change your mind about your views, but given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]
I used this same argument in a previous thread about abortion where I was arguing against allowing abortion for rape/incest victims. It was that as I already consider a fetus a person, I believe that the woman carrying it is put in a position where she has no right to harm that fetus and that doing so is akin to murder, which the state has an interest in preventing.

[ QUOTE ]
Question for you: do you believe that the fetus has a constitutional right to be protected from the woman, and if not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we all (even fetuses) have the right to not be unjustly killed. I think this is a natural right that is not enumerated in the constitution, but would fall under the 9th amendment (as well as a reason why the Federalists believed a BoR would be a bad idea).

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a majority of people agree to do something, it's okay, no matter what it is?

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I can't change your mind about your views, but given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]
I used this same argument in a previous thread about abortion where I was arguing against allowing abortion for rape/incest victims. It was that as I already consider a fetus a person, I believe that the woman carrying it is put in a position where she has no right to harm that fetus and that doing so is akin to murder, which the state has an interest in preventing.

[ QUOTE ]
Question for you: do you believe that the fetus has a constitutional right to be protected from the woman, and if not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we all (even fetuses) have the right to not be unjustly killed. I think this is a natural right that is not enumerated in the constitution, but would fall under the 9th amendment (as well as a reason why the Federalists believed a BoR would be a bad idea).

[/ QUOTE ]

okay. well we just disagree, at least you seem to be consistent. not the end of the world.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a majority of people agree to do something, it's okay, no matter what it is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. That's why we have a constitution; so the legislature works within a limited scope. But you don't think every disagreement we have should be sorted out in the Supreme Court, do you?

[ QUOTE ]
okay. well we just disagree, at least you seem to be consistent. not the end of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
I try to be.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a majority of people agree to do something, it's okay, no matter what it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Gary Coleman, "That's a very glib interpretation."

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a majority of people agree to do something, it's okay, no matter what it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Gary Coleman, "That's a very glib interpretation."

[/ QUOTE ]

How else could one interpret it? It seems like a very obvious case of being unconcerned with the prospects of a tyranny of the majority.

Re: Alito: \"abortion not a Constitutionally-protected right\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a majority of people agree to do something, it's okay, no matter what it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Gary Coleman, "That's a very glib interpretation."

[/ QUOTE ]

How else could one interpret it? It seems like a very obvious case of being unconcerned with the prospects of a tyranny of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace "tyranny of the majority" with "democracy" and you'll be closer to the truth. Insofar as the critical issues are open to debate, a democratic process if far more likely to achieve a good solution than judicial fiat. If you read some of the arguments pro and con here on this board, you'll see that people are much more concerned with ethical issues and practical implications, not tenuous judicial constructions of penumbras and emanations that form an implied right to privacy. The real issue is how the competing policy consequences and moral obligations ought to be balanced out, and that sort of thing is a job for legislatures.