Amen.

God Bless America.

What a shame it took so much partisanship to get Justice Alito confirmed. Teddy Kennedy should be ashamed of himself. That is, of course, if the man actually had any shame or sense or morality.

In any case, the right decision was reached today! God Bless America and a pox on Teddy Kennedy's house.

ahh, what a sad day for our country's future...hopefully, we'll remember this and the Senate will take its "advise and consent" powers seriously instead of submitting to this administration's every whim...

A sad day for the rights of the people. i can not believe that there is so little respect for individual rights. bush never tried to compromise in his choice. he never listened to the voice of America. The Senate is so afraid of dirty Republicn campaign tactics at telection time. Whatever Democrats do they will get a rotten campaign opposing them from the Republicans.

A Pox and shame on Jay for not respecting the opposition.

A sad day for the rights of the people. i can not believe that there is so little respect for individual rights. bush never tried to compromise in his choice. he never listened to the voice of America. The Senate is so afraid of dirty Republicn campaign tactics at telection time. Whatever Democrats do they will get a rotten campaign opposing them from the Republicans.

A sad day for the rights of the people. i can not believe that there is so little respect for individual rights. bush never tried to compromise in his choice. he never listened to the voice of America. The Senate is so afraid of dirty Republicn campaign tactics at telection time. Whatever Democrats do they will get a rotten campaign opposing them from the Republicans.

E,

Nobody forced Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden to look like idiots. They did it to themselves. You unhinged liberals have nobody but yourselves (certainly not the administration) if you think there was something wrong with the confirmation hearings. In fact, Justice Alito answered questions that Ginsberg refused to answer on the grounds it might it expose her as a rabid out of the mainstream liberal.

America won and your side looked very foolish by attempting to filibuster. Get over it and approach the next confirmation hearings like adults instead of sulking and predicting dire things for the future of America. It's a very childish mentality.

This vote was more decisive than Clarence Thomas, when the democrats truly showed their race colours. Blacks are only welcome if they are silent sheep of the democratic party.

A well deserved honor for a fine gentleman and respected jurist. It is a shame that all nominations going forward will be this partisan.

I don't thinks its as much about advise and consent as it is about message. Kennedy's feeble attempt to paint Alito as someone without integrity was ridiculous. I can't say that I am happy about this nomination but I sure wished democrats could stand on ideas instead of silly Vanguard or CAP controversies.

The "ideas" will help Democrats win whatever they want... not the attacks, as vicious as they can be - Democrats have the best ideas.

Since when is Lincoln Chafee a Democrat? "(D-RI)"

Such a Christian thing to do--wish ill to others just because they disagree with you. Not at all surprising coming from the so-called "Christian right" though....

Sol,

I have deep respect for the opposition but not when they whine that the confirmation hearings were "unfair" or complain that Alito is "out of the mainstream." Elections have consequences and GWB clearly was elected by the red-staters to restore some sanity to a run amok SCOTUS. Today's vote reflects that campaign promise no matter how much sniveling and rancor from the left.

THANKS REPUBLICANS. WE NEED THIS MAN AND YOU GAVE HIM TO US. KENNEDY IS SO EMBARRASINGLY FILLED WITH HATE. HE SHOULD REMEMBER HIS PAST AND THANK GOD INSTEAD HE RANTS AND RAVES LIKE A LUNATIC.

When Alito eliminates Roe and takes off the table the sole reason many working class people vote Republican, perhaps the Right will not be so jubilant about this victory.

A sad day for our nation, today.

here comes the D Day..

the conservatice court of RATS (robs-alit-thom-scalia) and the state of the union later today, when the republican regime will wield a rubber pistol and claim only they can protect us..

as if all COPS will go on strike when Dems govern.. Tuff on Terror?.. call it Politicizing Terror

That's really Christian of the "Christian" right - wishing a pox on Ted Kennedy's house. Your true colors come through.

here comes the D Day..

the conservatice court of RATS (robs-alit-thom-scalia) and the state of the union later today, when the republican regime will wield a rubber pistol and claim only they can protect us..

as if all COPS will go on strike when Dems govern.. Tuff on Terror?.. call it Politicizing Terror

Awesome - Alito's confirmation spells the beginning of the end of the lunatic agenda of the Democratic Party

I hope Alito lives to be 125 so we can watch the lunatic agenda of the Democratic Party go down the toilet forever

here comes the D Day..

the conservatice court of RATS (robs-alit-thom-scalia) and the state of the union later today, when the republican regime will wield a rubber pistol and claim only they can protect us..

as if all COPS will go on strike when Dems govern.. Tuff on Terror?.. call it Politicizing Terror

"Since when is Lincoln Chafee a Democrat? "(D-RI)""

I think Chafee (???-RI) is the most accurate depiction for this ungrateful RINO. IMO, the GOP should dump his sorry behind and stand behind a real Republican.

Leave it to the Democrats to put Politics above qualifications in a vote for the Supreme Court.

And leave it to the weak-intellects of their useful idiots like "Alito" up here to continue with such transparent scare-mongering.

Let's apply the Democrats new rules for confirmation and go back and revote on Breyer and Ginsburg. Vote purely on politics, not qualifications and if they can't muster a majority on that basis, they are toast.

"What a shame it took so much partisanship to get Justice Alito confirmed."

Nominating Alito was an act of poor governence. The President, who twice campaigned on a pledge to be a uniter, nominated a contraversial judge, as the final vote clearly indicates; 58 FOR, 42 AGAINST.

It is just too bad that Republicans had to beat Harriet Miers to death in order to get a far right loon on the court. Just shows the length they will go to.

"A sad day for the rights of the people. i can not believe that there is so little respect for individual rights."

Yes it is a shame that the rights of SO many individuals have been trod upon by what was a liberal court. The rights of the unborn child, the right to freedom of speech, the rights of victims, the right to freedom of religion. The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party will now have to take a different avenue of approach to get the SCOTUS to fulfill their wishes. This court and the Democratic party have stripped the rights of Americans for the last fifteen years.

What a shame it is that when appointing a new judge to the SCOTUS that he or she must be along the same ideology of the of the judge that is being replaced. They are their own person and as we have seen in the past, they will make their own decisions as they read the Constitution not as the Democratic Party and special interest groups see them. And who knows, maybe, just maybe, Alito will surprise his doubters and naysayers. Only time will tell.

What a great day. Alito is confirmed and the liberal bloggers on this site are bummed. Let's see if they shut down the site again ha!

Allah Bless America

"This vote was more decisive than Clarence Thomas"

becuase Alito is less contrversial than Clarence Thomas.. but not much.

Thomas was arguably underqualified; Alito is highly qualified with 15 years on the bench with a record threatening to individual rights, the power of congress to legislate and deference to presedential power.

"The President, who twice campaigned on a pledge to be a uniter, nominated a contraversial judge, as the final vote clearly indicates; 58 FOR, 42 AGAINST."

Um.... No mensa membership for you. A close partisan vote does not equate into a "contraversial" (sic) nominee. It just means that the Democrats were willing to demonize a perfectly qualified jurist in order to pander to the special interest groups that are funding their party.

Just when i get depressed.. worried abt the direction of this country..

here come a couple of Republican knucleheads and blabber crap..

the irony is.. republican followers (aka "hail churchers") have no clue how they are gettign used up..

i donno how many of these republican knuckle heads know.. they r not getting tax-cuts if they earn under 200k..

This is a sad day indeed. I hope that this confirmation is not another step in turning this country into a theocracy. Why aren't contraversial issues, such as abortion, simply put to the vote, so that they can go ahead and ban it in Mississippi and the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Judge Alito's confirmation represents the will of the majority of the American people, not that of the liberal Washington establishment. This is what the likes of Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton don't get; and why the Democratic party will slip only deeper into irrelevancy.

Jay n all those crackheads.. y don u guys goto foxnews.com and mollycoddle and genuflect infront of ur saviour Bill Freaking O'Reilly.. he will guide to ur next session of therapy.. which is "protecting good friday and satying the course on defense on war against christmas".. bah--humbug

NicexLife.

"I have deep respect for the opposition but not when they whine that the confirmation hearings were "unfair" or complain that Alito is "out of the mainstream." -Jay

Make that, I don't have respect for the opposition when it complains about fairness or criticizes a nominee on an arguable point such as being whithin the mainstream.

"i donno how many of these republican knuckle heads know.. they r not getting tax-cuts if they earn under 200k.."

And this has what to do with Alito's appointment to the SCOTUS? What a shame, talk about "knuckle heads" and "blabber crap", sounds like you fill the bill quite well.

FIVE Democrats, not four, voted to confirm. You left off Sen. Nelson of Nebraska.

Here's to JUSTICE Alito. I am from Wisconsin and once again am embarrased by the "senatorial representation" (such that it is) from this State. Politics over everthing for Feingold and Kohl; no honor or fairness or consideration of the desires of the people who they claim to represent. As we say here.....Madison as usual. Seventeen square miles surrounded by reality.

VDS...

do u realise...

all ur big leaders are under "indicment" or "investigation" for corrupt scandals..

from Plame outing to Abramoff lobbying to Niger coke lies..

do u know our country's debt has risen by 80% since Bush took power (yeah took power... since he never won it anyway)

do u know by 09 we will be in 4 trillion debt?

do u know how pink ur cheeks willb from cryig y u were a republican 5 yrs back?

So Bayh voted AGAINST cloture, and then FOR the nominee (?) That makes no sense.

Old Sgt:

welcome.. Mr righty spin of champions...

did Nathan.. in his original quote say this was related to Alito..

y did u have to twist it.. oh almost forgot.. u r a republican..

and btw... how abt answering the qn..?

do u know we don get tax-cut if we earn below 200k?...

maybe u work for haliburton.. who knows...

Hey nathan,

I think you've got your court members mixed up. You see it's not the conservatives (who by the way are no where near the extreme right) that are the problem; it's the stench from the liberal bench that's making us clench! (a Savage saying) Your dear old Ruthy Ginsberg who you just love and cherish so much, the former chief counsel for the ACLU, is the one that's going to sell you down the river. And for you to refer to today as D-Day is an insult to the men who died on that beach so you might not be turned into a bar of soap. Remember that.

You state the vote was 58 to 42, yet your roll call only shows 32 Y votes (27 Rep, 5 Dem) and 42 N votes (1 Rep, 39 Dem, 1 Ind).
Who are the other 26 Republican Senators and why are they not listed? Also, your intro shows 4 Democrats voting Yes, but you missed Nelson (NE) who is shown as Y in the list. Is this just sloppy reporting or am I missing something?

"Judge Alito's confirmation represents" a Republican majority in the Senate and a physicologically-impaired Republican president.

Nathan is clever with the "RATS" thing, but he has it wrong: the acronym should be "STAR" (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts), and as an American I anticipate proudly watching these stars in the years ahead restore sanity to the third branch of government. And finally, a shout out for Evan Bayh, who resisted pressure to toe the party line and cast an honorable "yes" vote.

I think Chafee (???-RI) is the most accurate depiction for this ungrateful RINO. IMO, the GOP should dump his sorry behind and stand behind a real Republican.

Who will then go on to crashing defeat in the general election. I'm afraid that a Republican like Lincoln Chafee is the only kind that could actually get elected in Rhode Island. And at least he counts as one more seat for the Republicans when time comes to determine which party gets to organize the Senate, and gets majority seating on all the committees and subcommittees.

The first paragraph of my previous post should have been in quotation marks.

There is a mistake somewhere here. If Bayh and Nelson (NE) are both truly yes votes, then that's 5 democrats and 54 republicans, which is 59 votes, not 58.

There is a mistake somewhere here. If Bayh and Nelson (NE) are both truly yes votes, then that's 5 democrats and 54 republicans, which is 59 votes, not 58.

Bayh voted AGAINST Alito. The only D's voting for were Johnson, Conrad, Byrd, and Ben Nelson.

As someone who is middle of the road, I think both sides should be ashamed of themselves. The Liberal Democrats for politicizing what used to be a much less partisan activity-- even 10 years ago. The Right Wing Republicans for making a pariah out of Harriet Myers because they didn't know where she stood (I don't think she was qualified... but to base it on ideology was awful.)

The fact is for all the vitriol expressed by both sides, the Republicans won the election in 2004, so they get to pick the Supreme Court. You elect a Republican president, he's gonna pick a conservative, just as a Democrat would pick a liberal. The Constitution does not give the Senate the right to pick the candidate, and frankly advise and consent has traditionally not been much on the advise side, but more only on the consent side.

It's time that the Democrats focus on finding a candidate who can be elected in 2008, so they can have a chance to keep the court balanced as it is-- John Paul Stevens cannot serve forever-- he'll be 88 going on 89 when the next president is inaugurated, and no justice has ever served into his mid 90s.

If the Democrats cannot coalesce around an electable candidate in 2008, they'll have no one to blame but themselves when the court really does turn conservative upon Stevens likely departure. He can only hold on so long.

"Make that, I don't have respect for the opposition when it complains about fairness or criticizes a nominee on an arguable point such as being whithin the mainstream."

You unhinged lefties really need to go into therapy. Your worldview is so warped you can't even recognize your own mental illness.

"So Bayh voted AGAINST cloture, and then FOR the nominee (?) That makes no sense"

Voting for Cloture is a vote to end debate. The obvious conclusion is that, while he was for the nominee, he was against ending debate in the nominee.

Alito confirmed on the same day Loretta King died. How symbolic. America is dead. There is no one left to protect us.

"do u know our country's debt has risen by 80% since Bush took power (yeah took power... since he never won it anyway)"

Hmmmm...amazing. Considering that it was the then liberal SCOTUS that said he did. And considering that he beat your "Savior" Kerry in the last election, seems kind of asinine to be making such comments...but again I reiterate, "What has this to do with Alito's appointment?"

And yet again you forget to mention any of the investigations involving some of "your" democratic leaders, or look at their backgrounds and their short comings.

Good! Maybe now Coulter won't have to poison Stevens - - Alito's superior intellect and logic will make him choke on that seaweed he calls his brain

What a great day! Now we can put those homosexuals back in the closet where they belong. We can let our Christian President conduct the war on terror without a bunch of whiny liberals blocking him. And we can get on with the business of making this a Christian nation again.

You elect whom you think you can get comfirmed. Then if you think it will be close you offer some favors for votes...It's all a dog and pony show, just like the State of the Union will be tonight. Dog and pony show...Thankfully the local pub has Dollar Domestic bottles tonight...

Hooray! Now it's time for us all to adjourn to the Filibuster at Thomas Circle. God Bless America. Land that I Love! Especially when MY PARTY is in POWER. hooohahahahaahahahahahahah!!!

Liberals....Conservatives.... Special Interest and Lobbyist, this is what our federal government has become a bunch of name-calling bigots! Is there a Senator on the hill with any backbone, a Senator who works for his constituent's best interest? Of course not, look at their job performance, a record breaking deficit, social security is almost bankrupt, health care is out of control and to top it off they have the arrogance to walk around as if they are doing a good job. It's a good thing they have the senate for employment, 95% of them could not cut it in the real world!

Hey mr ""

i didnot mention Dems coz.. they did nto take money from Abramoff directly.. get that?

Repubs took directly... get that?

u cant spin that..

and what abt the 4 trillion deficit? what abt the 80% increase in debt?

not one conservative..king of masses here has answered it..

Liberals....Conservatives.... Special Interest and Lobbyist, this is what our federal government has become a bunch of name-calling bigots! Is there a Senator on the hill with any backbone, a Senator who works for his constituent's best interest? Of course not, look at their job performance, a record breaking deficit, social security is almost bankrupt, health care is out of control and to top it off they have the arrogance to walk around as if they are doing a good job. It's a good thing they have the senate for employment, 95% of them could not cut it in the real world!

This ex-Hoosier is sad that Mr. Bayh said bye-bye to the beliefs of those who elected him. If he decides to run for the highest office, he'll soon realize that some of his supporters have run in the opposite direction! This vote is a real black mark for him.

Finally Mussalito has arrived! All power to Il Duce Bush!

Poor olde Kennedy and Kerry, could push their agenda through. Maybe, just maybe their views do not reflect what America stands for? But they will never realize that which is good because then America will never vote their ultra liberal agenda.

State of Union preview n facts:

Claim: economy great
Fact: 4 trillion deficit

Claim: Iraq is better now
Fact: But where r the WMDs

Claim: Terrorisis on the run
Fact: With yesterdays tape release the goct can release a new "collection"

Claim: Can only get better
Fact: got that right

"will of the american people" -- hardly.

Most people barely have any clue what Alito stands for and if they did, I'd venture a majority of people would not support him. As it was, most polls gave him at best a thin majority.

If you mean the will of the people in giving the Republicans a Senate majority, well, that had a heckuva lot to do with pointless ballot initiatives in many states playing on hate in this country. Congratulations.

It's the venom bared in comments like those of the conservative barkers here that will hopefully (and seems to already be doing so when you look at the preferences of independent voters in polls) finally turn off this country from the Republican agenda. I still have some faith that this is not a country of hate.

Will of the people??! Check any recent poll as to which party's agenda they'd like to see enacted (even after the acts of supposed fools kennedy and...oh, who was the other one you said...biden?...well, i don't care for him either actually, but i imagine for different reasons). The polls aren't even close these days...

I am sorry KEMP, obviously I am mistaken thinking that this blog was regarding the appointment of Alito to the SCOTUS. But if this is the best you can do to try and belittle someone, please go back to school. Isn't it amazing how when the left looses they try to flip it to another topic other than the original one? Maybe there is a possible reading problem there, you think? As far as the question...there wasn't one pertaining to the subject of this particular blog, therefore it does not deserve an answer. But no I don't and I can pretty much guarantee that many others make more than I do, but how much I make is none of your business, nor is it your business to know how much I do pay in taxes. But I can say, without feeling "pompous" that I have been paying them for a lot longer than you and much more than you have. So stop whining and go console Kerry and Kennedy for another screw up they have led their party into. By the way I am not a republican. There is more than two sides to this pyramid.

Hey, Jason, a thin majority is all that is needed.

ALITO CONFIRMED !!! another victory for America and another defeat for the Kennedy/Kerry democratic agenda. yes, how sweet it is !!!

Still waiting on the republican followers reply for answers on economy..

what they all left the forum?.. after they read the qn.

good

hey, Kemp, the olde bait and switch tactic, eh? you lost on Alito so now you and Kennedy and Kerry will have to whine moan and complain ad nauseum

Old Sgt

if u r old.. my respects to u..

i did not ask how much u pay or earn..

i asked,, do u know if we earn below 200k no cuts come to us..

and u say i SPIN..

RedState, you are just what makes this country notgreat. Hateful person that you are. I hope you have kids that will reap the legacy of all 3 branches being controlled by the Talibornagain.
ps. This is *not* a Christian nation

Mark T..

switch n swap n whatever..

but again u also fail to answer the qn..

do u guys care abt the economy at all? one non-left guy.. anyone guy?

Aain Kemp, to what does this have to do with the appointment of Alito to the SCOTUS? A little history lesson maybe in need here. The SCOTUS does not, at least yet, control the economy or the taxes. So therefore your statements have no meaning or should draw no attention on this particular blog. Stop trying to defer to another blog somewhere and comment on the subject at hand.

I have read several comments in this blog calling Kerry, Kennedy, and Bidden idiots. As a long time democrat I am sorry to say I agree.

These democratic leaders are morons and along with Dean and several leaders in the House need to be replaced as soon as possible.

It is in the best interest of both dems and repubs. The US Congress operates like our courts - it is an adversarial process. In the current Congress it as if the liberals ended up with the fat lazy do nothing public defender or inexperienced PD and the republicans got the high power wall street firm to represent their interests.

The following Senators and democratic leaders should resign:

(1) Kerry should resign immediate becuase he has demonstrated that he is not a compentent leader in the Senate. He knew or should have knew that he could not get the votes to support a filibuster.

(2) Kennedy should resign for making the party look petty. How out of touch does one need to be to know that when you make an argument you don't make petty arguments when someone has presented such a strong case. Alito had great qualifications - why would you attack him on such non-sense issues like recusal and membership in some meanless club at Princton?

(3) Howard Dean should step down and say away from microphones. Eveytime he opens his mouth we liberals look petty and disorganized. Dean will never bring the party together.

(3) The House is such a disorganized mess that if any members were to step down it would do little or no good.

I am not sure how to fix the party. Perhaps the demo party should try and find some blue collar type to run as opposed to the ivy leader types they have been running in the House and Senate.

A tragic day for our country and one giant leap towards Dubya's dictorship. When Alito looks past the constitution to favor his "Unitary Exectuive" beliefs to allow wiretaping and other rollbacks of civil liberties, Dubya will have no problem accepting "for the good of the country". Supreme Court Justice Jackson warned us of this very danger in Youngstown Sheet and Tool v. Sawyer:

"BUT NO DOCTRINE THAT THE COURT COULD PROMULGATE WOULD SEEM TO ME MORE SINISTER AND ALARMING THAN THAT A PRESIDENT WHOSE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS IS SO LARGELY UNCONTROLLED, AND OFTEN EVEN IS UNKNOWN, CAN VASTLY ENLARGE HIS MASTERY OVER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY BY HIS OWN COMMITMENT OF THE NATION'S ARMED FORCES TO SOME FOREIGN VENTURE."

"Um.... No mensa membership for you. A close partisan vote does not equate into (sic) a controversial nominee. It just means that the Democrats were willing to demonize a perfectly qualified jurist in order to pander to the special interest groups that are funding their party. "

First, questioning or insulting my intelligence doesn't make your argument any more compelling.

If you do not agree the nominee was controversial, how do you account for the 58 to 42 vote? Senators live and die by their key votes. You are wrong if you think the public was not paying attention to this vote. Few senators would risk alienating their constituency in a vote so important to the American people. I reject your cynical argument that senators voted on this nominee based on a political need such as "pander to the special interest groups that are funding their party. "

Third, a vote against the nominee does not equate to a demonization of the nominee.

I am not a member of mensa. If you are, why do allow yourself to post poorly reasoned arguments?

First of all, my biggest worry about America is not either party's ideology, but the fact that you can't find a political discussion in America which isn't dominated by childish, partisan sniping by both sides. Second, I have to comment on the condemnation of the SC as "liberal" when the Rehnquist court was a 7-2 Republican majority. If you don't like John Paul Stevens and Davis Souter, blame the Republican Presidents who nominated them. Furthermore, this conservative court has overturned more acts of Congress than any other in history, so the "legislating from the bench" talking point doesn't really wash when you use it to attack Democrats.

Victory!

Another sad day for loosers. When do you think the liberals will figure out why they keep on loosing?

Reform of Democratic Party In best Interest of everyone... from a one time Democrat (many years ago), I agree with your comments completely. A face lift does need to take place within the Democratic Party. Where I was once a proud Democrat follower of JFK, I now hang my head in shame to think that I was once a Democrat. Maybe someday I will be able to return to a more proud and unified Democratic Party. But many big changes need to take place before that happens.

It is interesting to see the partisan invective being spewed by both sides in this commentary. As a moderate, I will throw my two cents in. We won't know what will happen with this new court until it happens; the sure thing in the SC is not something I would bet on. We now have a majority of practicing (and presumably, faithful) catholics on the SC. I recall a time in this country when the religious right thought of catholics much like they thought of other, non-protestant religions. Are we so sure we (the royal we) will get everything we want from these men and women that we are willing to sacrifice a reasonable balance of race, gender and creed in our SC justices? Finally, I think it is hippocritical of anyone to criticize the actions of our senators in fulfilling their role as a check on the power of the executive when, in light or the Meier nomination, an angry and vocal minority was able to derail that nomination even before it was given a chance for a vote.

This is a very sad day, especially for women. Sam Alito is a is just another outbreak in the plague the Bush family has brought to our dear country.

Correction to my previous post, it's David Souter. Sorry for the typo.

"i donno how many of these republican knuckle heads know.. they r not getting tax-cuts if they earn under 200k.."

i don't think i know anyone who is a republican because they want a tax-cut, they'r republican because they think the republicans are more correct than the democrats on certain key issues.

i myself end up voting republican only because they're usually pro-life. why? because i have this peculiar notion that pre-meditated murder is a lousy thing to do. what i don't think many liberals understand is that there are lotos and lots of people out there who actually believe that a 'fetus' is actually a human being, just like you and i are...just a human being who can't speak out or fight back.

...if the democrats just put forward thoroughly pro-life candidates, the republicans would be entirely out of power in 4 years. the "Christian right" is less "right" (where right means 'not left'), and more just pro-life.

EDITOR: The roll call listing above is incomplete... only 28 Republicans are listed. I noticed when I looked for Olympia Snowe.

Boo-hiss to Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.), Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Tim Johnson (S.D.).

Boo-hiss to every last Republican. There was not an honest one among them. They know the agenda. They know it.

Get with the election reforms. Vote in 2006.
Meanwhile - just watch and see what this Supreme Court will do.

Oh, you'll regret this one, fellow Americans. Wait and see.

As a independent, I am very happy w/ the turnout of Alito being confirmed. I truly believe he is well qualified for the job. ..... the one thing that is left with me on this is the democrats... honestly what were you thinking, and what are you thinking. I would like a democrat to define who todays democrats are and where you're heading. Is kennedy, dean and kerry the voice of your party ?

IMPEACH BUSH NOW.
IMPEACH CHENEY NOW.
CAN ROVE, CAN RUMSFIELD AND THE WHOLE GROUP OF DEAD WHITE MEN.
GET RID OF DIEBOLD MACHINES.
KICK ALITO OUT.
SEND THEM TO JAIL.
COLLECT ALL TAX BREAKS FROM THE FILTHY RICH AND PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT.
JAIL THE ENRON BUNCH, THE PHARM KINGPINS, THE OIL BARONS, ABRAMOFF AND ALL HIS CRONIES.
IGNORE THE FASCIST RIGHT COMPLETELY AND GET ON WITH DOING WHAT MUST BE DONE.
CONTROVERSY ASSIST THEIR MALICIOUS AGENDA:
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
AND LAST: PUT THEM IN PRISON.

Blaming the Democrats for attempting a filibuster is so hypocritical I can't believe that anyone can say it seriously - but one can expect no less than blind hypocrisy and self-righteousness from conservatives, particulatly the "Christian" right.

"Yes it is a shame that the rights of SO many individuals have been trod upon by what was a liberal court. The rights of the unborn child, the right to freedom of speech, the rights of victims, the right to freedom of religion"

1. Fetuses don't have rights
2. You obviously know nothing about freedom of speech or religion

Ginsberg is a raving liberal radical but she receive near unanimous confirmation back when being on SCOTUS was all about whether the individual was QUALIFIED to serve on the Nation's highest court--not about their real or potential political orientation and beliefs. Ginsberg was found to be fully qualified, and as we had a Democrat for a president, it was *expected* that we'd get a liberal candidate for a justice. But when a republican is in office, it's no longer about their qualifications, it's about overturning the current status quo.

Newsflash: the party of the current president will pretty much be guaranteed to nominate a qualified judge of their political party. That's just the way it is.

All of the Roberts and Alito nominations have done is to ensure that virtually every future candidate will be BLASTED by the opposing party to the president that nominated him or her = complete politicization of the process = fruitless acrimony.

Alito confirmed.

thanks guys.

As terribly bad as Bush is, what have my Democratic leaders done to show they are stronger and more capable?

The repubs have HANDED US DEMS OPPORTUNITIES to take charge on a silver freakin platter and yet our incompetent so called "leadership" couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper sack.

I would say, Barack Obama is a great candidate.. that would appeal to the masses.

He makes sense whenever i have heard him speak..

i would vote for him.. and so wud many moderate republicans..

What a time to be an American. While our government is running around democratizing the Middle East and speaking about "human rights" and "individual liberty," our Senate confirms a man to the Supreme Court who possesses no regard for civil liberties, no regard for a woman's right to choose, and no regard for anti-discrimination law designed to protect minorities.
I am a Democrat, but I recognize that the Democratic Party has some serious soul-searching to do. There are no Democrats stepping up to the microphone with any semblance of leadership! No one is offering a clear and distinct voice to oppose the Bush regime. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I want a LEADER--someone to step up to the plate with a cohesive plan to oppose the policies of Bush. It seems like the Democrats are spending a lot of time speaking out about Bush policies, but little time actually coming up with a united, coherent platform of opposition.
Howard Dean is a complete and total embarrassment. He is absolutely the WRONG person to run the DNC. He is not the person who is going to come up with a strong platform.
A further embarrassment to the Democratic Party is that VA's new governor, Tim Kaine, will be giving the follow-up speech to the State of the Union. He has been in office approximately 3 weeks. The Democrats should've chosen a representative who has a chance of running in 2008, not some governor who has been in office 3 weeks.

"IMPEACH BUSH NOW." ... GO FOR IT!(or try)
"CAN ROVE, CAN RUMSFIELD AND THE WHOLE GROUP OF DEAD WHITE MEN." ... sounds racist to me.
"KICK ALITO OUT." ... sorry he's there for life.
"JAIL THE ENRON BUNCH, THE PHARM KINGPINS, THE OIL BARONS,..." ... sounds like you have something against the little fellow making it big. When they fulfill the American dream they become the rich.
"IGNORE THE FASCIST RIGHT COMPLETELY AND GET ON WITH DOING WHAT MUST BE DONE." ... I believe the American people figured that one out in 2004. Who won?
"AND LAST: PUT THEM IN PRISON." ... maybe one should look a little deeper into the Deomcratic side of the aisle before making such comments.

"person with a brain" ... maybe a transplant would help to rid you of that misinterpretation of what gray matter consists of.

What a time to be an American. While our government is running around democratizing the Middle East and speaking about "human rights" and "individual liberty," our Senate confirms a man to the Supreme Court who possesses no regard for civil liberties, no regard for a woman's right to choose, and no regard for anti-discrimination law designed to protect minorities.
I am a Democrat, but I recognize that the Democratic Party has some serious soul-searching to do. There are no Democrats stepping up to the microphone with any semblance of leadership! No one is offering a clear and distinct voice to oppose the Bush regime. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I want a LEADER--someone to step up to the plate with a cohesive plan to oppose the policies of Bush. It seems like the Democrats are spending a lot of time speaking out about Bush policies, but little time actually coming up with a united, coherent platform of opposition.
Howard Dean is a complete and total embarrassment. He is absolutely the WRONG person to run the DNC. He is not the person who is going to come up with a strong platform.
A further embarrassment to the Democratic Party is that VA's new governor, Tim Kaine, will be giving the follow-up speech to the State of the Union. He has been in office approximately 3 weeks. The Democrats should've chosen a representative who has a chance of running in 2008, not some governor who has been in office 3 weeks.

What a time to be an American. While our government is running around democratizing the Middle East and speaking about "human rights" and "individual liberty," our Senate confirms a man to the Supreme Court who possesses no regard for civil liberties, no regard for a woman's right to choose, and no regard for anti-discrimination law designed to protect minorities.
I am a Democrat, but I recognize that the Democratic Party has some serious soul-searching to do. There are no Democrats stepping up to the microphone with any semblance of leadership! No one is offering a clear and distinct voice to oppose the Bush regime. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I want a LEADER--someone to step up to the plate with a cohesive plan to oppose the policies of Bush. It seems like the Democrats are spending a lot of time speaking out about Bush policies, but little time actually coming up with a united, coherent platform of opposition.
Howard Dean is a complete and total embarrassment. He is absolutely the WRONG person to run the DNC. He is not the person who is going to come up with a strong platform.
A further embarrassment to the Democratic Party is that VA's new governor, Tim Kaine, will be giving the follow-up speech to the State of the Union. He has been in office approximately 3 weeks. The Democrats should've chosen a representative who has a chance of running in 2008, not some governor who has been in office 3 weeks.

I gained a little more respect for the Senate today when I found that they went ahead and confirmed Alito to the Supreme Court without a filibuster. The filibuster was never intended to be used to stop a confirmation and shouldn't be either. I believe that the filibuster is an important part of our free government, but I don't think it should be used to stop the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

Alito is a worthy man of this post.

I'm so glad.

God Bless America

Uhoh, I don't know how my comment ended up being posted three times. I apologize.

As long as this administration is in power, we will have disasters like this one: the appointment of a man who has consistently decided in favor of a too strong executive, and opposition to little guys of both sexes, especially women making decisions about their pregnancies. And then there's the Iraq war and those missing WMDs. How can the American people vote for someone like this?

As long as this administration is in power, we will have disasters like this one: the appointment of a man who has consistently decided in favor of a too strong executive, and opposition to little guys of both sexes, especially women making decisions about their pregnancies. And then there's the Iraq war and those missing WMDs. How can the American people vote for someone like this?

As long as this administration is in power, we will have disasters like this one: the appointment of a man who has consistently decided in favor of a too strong executive, and opposition to little guys of both sexes, especially women making decisions about their pregnancies. And then there's the Iraq war and those missing WMDs. How can the American people vote for someone like this?

"Another sad day for loosers. When do you think the liberals will figure out why they keep on loosing?"

Pat, when do you think Republicans will learn third-grade spelling?

Something that I think is continually overlooked and never explained by Democrats is how the confirmation of Alito is going to create such an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court. Assuming that Alito and Roberts are hardcore righties, YOU STILL HAVE FOUR HARDCORE LEFTIES ON THE COURT!!!! Dems don't want balance anymore than Republicans do. You have no problem with four liberals on the court voting with one another 95% of the time, but God forbid the right have the same thing. Kennedy will be a swing vote on a slightly right-leaning court, but this will not give conservatives carte blanche over Constitutional law. It drives me nuts that Dems basically lie to the people of America in telling them that this court will now turn back individual liberties, and that we are now headed into a fascist dictatorship. Get ahold of yourselves. The Republicans won the House, Senate, and Presidency. To the victor goes the spoils. If the Dems were in the same position, they would be trying to create liberal court, and it would be the same as me claiming that the country was going to be communist.

Regarding Comment Posted by: Ashley Westerman: Don't know much about Gov. Kaine but think we should wait and see how he does. I have seen who the demos want to run in 2008 and hope that they do not run. Senator H. Clinton and Kerry?

I'm sorry to see the glee the republicans in these comments are demonstrating. the threat of Alito will be to women and families, the poor, the underserved and the average American. This vote has given the progressives a new energy and direction; this has not been a defeat in every sense of the word. Polls are showing an increasing dissatisfaction and disgust among Republicans with the corruption and waste delivered by the Bush Administration which seem to be overcoming thier committment to them based on the war and the homophobic, anti woman platforms. It's important to remember that we still have NSA and Abramoff/Scanlon/Cunningham ahead in the coming months and that today Bush has a 39% JAR. Republicans may be the majority party, but with DeLay and Frist, Dolittle and Burns and the related expectations about Boehner, Blunt and so many others, it is really hard to see how Republicans can be enjoying thier celebration. I suspect that many of the folks insulting Kerry and Kennedy might not know the details of these investigations, and I can't say I blame them for perhaps not wanting to, since they shine a bright light on the tortured and corrupt events in the Republican congress of the last 10 years. I think Alito is bad for the country because he represents so many years of Republican anti-americanism and corporate greed. If the average republican was even 10% more informed about thier party than "My party is in power" and "Abortion is baby killing", they might understand that the party has no interest in them at all.

Yes Barack Obama sounds like a good choice

Ashley-

Russ Feingold

no on Iraq
no on Patriot Act
no on Alito

look for article today about his questioning and letter for Gonzales.

Namaste

Fortunately, 818, what you believe is irrelevant. Ever read the Constitution? Life begins at birth.

Glad that's done. Now we can turn our full attention to the real problem at hand which is Congress feeding like hogs on our tax money.

Vote 'em all out.

818

you haven't been paying attention - every poll taken since roe v wade has indicated that a majority of american believe some availability of abortion is okay - and i challenge you to show me how s alito can be mainstream if that is true when he has stated that he does not believe in a constitutional guaretee of access to the right of abortion - also murder is a legal term and abotion does not fall under that category

According to 'The Christian Right is Neither', "Fetuses don't have rights."

Says who? That is the crux of the matter. According to the left, 9 men and women in black robes should make this determination on behalf of almost 300 million Americans. Since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade when these 9 oracles created a "right to abortion" out of thin air, 45 MILLION infant Americans have been denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A more democratic solution would be to take the matter to the American people. Hold Congressional hearings. Listen to all points of view. Debate the issues. Then decide which circumstances might justify the termination of life in the womb.

Now there is a concept -- majority rule rather than fiat by the Supremes. C'mon all you liberal Democrats . . . are you really that scared of democracy?

The Christisn Right is Right....first I want to say that I am a pro-choice Republican, and I believe that the Court obviously has every right to interpret the Constitution how it sees fit, but oddly, in all my years of studying the Constitution as an attorney, I have never found a passage saying "life begins at birth" or anything of the sort.

I wouldn't call the "right" republican, right, or christian. I would call them fascist powermongers without intent to benefit anyone but themselves, and "content" to accomplish this by any combination of deceipt, outright lies, manipulation, murder, subversion, militant occupation, spying, and criminal corruption they can dig up from the lowest pit of vile morals on the planet.

Regarding comment of zennurse:

I just read the Gonzales letter at http://feingold.senate.gov/Gonzales_NSA_13006.pdf

I have to say he has not been a very visable demo leader but prehaps that will soon change.

People fail to realise.. there is a problem.. and that is.. the woman's health is not taken into consideration..

what abt medical cases?

what if protective-material was used adn still.. conception happens?

these are logical.. common-sense qns.. if u dont want to "commit abortion" dont do it.. y r u also trying to stop ppl doing it for valid reasons?

and btw..

818..

fetus is not a life.. its a body organ till later months..

medically thats the truth..

i understand ur concern.. dont support it.. but ppl have valid reasons..

and give consideration for the woman.. calling it a murder is irresponsible and ignorant

gp....I think you are confusing "majority" and "mainstream". Just because one's beliefs are not the majority belief does not mean they are out of the mainstream. For argument's sake, if 65% are pro-choice 35% are pro-life, are you really going to contend that 35% of Americans, or roughly 100 million people, do not have mainstream beliefs?

God loves the Repubs and George W. Bush. I know you liberals hate it, but you just keep underestimating the man. Christ will guide us and our great country. Liberals need to keep up the good work. Thanks Teddy,Biden,Schumaaaaaaaaa,Clinton, etc. this list goes on and on.....

We are headed towards a fascist dictatorship!
George Bush will rule the country for another 20 years!
Liberals will be put in concentration camps!

Actually it sounds kind of nice.

BB and Tim K. - You two are perfect examples of why Democrats are the party of academia while conservatives are the part of dogmatic, self-righteous idiots.
As a student of Constutitional Law, I can inform you 'Tim K.,' that the following constitutional passage has been interpreted by scholars, the legislature and the courts to mean that life begins at birth.
"No PERSON shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (emphasis added).

I sure as hell wouldn't go to you for representation, as you've made the mistake that indicates the worst kind of lawyer - you've ignored facts contrary to your argument.

Imprison Bush. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Listen to this idocy! I'm sorry that the US isn't a Socialist paradise yet, but I'm fairly certain that it won't become one anytime soon. Neither will we become a fascist society. That isn't happening either. Socialism has failed wherever it's been tried. Give capitalism a chance and be involved without screaming insults. Bush won't last. Why don't both parties just tell us what they stand for, and HOW they plan to achieve their goals, and let the voters decide? Probably too radical for the simpletons who want to imprison those whom they disagree with. Grow up. Most of us simply aren't that partisan. In order to nominate a justice, you have to hold the presidency. It's just that simple. If Ideology is that important, win some elections and shift the court balance back. That's how it's done. Nobody wants to take away your rights and freedoms, except perhaps the socialists and fascists, and neither of those groups are in power just now. I repeat - grow up!

tim k

then what is mainstream?

Ah yes the party of academia.

Not the party of morals.

kudos to TD

Now ... Bring on the "Presidential spying" case !!!!!

Regarding th ecomments of TD: Have to agree with with you, but you must respect our frustration.

Get rid of the GOP's tricky dick voting machines - Then we can elect a president like they do in democracies with Constitutions. Bush is an illegitimate president styling himself as a dictator. Corruption is the foundation of his regime and the heart of his agenda.

All Supreme Court appointments by Bush are therefore illegitimate likewise. I do not recognize them.

Regarding th ecomments of TD: Have to agree with with you, but you must respect our frustration.

td is wrong - "Nobody wants to take away your rights and freedoms, except perhaps the socialists and fascists, and neither of those groups are in power just now." - that is the point of my opposition - alito does want to take away rights, bush has taken away freedoms - you just refuse to see the facts - you explain these actions with rationalizations - even my children know when you have to do that you've probably done something wrong - and i'm not calling you children

First of all Mr. Christian Right academician, if you notice, I made a point to say that the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution any way it likes, however, it does not say in plain English that life begins at birth. The line you quote, from the 5th and 14th Amendments, has been interpreted by the Court to mean that life begins at birth. It is simply dishonest on your part to claim that the Constitution explicitly states that anywhere in its text, which I think was pretty clearly my assertion from my first post. I ignore no facts, and in fact pointed out the argument that you are attempting to throw back at me. Surely your seemingly expansive, and probably entirely academic Constitutional Law studies can confirm that I am correct in my assertion that it appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

As far as your insults, you truly show your colors as someone that cannot honestly and rationally debate a point without taking it into the basement. I neither want nor need clients like you, so do everyone a favor and take you insults somewhere else.

To "The Christian Right is Neither":

Thanks for the name calling. I ask for democratic debate on abortion and you call me a dogmatic, self-righteous idiot.

Well I guess you win and I lose.

To The Christian Right Is Neither:

The passage you cite was interpreted by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade to mean that a "person" under the 14th Amendment does not include a fetus. It has never been used to declare that life does not begin until birth. In fact, in Roe v. Wade, Blackmun writes of that specific question: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

gp....This is only my opinion, but mainstream to me seems like anything on which reasonable minds could agree. While I am pro-choice, I realize that a great number of reasonable and rational people are pro-life. I think there can be opposing mainstream views on numerous subjects. Affirmative action...both those in favor and opposed are, in my opinion, mainstream views. I wouldn't attempt to put a numeric value on it, but I guess so long as an idea is accepted by a large segment of society, it is difficult for me to label not in the mainstream, and thus being on the fringe.

Tim K.-
"In all my years of studying the Constitution as an attorney, I have never found a passage saying "life begins at birth" or anything of the sort."

The Due Process passage that I quoted is, in fact, something of the sort. In fact, according to good law, it is exactly that.

BB-
Surely you understand that our American system government does not include the promise that individuals get to vote on how the constitution is interpreted. Must I explain to you that the people elect legislatures, electors elect the President and the President then selects, subject to confirmation by the Senate, the members of the highest Court. I suppose I must...

Tim K.-
"In all my years of studying the Constitution as an attorney, I have never found a passage saying "life begins at birth" or anything of the sort."

The Due Process passage that I quoted is, in fact, something of the sort. In fact, according to good law, it is exactly that.

BB-
Surely you understand that our American system government does not include the promise that individuals get to vote on how the constitution is interpreted. Must I explain to you that the people elect legislatures, electors elect the President and the President then selects, subject to confirmation by the Senate, the members of the highest Court? I suppose I must...

To The Religious Right Is Neither:

Could you please cite a court case that defines life as beginning at birth? I think you're confusing personhood under the 14th Amendment with life.

It amazes me that a number of people believe that the "American people" do not want Alito on the bench. Remember, Bush was elected by the majority on a platform that included placing a consertative on the bench. So the logical conclusion is that the "Majority of American people" wanted a conservative on the bench and a "Minority of American people" did not want a concervative on the bench. I just wish people say what they mean and mean what they say. It shows a lack of knowledge when statements are made that are not based in reality, or it shows that the person is just trying every possible persuasive tactic to move readers -- pathos over logos. Unfortunately, many times it works. I personally prefer logic over emotional arguments which distort information.

The Religious Right....

Allow me to reproduce both Due Process Clauses:

5th -
"No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

14th -
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Please point to any plain text that purports to define the point at which life begins, or the definition of "person".

1. Bush was not elected.
2. Bush was not elected.
and
3. Bush was NOT elected.

What's that giant sucking sound?
It's all the fabrications and crimes of the Bush administration sucking our country down the toilet.

It's also the sound of all who voted for Alito and all who defend today's vote on the basis that Bush is a legitimate president. We do not have an elected president and what this equals for those of you who think we had an "election" is: Bush is not legitimate.
!! Giant sucking sound as of Rush inspired propaganda styled as fact.

"Fortunately, 818, what you believe is irrelevant. Ever read the Constitution? Life begins at birth.

Posted by: The Christisn Right is Right"

Well the Constitution does not say anything like that.

Our law clearly states that if a "fetus/nasciturus" can live outside the womb, even if he is stil inside, has FULL rights.

Until Roe, there was nothing in the COnstitution or in our law that said that a "fetus/nasciturus" could be killed before that moment. Roe was judges' legislating instead of Congress or the States.

WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who must decide, not the SCOTUS. That is what overturning Roe means, that WE WILL DECIDE. And that is apparently what scares the shit out of the liberals: imagine "people deciding", not only hollywood stars or ivy league liberals, but ordinary people...

Why is it that advocates of abortion never use the word "abortion"?

e.g., reproductive rights, pro-choice, women's rights, privacy rights, etc.

If they feel ashamed to say that they're pro-abortion, maybe there's a reason.

It seems very analogous to racists being for "states' rights" and "property rights," which are nice-sounding code words for supporting racist policies.

O'Connor is gone. YEAH!!!

Thurst...the only reason that you believe that Americans would not support Alito if they knew what he stood for is that your nose is so far stuck in the air that you have no concept of what the average American thinks. Reading liberal blogs won't help. Commiserating with your buds over at DemocraticUnderground won't give you a clue. You think that you're so superior to everyone else and that gives you the right to decide what's best for all of us. Well, guess what? In 2004, we (the average Americans) chose President Bush because we hoped that he'd pick someone like Samuel Alito and Senator (still, thank God) Kerry would pick someone like Ginsburg. We're tired of 5 judges deciding what the Constitution means, based on their own view of society. We want them to interpret the law, not make it up.
Your comment reminds me of the columnist up in New York City who couldn't believe that a Republican won the election because nobody she knew voted for him. Well, it may be hard for you to believe, but there are many of us who are rejoicing at this moment because we know Judge Alito's philosophy.

"I think you are confusing "majority" and "mainstream". Just because one's beliefs are not the majority belief does not mean they are out of the mainstream. For argument's sake, if 65% are pro-choice 35% are pro-life, are you really going to contend that 35% of Americans, or roughly 100 million people, do not have mainstream beliefs?"

YES, YES and YES.

Jason, the issue isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether there is a fundamental right to it. The reasoning behind Roe v Wade has to rank up there with the Dred Scot case and "separate but equal" decision. All were made up by judges with agendas, not based on actual law or rights. Roe v Wade should have been decided similarly to the 9th Circuit Court decision about the sex surveys in elementary schools. There is no fundamental right in the Constitution. Go back to your legislature to fix the problem.

"You unhinged lefties really need to go into therapy. Your worldview is so warped you can't even recognize your own mental illness."

You name-calling person of a conservative viewpoint wrote your entire post as an attack on the opposition and made no attempt to discuss the political issue that inspired your derision. Sticks and stones,,,

If 65% of Americans are "pro-choice" then why worry about Roe v Wade????? You obviously have such an overwhelming majority that you can prevent any anti-abortion laws from being passed. The problem is that you believe the liberal tripe you're being fed. Quite a few people don't understand that if Roe v Wade was overturned tomorrow, it wouldn't make abortion automatically illegal. It would take 51% of the votes of their legislatures to pass laws against it. In 1973, there were 13 states that permitted abortion. Surely, if 65% of the populace agreed with abortion on demand would be a "slam dunk."

Thanks to Mr. Bush and Mr. Alito I will in my life time be able to avoid having the government tell me who I can hire and fire. I mean it is just not natural the way it has been since the 1950s and particularly 1964. Also woman will finally return to the kitchen where they belong.

Bush was not elected? That's delusional. I can imagine how hard it must be when facts interfere with your worldview, but please... the man was elected President twice, and no matter what conspiracy theories you subscribe to, that is plain, legal FACT. The Supreme Court will not decide what direction this country takes. It can only interpret case law that comes before it. It does not MAKE LAW. That duty falls to the LEGISLATURE. You can't deny Bush the privelege of nominating justices just because you don't agree with him, or like his choices. What you should be doing is explaining your plans clearly to voters so that your party can win the election, put someone who agrees with you in the White House, and have that person nominating judges. Of course, even then you'll also want to control the legislature, because that is where you can advance your agenda. Civics 101. If you can't handle facts, your opinions carry no meaning.

all those women who want the god-y W and his unbiased buddy Alito to attend your next OBGYN visit - you just got your wish suckers: line up so daddy W can lock your your chastity belt.

to john, dave, joe, teddy, samuel, bruce, and bubba boy:
getta womb, then you can decide what you can do with your own body.

to sally, jill, karen, and suzie Q complacent:
wake up

The Supreme Court exists, in part, to adjudicate conflicts relating to our basic rights and liberties. It exists to make decisions about conflicts like Roe v Wade and Brown V Board of Education.

In Roe, the question asked was whether the state's interest in protecting the life and liberty of the fetus trumps the interest of a pregnant woman in controlling her body - her own reproductive system.

In Brown, the court was asked whether separate but equal school systems for white and black students amounted to equal protection under the law.

In Roe, the court affirmed the right of a woman to make the decision for herself, up until the fetus became viable outside the mother's womb, and anytime the pregnancy endangered the health of the mother. Even if you disagree with the decision as it stands, you might agree the court was committed to finding the best possible balance between the rights of the Mother and the fetus/child.

Then, what is behind the argument that a majority of voters should have the opportunity to subsequently reverse a Supreme Court Decision through popular vote? Our rights are not supposed to be at the pleasure of the majority, there are supposed to be god-given and inalienable.

Would anybody argue that Brown v Board of Education decision was the decision of an "activist" court? Is it more fairly and accurately stated that it upheld the rights of a racial minorities to be included in formerly white-only public schools systems? This decision marked the beginning of the end of racial segregation. Who would argue the people are entitled to a popular vote to overturn the decision?

The Roe decision will be revisited in the year(s) ahead. I hope this new court respects the rights of the mother as well as the fetus/child in making its decision.

Finally, I want to emphasis that my post did not condescend or deride people with different opinions nor attack them personally. I hope participants follow this approach in responding to the thread.

Jeff:

"Jason, the issue isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether there is a fundamental right to it. "

a fundamental right is determined based on whether somethign is wrong or right and only when its right.. its advanced towards the notion of Right..

i for one believe the real people who should be talkiung abt this is the women.. infact let the women of the country vote on an up/down for abortion once and for all

Adoy- Thank you for your civility. I am pro-choice, but respect the pro-life vantage point. I think everyone would be well advised to take an objective look at the reasons why both sides are so passionate on this issue. At the very least, it would make the citizenry far less vulnerable to political operatives who seek to use it as a wedge issue.

Those who are pro-life see life as beginning at conception. If that is your values orientation, abortion is impossible to justify except arguably in the case of risk to the mother's life. I've never been comfortable with efforts to "disprove" this world view because there is no science which will ever definitively establish when a fetus is a person. It's a question of belief and in a democracy we are entitled to our beliefs.

The pro-choice movement grew out of a resistance to discrimination against women in career and social contexts. Women were long expected to be beholden to the obligation to parent. It left very little room for career development or, for that matter, any other kind of self-determination. I don't believe feminists ever celebrated abortion as a good thing, but rather defended the rights of women to choose parenting when it was right for them. Whether you agree with them or not, the major feminist figures of the late 20th century saw female liberation as dependent upon reproductive freedom. That's why pro-choice proponents don't refer to themselves as pro-abortion because to label oneself that way is really to miss the point. I've never met a pro-choicer who is passionate about the act of abortion, but I've also never met one who wasn't passionate about gender equality.

Jeff:

"Jason, the issue isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether there is a fundamental right to it. "

a fundamental right is determined based on whether somethign is wrong or right and only when its right.. its advanced towards the notion of Right..

i for one believe the real people who should be talkiung abt this is the women.. infact let the women of the country vote on an up/down for abortion once and for all

Jeff:

"Jason, the issue isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether there is a fundamental right to it. "

a fundamental right is determined based on whether somethign is wrong or right and only when its right.. its advanced towards the notion of Right..

i for one believe the real people who should be talkiung abt this is the women.. infact let the women of the country vote on an up/down for abortion once and for all

Adoy, I commend you on your well-versed reply, but wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that the "rights" established in Roe v Wade actually exist in the Constitution. I'm not alone. There are numerous legal scholars from both sides of the issue and across the whole political spectrum who disagree with reasoning in Roe v Wade. Even Justice Ginsburg was not a fan of the decision, but mostly because she felt that it made abortion a national issue rather than one that could be resolved state-by-state. In his notes, Justice Blackmun stated that he was searching for a case like Roe (McCorvey). If that doesn't prove that he was waiting to create law, nothing does. I am not a huge pro-lifer. I just believe that the 8 men and 1 woman across from the Capitol Dome should be interpreting, not making law.

The notion.. if justices side conservative "they interpret law".. if they side mainstream "they inevent law".. is a nice job of SPIN by Foxnews and its minions..

TD: in resonse to your comment ...why not give democracy a chance?...
Probably too radical for the simpletons who want to imprison those whom they disagree with....

I can only say I couldn't have said it better myself.

Jason...Sorry, I should have stated my comment more clearly. "..., the issue isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether there is a fundamental right to it..." As defined in the Constitution, not based on the whim of society. The framers put a nice feature in the Constitution. It's called an amendment. It's much better than the Ouija Board that's used, now.

Kemp - Give me a couple examples of rights being created out of thin air and I might think about agreeing with you about the "spin." However, don't come here with your DemocraticUnderground (which I read for laughs) talking points and expect people to respect you.

Jeff..

wud u call.. equality for blacks and non-whites as inventing a law or "making sense"

wud u call.. equal votign rights for women n men "incventing laws" or making sense?

if liberals had given up on those issues when some similar-sounding righty tried to suppress it.. we cant lay claim on "human rights champiion" can we?

what was domination once became rights.. whats violation ( banning abortion ) now will be rights.. maybe when more moderate minded republicans realise they have a spine

i dont expect ppl who cant separate church and state to "respect" dissent

Equality for races is largely an issue that the legislature has has tackled via the Civil Rights Act and other accompanying legislation regarding discrimination. Women voting was is the 19th Amendment. Neither one is a court issue, so the idea of a court "inventing law" doesn't even come into play. Oh, and for your information, it was the Democratic Party that largely opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Don't give examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

Fergoshsakes! Lighten up, folks!

The current Democrat senators are so beholden to the luny-left (who hate Bush with irrational venom) that they would oppose any one he nominates to the Court.
If John Marshall were alive today and Bush nominated him to the court you can be sure that Democrat senators would vote against him and trying to explain their vote by saying what a threat he posed to our liberties.

The current Democrat senators are so beholden to the luny-left (who hate Bush with irrational venom) that they would oppose any one he nominates to the Court.
If John Marshall were alive today and Bush nominated him to the court you can be sure that Democrat senators would vote against him and trying to explain their vote by saying what a threat he posed to our liberties.

Yeah...that last post was mine. I was responding to Kemp. Also, I want to correct an error, the Dems and Reps both voted overwhelmingly for the '64 Act, with the Dixiecrats (southern Dems) largely voting against. It's been a long day. :)

I applaud all of the senators who voted YES!!

I'm looking forward to the showdown that will inevitably happen. With the bills proposed in Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Dakota it shouldn't be long.

http://dmaria215.blogspot.com/

When I read or hear the statements of hate about Bush I'm not sure if they're coming from radical Islamists or the radical Democrats.
Interesting that they virtually are identical.

Tim K...thanks for responding to Kemp's silly response to my request for examples of "activist" justices on the right. Too bad the DemocraticUnderground doesn't provide facts with its rhetoric.

yaw siht ti ta kool s'tel Humm? That might be a democrat or a radical ahab the arab, which is a rebus for "baah."

Helen,

"When I read or hear the statements of hate about Bush I'm not sure if they're coming from radical Islamists or the radical Democrats.
Interesting that they virtually are identical."

It is interesting that we've reached the point where America's external enemies mirror the rhetoric from those elected to public positions in the Democratic Party.

I'm not suggesting that Teddy Kennedy is an Islamic terrorist but he certainly is a terrorist enabler by the way he seeks to support the terrorists efforts in preventing us from finding them before they kill thousands of Americans.

I am disappointed that our Michigan senators could not think for themselves and for their people back home when they blindly followed their ultra Liberal "leaders": Kerry & Kennedy when asked to confirm Judge Alito.

Last post bitches!

on : "statements of hate about Bush I'm not sure if they're coming from radical Islamists or the radical Democrats.
Interesting that they virtually are identical."

All too true, sadly. Both of these groups seem to see the emporer without his clothes: a warmongering fascist dictator.

Have to agree about the bare-assed emporer point: He hung it out there for everyone with eyes in their head to see. And now all his rabblescum followers and hangers on are going to be found guilty by association and they are scrambling to come up with better talking points. The ones that are gloating today are the dimmest bulbs in the bunch.

thats agood point. Some friends and associates of these who can't tell the difference between radical islamists and radial democrats are forming their very own little witchhunt posses on college campuses and it's hard to tell the difference between these and stalinist purges. maybe these boneheads should go back and finish highschool. They might feel more at home in the USSR.

I'll take a shot at replying to "howdy dimbulbs" only because his post is what I particularly despise about the Left. So many of them walk around with this air of superiority. That, in and of itself, would not be disturbing. However, it's when they want to impose their socialist ideas on the rest of us who believe in self responsibility that I worry. Hopefully, Associate Justice (yes, doesn't that just flow on the lips...Gloat, Gloat) Alito will stem the tide that began back when the Left's hero, FDR, packed the court. We can only dream.

If you believed in self responsibility you would be backing mandatory child support from any male who impregnates a woman that wants an abortion. But you are not. In fact, your party helps deadbeat dads avoid their responsibility for child support, let alone marital support.
If you believed in not imposing your own ideas on the rest of us, you would not be imposing your own (male) ideas about abortion on the rest of us (women). But you are.
This demonstrates that you are complete hypocrites and liars. you do wish to impose your beliefs, even your own religious beliefs, on everyone.
Not so different from the ayatollahs at all are you?

Jeff, a GED would help your poor self esteem.