Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito lacks support (411 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How do you get 5-4 instead of 6-3? (none)
    Rehnquest is and soon O'Connor will be gone.

    One of us is using GOP Social Security or Budget math here.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:40:23 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  wow... just wow... (none)
      If you had read any of the recent SCOTUS opinions, you would see a frequent split:

      6: Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor
      versus
      3: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas.

      O'Connor and Kennedy often switched sides, so controversial opinions would be 6v3 'liberal wins' or 5v4 liberal wins or 5v4 conservative wins.

      Roberts replacing Rehnquist keeps the 6 v 3 'liberal wins' Roe vote intact.  Move O'Connor's vote into the conservative minority once she is replaced by Alito.  Then you have a 5 to 4 vote, liberals still win on Roe.

      Kennedy will be the only one who would conceivably act as a switch hitter on abortion. 5-4.  And given the ambiguity of O'Connor's "balancing tests" on abortion, we're sure to see a lot more abortion cases make their way to SCOTUS.

      •  Ahhhh (none)
        In almost every important ruling on abortion in the past decade or so, the vote has been 5-4 with O'Connor being the swing vote.

        The Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), reexamined Roe and explicitly upheld its validity by a 5-4 vote. A plurality of Reagan-Bush appointees, O'Connor, Kennedy, and David H. Souter, reaffirmed that the Constitution protects a right of abortion. Rehnquist and Scalia filed biting dissenting opinions. During the 1990s, attempts were made at the state level to ban partial-birth abortions, which were struck down, again by a 5-4 vote, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), with Justice Kennedy, co-author of the Casey decision, among the dissenters. Subsequently, Congress passed a law banning partial-birth abortions, which is currently in litigation.

        Not sure what rulings you arrive at your (to my eyes) erroneous conclusions about the 6-3 split only shifting to 5-4.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

        by Lestatdelc on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:52:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Still a dumbass (none)
          I would think after I caught you plagiarizing, and after you were humiliated on the establishment clause, you would crawl away in shame.  But no, you come back and this time plagiarize Wikipedia on Roe.  You really could put a little bit more effort into it when you play dress up lawyer...

          Once again, you mental handicap is showing.  Casey is one of the messiest decisions, with pluralities all over the place on different points. The Wikipedia Roe entry (which you passed off as your own) does not even get into the technicalities of Casey. Although the express upholding of Roe was 5-4, the court subsequently swung to the left.  Right wing White was replaced by Ginsburg!  If Casey had come down in 1994, it would have reaffirmed Roe 6-3.  That's where I get the numbers from dumbass.  Good lord you're ignorant of even recent history!

          You then jump to the partial birth question, which is an entirely different legal issue.  Note that I sad the liberal Roe majority would remain intact.  Roe v. Wade will still not be overturned merely because Alito replaces O'Connor.  It will take one more switch, as Kennedy believes in Roe. So in 2005, Roe had a 6-3 uphold vote, in 2006 it will have a 5-4 uphold vote.

          If you think I'm wrong, please try counting the 2006 justices who will overturn Roe to reach your supposed 5: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito..., anyone?... Bueller?

          Note also that I repeatedly reference Kennedy's "switch hitting."  That's because he will allow some restrictions (Stenberg) on abortion (as expressly allowed for in Roe, mind you). But to a simpleton as yourself, Roe v Wade stands for "abortion on demand for all nine months".  

          My dog has a quicker grasp of the law.

          •  WTF are you abbling about (none)
            I would think after I caught you plagiarizing, and after you were humiliated on the establishment clause, you would crawl away in shame.

            WTF drugs are you on?

            But no, you come back and this time plagiarize Wikipedia on Roe.

            How is posting relevant culled snippets from Wikipedia I was basing my understanding on "plagiarizing" exactly?

            And I never once claimed to be a lawyer so not sure WTF that is about. Somehow you think that only lawyers are qualified to talk about legal cases in the SCOTUS and the make-up of the court?

            Talk about delusions of grandeur on your part. But please call people dumbass because it makes you sound so much more intelligent and lucid. You might try not behaving like a jackoff and people might be more inclined to say hey, you make a good point instead of suggesting hat you fuck yourself gently with a chain-saw... just a thought.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:12:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  here's what I'm talking about (none)
              When you wholesale copy someone elses writing, and then pass it off as your own, it's called plagiarism. It doesn't matter if you agree with what you are plagiarizing.  Why did you cut and paste and deliberately avoid quotes? Because you were in over your head, but you still want to play dress up lawyer.

              Now I don't think people have to be lawyers to engage in legal debate.  But you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of the issue, backed up by rudeness and arrogance.  I, on the other hand, couple my arrogance with knowledge.

              Regarding the establishment clause, look upthread to where I said "Thus, the First Amendment did not prohibit individual states from having their own official 'state church.' It only applied to Congress." To which you so wisely responded, "Bullshit."

              My statement was 100% correct. You demonstrated a profound ignorance of the Constitution.  But always seeking to top yourself, you challenged my "Roe support going from 6-3 to 5-4" statement, by citing the 5-4 Casey decision, even though it involved a different set of justices.  That demonstrated your ignorance of even recent constitutional law.

              If all you can do is cut and paste, why bother?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site