The Supreme Court Nominee...

I'm leaving this space open for the inevitable discussion of whoever President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court...some are reporting it is Alito, but I am watching cartoons with my daughter and don't know if that is true---so let us know what you know, what you think and what we are arguing about today...

The Washington Post article on the appointment...

More can be found at Michelle Malkin, Iowa Voice, Bright and Early,Outside the Beltway . We will update this list of blogs with something to say on the nomination throughout the day...so trackback if you want your site included...

UPDATE: President Bush's pick is Alito. My thoughts on what little I know about him below.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the explanation of Judge Alito's dissent in the Casey decision that explains his decision to support spousal notification...I thoght it only fair to post it up here. I did this because I am not an ideologue. Remember that...

Apparently, Judge Alito thinks that a spousal notification law in the case of abortion is a reasonable restriction. I can not support that or him.

I am not crazy pro-choice. I have no problem with overturning Roe v. Wade and handing it back to the states. I do, however, have a problem with the state telling me I need my husband's consent for anything.

I don't have a problem with parental notification. I don't have a problem with a waiting period. I don't have a problem with women who choose to have an abortion being informed of the risks and different possible outcomes of abortion. I do, however, have a problem with my husband having to be notified for me to avail myself of anything that is within the bounds of the law.

I am a citizen of this country afforded all of the rights and protections of the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. I am not property. I am not chattel. I have no need to seek my husband's permission for anything and I do not understand how anyone could find such a provision legal.

Chris

Comments

[Shari]

It's not consent or permission, just notification.

That's a left talking point that is going to be played to the hilt.

Read the opinion.

Hey, what do I win? He was my first pick.

[JFH]

Chris,
Better read the law AND his dissent... You wouldn't have needed your husband's permission, only that you notify him and the proof that you did is set very low. There were also several "outs" that seem reasonable even, if you think, like me, the law is kind of goofy.

Most importantly, you make a semantic slip when you say:
"I do not understand how anyone could find such a provision legal."

Of course it was LEGAL, it was passed by the legislature, the question was whether it was CONSTITUTIONAL. Alito, like you and I thought the law was stupid, but judged it Constitutional because it did not approach the "undue burden" restrictions based on precident

[Shari]

Here are the outs:

(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.

[Shari]

Whoops, forgot this:

A married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions, including:

And the outs are as I posted.

[Chris]

Ok sorry for the semantic slip--I do not understand how one finds it to be Constitutional and although I will grant you that there is a distinction between notification and permission, I want someone to name one other instance--besides divorce--where a spouse has to notify the other spouse of anything...

And the point of the spousal notification law is...? I assume to give the father notice so that if he so desires he can file suit in court to stop it--

It isn't a liberal or left talking point--I agree with most every other reasonable restriction--this one is a sticking point for me--

and the argument that the standard for proving you did is low really doesn't do it for me...what is the punishment if they discover you didn't tell?

I don't like it.

[Chris]

Hey Shari--the last prize we gave out was the ability to dance around the house in your underwear doing the I'm right dance...that will have to do for now, but we found someone to help us with our logo so next time it might be a twobabes coffee cup...

[Matt Hurley]

As I understand it, Alito found this law to be Constitutional. That doesn't mean he likes the law, just that he doesn't find it in conflict with the Constitution. That's what I want in SCOTUS nominee...somebody who is going to rule on the law, not personal feelings.

Don't like the law, Chris? Get it changed through the legislature...that's what they are there for...

I'm becoming more and more encouraged by this pick the more I learn about him...

[Matt Hurley]

That reminds me...Mark has a prototype logo done...he was focusing on getting Col. Hunt right, so he still has some work to do...I'll try to get it up somewhere you can see it as soon as I can...

[Shari]

Chris,
I thinking I can handle the dancing part. There's no one home right now, so.... :)

[Shari]

Chris,
I think I can handle the dancing part. There isn't anyone home right now, so.... :)

[Shari]

Sorry for the double post. I didn't think it posted.

[Chris]

Thanks Matt--and I don't mind him on everything I have read so far...except this--so far no one has given me one example where a spouse has to notify the other spouse of anything but this--I find this to be an infringement of my rights under equal protection--and while I appreciate Alito not liking the law he still found a way to make a case for it--maybe the whole problem stems from the standards put in place by Roe v. Wade and the rest of the laws governing abortion--the undue burden test and such--but I also don't agree that a state can make a law outlawing the use of birthcontrol--name one other prescription drug--not illegal drug--that doesn't have anything to do with pregnancy that can be outlawed by the legislature? Would the federal government not have any ability to intervene if Arizona outlawed bloodpressure medication?

[dr wnc]

Chris,
I think you are reaching but it's your views. You've asked a question I cannot answer, so let's twist your ideals a little.
If a woman has the choice as you described, then could you not state that if a husband and wife become divorced and the husband chooses to give up all rights to a child then no child support should be provided?
Where does the rights of a father start and end?
Given the exclusions, which in my opinion are very very important why do you dismiss the rights of a father so easily?

[Shari]

October 31, 2005

ABORTION AND SPOUSAL NOTIFICATION: As several people point out, that's going to be an issue with regard to Alito. I'm not sure what I think about this issue, but looking at the Pennsylvania statute I notice a lot of exceptions, one of which is this: "Her spouse is not the father of the child."

I'm not sure about Pennsylvania, but in many states her spouse -- even if he's not the father of the child -- would still be on the hook for child support. Likewise, if he didn't want children, but she disagreed, lied to him about birth control, and got pregnant. And he certainly couldn't force her to have an abortion if she did so, even if his desire not to have children was powerful, and explicitly expressed at the outset. (The usual response -- "he made his choice when he had sex without a condom" -- never comes up in discussions of women and abortion.)

So where's the husband's procreational autonomy? Did he give it up by getting married? And, if he did, is it unthinkable that when they get married women might give some of their autonomy up, too?

The problem here is that you can say "my body, my choice" -- but when you say, "my body, my choice but our responsibility," well, it loses some of its punch.

Somewhat related earlier post, here.
posted at 08:30 AM by Glenn Reynolds

Go here for imbedded links:
http://instapundit.com/archives/026519.php

[JFH]

Chris,

How do you feel about parental notification?
It's a moot point, when discussing Alito, as O'Connor will be still on the court to judge on this one and if she leaves before the decision, it'll most likely be a 4-4 decision which means the Appeals Court will make it unconstitutional.

[Chris]

This is where we are going to have a distinction issue. While I recognize a fetus as a potential human life--I recognize the woman carrying the fetus as a life and as a citizen of this country she is entitled to the same protections and rights as proscribed by law--and while I do not dismiss the rights of the father outright--as with any Constitutional issue the issue is always going to be competing rights and so not everyone can be satisfied--I do not think abortion is a good thing. ALthough I think it probably sounds trite to you I believe it should be safe, rare and, I believe, legal. However, I am willing to give that determination to the states.

What I do not wish to give to the states is the ability to determine that I am somehow entitled to less protection than another citizen and by making a law that forces me to inform my husband I think you do that.

I think the point of doing that is to allow the husband a chance at injunctive relief and while abortion is still legal I don't think it is right or Constitutional to do that.

This argument is really almost moot. The stats show that 95% of married women who have abortions inform their husbands.

[Chris]

I think parental notification is a good thing however, I am in favor of allowing the caveat for those who are abused or can demonstrate that their parents would harm them because of it going before a judge to make the determination.

[Chris]

Shari, I think what you've shown is that the laws governing child support are wrong--seems to me if you can demonstrate intent to mislead the husband into fathering a child he shouldn't be on the hook for child support nor should he have ot pay if the child isn't his...so I think I am consistent in what I believe...

[Shari]

72% of the people believe in notifying the husband. Looks like you may be in the minority, Chris. 26% oppose.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=119

[Chris]

According to your link only 29 percent want to overturn Roe--seems like you are in the minority too--that doesn't necessariy make you wrong... :)

[Shari]

Well, I would say that most people that don't want to overturn Roe don't realize that it would more than likely still be legal in their state. They see overturning Roe as making abortion illegal.

I realize that abortion will probably not be illegal in my lifetime, but overturning Roe would allow states to put restrictions they want in place.
Most people don't get this because they don't pay enough attention. You will notice that overwhelmingly they are in support of more restrictions and if they understood exactly what overturning Roe would do, I believe more would be supportive.

[HC]

For those who believe in Individual Freedom this pick is a disaster.

[Chris]

JFH--I do think that even in parental notification there should be the exception for the life of the mother. I don't want my kid dying in the ER because they can't find me to give consent if her life is in danger

[Chris]

Shari--but you don't argue that overturning Roe allows for the states or an individual state to make it illegal--while I think there is a portion of the American public that is misinformed about Roe I don't think you can assign that as the total reason. I don't vote only for pro-choice candidates because right now there is not danger of abortion becoming illegal from a politician--I didn't vote for Bush and a large part of the reason was I didn't want him appointing Supreme Court Justices...but if abortion were in danger of becoming illegal I would take a much closer look at politicians and their stance on the issue...

I could say the same thing about those who want spousal notification. Most Americans don't know that the father could go to court and get an injunction preventing the woman from having an abortion.

[dr wnc]

HC Said:
For those who believe in Individual Freedom this pick is a disaster.

Yea, your right I'm glad the Supreme Court overturned this ruling he argued in favor of...
"Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision."

From what I have read, this person seems to be exactly what I would want as a supreme court member.