01/12/06: WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER WITH THESE CHARADES ANYMORE?

Andy,

Well, once again, we've been steamrolled. Does anyone have any idea who is the mastermind behind the rule book on 'how to guarantee the confirmaton of a neo-con Supreme Court Justice?" Like all things since the '00 election, the GOP controls the  message: how couuld anyone have entertained the slightest hope that this guy wouldn't slide in? Let's just stop attending WH press conferences, covering congressional proceedings, EVEN bothering with congressional proceedings.... let alone ELECTIONS....

Maybe if we just ignore them all,  they'll go away.

d 

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. Judge Alito wrote:

"the Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." He added some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he 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) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her."

• Will Alito's Reagan-Era statements hinder his chances to make the bench?
• Does Roe v. Wade hang in the balance?