<p>Confused, "By "diversity", I mean this: a case can be made that 6 Harvardians on the 9-member Supreme Court is sufficient." No entiende - that does not speak of diversity at all. </p>
<p>BTW, why should they have to be from an "elitist" university? The most educated and intelligent man I know, who has several doctrates now, went to a "lower" college and educated himself through books. He devoured classics and worked hard at listening to people so he knew where both he and they were coming from. He currently runs a private academy while taking students on international study abroad trips - through connections that he built up himself I might add. </p>
<p>Why am I even saying this? Surely this isn't even a debate...</p>
<p>I don't disagree. The Southern Methodist lady probably would have done just fine. But the press skewered her unmercifully, and the so-called "feminists" wouldn't come to her defense because she wasn't a left-liberal like most of them are.</p>
<p>Byerly....You have temporarily redeemed yourself in my eyes due to your conservative underpinnings. </p>
<p>As far as the "Swimmer" is concerned don't count on him to fluster Alito. As he questioned Alberto Gonzales at his confirmation he had the misfortune of mentioning water boarding (a form a torture). He was concerned where our now Attorney General stood on the issue.</p>
<p>One thing is certain.....we will be seeing the front of Frist center on
CNN and MSLSD:)</p>
<p>haha, it's really funny, you should check out his "aspiration quote" in the class of 72 yearbook. It specifically says that he plans to warm a supreme court seat sometime later in his life.</p>
<p>"Hardly a role model, and not the sort who should be passing moral judgment on others."</p>
<p>Haha, the Senate's role in picking a justice isn't to pick someone who's "morally upright," they try to pick qualified individuals with whom they share similar political views. I find it hard to believe that you think that all 100 Senators share morally outstanding backgrounds, and that's why they're qualified... I fear the day when a question of morality is the backbone of the Senate's judgements.</p>
<p>Oh, but dare I forgot what a bastion of fairness and equity the Republican party is these days. I don't even need to pick up the New York Times to see how poorly Bush has handled the past week... 2,000 dead in Iraq, a failed Court appointment, scandals all over the place, blatant cover-ups by his press secretary, all time low approval rating... </p>
<p>wow i remember back in april when i was still choosing between yale and pton...haven't been to this site as often as use to since i came to pton</p>
<p>can't believe that Byerly is still on this board as a mouthpiece for that community college in Cambridge lol</p>
<p>on a serious note, i don't think that scalito can be seen as an extreme conservative just because he thinks that the mother should inform the husband about the abortion. I read his dissenting opinion, and i thought it made perfect sense. the woman still has the final word. </p>
<p>Now if the final say falls out of the woman's hands, then we are moving into dangerous territory</p>
<p>The court would certainly be at harm with a 6-male conservative majority in terms of regressing on civil rights, the first amendment, and most importantly, women's rights. </p>
<p>Obviously Alito was on the wrong side of the Casey decision. Just look at the SC ruling.</p>
<p>As for "Scalito" the difference is that Scalia is and was a distinguished, brilliant jurist, conservative as he is, and Alito is nothing more than a solidly conservative "safe" pick. </p>
<p>Teddy Kennedy remains a bastion of liberal principles and one of the few great liberal defenders in the Senate--others being Barbara Boxer and John Kerry. I really hope Specter takes charge and takes this fellow to task for Casey.</p>
<p>"And again, Byerly, Senators like Barbara Boxer represent the few voices of progress in the light of the dominant conservative establishment."</p>
<p>First of all you are confusing a dominant republican establishment from a dominant conservative establishment. Indeed, many conservatives have been quite disappointed with the state of affairs in the last few years.
Secondly, the conservative movement is the movement of progress. Its the movement to allow people to live their lives and be successful without the government on their backs. Look, if you call soviet style socialism progressive, then support Barbara Boxer, or Ted Kennedy (who went to the "Kremlin on the Charles"). However, if free enterprise and self empowerment are more your style, then how can you conscionably vote for them?</p>
<p>... so it has never occurred to you that those in the "persuadable middle" let alone the Red State majority, are as turned off by Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy et al as you are by those you see as the Conservative bad guys?</p>
<p>Just as the "Move-On" crowd uses fierce Bush-baiting rhetoric to raise money from the ideologically committed, so too do Conservative groups find Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy et al - and their pronouncements - invaluable in fundraising!</p>
<p>The problem for the Demmies is that THEIR hardliners appeal to a narrower base, so that Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer , Kennedy et al may not be a net positive.</p>
<p>"Secondly, the conservative movement is the movement of progress. Its the movement to allow people to live their lives and be successful without the government on their backs."</p>
<p>unless they want to choose to have an abortion, choose to have homosexual relations in their home, choose to marry a partner of the same sex, etc. it's liberalism, not conservatism, that has always made fundamental the tolerance of a wide range of lifestyles and worldviews, and choices like these.</p>
<p>There is a key difference, of course, between the "tolerance" of certain values, practices, etc. and the "promotion" of the same through laws, regulations, speech codes, etc.</p>
<p>The problem with the government trying to force its brand of "tolerance" on those who profoundly reject such values, practices, etc., is that the new laws and regulations inexorably become "the new intolerance."</p>
<p>"unless they want to choose to have an abortion, choose to have homosexual relations in their home, choose to marry a partner of the same sex,"</p>
<p>Lets dissect this. On the abortion debate, most federal conservatives believe that each state should be free to make legislation concerning abortion best for their individual situation. I woudl certainly call this choice. BTW, about a women's right to choose, what about a baby girl's right to choose to live. In terms of homosexual acts in your own home, a supreme court supposevedly dominated by conservatives unanimously ruled that constitutional. In terms of homosexual marraige, almost all conservative, including bush, believe that if homosexuals want to have a meaningful life together they can legally become partners. Its the liberals who get bogged down in the semantics of the word marraige.</p>
<p>Like it or not, unsavory as it is, the fetus has no rights, so don't bring that up. </p>
<p>"On the abortion debate, most federal conservatives believe that each state should be free to make legislation concerning abortion best for their individual situation."
That's a horribly, mistakenly optimistic view. That's not true at all. Five states legalized abortion in most cases before Roe in 1973 and those were very harshly protested by conservatives. They aren't the types to respect the rule of law when it doesn't suit their purposes. </p>
<p>"In terms of homosexual marraige, almost all conservative, including bush, believe that if homosexuals want to have a meaningful life together they can legally become partners."
And yet under the principles of "equality under the law," that fails miserably. Bush opposes all forms of legal recognition of gay couples and so does most of the conservative establishment. Marriage is a social institution and it shouldn't be restricted to some pathetic, misguided ideal of 1950's-style marriage. </p>
<p>"Its the liberals who get bogged down in the semantics of the word marraige."
Marraige, indeed. Wrong again. Conservatives try to limit marriage to certain groups (which are semantics, really), while social liberals simply will give a marriage to couples that want one, more or less.</p>