Samuel Alito, Princeton Class of '72

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
41

<p>"Bush opposes all forms of legal recognition of gay couples and so does most of the conservative establishment"</p>

<p>Really? <a href="http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/081304bushPos.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/081304bushPos.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Five states legalized abortion in most cases before Roe in 1973 " Maybe that tells you how out of step with the American public the decision was. We do live in a democracy right?</p>

<p>On the marraige debate, YOUR RIGHT, A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DID NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE, WHO WAS HE? Jon Kerry. The fact is that both parties agree that gay marraige is a bad idea, so your enlightened liberals acutally disagree with you on this one.</p>

42

<p>Your doesn't really say much about Bush's position...considering it starts off "in an effort to reclaim the middle ground..." Obviously an electoral ploy--deferring a policy decision to the states is a common tactic. </p>

<p>I never said I fully supported all of John Kerry's policies. </p>

<p>Who did, other than Kerry himself? </p>

<p>And yet support for abortion has remained in majority status ever since 1973. Funny how that works.</p>

<p>And funny how in the 1920's and before then abortion was widely legalized.</p>

43

<p>Zephyr,</p>

<p>The actual position of most in the country is not black and white it is some shade of grey. The posiiton of the county is not so easily defined as whether someone is pro-life of pro-choice. The topic is quite nuanced. </p>

<p>For the Pro-life people, is it okay to protect the life of the mother. For the Pro-Choice people, is partial birth abortion okay? Generally speaking the country is somewhere in the middle . . . but have to go to the Supreme Court in order to see if it is okay instead of your legislature.</p>

44

<p>And yet the position of the Republican Party, under the auspices of their platform ratified at the 2004 convention, is no abortion under any circumstances. </p>

<p>If the majority refuses to protect individual rights than they must be overruled.</p>

45

<p>And the position of the Democratic party is which? </p>

<p>This sets up a pretty polarizing environment within each the parties. Pro-Life voters do not feel comfortable within the Democratic Party. Pro-Choice voters do not feel comfortable within the Republican party. I believe this is one of the reasons there is a large segment of voters who are registered independents or unaffiliated.</p>

<p>And, which position is the one protecting individual rights? Where are those rights enumerated?</p>

46

<p>The right to privacy, for example.</p>

47

<p>Would any of you guys like to see one of the major parties adopt an economically conservative socially libertarian stance?</p>

48

<p>I sure would. </p>

<p>DLC!</p>

49

<p>Zephyr,</p>

<p>The right to privacy is enumerated where? While all of us like our privacy, it is nowhere in the constitution.</p>

<p>Additionally, those who are Pro-Life also believe they are fighting for a right, the right to life. The reason the abortion topic is so contentious is that it is a clash of rights. In our society rights trump almost everything else. For an interesting read on this topic see Mary Ann Glendon's book, Rights Talk. Here is a link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029118239/qid=1131180005/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3349840-8390224?v=glance&s=books&n=507846%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029118239/qid=1131180005/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3349840-8390224?v=glance&s=books&n=507846&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

50

<p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051104-17174400-bc-us-carter.xml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051104-17174400-bc-us-carter.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

51

<p>"The right to privacy is enumerated where? While all of us like our privacy, it is nowhere in the constitution."</p>

<p>it's implied. "penumbras and emanations."</p>

52

<p>I don't think your Princeton guy is terribly enthusiastic about "penumbras"!!</p>

53

<p>Which is a shame.</p>

<p>As for Eagle's assertion that there is a "clash of rights" in the abortion debate, I don't really see any. Unlike the mother, the unborn fetus does not have any rights.</p>

54

<p>Zephyr,</p>

<p>Perhaps you do not see any such clash but many others do. Read the original Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decision. Why do you think there is a 3-month, 6-month delineation defined by the court? Is it because the unborn fetus has rights. T</p>

<p>he question is when do they arise? Is partial birth abortion okay? Most americans think not. Is an abortion in the first month of pregnancy okay? Most americans think so.</p>

<p>Further, it is why Sandra Day O'Connor said that Roe is on a "collision course with itself". Technology will advance enabling the fetus to be viable earlier in the preganancy. This will create a situation like the original Roe decision where a fetus would be viable in one state and not in another. This imbalance is why the court originally decided on in Roe only it was a woman's right from state to state.</p>

<p>f.scottie</p>

<p>There may be penumbras emanating from the constitution but what are they and why is there such disagreement about what they are? These penumbras enable a certaining springing of rights that enable the court to legislate based upon their belief about what those penumbras may be. Not a very stable place to define law.</p>

<p>Further, when does the advance of technology force the collision to change whether a certain penumbra applies anymore?</p>

55

<p>"Would any of you guys like to see one of the major parties adopt an economically conservative socially libertarian stance?"</p>

<p>Collegecanwait, I'm interested in your question and wonder what prompted it. I believe taking this stance may well be the only hope the Democratic party has of creating an election-winning alliance.</p>

56

<p>Zephyr > Conservatives.</p>

<p>Here's why you're wrong on abortion:</p>

<p>You never answer any "women's right to choose" arguments. Abortion may be bad, but that doesn't make it the right of the woman to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother. I think the easiest solution to abortion is to develop more painless abortion techniques, and dear god, allow access to contraception. If Conservatives would stop stifiling the move to promote contraceptive use, abortion would be much less of a problem, and thus the "mortal going-to-hell sin would be avoided." Also, Eagle79- do your research .The court asserted a right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut. It's implied in an assortment of the amendments (especially #4).</p>

<p>And on gay marriage:</p>

<p>Like it or leave it, the only reason to oppose gay marriage is relgious. There's absolutely no political reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry eachother. Claims of divorce rates are bull- in fact, they support gay marriage. Which state has the lowest divorce rate? By golly! It's Massachussetts! And which has the highest? Everyone's favorite red state- Nevada! And the next four? Tennessee! Arkansas! Alabama! Oklahoma! Gosh, I bet those gay marriages are really hurting them down there... oh... wait. </p>

<p>And on fetus rights:</p>

<p>Why does an unborn fetus have rights? I'm not speaking constitutionally, I just want you to point me to a quality that the fetus has that means that it should be granted a right to life. Before you respond, I'll pre-empt your arguments by making fun of you. I bet you'll say something like "because it's human! duh!". Yeah, that logic'll take you right to Princeton... there's nothing intrinsically special about membership in a certain species- why do Homo Sapiens intrinsically have more rights then anyone else? Read some Peter Singer. Before you look dumb saying "but they're potential humans! aha!", potentiality doesn't mean squat in ethics. An acorn is a potential 1,000 year old tree, a prince is a potential king, a sperm is a potential Einstein, but potential x never equals x. They never get the same rights. Ever. </p>

<p>As for viability, why's that important? A fetus in the U.S. is viable at 5 months, but are you to say that a pregnant woman gets on a plane and goes to Guatemala where the fetus is viable at 8 months, then her fetus doesn't have rights? It had rights in the U.S. but not in Gautamala? Yeah, that makes sense. </p>

<p>And lastly, about this fiscally libertarian stuff... man, you can have that. It's not for me. I'd rather trust the government (which I admit is often risky) than trusting Halliburton. Letting big business make the rules guarantees that the lower class get screwed. Guess what? Halliburton don't care 'bout you, boy.</p>

57

<p>There's been an interesting argument made recently, by Benjamin Wittes in The Atlantic, amongst others, that the pro-choice left is better off without Roe anyway because it limits the terms of the abortion debate. An interesting point, although I don't disagree with it. </p>

<p>Like it or not, abortion has been a part of American culture for more than thirty years and it would be a horrible rejection of precedent for the Roberts Court to overturn it (although I don't think that will happen--there's at least a five-justice majority still in favor of Roe--Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, Stevens and maybe Roberts). The fetus retains no rights and rightfully so, distasteful as that sounds. </p>

<p>I can't say I agree with Captplanet about Peter Singer but that's for another day.</p>

58

<p>Zephyr,</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fetus retains no rights and rightfully so, distasteful as that sounds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This in not what Roe determined. It determined at certain points the state has an interest in the rights of the fetus.</p>

<p>Regarding capnplanet's comments, I too will save comments for another day.</p>

59

<p>Okay, sure, it has rights after a certain time period. </p>

<p>But the original fetus retains no rights--something stem-cell research opponents don't seem to realize.</p>