Alito – the Scalia-lite?
The nomination of Alito is met with opposition from the left. It's strange that there can be no void where rancorous attacks will not ensue. In this case, Alito will likely be confirmed because he appears to be an intelligent candidate (via AS) that favors judicial restraint, which is continually popular.
I do not see him as a ideologue. However, he may have certain opinions unfavorable to GLBT rights and abortion rights; and yet also opinions supportive of immigration and minority groups. How these opinions will affect his rulings in the Supreme Court may be revealed in the confirmation hearings. On the whole, he seems focused on interpreting the laws as passed, and will defer to Congress and the President to deal with areas not covered by the Constitution. He seems disinclined to follow international opinions, which happened when the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws.
Many gay marriage-rights supporters have mostly relied on the court to affirm equality. By having Alito and Roberts in the Supreme Court, that option will likely not avail itself. It means that the struggle for equality will necessarily lie in legislations passed to that effect more than in litigations devoted to swaying the judges.
As for abortions ... I hope that even though he doesn't support abortions, but still wants to overturn it, that he will not outlaw abortions outright, but allow the Congress or each individual state to legislate how abortions may be allowed. California is almost guaranteed to support abortion rights, but Alabama is allowed to forbid abortion completely.
It appears that Proposition 73 is gaining a lot of support—It would require physicians to notify the parents forty-eight hours before a pregnant minor can have an abortion. Sixty percents appear ready to support the proposition. It looks like it is an emotional ploy to get pro-life supporters into the ballot box, and so have them support the rest of the propositions that our governator has proposed.
Meanwhile, true, erudite, and free-thinking liberals are undecided about such a proposition. I am also undecided, but let me convince you readers in California why you should vote "no." I believe that it is a private family problem whether teenagers have good communications with their parents. It should be up to each family dynamic that determines whether the teenager is willing to let her parents know that she had sex. Such a proposition will not help those whose parents view a female sexuality as something never to be violated until marriage. Indeed, it may harm the daughter if the parents ever decide to visit their rage on her.
It is an emotional proposition, to be sure. I know that many parents would want to know if their daughters have been engaging in sexual liason with other people. And in some cases, they probably wouldn't have liked to know so much about their daughters' sex life.
But if these parents are not even on a good relationship with their daughters, why do they even deserve to know? If they have created a environment conducive (either through repression or through "live and let live") to allow their daughters to find release in the pleasure of sex with the undesired consequences of pregnancy, why do they not care about their daughters enough to entrust them with information to protect themselves? Or if they do so care, why are they not in good communications with their daughters such that the government is required to barge in and tell the parents? It is the inconsistency and the illogical conclusion that leads me to realize the hard-core supporters are likely the same group that wants to abolish sex education in school, or preach abstinence in lieu of prevention.
It's hard to decide, but as I am now a little against initiatives, referenda, and recalls, I urge you to show up at the ballot box anyway. If in doubt, always vote "no." It's almost always better to be conservative about changing the role of government by voting "no." Otherwise, you could be responsible for creating abominable debt in government as government is required to fund education by a certain amount without the certainty of revenue, such that comes from taxation.* Even not voting makes you responsible for everything, because an initiative that's passed while you undecided didn't vote will still make you ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE for paying for it as a Californian tax-payer. Unless you plan to move away, you are always responsible for what your government is doing. So vote, and if you're wholly undecided, vote "no."
* I would have preferred that any initiative requiring things like "create a billion-dollar bond to fund education" would have a tax attached so that people would recognize the cost associated with borrowing.
see permalink for full post
I do not see him as a ideologue. However, he may have certain opinions unfavorable to GLBT rights and abortion rights; and yet also opinions supportive of immigration and minority groups. How these opinions will affect his rulings in the Supreme Court may be revealed in the confirmation hearings. On the whole, he seems focused on interpreting the laws as passed, and will defer to Congress and the President to deal with areas not covered by the Constitution. He seems disinclined to follow international opinions, which happened when the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws.
Many gay marriage-rights supporters have mostly relied on the court to affirm equality. By having Alito and Roberts in the Supreme Court, that option will likely not avail itself. It means that the struggle for equality will necessarily lie in legislations passed to that effect more than in litigations devoted to swaying the judges.
As for abortions ... I hope that even though he doesn't support abortions, but still wants to overturn it, that he will not outlaw abortions outright, but allow the Congress or each individual state to legislate how abortions may be allowed. California is almost guaranteed to support abortion rights, but Alabama is allowed to forbid abortion completely.
It appears that Proposition 73 is gaining a lot of support—It would require physicians to notify the parents forty-eight hours before a pregnant minor can have an abortion. Sixty percents appear ready to support the proposition. It looks like it is an emotional ploy to get pro-life supporters into the ballot box, and so have them support the rest of the propositions that our governator has proposed.
Meanwhile, true, erudite, and free-thinking liberals are undecided about such a proposition. I am also undecided, but let me convince you readers in California why you should vote "no." I believe that it is a private family problem whether teenagers have good communications with their parents. It should be up to each family dynamic that determines whether the teenager is willing to let her parents know that she had sex. Such a proposition will not help those whose parents view a female sexuality as something never to be violated until marriage. Indeed, it may harm the daughter if the parents ever decide to visit their rage on her.
It is an emotional proposition, to be sure. I know that many parents would want to know if their daughters have been engaging in sexual liason with other people. And in some cases, they probably wouldn't have liked to know so much about their daughters' sex life.
But if these parents are not even on a good relationship with their daughters, why do they even deserve to know? If they have created a environment conducive (either through repression or through "live and let live") to allow their daughters to find release in the pleasure of sex with the undesired consequences of pregnancy, why do they not care about their daughters enough to entrust them with information to protect themselves? Or if they do so care, why are they not in good communications with their daughters such that the government is required to barge in and tell the parents? It is the inconsistency and the illogical conclusion that leads me to realize the hard-core supporters are likely the same group that wants to abolish sex education in school, or preach abstinence in lieu of prevention.
It's hard to decide, but as I am now a little against initiatives, referenda, and recalls, I urge you to show up at the ballot box anyway. If in doubt, always vote "no." It's almost always better to be conservative about changing the role of government by voting "no." Otherwise, you could be responsible for creating abominable debt in government as government is required to fund education by a certain amount without the certainty of revenue, such that comes from taxation.* Even not voting makes you responsible for everything, because an initiative that's passed while you undecided didn't vote will still make you ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE for paying for it as a Californian tax-payer. Unless you plan to move away, you are always responsible for what your government is doing. So vote, and if you're wholly undecided, vote "no."
* I would have preferred that any initiative requiring things like "create a billion-dollar bond to fund education" would have a tax attached so that people would recognize the cost associated with borrowing.
see permalink for full post
posted by Alan at October 31, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home