Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (58377)	10/31/2005 10:14:42 AM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Respond to of 173976

The President has given in to the right wing's demand to be rewarded for his reelection, nominating Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The extremist faction that helped kill Harriet Miers' nomination has gotten what it wanted: a nominee in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. In fact, Alito has earned such a reputation for ideological activism while serving on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that he has been nicknamed "Scalito." On the appeals court, Alito endorsed radical restrictions on reproductive choice -- such as requiring that a woman notify her husband before obtaining an abortion -- raising serious concerns about the future of Roe v. Wade if he is confirmed. He is a leader of the radical right-wing legal movement to prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections. He has claimed that the federal government cannot fully apply the Family and Medical Leave Act to state employees. He has even argued that Congress could not enact a ban on the possession of machine guns. If confirmed, Alito could be a threat to our rights and liberties for a generation or more. President Bush wasn't willing to stand up to the far right -- now it is up to the American people and our senators to stand up for the Constitution. Sign our petition urging your senators to oppose Alito's nomination to be associate justice of the Supreme Court. savethecourt.org

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (58377)	10/31/2005 10:24:26 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

When I was in school, the two Constitutional camps were 'broad interpretation' and 'narrow interpretation'. The conservatives have successfully changed those terms to 'activist' and 'strict'. The connotations of those words change the debate from federalist vs anti-federalist to good vs evil. Very clever of them conservatives. I agree with broad vs. narrow, but I don't think that translates to federalist v. anti-federalist. And how narrow or strict does one want to be? There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prohibits segregated schools. Certainly the Founding Fathers weren't interested in educating the blacks. Who says they have to be in the same schools as whites or even have to have access to "equal" schools. That's certainly not in the US Constitution. The 15th amendment only gave blacks the right to vote. If Congress were to pass an act permitting segregated schools then would these strict constitutionalists say that the USSC should defer to Congress? jttmab