Julie with a B

Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Alito... just to begin -
From London Times:
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1991: Argued that a Pennsylvania law requiring married women wanting an abortion to notify their husbands did not place an undue burden on women. He said the state’s interest in promoting a husband’s interest in the foetus was legitimate.
United States v Rybar 1996: Argued against a federal law prohibiting private possession of machine guns. Said the government had no right to ban citizens from owning machine-guns.
Saxe v State College Area School District 2001: Argued that a school anti-harassment policy barring any speech that others might find offensive violated the students’ First Amendment right to free speech.
ACLU v Schundler 1997: Argued that a Christmas display on city property did not violate separation of Church and State doctrines
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v Farmer 2000: Ruled against a New Jersey law banning partial birth abortions

#1. Disagree to the extreme. I think he simply had no understanding of what an abusive relationship is like. Another source mentioned that Alito thought that the husband and wife should just talk it out, so that there would be understanding between them. This is just not possible in an abusive relationship. Those who are in working relationships have probably already discussed something of this magnitude with their husband. Those who have a bad relationship are the ones in trouble.
#2. I need to read more about this one. If the government cannot ban machine-guns, then can they ban cannons? Where is the line drawn. (I know, I know, I made it extreme to point out that the government probably needs to draw the line *somewhere*. I am not fond of gun control in general.)
#3. Disagree to the extreme. Hazing, name calling, gutter language, racist remarks, remarks against someone's religion, c'mon.
#4. I have read more about this one and happen to agree with the particular situation of this decision. The display included secular symbols as well as religious ones and attempted to be inclusive.
#5. Ruled against a law banning abortion. I don't think that this suggests that he supports Roe v Wade or any kind of abortion, so I think I need to research this further. I have heard opinions that he supports/does not support stari decisis (I probably spelled that wrong) and I think that would be the more important question. I doubt that anyone will really try to overturn Roe v Wade. I think it will gradually be wittled down and defined.


<< Home

Powered by Blogger