http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2005/10/31/here-we-go-again Comments On: Here We Go Again by Bruce Barry en-us Copyright 2013 Nashville Scene. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Nashville Scene readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Nashville Scene. wil@desert.net (Nashville Scene Webmaster) Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Mon, 20 May 2013 20:45:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"A 2003 Gallup Poll found that 72 percent of Americans supported a law requiring the husband of a married woman to be notified if she decides to have an abortion, results that were nearly identical to polls taken in 1996 and 1992. Democrats supported the provision by a margin of 2 to 1."

If almost 3 out of 4 people agree with you, how can that make you an "extremist judge."
Posted by Lee]]> Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:06:12 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Bill]]> Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:41:08 -0600 Nashville Scene
I don't see the "wide latitude" that bb described.
Posted by Rob]]> Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:14:51 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Tom]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:46:55 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Tom]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:45:45 -0600 Nashville Scene Federalist #76 of executive branch appointments subject to confirmation as intended to give the senate wide latitude as to the basis for rejecting a presidential nominee:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation.
Posted by bb]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:47:13 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Tom]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:05:18 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Rob]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:35:52 -0600 Nashville Scene
Is it just me or is anyone else somewhat bothered by the idea that Alito is going to get a hard time (and should get a hard time according to some) because of whatever ideology he has?

The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint the judiciary and the Senate can advise "and consent".
Posted by Rob]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:34:39 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Pithmaster]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:04:25 -0600 Nashville Scene It's hard to tell from the entire post which side of the discussion you're on

I am pro-choice.

The reason it need not be an enumerated power is that "it would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation; and it would be impossible to enumerate every one...
Posted by Tom]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:23:55 -0600 Nashville Scene "Damn those Democrats in the 1970s for not making this an enumerated right!"

It's hard to tell from the entire post which side of the discussion you're on so I won't make any assumptions. The reason it need not be an enumerated power is that "it would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation; and it would be impossible to enumerate every one."

James Iredell said that at one ratifying convention and when Supreme Court justices take the oath to defend the Constitution they are taking an oath to defend rights enumerated and unenumerated from intrusion by Congress and state/local governments.
Posted by bd]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:13:16 -0600 Nashville Scene
Learn through adversity and all that :-))))))))

Now, as for Brittney, I wonder what her middle name might be?
Posted by john]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:07:51 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Tom]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:44:25 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Mark]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:37:41 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by MMays]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:29:48 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Tom]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:24:59 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by brittney]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:19:16 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by lee]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:16:09 -0600 Nashville Scene Brittney, dear, you are one along with your side-kick, Mays.

I am "one" what?
Posted by brittney]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:13:18 -0600 Nashville Scene
Some on the board have been evasive. Some just won't stand up.

Also I know some things some of you do not know which makes me right and you wrong.
Posted by john]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:11:34 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by burrito]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:06:13 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by burrito]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:04:39 -0600 Nashville Scene "But she does not have an [unlimited] right to an abortion after the first trimester. That's what Roe v. Wade says I believe."

I think the ruling allows the state to regulate or proscribe abortion in the latter trimesters only if the abortion itself would pose a danger to the mother.
Posted by bd]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:03:21 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Lee]]> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:02:53 -0600 Nashville Scene