That was fast…

Damn, Bushie–rush much?
From The Washington Post:

President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals.
Alito, appointed to the appeals court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, has been a regular for years on the White House’s short list for the high court. He was also among those proposed by conservative intellectuals as an alternative to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel who withdrew as the nominee last week.

Sounds like a real winner.
By the way, how did folks feel about this Oct. 28th NY Times headline: Bush Is Not Expected to Feel Need to Pick Woman Again? Cause it pissed me the fuck off.

Join the Conversation

  • yellownumber5

    I was just reading the washington note, and Sam Clemons said that Alito ruled that a woman would have to notify the father if she was to get an abortion.
    Puke puke puke.

  • bear

    Alito is the kind of guy who is incredibly qualified for the Supreme Court, but they already have two of him on there (and seven other guys). I don’t want to see another real conservatice justice (I’m a balanced court kind of guy, with a little lean to the left). With this president, I would have been stoked for a brilliant, middle of the road legal scholar. But that can’t happen because he has to pander to his conservatice base.
    Get ready for a war. While it could have been worse (for some of you, not really), I think the extreme sides of the political spectrum just got what they wanted, and half the people voting in the confirmation process are running for president.

  • AdrienneW

    So I feel really stupid for falling for the Bush ploy. I felt like the Harriet Miers nomination was strange, but now I’ve put 2-and-2 together. Bush/Rove selected Harriet knowing that she wouldn’t make it through the process, and probably encouraged conservatives to act up. This allows Bush to nominate someone who is VERY conservative because “that’s obviously what his base wants”. Also nominating a woman first, Bush can now nominate a man and still look like his first choice was a woman. Very crafty…
    I mean, the headline does say it all: Bush Is Not Expected to Feel Need to Pick Woman Again
    So, now I just feel stupid… why didn’t we all pick up on this sooner?? Where’s our strategy folks??

  • yellownumber5

    It’s a stretch, but if this fight can be dragged out a very long time, we could easily have a new Congress in 2006. This is definitely time to pay attention to local elections – even if this guy gets through, if we don’t have a psycho-conservative congress who makes psycho-conservative legislation, then we don’t have to see it enshrined in the Constitution by this guy.
    I should really move to a swing state.

  • LongLiveThePatriarchy

    Well, it looks like we are returning to the days when women must get their husbands approval before undertaking tasks such as getting an abortion or…buying a car?

  • TangoMan

    Alito ruled that a woman would have to notify the father if she was to get an abortion.
    We’re not too far from having the artificial unterus becoming a viable option. The Pro-Choice movement has been strangely silent on this research but it threatens to undercut abortion rights, because the embryo could be transferred to the fake uterus and then the child could be raised by the father. The turnaround twist would be that women who want to terminate their parental role would be forced, just like men today, to financially provide for a child that they objected to.
    For the record, I’m Pro-Choice.

  • yellownumber5

    I don’t think the artificial uterus would have a bad effect on abortion rights. The only reason I have the final say in whether my fetus comes to term is because it’s in my body. If it’s not in my body, sure, go ahead, take it if you want it.
    I don’t have any problem with people aborting their fetuses, but I wouldn’t have a problem with it not being necessary, just because there are a lot of people who do have a problem with it. I’m less concerned that they come to see my viewpoint than I am about my own control over my body.
    Of course, I think there are a lot of practical barriers to the artificial womb being the default choice for an unwanted fetus, and that it will be a long time before the technology is available to most people. So, for now, the point is moot.

  • ema

    “We’re not too far from having the artificial unterus becoming a viable option.”
    Leaving aside the technical issues involved in developing a “working” uterine–placental–fetal unit, it is not possible to transfer an implanted embryo from a woman to a fake uterus. [There's no defined plane of separation between maternal/placental tissue. The embryo implants via an invasive process, one indistinguishable from a neoplastic one. The maternal tissue is infiltrated, partly destroyed, and replaced by placental tissue. You can't just "scoop" out the fetal-placental part.]
    Theoretically, the only way this could work is if you harvest the egg, do IVF, and implant the embryo in the fake uterus.
    In any case, the five year prediction mentioned in the linked article is, in my professional opinion, quite uninformed.

  • JesusJonesSuperstar

    yes is is now obvious that that woman was a cheap ploy, intended to fail, so that bush could appease the “diversity” vote before setting in with the hard liner. hey, he “tried” after all.
    I am impressed with his tactics.