Say hello to draconian abortion laws. Say hello to state's rights, say good bye to any good that the congress wants to do, because anything infringing on states rights will be unconstitutional. Its ironic that they stopped to visit Rosa Parks on the way to say hi to Frist, because the defense of slavery, and discrimination was------- State's rights. Its a very sad day for anyone who cares about the government doing good for the people, and a step towards letting states with their provincial idiots run things. Does anyone care that Texas executes people who are mentally ill? state's rights. Anyone care that Texas has a law allowing the doctors to terminate care on a baby that they decide has minimal chance to live? state's rights. Glad I live in a state where Democrats Rule. At least they have a conscience. :-)
 

Texas doesn't execute everyone whose mentally ill, just those convicted of murder. Do I care about that? Yes. I think it's a good idea. Another way to say "state's rights" is democracy. You don't have to like what Texas does, but if Texans don't like it, they can change it very easily.

I'll rant more later. Gotta see a patient.

I hope I can rent a conscience from you some time.
 

So, Say hello to the Constitution? Say good-bye to unelected lifetime appointees making law in lieu of elected representatives?

I'm good with that.
 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Maybe you disagree with it, but that's the way it's set up, and the Court's job is to insure that it's adhered to. If you think it is a poor way to run a republic, here is a process by which to change it:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
 

But what if Texas disagrees with Dilbert? Surely there must be some extra-Constitutional recourse for that!
 

The man is just too conservative. I am crossing my fingers for a filibuster.

I live in Texas and I support the death penalty, but I am not happy about Alito's rulings on separation of church and state or abortion.

He is too far to the right. Everything in moderation.
 

DB- I am glad you finally see the light. If only they would make me lord high potentate, we wouldn't need these high falutin' three arms government, and all would be peace, light, happiness and contentment.


Dilbert's house of math help and conscience rental(and occassionally a little chirurgia).

Long term rentals available for Republicans. :-)
(although I am sure my lovely hosts here are not in need)
 

Say good-bye to unelected lifetime appointees making law in lieu of elected representatives?
That argument is bankrupt because there is no guarantee that this will not happen. It is not a matter of party lines, it is a matter of people.

To suggest otherwise is simply fooling yourself.
 

Hoping for a filibuster as well - otherwise we will all be saying our Hail Marys and Our Fathers whenever we go to the Post Office (or any other government-related facility for that matter). Amazing how the Right ignores it when conservative judges legislate away the separation between church and state, but raise hell about other issues...

The days of back alley abortions may unfortunately be coming back. There are dark clouds on the horizon.

I guess you can phrase it as defending the Constitution, but the same arguments that apply to a "liberal" interpretation of the document certainly apply to a "conservative" interpretation. Unfortunately the Founding Fathers could never have dreamt of some of the ethical and legal issues that could arise due to technology and such. The Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation, and was intended to be that way. Like it or not, every judge brings to the table their own ethical slant, which effects how they make their decisions. They are human beings, not "legal automatons" devoid of feelings, emotions or beliefs. To say that a conservative judge adheres to the Constitution more than a liberal judge is fallacious. Conservatives certainly have the right to rejoice over a conservative judge being nominated, but celebrate for what he is - a rightwinger, and not because he will "defend the Constitution."

All us left-leaning moderates can hope for is that Scalito will be another stealth intelligent moderate, like David Souter. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case.

I guess there isn't much else you Coffeehousers can rejoice about the Bush Administration these days anyway... When's the next round of indictments? :)