Roe not 'special,' DeWine declares

[Algorem]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/113697217536390.xml&coll=2

Washington- Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine lashed out Tuesday at his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing them of trying to distort Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's record on matters such as ethics and discrimination.

"It's unfair, it's inaccurate and it's just flat-out wrong," DeWine said at the start of his first round of questioning Alito.

DeWine, taking a more aggressive stance than he did during confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, also challenged at length the notion that Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case that established a right to abortion, is a "super precedent" that deserves special respect.

DeWine disagreed with a view expressed earlier by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's chairman and a longtime abortion rights supporter, that Roe vs. Wade enjoys special status because it has been reaffirmed in 38 cases...

[Tesla]

1. I can't wait to say Senator Hackett

I guess Mikey's getting another letter from me!!!!

[OhioArtist]

19. I thought about writing a letter to Dewine

concerning Scalito. After reading this I'm reassured that it would be a stupendous waste of time.

[OhioChick]

40. It would be a waste of time......

I've written several times over various issues and it wasn't worth my effort.

[VolcanoJen]

36. Me, either

Hack thanks you for the support, soon-to-be ex-senator Dewine.

[rodeodance]

2. oh take a cold shower in your sour wine Mr. DeWiney.

[Algorem]

3. DeWine,like Bush,rolling in Timken money (ex-Diebold board chairman)

Hustle and Cash Flow: Mike DeWine is Taking Care of Business

Senator Mike DeWine seems to be taking a cue from President Bush: when it’s time to run a campaign, make friends with the Timkens. The Timkens run the Timken Company, a Canton-based steel bearings and alloy business. Until recently, William “Tim” Timken was CEO. During his tenure, Tim Timken directly contributed $561,995 to Bush’s reelection campaign and hosted fundraisers that earned the Republican party over $800,000.


He was also chairman of the board at Diebold,


the voting-machine company whose own CEO, Walden O’Dell, boasted that he’d deliver the vote to Bush in 2004 at a GOP fundraiser. DeWine did his best last month to keep the money flowing. The Ohio senator was a staunch supporter of the so-called Byrd Amendment, which imposed high tariffs on foreign steel imports. The money from those tariffs is distributed among American factories. Some people call that corporate welfare. Most call it plain rude. The Timken Company and its subsidiaries receive a majority percent of the tariffs, to the tune of $476 million. DeWine defends his support of this bill, claiming Timken is threatened by foreign competitors. But as proceeds from the Byrd Amendment rolled in, Tim Timken announced 1,300 local layoffs. Last September, the Timken Company reported record sales of $1.3 billion. By the way, Ward Timken, Tim’s nephew, is in charge now. Tim Timken is currently serving as ambassador to Germany — the country hit hardest by the Byrd Amendment tariffs. He doesn’t speak German. It’s in keeping with the Bush philosophy: keep your friends close — so you can punch them in the groin when they least expect it. When the Byrd Amendment was repealed last month, DeWine voted to keep it in place. An 11th-hour compromise was reached, however. The good news: the Timken Company will continue to profit from foreign steel manufacturers well into 2007 — plenty of time to bolster DeWine’s coffers for his race against Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett. As of December 2004, the Timkens had already contributed $12,000 for his reelection, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. — James Renner

http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2934

[Algorem]

4. Cheney works to keep DeWine in Senate

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney plans to help Sen. Mike DeWine with a Capitol Hill fundraiser later this month, despite DeWine's recent votes against major White House initiatives(poser).

Cheney is to speak at a $1,000-a-head reception Jan. 26 to help raise $100,000 for DeWine's re-election campaign. DeWine campaign spokesman Matt Carle said Cheney offered to hold the fundraiser to keep the seat in Republican hands.

[melm00se]

5. his politics

aside, he asks whether certain Supreme Court decisions should be accorded special status (remove Roe v Wade for a second).

If such status can be accorded, who, in fact, applies that label? the court? the legislative branch? the executive branch?

in addition, what is the objective criteria to apply such a label?

is this label permanent and irrevocable? (is that wise given the fact that knowledge is constantly expanding?)

could this label be misused by those in power (now and in the future) to lock and bar the door to future generations?

serious question that...

[mcscajun]

8. The "label" is the judicial principle of Stare Decisis

Which has been used by generations of judges/justices.

Stare Decisis is a Latin term that, best translated, means "to stand by things decided". It preserves a measure of continuity in the law and its application, and provides for stability. Judges don't wind up ruling on things willy-nilly and reinterpreting the law at every turn.

It is behind the principle of precedent, that lower courts cannot rule contrary to what higher courts have decided; furthermore, higher courts will not overturn their own decisions without vigorous and convincing argument to overturn precedent, and will take into account the decisions of courts at their own level and lower courts in guiding such an overturning of precedent.

So, no, it's not irrevocable, but it is pretty much semi-permanent, if you will.

[Justitia]

9. Clarence Thomas "doesn't believe" in Stare Decisis - per Scalia -nt

[mcscajun]

12. Well, we knew we had a problem with Thomas...wonder how he

feels about reinstating slavery?

What a bunch we're stuck with...Ugh.

[Justitia]

13. no kidding, how short-sighted can one be? This court is a bad joke. -nt

[Solo_in_MD]

18. If stare decisis was absolute

DredScott would not have been overturned and he would be a slave.

Stare Decisis at some level has to be the basis of any viable legal system. The question is "how much".

For example Poletown was recently overturned. A good thing IMO.

Like others here have stated in other threads, Roe v Wade is a horribly reasoned decision. The penumbra and emanations arguments was one of the silliest things I have ever read. However it gave the pols cover so they did not have to pass it at a Federal level. I fully support a woman's right to choose. However, it needs to be done in a manner that can not be tossed out by the change of a couple of people on a court. For now stare decisis is the only thing protecting Roe v Wade

[tn-guy]

20. bingo! we have a winner

Roe v. Wade is an extreme case of good policy and bad law. One does not have to be anti-abortion to see that Roe was one of the worst reasoned decisions handed down in the history of the court. The fact that so many cling to it serves to undermine the legitimacy of the courts as many people rightly see is as judicial overreach, e.g. handing down a decision defining public policy with no basis in the law. The sooner it is overturned the better. Then abortion rights can be settled by the legislative process and the debate will be over.

[Justitia]

22. "Judicial overreach"? So, what do u think about Bush v. Gore? -eom

[tn-guy]

24. pretty much the same

[AndyTiedye]

25. The Legislative Process Would Ban Abortion In Most Red States

The South, and most of the other red states, would ban abortion immediately if Roe were overturned.
That is what the legislative process holds for us.

The South would also block any Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

The majority of Americans support the right to choose, but that would not save it.

We would be left with reproductive freedom in the blue states, and probably roadblocks to prevent pregnant women in the red states from getting here.

[tn-guy]

26. We'll just have to agree to disagree

I think it would be hard for any state to out-right ban abortion given the past few decades. There would certainly be an effort to do so but I doubt any state would be able to put a total ban in place. That being said, I'm sure there would be some restrictions on late-term abortion, parental notification, etc. in some states. An outright ban? I seriously doubt it.

[AndyTiedye]

27. Some States Already Have Abortion Bans On the Books...

...that will go into effect the instant Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

[0rganism]

28. We can't argue from possible consequences, only prepare for them

I think it's pretty clear now that upholding Roe v. Wade depends on Kennedy or Roberts for a swing vote, which is iffy at best. Stevens is 85 years old, and will likely be replaced within the next 3 years. So we need to be looking ahead to the future, by doing everything we can to prevent "The Handmaid's Tale" from becoming reality at the state level. Now is the time to start passing state laws and constitutional ammendments re-affirming a woman's right to choose in pro-choice states, because we know what the hard-right agenda is for the no-choice states. When the hammer falls, it will fall quickly and hit hard.

[Nederland]

29. Wrong

Polling data on abortion does not support your assertion.

[AndyTiedye]

30. What Polling Data? Which Assertion?

Could you be a little more specific.

[Nederland]

39. This assertion

"The Legislative Process Would Ban Abortion In Most Red States"

This is simply not true. Abortion would be banned in four or five red states that effectively already ban it via restrictions. The reality is that the over turn of Roe would be an enormous boon for most state level Democrats. The only thing that prevents many swing voters from abandoning the Republican party in state elections is the knowledge that Roe prevents state politicians from outlawing abortion. Get rid of Roe and those people will start voting Democratic.

It happened in Virginia following the Casey ruling...

[happyslug]

34. So Judges have done that for years.

In fact the legal Concept of At-will employment is s product of the post-Civil War Period, prior to that time period the Common Law was quite clear, all employment contracts were one year in duration and if your employer wanted to fire you he still had to pay you a full years salary. Conservative "Activist" Judges reversed that Decision and you do not year any Conservation saying we should return to the original common Law. In fact Conservatives re-wrote the common law between 1869 and 1905 (and the Locher Decision) so much to claim Stare Decise would have made people laugh. These Judges justified the Changes to do "Changes in society" i.e. the raise of Industry and the need to protect "Business". When people then started to undo this damage by legislature you had the Court striking such laws down until late in the Great Depression (Jones and Laughlin vs NLRB) when the Court finally decided the only way to save ANY of the changes made since the Civil War was to leave Congress and the State Legislature change back what they thought was needed (and to make other changes to reflect the changes made by the Judges in the Common LAw from 1860 till 1905).

The only exception was First Amendment law and the Incorporation of the rest of the Bill of Rights against the States. Freedom of expression and then the Right of Privacy were also expanded in the post-Depression Period (Ending in Roe vs Wade). This expansion had support among the majority of people, even the Vast majority till Roe vs Wade (Roe vs Wade was really the first case the Court Decided where you had a large number of people objecting to a Court Decision regarding Privacy and the bill of Rights).

Now you have to view the Civil Rights movement separately. While the Court did lead in its Desegregation Decision, the pressure to end segregation came from the Blacks (and other people) who oppose segregation NOT FROM THE COURTS. It is only with the Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and finally passage of Federal Aid to the Schools with a provision that no funds could go to segregated Schools in 1974 that the Courts started to rule against Segregation. Thus it is a Separate situation from the Above.

[CTyankee]

37. The problem with your argument

is that what's done is done and we can't go back and re-argue, or re-decide, it. It will either be upheld (with further fraying) or nixed. If it is nixed then you have effectively stripped every female citizen of the United States who is of childbearing age, or will attain that age in the future, of a constitutional right she had for 30 years. It doesn't matter whether you think it is a constitutional right that was wrongly decided. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of taking away individual constitutional rights.

Given that, of course the state legislatures will either revert to their previous antichoice statutes or they will have, as in Connecticut, Roe inscribed in state law. Contrary to your statement, the debate will NEVER be over. It will come back again and again and again in all 50 states with varying degrees of success, sucking up energy, time and money that could best be spent on solving other problems.

And what will happen to Griswold? Remember, Griswold played heavily in the Lawrence decision, showing that the right to privacy established a beachhead for gay rights as well. Right wingers hate Griswold doubly for its durability in defending the rights of two of their most despised groups: prochoicers and gays. The wingers are gunning for Griswold, you can bet on it. Would you argue that Griswold should be overturned, to be argued and voted upon in 50 state legislatures ad infinitum?

[tn-guy]

41. I'll try to address the points you raise

You are certainly correct that "what's done is done"; however, that is true of every decision the court hands down. And yet the court has on occasion reversed (or nixed) decisions that were poorly reasoned and eventually had to yield to better argument. I agree that the Supreme Court should not be in the business of taking away individual constitutional rights. Neither should it be in the business or fabricating new rights out of whole cloth - and like it or not, that is a fair interpretation of Roe. The fact that "don't emanate in the penumbras" has become a joke among some in the legal community indicates just how tenuous a connection to the text of the constitution that opinion had.

Perhaps you are correct that the debate will never be over should Roe be overturned. I think you would agree with me that the debate has not stopped since Roe was handed down. The commentary on this very discussion thread demonstrates that. I do think that history shows that when momentous decisions are reached by society in a democratic process, rather than by judicial fiat, they tend to be accepted more readily by those on the losing side. They can at least console themselves that they "fought the good fight" and lost. That is much different from not being allowed to play a part in the decision.

As far as Griswold is concerned. I really haven't thought about that decision all that much so I don't have much to say on that topic. I'll have to do some reading.

Finally, I'll have to say that Roe could have been a much more supported and supportable decision had the majority based their decision on the logic that deciding on abortion was among the non-enumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. Citizens enjoy many rights that are nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution but are protected by it just the same. I'm sure that each justice on the Supreme Court that considered Roe had heard of the 9th amendment, most of them had probably read it. It is an interesting thought experiment to wonder why the majority rejected that approach. Would you care to speculate?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. Dred Scott wasn't overturned by judicial action

It was overturned by the Fourteen and Fifteen Amendments to the Constitution.

[saigon68]

23. HE Does Belive in "LONG DONG SILVER"

He watches it Every Night

[melm00se]

15. thanks for the clarification

some folks (two names I have heard tossed around are: Dan Farber, UC-Berkely and Michael Gerhardt, UNC) have indicated that they believe that certain decision are considered "super precedents" and due to their fundamental issues, once the ruling is issued, it is now sacrosanct and not open to overturning.

that kind of label concerns me, especially as knowledge and understanding are constantly expanding and I can see this label (super-precedent, for wont of better phrase) as being an impediment to changing the law to conform with known facts (as an historical example: the Church clashing with Galileo)

[papau]

11. Like original intent- the Court applies so as to have predictable outcomes

Orginal intent expands into broadsheet writings as needed - so new knowledge worry and misuse, and locked door worries are just right wing code words that say we the right wing can change the rules and add a new rule - but those on the pro-choice side can not.

[Justitia]

6. He told Tweety last night he has "no problem" w/requiring husband's permis

husband's permission for abortion. Of course, he doesn't want women to have a choice at all, but he said he is just fine with requiring a husband's permission. This was in response to Alito's wanting the husband to have the right over his wife's body.

Obviously he sees women as a man's physical property and their body is at the whim and fancy of a man.

This guy is an asshole whose body should be at MY whim and fancy, instead of the other way around.
I vote to castrate him. How ya like them apples Mike?

[Iris]

14. So does that mean the husband can also force his wife to HAVE an abortion?

[Justitia]

16. Good question for the wingers. He can certainly walk out, where women

are not so free to do so. How many fathers do we hear charged with abandonment, versus mothers?

I hear lots of cases of women leaving their children in various places, they are charged with abandonment - I always wonder - "will the responsible male counterpart also be charged?".

So DeWine is okey-dokey with forcing childbirth on women, in deference to the men who impregnated them - will he make it a crime to abandon those women & children? If so, I see legions of very busy law enforcement personnel!

[Iris]

33. Yep. We shoul start turning the whole question around. . .

If the state can tell a woman she MUST have a child, can it one day force her NOT to have a child?

[CTyankee]

38. Sandra Day O'Connor made that argument

in one of the abortion cases she heard. You have only to look at Nazi Germany, where Hitler declared that Aryan women could NOT have an abortion (a right they had under the Weimar Republic) and of course had non-Aryans and other non-desirables, subjected to forced abortions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Wonder if he'd say the same thing

if his wife was raped by a stranger and got pregnant, or a female relative was raped.

I still say that if thse men were the ones to get pregnant, the right to choice would be enshrined as a sacred law.

[Herstal]

10. DeWine is trying to seem more conservatives.

He isn't very popular among Republicans, and he has competition in the primary.

[underpants]

21. Right -he and Brownback were just punching their radical pro-life tickets

Brownback went further than DeWine and then never actually asked a question of Alito about it.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[fujiyama]

17. Actually I was thinking DeSwine isn't all that special

.

[Eurobabe]

31. So glad I am leaving this state

when he started mouthing off about pro-lifers in OH, or "What Women Want."

This guy needs to be sacked.

[Megahurtz]

32. I don't think that

any male should have the right to rule in any abortion matter
because they are not able to have one themselves.
There are no equal rights with abortion to begin with!

Get these abusive, controlling men out of here!