Alito’s Mom:
By on Oct 31st, 2005 at 4:35 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
So much for not litmus test.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:40 pmI am against abortion myself, but I think it ought to be LEGAL. The legislatures in many states, if not most and eventually all, would make abortion LEGAL.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:41 pmMy Momma said that abortion should not only be legal, in some cases it should be mendatory, and with cases like the busjco it should be retroactive.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:43 pmUnless Alito or the President prompted the press in this direction, can we stay away from the guys' mother, no matter what she says? It's like citing what Roberts wrote in his high school year book.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:44 pmMy fingers were taking a nap. Try "mandatory" and "bushco." Sorry!
October 31st, 2005 at 4:45 pmOh, come on TP. That's not intellectually honest. Most people are "against abortion". I'm radically pro-choice and I'm "against abortion".
If his mother had unequivocal evidence that he will overturn Roe v. Wade, then that would be substantive.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:49 pmI'll bet Alito's never had an abortion and/or has never gotten pregnant as a result of a rape.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:52 pmI agree with Lyle. Go figure.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:05 pmAbortion aside, however, I don't think anyone who believes in demon possession or exorcisms should be allowed out of their rubber rooms.
#8,
So only a woman's opinion matters when it comes to abortion? If so, women ought to shut up when it comes to things only men do or have done to them.
Get some better logic man.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:06 pmWhether or not one is against abortion personally is not in question, the question is would a judge impose his personal belief on the population?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:09 pmHis vote to have women ask their spouse for an abortion (even if the husband is abusive) is repulsive, archaic and shameful.
I know no one who would look forward to an abortion, but personal circumstances are PERSONAL and the court upholds the right to privacy. He, and no one, has the right to withdraw personal and private civil rights from anyone.
I'm with Anti Warhol on this. It's all about precedent. Wait till the hearings.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:09 pmI don't think it's intellectually dishonest to quote his mother. We aren't asking readers to take it for anything other than it is. In fact, we didn't even quote his mother, the AP did and we just passed it on.
Just thought our readers would be interested in this news tidbit.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pmBTW, to those who post here and take issue with TP opening this thread, Mrs. Alito's comment has been mentioned by many right-wingers on TV today, as validation for their man.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pmDo you shut up when it comes to your man, Lyle?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:13 pm#11, I put commas where I shouldn't have -- Neither he nor anyone has the right to withdraw personal, private civil rights from anyone.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:14 pmJustice for "All people"--Code for the not yet conceived. Right now, this very moment, Alito is thinking about your "dirty parts".
October 31st, 2005 at 5:16 pmMarie - Roe was invented by liberals so you DO NOT have a constitutional right to abortion. You have the CHOICE to live a state where that right is protected and seperate yourselves from those in this country who believe abortion in murder. Personally, I think it's sad that Roe is sat in place this long. That was not what our forefathers intended.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:17 pmI see it in the future; abortion legal only from one approved source, HALLIBORTION. Cost 10k.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:18 pmIt's OK if you can make a profit.
of course Alito is against abortion... he had a good guilt-filled Catholic upbringing...
October 31st, 2005 at 5:18 pmJudd -
I just think it's wholly irrelevant what his mother says he's for or against. And you quoting her (or quoting AP quoting her) makes people think that they should care. I just fail to see the relevance.
Marie:
Mrs. Alito’s comment has been mentioned by many right-wingers on TV today.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:19 pmI hope TP has higher standards.
Anyone have a link to the original Wilson/Kristof article about the Niger trip?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:19 pm#10 - Anyone can give their opinion as to a woman having an abortion, but only the woman can make the decision. Since the pregnancy takes place in the woman's body, she's the expert. I've never known anyone to arrive at the decision to have an abortion lightly or easily.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:19 pmNED, I think you need to get laid before you start spewing opinions about forefathers and babies.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:20 pmNED! you have a direct line to the past and the future, just as I, plus the ability to read minds (incorrectly) of those long dead. Glory Be.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:22 pmRight now, this very moment, NED is thinking about your "dirty parts".
October 31st, 2005 at 5:22 pm#24 - here's to hoping you use that level of maturity and discourse in the coming days. The right will blundgeon folks like you with your own words. You will be destroyed. But, thanks for trying.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:23 pmNED..you back again, get kicked off limbaughs again?..for being a pinch to the left?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:23 pm"...what our forefathers intended." as if ...
great information for ALL - "Our Godless Consitution":
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen
start at the beginning...
October 31st, 2005 at 5:27 pmWill the CIA sell RU486 in urban areas to fund our future covert war in Iran? or Venezuela?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:28 pmNED should do a little research before removing all doubt that he is an ill-informed moron.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:29 pmAbortion in early America.
History of Abortion
October 31st, 2005 at 5:31 pmCome on, Judd. I think the context of this blog and the quote makes it pretty clear what you were insinuating. I don't disagree with the larger point, that the guy is a troglodytic subhuman nearderthal with his head up his ass.
But, like I said, my mother would probably say that about me, and I'm as far left as you can go on reproductive rights.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:31 pmContrary to popularly held beliefs, abortion is not historically steeped in illegality. In colonial America there were actually no written laws banning abortion. It was rather loosely controlled by common law (unwritten laws handed down over generations). Abortion was permitted so long as it was done before quickening occurred. Quickening referred to that point in time when a woman could feel movement of the fetus (usually around the fifth month).
October 31st, 2005 at 5:34 pmHow many NEDs has NED killed this week?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:36 pmComment by Anti Warhol
Anti Warhol,
Are you a concern troll? Do you want to get your ass kicked in the next election? If not, put a sock in it.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:36 pmThis is a wingnut view, of course.
I leave it to you to decide who to believe.
But, then, sperm cells, when examined under a microscope in the seventeenth century, showed a fully formed human being. It was then that most Catholics were excommunicated if they engaged in the act of abortion.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:44 pmNED? Do you channel the founders and framers? Are you wearing a tin foil winghat on your head when they speak to you?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:47 pmNED and his kind do not care about abortion, they cares about the domination and control of others. Individuals who typically see the world in this manner, are unable to exercise self-control and thus transfer the need for control to objects (those) outside themselves.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:48 pmIf one slowly turned around in a three hundred and sixty degree circle and pointed out wrongdoers they would never run out and avoid pointing the finger at one person, THEMSELF.
Avoidance, and others must pay for your personal weakness.
NED is one of those retroactive prospects.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:57 pmSo NED doesn't like uppity women? Damn.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:59 pmbottom line, the goverment has NO business putting any laws about abortion. Thoes involved can handle it just fine. "We need LESS government"...ol ronnie regan said that, for you stealth trolls.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:15 pm...I think that the Dems should just roll over on Alito, and let them overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, that will never happen, becasue the Repugs know that if they ever do overturn it, that that's the end of them. Then they will have no stick to beat the religious right to the polls with every two years. If the Religious Right were not so utterly stupid they would realize this; haven't the repugs left them at the altar enough times. This is just another Rovian ploy to take attention away from Bush's imploding presidency. Let's not give it to them. Let them ban abortions, and they will be out of power for another thirty years...becasue the idiots who haven't been paying attention will finally wake up.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:27 pm#36 - Honestly, I am not a troll. You can read all of my comments on this blog, and I'm sure some of the regulars here can vouch for my lefty credentials.
My wife is a feminist gender scholar, we are both staunch pro-life advocates and participated in GOTV efforts in Penn. last year.
I just have limits to what I think is substantive. 99% of what gets posted here is substantive, but this is kinda silly to me.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:27 pm#19 thats a genius play on words.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:56 pmHALLIBORTION!
#18, Tell that to a teen who has been raped by her uncle, or to the wife of a drunken abuser.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:59 pmI have a basic right to determine my own physical state, not you or the government. I have a right to confer with my doctor on what is best for me. I have a right not to have to get permission from anyone or any institution in order to conduct my private life.
You and your beliefs have no right to infringe upon my rights and beliefs.
#44 Anti-Warhol - YOu are pro-life advocates
What's your stand on the Iraq war?
Hopefully, you're pro-war and are not concerned with the killing of soldiers in the promotion of Empire.
We must STOP abortion, so we can have more soldiers to go and fight for us and die heroes.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:18 pmOops, I meant pro-choice. Honestly. Look at the rest of my comments on past posts. Sorry. A little embarrassing, I've been writing alot today...
October 31st, 2005 at 8:28 pm#46. Indeed, you have the right to conduct your own life in the ways you choose, but that is *not* concomitant with the right to privacy. That right is not in the Constitution (at least explicitly, although I will agree that the Fourth Amendment at least creates a presumption of such a thing). While I believe that such a right does in fact exist, the limits of such a right are something upon which rational men can quite disagree.
I will point out that even Bill Clinton stated that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Please note that you are fighting a strawman -- the right to abortion and the right to privacy are two separate things. For instance, abortion could be legal, but the names of all women who had one could be published every day on the front page of the New York Times.
As noted before, no one has presented any evidence that Alito opposes abortion-- only that in limited circumstances he might oppose the right to privacy of a woman who obtains an abortion.
They are two separate, but distinct issues, and I think many times this particular blog ignores that.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:32 pm#49 "... not concomitant..."
Really Engineer - how very Yale of you
October 31st, 2005 at 8:42 pmAnti-warhol
It is so very Hard to keep all of that Straight, I know.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:44 pm#39
When someone points a Finger, in his hand, three fingers are pointing back at the pointer. =)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
this posters view;
Life is not created in the Womb. Life was Created once. By the Creator (John 1:1 The Final word. ƆZI the Creator)
Man and Woman add their lifes together, those two lifes merge into one.
As a Limb from a tree can be grafted to another, as does man and woman merge their 'limbs'.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:53 pmAdams Rib.
Adam did not give Birth to Eve, he gave an extension of Himself, Life, in the form of his Rib.
The Egg and the Sperm are extensions of life to continue life.
As with Noah Life continued thru him and his wife.
We are all related.
It is Man and Womans choice if they wish to 'Graft' or 'merge' their life forces.
If they do not wish to merge or decide to stop that process, it is their choice.
That First Human Life will still continue unabated thru other Humans. Just As it should be.
Acksyn Jacksyn
You're right! Life is not created in the womb. And we should be making life in test tubes. Much better! Human clones are superior to babies conceived in coitus.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:00 pmKiller, I think its been done already. (Grin)
If you ask the Mufons, the Governemnt is doing that under the desert in New Mexico.
Again you are not making life, you are just continuuing upon the first.
Perhaps one day in our Fast paced society Women may find it convenient to do what you suggest.
Being somewhat accustomed to my twig and berriies, and their safety, I will leave that for the women to decide. =)
October 31st, 2005 at 9:11 pmI wouldn't say clones, particularly, as they still turn out weak and sickly. Another few years, maybe, and then we'll have working artifical wombs, and the cloning success rate will be much higher. Then we can do it.
Perhaps then the issue of mental programming at birth can be better addressed?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:12 pmEngineer
Now you're talking my language.
Mental programming - can we clone Bush's brain, that would be great. Millions of Dubyas. I want my son to be the first. If only I could be born again and get Dubya's brain. Do yah think that's possible? Born again would take on a whole new meaning. Praise the lord!
October 31st, 2005 at 9:31 pmHmm. Have to understand the brain first -- and find a way to copy the neural connections. Maybe in a few years, the nanotech is well on its way to being able to generate nanoelectrodes that can resolve individual cells. Perhaps loading up a few catheters with them and inserting them into the brain, and catching every neuron? Still much much to do on this front. Tell Bush to get on with funding nanotech research. I'd love to allow you to clone his brain, tell NIH, NSF, NIST, and NASA to get the hell on it.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:35 pmEngineer
Catching every neuron! How many neurons are there in Bush's brain?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:40 pmGood question. Somewhere between two and two quadrillion, depending on your source and definition of 'neuron'. Hopefully fewer, as it makes the task of copying *SO* much easier.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:02 pmWHY DO WE CARE WHAT THIS MAN'S MOTHER THINKS ANYWAY? She is not going to be on the Supreme Court. We don't need anyone that is going to take our rights away on the court.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:20 pmHow do you like me now NED? LMAO!!
October 31st, 2005 at 10:32 pm"Good question. Somewhere between two and two quadrillion, depending on your source and definition of ‘neuron’. "
Neuron is not a 'debatable' term, unless you're a republican - in which case every english word appears to be debatable if it conflicts with your bigotry and biases. And why is it that republicans who claim to be 'engineers', 'economists' and 'lawyers', always seem to be idiots and inept at the topic they claim. There are ~100 billion neurons in the human brain. The statement of two quadrillion is right up there with every other lie, disinformation and irrational statement of the CONservative inaccuracy machine. You guys can't get anything right in science, economics or for that matter religion. Look up inept, and you'll find republican defined!
October 31st, 2005 at 11:48 pmSome people like NED want the government to be an active role in our everyday lives. Because NED feels inadequate NED thinks the rest of us are inadequate.
NED wants the government to tell him when he should get up in the morning.
When he should take his first shit of the day.
What he should eat for breakfast.
When to bathe and brush his teeth.
He wants the government to make him a list of chores for the day.
8am-8:03am Take medication
9am-12pm Watch Fox News
12pm-12:01pm Turn over to prevent bed sores
12:00pm-2pm Read Bible
2pm-3pm Watch Fox News
3pm-4pm Fantasize about what you don't have
4pm-6pm Conserve gas and walk 3 miles to Mickey D's for a double cheeseburger. Eat cheeseburger.
6pm-6:04pm Take medication
6:04pm-7pm Say goodbye to that cheeseburger.
7pm-10pm Scan the dials for Rush. Swallow hard and enjoy it.
10pm Nighty night time. Good little sheeple.
No thanks NED.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:09 am[...] >> If the Democrats are afraid to filibuster then they’ve already lost the filibuster >> “Of course, he’s against abortion” >> Politics of Alito >> Republican Donor Spreads Lying Smear Against Dems [...]
November 1st, 2005 at 1:41 amI don't think it's any surprise that this dude would be anti abortion. I think that was pretty much a given. What is more important is how this guy is anti-womens rights, he seems to belive based on his rulings that a woman is property of her husband. Also he seems to be anti-disabled, anti-minority, and anti-equality. IMO, that's more disturbing than his being anti-abortion.
Why is it that Repubicans are all against "Judicial Activism" except when it's THEIR brand of judicial activists?
The way I see this nomination is that Duhbuhya threw red meat to his right wing attack dogs so they would stop attacking him. He did this to take attention off his administration, align his robotniki to fight the Democrats, and divert attention from the problems the WH is having. I also think that if the Dems roll over for this guy they all need to be thrown out of office and out of the party. This is exactly the kind of situation that both sides need to rally their troops. Which makes me suspicious of the whole thing... :/
November 1st, 2005 at 8:32 amThe rightwingnut jobbies are going, they hope, to get the judicial activist on the court that they have been yearning for for years.
You notice that in his introduction of this man, bushie did not deny that he was a judicial activist.
This man is being put on the court to overturn Roe, to roll back rights of women and minorities, and to undue all of FDRs programs, including social security.
With three judicial right wing nut activissts on the court the pukes cant lose, can they?
This guy is a very dangerous person.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:36 am#36 - Honestly, I am not a troll. You can read all of my comments on this blog, and I’m sure some of the regulars here can vouch for my lefty credentials.
My wife is a feminist gender scholar, we are both staunch pro-life advocates and participated in GOTV efforts in Penn. last year.
I just have limits to what I think is substantive. 99% of what gets posted here is substantive, but this is kinda silly to me.
Comment by Anti Warhol — October 31, 2005 @ 7:27 pm
You are a troll. Not a righty troll, but a "concern troll". A hand wringing leftist who thinks politics is about "intellectual honesty" and genteel and polite discourse. You are the reason the the radical rught is in power screwing the entire country up. Let us know when you are ready to gouge out some eyeballs and smash some righties in the knees with a baseball bat. Until then stay out of the fray, you are just in the way, you milquetoast. Politics is bloody, dirty business. It's war, not a parlour game. Personally, I have always felt it would be better to trade the lowly fvcks on the right the status of legal personhood that Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific R.R. gave corporations for the status of personhood of the fetus. They don't really give a rat's ass about fetuses. The right is about corporate power. They don't give a damn about babies or fetuses. Never have. But I don't make those decisions. One thing I do decide is that for myself, if you are going to criticize the left when it's down, you may as well be on the right, and I will say so.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:21 amNED,
#18, the "forefathers" didn't "intend" to give you freedom of speech either. They also didn’t "intend" to give you the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When YOUR "forefathers" wrote the declaration of independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, one was not considered a "person" unless you were a white male with a net worth of $5,000 in that day (which is some $650K in today’s dollars).
Therefore, "We, the people" = "We, the rich white men."
So, to argue that YOUR "forefathers" didn’t mean for Roe VS Wade to happen is to be pathetic at best; ignorant, blind and unsympathetic at worst.
"States are not moral agents" - Chomsky
November 1st, 2005 at 11:56 amMay 26th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
i HATE republicans
May 26th, 2006 at 9:00 pmRun away
May 26th, 2006 at 9:01 pm