Tag: Roe v. Wade

Two Hartwick College students are exploring the New York political arena through internships for state senators. The interns were assigned to senators with consideration of the policy areas they were most interested in; Nolan chose agriculture for its economic importance upstate and said he was pleased to be working with Metzger, who was named chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee in December. He added that he also supported the abortion-rights protections passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, a measure that replaces a 1970 state abortion law passed three years before the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling legalized abortion nationwide. “Having a younger sister who I'm very close with, that was very important for me, to make sure she has a say in what happens in her own body,” Nolan said. The student interns are taking on a five-day work week that includes research for bills, note-taking, and sitting in on legislative sessions. The program will culminate in a mock legislative session, during which students will be assigned parties and discuss an original bill crafted during the internship, the students said. “I love the energy down here. It's really exciting, especially on session days, it feels like there's an electricity in the air,” Malone said, adding that the amount of discussion a given bill goes through on the floor is one aspect of the process he's found interesting. “I think this has already made me more mature,” he said.

Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum’s new book, The Company They Keep, seeks to explain why every member of the contemporary Supreme Court plays in the partisan politics league. Courts were not so partisan through much of the twentieth century because most elites played in the same moderate liberal league. Both elite Republicans and elite Democrats during the New Deal and Great Society era favored racial equality, free speech, and secularism. The partisan Roberts Court differs from the bipartisan Warren Court because elite Democrats and Republicans now differ on the crucial constitutional issues facing the nation. The Company They Keep breaks from the literature on Supreme Court decisionmaking by describing judicial partisanship as a social phenomenon—a consequence, in part, of justices wanting approval from their elite peers. Supreme Court justices are no different. If people particularly want to be liked by their peers, then Supreme Court justices will be “particularly interested in being held in esteem by the elite communities they are a part of.” Supreme Court justices are not simply individuals, but members of teams that play in partisan political leagues. That the majority on the Roberts Court plays for the conservative Federalist Society team may explain the direction of constitutional law far more than a mere desire for approval. Team members provide the justices with cues as to what constitutes a conservative position. Members of the contemporary Federalist Society team, by comparison, play with people who are certain that murderers ought to be punished by death.

We all know that there are rules in politics and some of them are really disgusting. It is up to the leadership to put their obligation to do the right thing above their own political needs. As we just saw in the tumultuous fight over the seating of Brett Kavanaugh on the United States Supreme Court, political courage is in short supply. She would at heart rather remain Senator than do what’s right. These are the folks who truly believe that the only way to have a country that lives in harmony is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and frankly, benevolently. Many of these people are what we might call “haves.” As you read this column you have an opportunity to place yourself. Do you believe that someone with a little kid at home whose life could be saved with proper health care deserves health care as a right? In order to get what they want in this political system, the Republican haves do everything they can do to rig our politics. They make sure that efforts that would encourage people to vote are discouraged. Then there is the question of debates.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court could impact future rulings on major issues like abortion, gerrymandering and whether or not a sitting president (like Donald Trump) can be indicted or subpoenaed. SOURCES AND FURTHER READING: President Trump…

It was evident long before Thursday’s senate judiciary committee hearings addressing Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of sexual assault – which he denies – and indeed before Dr Ford first accused him. Donald Trump put him forward having promised to appoint judges who would reverse the Roe v Wade abortion ruling, pleasing those who do not believe that women can be trusted to control their own bodies. Before the testimony, more voters – especially female voters – believed Dr Ford than Mr Kavanaugh. But it is evident that they still regard this as a matter of optics. Despite these circumstances, no prosecutor could have hoped for a more credible, compelling or sympathetic witness than Dr Ford. Mr Kavanaugh faces no charges, let alone a risk of conviction. The question is whether he has earned the privilege of a lifetime seat on the highest court, ruling on voting rights, presidential power – and the rights of women to control their own bodies. Women who speak out and are smeared and attacked – as Dr Ford has been. Thursday’s hearings failed to treat the allegations adequately. But in these elections, and the years to come, they should know that women, and the men who respect them, will certainly remember.

But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. These beliefs, she seems to be saying, are indications of bad character. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being pro-life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? The argument might go: Conservatives who talk about judicial restraint are really seeking the outcome of making abortion illegal. Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people — people like me — call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania. Just like a five-alarm conflagration is probably the wrong time for a fire-safety class, I’m not sure how it is possible to teach the proper way to argue in a democracy during a nomination battle.

She argued that Kavanaugh's denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because "he has an ideological agenda that's very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him." Hirono added: "He very much is against women's reproductive choice. So there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility." But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being anti-abortion (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people call themselves judicial textualists who are also anti-abortion? I also want to set aside the merits of the abortion issue itself.

She argued that Kavanaugh's denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because "he has an ideological agenda that's very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him." So there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility." But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being pro- life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people -- people like me -- call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? I also want to set aside the merits of the abortion issue itself. This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania.

She argued that Kavanaugh's denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because "he has an ideological agenda that's very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him." But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. These beliefs, she seems to be saying, are indications of bad character. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being pro- life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people -- people like me -- call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania. Just like a five-alarm conflagration is probably the wrong time for a fire-safety class, I'm not sure how it is possible to teach the proper way to argue in a democracy during a nomination battle.

Fox News correspondent-at-large says Kavanaugh's accuser is Democrats' 'last hope' to derail the Supreme Court nominee's confirmation. FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The…