Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    don't know about the hearings, but i am opposed to mr. souter's
    nomination and will be telling my senators.
    
    can you imagine that a person would be be confirmed a supreme
    court justice if they answered the question, 'do you support
    brown v. board of education?' with 'i haven't thought about it'.
    

re: .1:

Brown v. Board of Education is "settled" Constitutional Law. Roe v. Wade
is -- given the actions of the courts and legislatures over the past
five years, anything but settled; irregardless what one might wish.
(It isn't even settled in Womannotes, for that matter.)

Suppose some committee asked for the Womannotes policy on Roe v. Wade --
how would you answer that?

Martin.

    "Womannotes" is not an individual. Souter is. He can be expected to
    have an opinion (which is not to say a policy) on the subject of Roe v.
    Wade. It's hard to conceive of his never having read the decision (and
    if true would probably be reason to reject him out-of-hand), and if
    he's read it, he's bound to have an opinion.

    My feeling is that his reluctance to express his opinion, however
    subject to change in the presence of new arguments in the court, is
    more a pragmatic "don't give 'em any ammunition" stance than a "proper
    judicial practice" stance.

    
    exactly. if the supreme court was correct in roe v. wade then it
    *should* be settled. if souter believes the court was correct then
    he should *say so*. if he has reservations about the decision, then
    again, he should *say so*. to have 'no opinion' is laziness in
    an individual and irresponsibility in a public official.
     

    re .0:
    
    WEVO began running ATC at 5 o'clock several weeks ago.  They cut to
    New Hampshire news at 5:30 and then resume ATC at 6 o'clock.  
    Monday evening, when Souter was speaking until 7 o'clock in the
    evening, WEVO likewise cut away for ATC and NH news.
    
    On McNeil-Lehrer I saw the Planned Parenthood and NARAL representatives
    speak.  They spoke their mind and made their points.  When Molly Yard
    spoke as representing NOW, she lectured the senators.  I believe she
    lost whatever support the prior speakers may have gained.
    
    Sen. Simpson identified himself as pro-choice and simply said what
    another, card carrying, pro-choice friend of mine said yesterday...
    that the lobbyists were picking the wrong target, that there would be
    bigger fish to fry if Souter were not confirmed.  He took Souter at his
    word that he would hear a case on its merits, with no preconceptions. 
    Simpson asked, "What more could you want?"
    
    Today, there was a pro-life witness who was just as bad as Yard.  He
    ranted about Souter having sat on two hospital boards which approved
    performing abortions.
    
    shows to go 'ya,
    Marge
    

    The real problem here is precedent: it is often *very* unlikely that a
    Supreme Court nominee would be rejected by the Senate.  Bork was one of
    the odd exceptions.
    
    Given there was nothing to latch onto (except we all *know* what
    political nominees in New Hampshire are like even if there wasn't
    a paper trail to follow), there's no good reason not to rubber stamp
    his acceptance in light of the historical precendence.
    
    Jim

    Judges aren't supposed to have opinions in their position as
    judges.  They're supposed to look at the legal precedents, the
    evidence, and so on, and based on that make an unbiased,
    indifferent decision about the case at hand.  
    
    Whatever they feel as people is irrelevant to their work as
    judges. 
    
    --bonnie

>          <<< Note 388.7 by TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet" >>>
>                     -< legal opinions <> moral opinions >-

>    Judges aren't supposed to have opinions in their position as
>    judges.  They're supposed to look at the legal precedents, the
>    evidence, and so on, and based on that make an unbiased,
>    indifferent decision about the case at hand.  
    
>    Whatever they feel as people is irrelevant to their work as
>    judges. 
    
>    --bonnie

Thank You Bonnie.

  I was on "sick-leave" for a few days last week and watched most of the
Souter hearings on C-Span. Souter was asked opinions on a number of issues
and his basic reply was "I will look at precedent and the facts of the
particular case,,, It is not proper to impose *my* moral judgement ahead
of the law,,, I can not comment on issues that may/will be coming before
the court in the near future". 

I believe he answered the questions put to him in a fair manner, he said
he believed that the constitution must be interpreted based on the intentions
and wording of the original document, that there are liberties that precede
even the Constitution, that that document is a guarantee'or of liberties.

he stated that majority rule was not acceptable, that under a republic
(which this country is) that the rights guaranteed to an individual were
sacred even if it was not popular.(this in response to a question re: flag
burning).

Since the public school issue has not been revisited or questioned in years
(brown vs school?) there is no reason for a judge to "think" about it.
Judges need to be familiar with the precedents and rulings on issues that are
being presented, they can not be conversant in every case that ever existed.
I doubt any judge could site cases regarding murder or even "thinks" about
them, the law is quite clear on the legality(or lack there-of) of murder.
however judges *will* be conversant on Death-penalty as it is still an issue.

He did not(IMHO) come off as anything but a very reasonable choice.
Amos

    I haven't been able to watch anything approaching 3 days of the
    hearings, but all in all he seems like a reasonable man with a
    good awareness both of the law and of its role in society.   He
    also, despite the previous crack about NH politicians, seems like
    a man of integrity who would not come to an issue with any
    pre-formed opinions, but once he did decide, he wouldn't be cowed
    into backing down. 
    
    What I especially liked about him was how much he backed the
    rights of the individual and how conversant he was with issues
    related to the first amendment.  Frankly, I think the erosion of
    first-amendment rights, particularly freedom of the press and free
    speech, is a more serious threat to *everybody*, men and women
    alike, than a litmus test about abortion.
    
    --bonnie

    It is an extremely serious breach of ethics for any judge to express an
    opinion on a pending case. If Souter should express his personal or
    legal opinion on Roe v. Wade (whatever that opinion might be) he would
    not get confirmed. Souter knows this, and so do all the Senators. Sen.
    Gordon Humphrey, our dimwit from New Hampshire, asked Souter several
    explicit and direct questions about abortion, but neither one expected
    a direct answer (and there wasn't).
    
    Bruce

    Re: .11
    
    Okay, nitpicker. 
    
    B

    No, I think it's a valid point.  Roe vs. Wade is being treated as
    a pending case here, and in Congress.  It's not any more pending
    than 'Brown vs. Board of Education', but because many people would
    like to see it overturned it is being treated as less than the legal
    precedent it is.

    I have yet to hear Souter explicitly extend his respect for precedent
    to Roe vs. Wade, which makes me uneasy.  Supreme Court Justices are
    appointed for life; the only control we have over them after their
    appointment is legal precedent.  If they have only selective respect
    for that, we're playing a dangerous game of legal roulette with *all*
    our rights.

	Sharon

    Souter said nothing to lead me to believe he would not respect the
    precedent of Roe.  However, expressing opinion on uncontested cases
    (settled law) is a lot different from expressing opinion on contested
    cases.  Declining to speak was, in my opinion, an ethical stance.
    
    mdh

    
    re:.11
    thanks, edp! (hardly a nit! :^(
    
    as for 'original intentions' of the framers, i seem to recall they
    were slave-owners
    
    the point remains: is roe v. wade a legal/jusicial precedent that he
    will stand by or not? until he says yes, i'm against him.
    

    re .15 >the framers...were slave-owners
    
    You're judging them by modern standards. By the standards of their
    times they were radical liberals (in the classic sense of that term.)
    
    Some of them (notably Jefferson) were opposed to slavery but were
    politically realistic enough not to press that agenda at the time.
    (A 'new' idea generally doesn't become part of the national social
    consciousness until the 'newness' wears off. In 1863 anti-slavery
    was sufficiently entrenched to make it politically practical. Look
    at how long it took 'all Men are created equal' to include women.
    Does this make the men of that time chauvinistic ? No. Some ideas
    simply require long digestive periods. 8-) )

    

    > Does this make the men of that time chauvinistic ? No. Some ideas
    > simply require long digestive periods. 8-) )
    
    	...and the right brand of social activists. :-)
    
    	-Erik
    

    I'll probably get seriously flamed for saying this, but abortion
    is not the only issue, and considering who's president and what
    the temper of the times is, we could have done a lot worse.  I'm
    astonished that we got a reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful man
    with a good legal background and a sense of balance.  
    
    Since the high court has been requested to hear a number of cases
    involving abortion laws, strict ethics would require not giving an
    opinion on those cases.  There was another question he refused to
    answer, but it was about something to do with international trade
    laws and the International Court, which isn't glamorous but might
    well be equally important.  I didn't even understand the question,
    though, so I'm sure none of the journalists cared that he waffled
    on that one.
    
    Souter did express support for the idea that the Constitution
    protects a right to privacy, something that many strict
    constructionists deny.  That right is a key factor in trying to
    figure out the legal standing of abortion rights. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    of course i'm judging them by modern standards. what the hell
    other standards should i use? the point is that claiming to be
    in favor of the framers's original intentions is absurdist. if 
    someone *really* believes in using the framers' intentions
    then that means they support slavery, because the framers, for
    whatever reasons, *did support slavery*. 'strict constructionism'
    is merely a smoke screen for the conservative agenda.
    
    as for abortion being the only issue, i do believe that it is
    the most important issue in that it is the ultimate 'bottom
    line' for women's rights and i believe women's rights is the
    most important issue of our time.
    
    

I've been pretty pleased with Souter during the confirmation
hearings. He's seemed pretty rational and reasonable from the
portions of the hearings that I've heard.

George Bush is not going to nominate a liberal judge. I'm
just glad he didn't nominate someone like Bork. 

I'm not sure Souter (or anyone) could get confirmed if they
stated their opinion on Roe vs Wade, no matter which side of
the fence they sat on.... There's too much heated opposition
on both sides.

Kathy

    in re .18
    
    Bonnie, 
    
    No flames from me, I largely agree with what you wrote.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .19
    
    I'm a woman and a writer.
    
    I've seen certain threats to my life as a woman from the present
    movement to restrict the availability of abortions.  I can see
    that if it isn't available, the lives of a lot of women are going
    to be a lot more difficult.
    
    But as a writer, I've seen threats to my right to say what I
    believe and write what I see as truth.  I've seen my right to
    decide what my daughter reads ridden roughshod over by a teacher
    who confiscated her Steven King book in study hall (after Kat had
    finished homework, by the way) because the teacher thought such
    trash shouldn't be printed.  I've seen people who want to express
    unpopular opinions blacklisted by one or more groups, harrassed by
    the government, and threatened with death.  I've seen teachers
    fired for teaching unpopular views and I've seen those who espouse
    unpopular views denied the right to speak before citizen's groups,
    student groups, and on public television channels.  I've seen most
    of the new communications media -- cellular phone, TV, computer
    networks -- ruled to be not-press and hence not covered by free
    press provisions, and not-public so they're not protected by free
    speech provisions.  So the government can eavesdrop on them,
    engage in _agent_provocateur_ activities with little apparent
    restraint, and generally act as though they, not I, knew what was
    best for me.  I see a government seizing the property of people
    not only before they're convicted but without even charging them
    with anything.  I see search and seizure rules abandoned in a
    drug-crazed witch hunt that lets police break into a man's home in
    the wee hours of the morning without announcing themselves, gun
    the man down when he tries to defend his children from attack, and
    all for a few ounces of marijuana and traces of cocaine in a
    plastic bag.  
    
    Yes, I can document all of these.  I'm not making any of this up.
    
    So I guess I don't agree that abortion is the number one issue. 
    I'm a hell of a lot more worried that by the time we get out of
    this century, I won't have the freedom to say abortion should be
    legal, let alone have one if I need it.  If we don't have the
    right to say all this, we don't have any rights left.
    
    --bonnie

	This came off an MIT social change student activism group posting...

	----------------------------------- 
yo peoples!
info on Souter (supreme ct. justice nominee)
 
has said, government should not be involved in remedying the effects
of historic race discrimination.  said "new hampshire doesn't have any
race-related problems"
 
believes that the way a woman dresses or acts, or her past sexual
history is an excuse for rape.  overturned a lower court rape
conviction, despide medical evidence that the defendant had been
raped, on the basis of the woman's "previous flirtatious behavior".
 
stated that gay men and lesbians are automatically unfit to be
adoptive or foster parents just because of their sexual orientation,
no matter how good a parent they might be to a particular child.
 
In New Hampshire, Souter defended the Governor's order to fly flags at
half-mast on good friday.  Souter said that this order would show that
the state appreciates "the moral grandeur and the strength of
Christianity as the bulwark against forces of destructive ideologies"
 
so much for separation of church and state,.
 
NOW is sponsoring a march and lobby day to oppose Souter.  washington
DC Tues Sept. 25th.  10am.
 
If you are in the boston area,, you can travel with boston NOW and the
MIT association for women students.  $40, buses leave 10p mon nite.
subsidies available.  for more info on these buses, call your local 
NOW chapter.

    re .23:
    Bonnie,
    
    I don't think there's any comparison to having a book unjustly
    stolen from me and my being forced to carry an unwanted child.
    They are just worlds apart in my mind.
    

RE:.23  very well said. Without the freedom to speak out, and the freedom to
defend our actions *FROM* the government no other issue will have any
meaning.

RE:.24

>believes that the way a woman dresses or acts, or her past sexual
>history is an excuse for rape.  overturned a lower court rape
>conviction, despide medical evidence that the defendant had been
>raped, on the basis of the woman's "previous flirtatious behavior".

Sorry, but in the two hours spent on this issue the actual story was
that in *this* case there was doubt due to "the woman's conduct"
and he was clear that that is a very rare instance.

 
 
>In New Hampshire, Souter defended the Governor's order to fly flags at
>half-mast on good friday.  Souter said that this order would show that
>the state appreciates "the moral grandeur and the strength of
>Christianity as the bulwark against forces of destructive ideologies"

I think it was less vague than just seperation of church and state, more
like a case brought to not fly them at half mast on this holiday when there
are other holidays it is flown(on state buildings BTW) the same way. I don't
remember all the details but it was not as "evil" as it sounds. :-} 

    
    re:.22 laws and interpretations etc.
    
    it seems to me that all written laws are going to be subject to
    interpretation no matter what. i see no value in automatically
    sanctifying an interpretation that allegedly conforms with that
    of guys who live 200 years ago.
    
    re:.23 abortion rights vs. 1st amendment rights
    
    we'll just have to disagree on this. i believe abortion rights
    far transcends mere 1st amendment rights.
    
    re:.24 souter, church and state
    
    sounds pretty scary to me. perhaps mr. souter believes this is a
    *christian* country?
    

Where does the ACLU stand on Souter. Anybody know?

Kathy

    The ACLU decided not to oppose the Souter nomination.

    Souter may sound good, but knowing that he was picked for the
    nomination by John Sununu sends a chill down my spine (having
    lived in NH when Sununu was governor).
    
    						Jan

    You know, it is my 'gut' feel that Souter may turn out to be the
    same sort of 'mistake' that Warren was for Eisenhower. He is a
    consciencious scholar. Let us not  be so quick to assume.
    
    Bonnie

    Souter scares  me, but not as much as Bork did. In particular, his
    absolute  disregard  for seperation of church and state has gotten
    him  laughed  out  of  some  appelate courts. I don't remember the
    details  of the case, but he filed an amicus curae brief defending
    a  school  system that was requiring students to recite the lord's
    prayer. Some of the other similar cases he filed he had to because
    he was state AG, but the whole thing scares me.

--David

    
    I saw some of the hearings on C-Span (I was half asleep though--
    someone *please* correct me if I've got this wrong) ...
    
    I do remember Judge Souter supporting the view that the
    Constitution protects a right to privacy, but he described
    that right not as "individual" or "fundamental" but "marital."
    And he said that more than once.
    
    "Marital"  
    
    I don't know what he meant (didn't hear anyone ask him to
    explain further), but I had a gut reaction to the word and
    it wasn't positive.
    
    nla

    
    	I had the same reaction to his use of that word too.
    
    	Something tells me that as a recluse his understanding of social
    	issues and relationships is derived from those of the early romantic 
    	literary period and terribly out-of-date.
    
    	I don't feel very comfortable with his emphasis on marriage in
    	several questions put to him. 
    
    	-Erik

    One of  the  more important privacy decisions of the supreme court
    was  Griswold  v.  Connecticut,  in  which the court ruled that CT
    could  not  prohibit  the  sale of contraceptives because to do so
    would  violate  the  privacy  of the marital bedroom. The right to
    privacy  had  already been found in the constitution, but Griswold
    expanded  it  considerably.  Justice  Douglas  wrote the decision,
    sometime in the late 60s.

    Roe v.  Wade  was an extention of this decision, which is based on
    the  privacy  of  the  marital  bedroom. Many people, myself among
    them, have trouble understanding how protecting the privacy of the
    marital  bedroom  requires protecting a right to abortion. (Please
    don't  argue  about  abortion  here,  I'm  trying  to  explain the
    history, not enter that argument in this note.)

    It's therefore  not  surprising  that people who aren't pro-choice
    may  take  some  care  to  limit the applicability of the right to
    privacy.

--David

    
    i checked. i did not see the word 'marital' in the constitution.
    

  Gee, when I brought this up the first time, it got essentially one
  resonse (from a woman) and the response said, eseentially, "nothing
  much happened".

                                   Atlant


    <<< Note 388.0 by PROXY::SCHMIDT "Thinking globally, acting locally!" >>>
                  -< The David Souter Confirmation Hearings >-

>  Secondly, I caught a snipet on the news of Senator Simpson just
>  absolutely pasting either Yard or Smeal with a bunch of stupid
>  remarks, and that Michalman was later reported as being in tears
>  outside the hearing room over the pasting.
>
>  Was C-SPAN covering this?  Did anyone get to hear the actual
>  incident, uneditted and not cut into sound-bite-sized pieces?
>  Could you tell me what really happened?