Avram's journal

The recent news about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is that he wrote a qualifications statement back in 1985, when he was seeking a position as Assistant Attorney General, in which he stated that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion". I'm actually more interested in other parts of the letter (emphasis mine):

When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickel advocating judicial restraint, and it was largely for this reason that I decided to go to Yale Law School.

A few minutes with Google and Wikipedia told me what Warren Court cases Alito was talking about:

Reapportionment:

Baker v Carr (1962)

Established that voting district reapportionment is a matter in which federal courts can intervene.

Reynolds v Sims (1964)

Established that state legislative districts had to be roughly equal in population, according to principle of "one man, one vote".

Wesberry v Sanders (1964)

Established that congressional districts had to be roughly equal in population.

Criminal Procedure:

Escobedo v Illinois (1964)

Affirmed right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, making it harder for police to coerce confessions.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

You've heard of this one; it's the case which established that police must inform suspects of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

Establishment Clause:
This refers to part of the First Amendment that prohibits Congress from establishing religion.

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Established that school prayer is uncontitutional.

Abington Township School District v Schempp (1963)

Declared school-sanctioned, organized Bible reading in public schools to be unconstitutional.

So, there's Sam Alito's America: A land in which rural voters can have hundreds of times as much legislative representation as city voters, where the cops can beat or trick confessions out of you without a lawyer present, and where public schools are places of religious indoctrination.

And he might not be as big a fan of Alexander Bickel's as he claims to be.

Here’s a PDF copy of the text of the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts state supreme court case requiring the legislature to accommodate the marriage rights of gay couples. Hosted by a pro-bigotry group; sorry, it’s what I could find. Go drive up their bandwidth bill.

Some opponents of the freedom to marry have couched their arguments in terms of support for families, or the claim that marriage rights should be limited to couples capable of reproducing. Here’s an excerpt from the decision, describing the plaintiffs, with some key phrases emphasized by me:

The plaintiffs are fourteen individuals from five Massachusetts counties. As of April 11, 2001, the date they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs Gloria Bailey, sixty years old, and Linda Davies, fifty-five years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirty years; the plaintiffs Maureen Brodoff, forty-nine years old, and Ellen Wade, fifty-two years old, had been in a committed relationship for twenty years and lived with their twelve year old daughter; the plaintiffs Hillary Goodridge, forty-four years old, and Julie Goodridge, forty-three years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their five year old daughter; the plaintiffs Gary Chalmers, thirty-five years old, and Richard Linnell, thirty-seven years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their eight year old daughter and Richard's mother; the plaintiffs Heidi Norton, thirty-six years old, and Gina Smith, thirty-six years old, had been in a committed relationship for eleven years and lived with their two sons, ages five years and one year; the plaintiffs Michael Horgan, forty-one years old, and David Balmelli, forty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for seven years; and the plaintiffs David Wilson, fifty-seven years old, and Robert Compton, fifty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for four years and had cared for David's mother in their home after a serious illness until she died.

If you find yourself arguing with someone who tries to disguise his anti-gay bigotry with pro-family rhetoric, ask why he would rather have these five children raised by single parents than by loving married couples.

Update: Here’s another link to the PDF, from FindLaw, in case you don’t want to drive up some bigot’s bandwidth bill. And here it is in Microsoft Word format.

Judge Deborah Servitto has handed down a rhyming ruling against a man who was suing Eminem. (The rhyme’s actually just a footnote in the 13-page ruling.)