Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    His name is John(?) Souter, born in Melrose, now residing in Weare NH.
    
    Did hear this a.m that he voted with the majority in '86 to confirm
    that doctors have the right to check for birth defects in the fetus,
    and inform the woman what the situation is, even to recommend abortion.
    
    so...maybe he's not quite so close-minded.  I'm sure we will hear
    much more as time goes on.
    
    He is a bachelor, and like mountain climbing and watersports...though
    not in a 'macho' way---so said a friend of his last nite on the chn.2
    news!  (now what does that mean???)
    
    The chn. 2 news went on to say that he is considered a legal
    conservative, but maybe not so politically.  Though being friendly
    with Sununu gave me the heebygeebs as well....
    
    deb
    

    RE: .0 Looks like he sleeps in his suit._Definitely something to be
    suspicious of and definitely means he's not qualified. ;')
    
    
    
    Mike

    oh, hush.  I had my tongue in my cheek and you know it! 8-}
    
    daniel

I haven't heard much about him so this is a complete knee-jerk based on the 
level of in-depth quality information you get out of CNN Headline News, but my 
personal guess is that the quick nomination is a throw-away: let the opposition
wear themselves out tearing this guy to shreds (which sounds like it might not
be any harder than it was with Bork) while Bush sets up the candidate he really
wants.

   If this individual gets into the Supreme Court, we will be in serious 
trouble.

   Women's rights alone will be in danger of being set back for at least
fifty years.

                                                     -Robert Brown III
                                                      From New Hampshire

NPR (National Public Radio) has aired a fair amount of information on Souter.
From the legal standpoint he sounds like a good judge.  He judges everything on
a case by case basis and does not try to rewrite legislation.  He doesn't have
an extremist political position.  I am hoping SuNoNo pointed him out because
he was lacking in controversy, not because he is a political lackey.

He ruled that a woman's past history - on that day - could be admitted as 
evidence.  If she were being flirtatious or inviting it could be held against
her.

He ruled that homosexuals could not be foster parents, and at the same time
stated that homosexuals are allowed to run daycare centers.

He is 51 and has never been married.

What concerns me is there is no U.S.legislation specifically on abortion.  If
there were a statute saying abortion is OK, then this guy would uphold it and
not try to change it.  However we do not have any law specifically allowing or
forbidding abortion, this leaves it open to interpretation by a white male who
has been educated in conservative, male dominated institutions.  Souter does
not appear to have any female influences/sounding-boards.  He does appear to
study issues carefully and has been said to have an open mind.

We'll see what the Senate hearings in Sept. bring out.   

    re .0:
    
    I suspect that if you were to go to the trouble, you could read his
    opinions in any New England law library.  The distinction is that he
    hasn't written treatises as has Bork.  According to WEVO, the NPR
    station in Concord NH Souter is known to have "incredible" work habits
    (workaholic), so apparently he has little time to write articles. WEVO
    said his decisions show no clear political ideology.
    
    fyi,
    Marge
    
    

    I keep wondering if he won't turn out to be another Brennan :-). 
    Brennan was appointed by Eisenhower, who expected him to be a fairly
    conservative justice.  We know what the result has been - Ike has said
    that his biggest single mistake as president was his appointment of
    Brennan.
    
    Like Barb, I find myself thinking that it could have been much worse. 
    The confirmation hearings should be fairly interesting.
    
    Alison

    I personally try not to pay attention to these things.  It's my belief
    that in a democracy the public should vote on issues.  Whenever the 
    Supreme Court is in the news, it's always a grim reminder that in the
    major issues we have no voice and for the people who decide them, we
    have no vote.
    
    These nominees come from a select group of wealthy, powerful and, save
    for a recent bone thrown to the feminist movement, close-knit network
    of white males.  Perhaps presidents are put in the white house for
    their networks more than anything.  Because it seems to me that the
    positions for which they appoint are powerful, (more powerful than the
    presidency which has numerous checks and balances required to actually
    do anything), and are exempt from scrutiny by or accountability toward
    the voting public.  The president is the front man, the song and dance
    man but the positions for which he appoints are the main act.
    
    And what difference does this guy's history actually make anyway?  If
    he gets what he's up for, he will have a new perspective and voila -
    new values and beliefs�  After all, if you search his history I doubt
    you'll find anything as binding as "read my lips".  Now *there's*
    something with some teeth in it!  ;-)
    
    I think it's a complete waste of time to wonder what your government 
    has in store for you.  Just because we're heavily taxed and have no 
    national interest in medical or child care, (though our government 
    likes to grandstand at world disasters and try to legislate pregnancy), 
    and just because we work many, many more hours per year than most every 
    other western culture, and just because we were raised on history books 
    touting the wonders of democracy, (and yes, we still get to go to those
    things called polls to *prove* it!), doesn't mean we actually have the 
    right to affect the government in such a way that it exists only to 
    serve the people of the nation.  Sit back and read about it in the
    Sunday papers.  

    re: .10   I couldn't have said it better myself!
    
    Why do these ten men (one's in drag) have more power over our
    lives than our *elected* officials???  
    
    -Vicki

    this pretty concept called checks and balances that means the court is
    *THEORETICALLY* above politics.
    
    you may commence laughter...now
    
    *sigh*
    
    daniel

    I think .13 is way off base.
    
    The War on Drugs has been driven by many small groups of very poor
    people who want their cities and neighborhoods returned to them.  I
    might suggest that the author of .13 has limited experience.
    
    Citizens for Taxation is a very vocal group of people who have made 
    significant progress in getting legislation throught that limits the
    power of government to tax.
    
    Mothers against Drunk Driving has done great things to further their
    cause.
    
    The list goes on.  
    
    I suspect that anyone who might think the Wealthy Elite are running 
    the country have an expectation that lip service is the means for
    change.
    
    The reality is that people who are dedicated to their cause can and do
    initiate change.
    
    The danger is that the average American may be complacent and unwilling
    to work for the issues that they think are important.  
    
    

    RE: .11 "Why do these ten men ..."
    
    Nine Justices.
    
    ed

    I'm afraid  that I don't share Joyce's optimism. In particular the
    examples  of  citizen power she uses reinforce Steve's point about
    powerful people using the war on drugs to reduce liberties.  

    I see  the  war  on  drugs as starting from politicians, and being
    intentionally  poorly  run,  as  the  real  reasin  for  it  (from
    politician's  point  of  view)  is  to  have  an  excuse to ignore
    constitutional  protections  about  privacy,  search, and seizure.
    It's been quite effective at that.

    MADD has  also  spent  much  of  its effort on reducing liberties.
    Scandanavian  countries  have  managed  to  have  many fewer drunk
    drivers  by making it socially unacceptable to drive drunk, and by
    revoking licenses of drunk drivers for a long time.

    Citizens for Limited taxation similarly play into the wants of the
    wealthy.

    I'll believe in the effects of grass roots work when I see changes
    that  clearly  benefit  poor  people,  or  minorities. We saw that
    during the civil rights era, but I haven't noticed it lately.

--David  (in a cynical mood)

    David, whether or not you agree with my examples you did acknowledge
    that there have been grass root efforts that have brought about change.
    
    Clearly expressing thoughts and emotions in a notes conference is *not*
    going to generate change!

    Some more news thoughts on Souter:
    
    In a 1981 abortion case that reached the NH Supreme Court, Souter wrote
    the majority opinion that ruled the NH law requiring parental consent
    before a minor received an abortion to be unconstitutional as it
    violated the principals laid down by Roe vs. Wade.
    
    Souter's prior record has shown a consistent upholding of Supreme Court
    precedent.  What is unclear, however, is how he will rule if he becomes
    the person *creating* that precedent.  He has only been on the Federal
    First Circuit of Appeals Court for a month, so his experience and
    voting record with actually creating federal precedent is almost
    non-existant.
    
    The only clue on how he might rule on abortion comes from a recent
    decision.  He upheld a woman's suit agaisnt a doctor who did not inform
    her that German Measles could cause birth defects.  The opinion stated
    that a woman should be presented with all available options by her
    doctor.  He went on to say that any doctor of "good counscious* who
    would not perform an abortion should send her to get a second opinion.
    
    There are two possible ways to read that: "good counscious"  One
    implies that he feels abortion is wrong and the doctor should as well,
    while the other means that the doctor, with the woman's interest in
    mind, should refer her if s/he cannot personally counsel for an
    abortion.
    
    I think we'll be dicing the meaning of this until September...
    
    daniel

RE: .17

    No I  don't  think  these  have been grass roots efforts that have
    brought  about  change. I think these have been organizations that
    have been co-opted by the people in power. I'd have to see a grass
    roots effort that results in change that is opposed to the current
    power  holders to believe that grass roots efforts are useful. The
    civil rights laws are the last case that I can point to.

--David

    re:.16
    
    It's true that in some European countries, drunk driving carries
    severe penalties, enough to discourage DWI. However, the viewpoint
    in those countries is that driving is a privilege, not a right.
    While in theory, the same holds true in this country, in practice,
    driving is considered a right. The legal system appears to be
    hesitant about abridging that right by taking away a violator's
    license for more than a token amount of time.
    
    --- jerry