Alito loves the old Witch Hunters

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,121
5,364
1
Some of the sources for Justice Alito sure didn't think much good about women - witches.

Justice Alito Cited a Few Cromwellian Nightmares In His Draft Opinion​

On the walls of the Massachusetts State House, there are portraits of past governors going all the way back to John Winthrop’s establishment of the colony back in 1630. And, let me tell you, these are some truly terrifying old white dudes, in their black suits with those high, ruffly collars. A casual visitor from, say, Mars would conclude that, in its early days, the Commonwealth (God save it!) was presided over by a succession of vampire ice sculptures.

I thought about these cats on Wednesday night when Lawrence O’Donnell explained to his audience that, in his now-infamous draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito cited the work of one Sir Edward Cooke who, in 16-freaking-44, declared abortion to be a crime. O’Donnell made the salient point that Cooke also was deeply involved in actual witch trials, so maybe we can do better for legal theory in 2022 than a guy who practiced law under Charles I.

This prompted curiosity as to what other Cromwellian nightmares contributed to an opinion eliminating a constitutional right in the United States of America in 21st century. Lo and behold, right after citing Cook, Alito summoned the ghost of Sir Matthew Hale, who was a real beauty, bless his heart, several times throughout his draft. For example:

Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman "with child" a "potion" to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was "murder" because the potion was given "unlawfully to destroy her child within her."
Hale also was a witch hunter, sending women off to the loving arms of judicial murder. And, finally, Hale was fundamental to the development of the legal theory that there was no such thing as marital rape.

For the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.
Hale’s argument prevailed everywhere in the United States until the 1990s, and it still informs sentences in benighted jurisdictions to this day. It’s important to remember that Hale is still considered to be one of the giants of Western jurisprudence. (Where is gender studies when you need it?) He certainly had a deft political hand, navigating the English Civil War without taking a firm position on either side. Hale advised Charles I during the latter’s trial and yet subsequently, he was made a judge by Oliver Cromwell. And this, from a contemporaneous account of one of Hale’s witch trials, is an indication of how this giant of the law did business.

Another unusual piece of evidence came in the form of an experiment performed with one of the afflicted children in the courtroom. Some of the children were not able to speak and appeared to be in a trance-like state, one feature of which was that they clenched their fists tightly. The record states that men in their presence attempted to open their fists and that they were unable to, so strongly were they closed. But at the request of the court, Rose Cullender approached and touched one of the children. This made the child open her fist. A man in the court raised a skeptical question about this procedure, so the experiment was repeated. This time, they covered the child’s face with an apron so that she could not see who touched her. Meantime, several people touched her. Nevertheless, she only opened her fist when Rose Cullender touched her. This did not convince the skeptic. (A Tryal of Witches, pp. 42-45) But according to the record, it stood as evidence without special instructions from Hale.
Alito writes extensively in his decision about how rights have to be “deeply rooted” in American law in order to be considered valid. He does this in an opinion that is “deeply rooted” in the misogyny of the 17th century, I’m surprised he didn’t make the plaintiffs in the case close their fists.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,121
5,364
1
You've never killed, but you are OK with others doing the killing? That's almost as bad.
Your powers of reasoning and comment truly show your level of thought. Playground retorts from the 4th grade....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lion8286

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,121
5,364
1
What is a non viable fetus? Is it a form of life?
Non-viable means unable to sustain itself outside the womb of the female that it resides in. Without the woman the fetus cannot survive on its own. Something like a plant in your garden that will die if you don't care for it.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,030
55,759
1
Non-viable means unable to sustain itself outside the womb of the female that it resides in. Without the woman the fetus cannot survive on its own. Something like a plant in your garden that will die if you don't care for it.
so that was 28 weeks in 1973 and is now considered 22 weeks. Would you be happy with restricting abortions to the first 20 weeks? That is four months.

Now, what if you lived in Appalachia versus Minneapolis? What if the baby was deformed, a threat to mom's health, the result of rape/incest? The wrong sex?

You know what, lets make it an issue for the states to settle as all of them will be different culturally and economically.

Oh wait, that is what SCOTUS is doing.

why-so-serious.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionDeNittany

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
16,036
5,481
1
Non-viable means unable to sustain itself outside the womb of the female that it resides in. Without the woman the fetus cannot survive on its own. Something like a plant in your garden that will die if you don't care for it.

Not unlike a born child, that will also die if you don't care for it. Sometimes inconvenient, but you still do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,262
23,211
1
really? that's your move?

I mean, if someone now quotes Plato, or Einstein or Shakespear we need to go back and check the historical norms in their lifetime to discredit everything they've ever said or done?
He's a mid level liar using talking points to try to discredit whatever issue is in the forefront. It's hard for him to grasp certain things, like abortion is a medical procedure that should be licensed and decided by state ;legislatures and medical boards.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,531
41,461
1
Non-viable means unable to sustain itself outside the womb of the female that it resides in. Without the woman the fetus cannot survive on its own. Something like a plant in your garden that will die if you don't care for it.
Hey, do you know how many animals cannot survive outside the womb upon birth? Boy, that's one hell of an argument. Fools like you reach for anything. This is what you stand on. Lmao.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,531
41,461
1
He's a mid level liar using talking points to try to discredit whatever issue is in the forefront. It's hard for him to grasp certain things, like abortion is a medical procedure that should be licensed and decided by state ;legislatures and medical boards.
He's a conman, nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,262
23,211
1
Non-viable means unable to sustain itself outside the womb of the female that it resides in. Without the woman the fetus cannot survive on its own. Something like a plant in your garden that will die if you don't care for it.
Let's see a 9 month old baby survive on it's own. Or remove someone's insulin or BP meds. or a mentally impaired person with dementia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,030
55,759
1
He's a mid level liar using talking points to try to discredit whatever issue is in the forefront. It's hard for him to grasp certain things, like abortion is a medical procedure that should be licensed and decided by state ;legislatures and medical boards.
Agreed. Trying to be 100% civil and level-headed, the USA is a completely different place today than in 1973. In addition, the USA's abortion is much more liberal than almost every other western nation including France and GB. While I oppose 100% bans on abortion, it is clearly time for a reset on our thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionDeNittany

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,262
23,211
1
Agreed. Trying to be 100% civil and level-headed, the USA is a completely different place today than in 1973. In addition, the USA's abortion is much more liberal than almost every other western nation including France and GB. While I oppose 100% bans on abortion, it is clearly time for a reset on our thinking.
Still, we have separate state laws regarding medical practices. I'm pro life but ok with exceptions and maybe first trimester. Kind of like most people.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,121
5,364
1
He's a mid level liar using talking points to try to discredit whatever issue is in the forefront. It's hard for him to grasp certain things, like abortion is a medical procedure that should be licensed and decided by state ;legislatures and medical boards.
When a Justice quotes a source it means that sources views on the subject are meaningful and correct. Why did Alito go so far back to find support for his decision? It sure looks like Alito thinks those witch-burners were right.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,962
20,823
1
really? that's your move?

I mean, if someone now quotes Plato, or Einstein or Shakespear we need to go back and check the historical norms in their lifetime to discredit everything they've ever said or done?
Were any of those guys you mentioned conducting witch trials or arguing that marital rape is a legal impossibility?
 
Last edited:

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,030
55,759
1
Still, we have separate state laws regarding medical practices. I'm pro life but ok with exceptions and maybe first trimester. Kind of like most people.
Agreed. it will be interesting to see what the dems do to "codifi" RvW. RvW isn't a law. So wading into this is a big problem if they try to get late term abortions legalized. Two issues of note:

  • I saw WaPo chimed in discussing how difficult it is to poll numbers on abortion. My bet is that this is because they don't come out the way WaPo wants them to. So instead of just publishing them, they just say that there is no way to accurately poll them.
  • I saw Bill Mahre making his panel look stupid discussing abortion in relation to world numbers and what is and is not legal.

It sure looks like POTUS is well founded in pushing this back to the states. RvW is clearly in need of a reset. My biggest fear is that the GOP overplays its hand. I sure hope red states don't move to outlaw it in totality.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,030
55,759
1
When a Justice quotes a source it means that sources views on the subject are meaningful and correct. Why did Alito go so far back to find support for his decision? It sure looks like Alito thinks those witch-burners were right.
so...by your logic, the rest of the world shouldn't build interstate highways because the Nazis invented them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,610
9,759
1
Obviously 2Lyin didn't think this through before he posted it.

Yeah, he got owned on that particular line of argument.

The fact is, there are countless categories of born human beings, starting with infants and working up from there, who are dependent on other human beings for survival. That is, they "can not survive on their own."

The logic being applied as a justification for abortion would just as easily apply to those other dependent people.

But like most Dem-Mediacrats, the pro-aborts aren't real interested in following their logic to its conclusion. Either because they're too dumb...or too dishonest.

The truth is, some of them would be perfectly happy applying their utilitarian brand of morality to infants, old people, sick people, and other inconvenient lives. But they know they can't state that openly...yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,030
55,759
1
Yeah, he got owned on that particular line of argument.

The fact is, there are countless categories of born human beings, starting with infants and working up from there, who are dependent on other human beings for survival. That is, they "can not survive on their own."

The logic being applied as a justification for abortion would just as easily apply to those other dependent people.

But like most Dem-Mediacrats, the pro-aborts aren't real interested in following their logic to its conclusion. Either because they're too dumb...or too dishonest.

The truth is, some of them would be perfectly happy applying their utilitarian brand of morality to infants, old people, sick people, and other inconvenient lives. But they know they can't state that openly...yet.
Agreed. And there is no definitive agreement on "when life begins". You can listen to 100 people, define a dozen definitions, and none are right or wrong. And while one can say "it is the woman's decision", I'd make several other arguments. First, what is a woman? Second, why doesn't the father have a say? Third, why does the woman's life trump that of the fetus? Fourth, why does a pregnant woman losing a child by means of violence constitute murder/manslaughter while abortion is often considered just birth control?
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
43,242
14,951
1
What is a non viable fetus? Is it a form of life?
What about living sperm? Is that a form of life? Are you committing murder when you jerk off?

Actually I think that’s some of warped logic that led to Jerry having 400 children and grandchildren.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
16,036
5,481
1
Agreed. And there is no definitive agreement on "when life begins". You can listen to 100 people, define a dozen definitions, and none are right or wrong. And while one can say "it is the woman's decision", I'd make several other arguments. First, what is a woman? Second, why doesn't the father have a say? Third, why does the woman's life trump that of the fetus? Fourth, why does a pregnant woman losing a child by means of violence constitute murder/manslaughter while abortion is often considered just birth control?
Fourth, why does a pregnant woman losing a child by means of violence constitute murder/manslaughter while abortion is often considered just birth control?
Yea, this is a huge contradiction IMO.

As long as it wasn't the mother's decision to kill the unborn, its murder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,531
41,461
1
What about living sperm? Is that a form of life? Are you committing murder when you jerk off?

Actually I think that’s some of warped logic that led to Jerry having 400 children and grandchildren.
Can you be any dumber?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,262
23,211
1
Agreed. And there is no definitive agreement on "when life begins". You can listen to 100 people, define a dozen definitions, and none are right or wrong. And while one can say "it is the woman's decision", I'd make several other arguments. First, what is a woman? Second, why doesn't the father have a say? Third, why does the woman's life trump that of the fetus? Fourth, why does a pregnant woman losing a child by means of violence constitute murder/manslaughter while abortion is often considered just birth control?
Life begins at conception , there’s no question about that. The question is, can we consider it a human being at that time? However the beginning is at conception.
The criteria we would use to consider it a human being would you file things like is there a thinking process going on, does it potentially feel emotions or have human interaction, does it feel and react to stimuli such as pain or comfort? All of that wood way to the fact of whether or not we will Collett a human being at that point but there’s no argument that life begins at conception because without conception there will be no baby born.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,962
20,823
1
Yeah, he got owned on that particular line of argument.

The fact is, there are countless categories of born human beings, starting with infants and working up from there, who are dependent on other human beings for survival. That is, they "can not survive on their own."

The logic being applied as a justification for abortion would just as easily apply to those other dependent people.
"Born human beings?!" And here I thought it was sufficient to just call people "human beings." But not if you want to accord a fetus the legal status of a "human being." So, instead of "fetus" and "human being" (two descriptors that have a long history of use and a basis in science), we now have "unborn human being" and "born human being."

Moreover, what Jerry does NOT say is perhaps more disturbing than what he DOES say. He does not explicitly say in his post how far back he wants to extend his concept of "unborn human being," but his other, prior posts make that very clear. He wants it to go back to conception at the minimum. "Life begins at conception." Ergo, a zygote is an "unborn human being" meriting equal rights with a "born human being."

Like NJ, I suspect that Jerry takes it back even farther. Human eggs and sperm are the building blocks of human life, so they, too, merit treatment as "unborn human beings," no? NJ's reference to jerking off constituting "murder" may seem a bit coarse, but he has a point. These pro-life folks are hardly going to be satisfied with limits on surgical abortion. Medically induced abortion (via pills) and contraceptives (particularly the morning after pill) are next up on their hit list.

And to be clear, I have no problem with Jerry holding that belief. It stems in large part from his Catholic faith. It's a free country, and he should have the right to not only hold but practice that belief. For himself and his family. When he seeks to impose his belief on me, I take issue with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

Lion8286

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2008
15,392
22,325
1
"Born human beings?!" And here I thought it was sufficient to just call people "human beings." But not if you want to accord a fetus the legal status of a "human being." So, instead of "fetus" and "human being" (two descriptors that have a long history of use and a basis in science), we now have "unborn human being" and "born human being."

Moreover, what Jerry does NOT say is perhaps more disturbing than what he DOES say. He does not explicitly say in his post how far back he wants to extend his concept of "unborn human being," but his other, prior posts make that very clear. He wants it to go back to conception at the minimum. "Life begins at conception." Ergo, a zygote is an "unborn human being" meriting equal rights with a "born human being."

Like NJ, I suspect that Jerry takes it back even farther. Human eggs and sperm are the building blocks of human life, so they, too, merit treatment as "unborn human beings," no? NJ's reference to jerking off constituting "murder" may seem a bit coarse, but he has a point. These pro-life folks are hardly going to be satisfied with limits on surgical abortion. Medically induced abortion (via pills) and contraceptives (particularly the morning after pill) are next up on their hit list.

And to be clear, I have no problem with Jerry holding that belief. It stems in large part from his Catholic faith. It's a free country, and he should have the right to not only hold but practice that belief. For himself and his family. When he seeks to impose his belief on me, I take issue with it.

LB has just entered the race.