k wrote:

That's fine, but recognize that you're effectively saying that the wife of an abuser will be breaking the law if she decides that such a man shouldn't be raising a child.

I most certainly am not. You seem to fall into the trap I'm complaining about. To begin with, although it is totally irrelevant, this is a notification requirement, not a consent requirement. Furthermore, it contains exceptions in the event the wife beleives she may be physically abused as a result of the notification. Nothing about this law can possibly create a scenario where "the wife of an abuser will be breaking the law if she decides that such a man shouldn't be raising a child." This law can only create a scenario where the wife of a psychological abuser will be breaking the law if she decides that such a man shouldn't be raising a child but doesn't inform him of her decision.

I don't beleive that the exceptions in this law are comprehensive enough to call the legislation sound. However, none of this matters. It isn't really about whats a good idea and whats a bad idea. Its about what power an appellant judge has in relation to the constitutionality of this law.

The question is whether the problems with the exceptions in this law are enough grounds for the an appellant court to overrule the legislature. Alito offers a persuasive reading of the binding precident indicating that it is not. He specifically states while doing so that the law is questionable. Its not his place to arbitrarily decide what he likes and doesn't like, or to rule outside the scope of what he honestly thinks supreme court precident indicates, even if he really really doesn't like the result. To call him a bad lawyer because he did not feel it was within his power to strike down this legislation requires an arguement that is rooted in his reasoning about his power to strike down the legislation and not an arguement that is rooted in the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the legislation per say. That is an arguement I've yet to hear, and thats what I'm complaining about.

You can't legislate that.

No, you can't, but your anger about that ought to be directed at the legislature.

The logic of your response is flawed. You should certainly expect people to support their assertions, but just because I expected to get punched in the face doesn't mean I don't get to react to it. Of course we expected a conservative nominee. Are we supposed to be happy about it?

Certainly not, but the question is whether you are going to go guns to the wall on this. To read the Kos today you'd think this guy cooks and eats minority children for dinner. What if you succeed and defeat him? Is there someone palitable to the Republicans that you would prefer they nominate? From what I know at this point most of the popular choices are much worse.

RE: Patterico’s Pontifications - Alito’s Dissent in Casey