Who defines mainstream?

I, like most Conservatives, am greatly pleased about Samuel Alito being nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. I was disappointed to see that, about an hour after President Bush's announcement, Senator Charles "Up-Chuck" Schummer made his statement painting Judge Alito as part of the Far Right Wing of the Republican Party. This, despite that he's got 15 years experience on the Third circuit Court of Appeals and he is generally regarded as fair and thoughtful in his decisions.

So, I guess my question is, why is it that Democrats are screaming about Far Right Wingers when Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was widely considered part of the Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party and nothing was said? I don't recall the Republicans screaming about her Far Left Wing Views, about how she was out of the mainstream of American beliefs and values. Ginsburg, as you may or may not know, was a lawyer for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union, although I would classify them as the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union). At one point, she believed that a 12 year old girl should have access to getting an abortion without parental consent. How exactly is that considered part of the mainstream of American Values? Let's go one step further. Why is a 12 year old getting an abortion to begin with? And, why does Ginsburg (and apparently all Democrats since them seem to think that she's "in the mainstream") feel that a child should be able to get an abortion without a parental consent to get an abortion? In other words, why does Ginsburg (and Democrats) feel that it's ok to hide the fact that a 12 year old girl is getting an abortion from her parents? Why? Don't the parents have a right to know what their 12 year old is doing? If this kid were to go out and kill someone, why would the parents not be partially responsible for her actions since she's under 18 years old? Wouldn't the authorities come to the parents and say "well, what do you have to say for yourself?" So, why then is it ok for parents to be excluded from an incredibly important decision that will dramatically affect their 12 year old's life? Why do the parents not have a right to par-take in that decision? Most normal people, rather than saying "my daughter has a right to get an abortion at 12" should be saying "who am I going to charge for the rape or child molestation of my 12 year old daughter?" Or, does Ginsburg and Democrats feel that a 12 year old can make completely competent, intelligent and responsible decisions at 12 years old? I would say that even though a 12 year old may have some reasoning skills at 12, they ought naught to be having any kind of sex, nor should a parent be excluded from being notified that their 12 year old is having an abortion.

Most body piercing and tattoo businesses require parental consent to anyone under 18 years old. I think an abortion is much more serious of a procedure than getting a body piercing or tattoo. Who knows, maybe the parent will want their 12 year old to get an abortion anyway, but, they should at least be notified shouldn't they? If 12 year olds are expected to be competent to make their own decisions, then crap, why not just kick the 12 year old out of the house and let her live her own life? Apparently Democrats think they can make decisions for themselves right? Fine! Let's get rid of the child labor laws then. Don't kids have a right to decide if they want to work earlier in their lives? How about driving? How dare we, as adults, impose an age minimum on licensed drivers. If a kid feels they can drive at 12, let them! Why force kids to go to school either? Kids can certainly decide at 12 if school's for them right? Better yet, let's lower the age for drinking and alcohol too! Parent's shouldn't be told about any of this stuff right? Let the kid, at 12 (crap, why not younger?) go out, get a job, get a car, get an apartment, pick up drinking and smoking and let them be hookers/pimps if that's what they want to do and keep the parents in the dark? Let's lower the age for being a senator and president too. After all, kids at 12 are completely competent in their decision making skills!

Now, one of the biggest beefs that Liberals have with Judge Alito is that in a decision that involved abortion rights and a woman having to tell her husband that she's planning to have an abortion, Judge Alito dissented against the majority opinion (he agreed that a husband has a right to know that the wife was planning to abort their child). Why is this a problem? It doesn't bar the woman from getting an abortion. However, I believe the father of the child has a right to know. After all, through conception, the father helps to create the baby right? Or, do Democrats and Liberals think that women just spontaneously impregnate themselves? Yeah, that's probably it.

If I only had a dollar for every time I've heard a woman curse a man for getting her pregnant. So, there seems to be some acknowledgement that the man is at least partially responsible for the pregnancy. So, why should he be notified that his wife wants an abortion? After all, that's the husband's child too. Why doesn't he get a say in the matter? Granted, the woman carries the child, but, as I just discussed, if it weren't for the man, the woman wouldn't be pregnant to begin with. I'm not saying the man should over-ride the wishes of the woman, but, the husband should at least be notified and have the opportunity to have his beliefs in the matter heard. That is, at least, his basic right. What husband would not want to save their child? What husband would not want to try?

So, it is now clear. The Democrats and Liberals want to have a Litmus Test for any court nominee. The nominee must believe that a child, (of any age I suppose) must be allowed to get an abortion without her parents being notified or having their consent, and, the husband, even though he is at least partially responsible for his wife being pregnant, should have no rights whatsoever in his wishes for his baby to be saved from being aborted. If a court nominee cannot believe either of those two things, then screw the nominee. Democrats won't vote for them.

It does seem as though the Democrats and Liberals now lining up to bash Alito are putting ideology ahead of Constitutional and Judicial reasoning, fairness and the impartiality of judges. It doesn't seem as though Ginsburg was impartial about her abortion beliefs, but then again, she's considered mainstream by the Democrats and Liberals now bashing Alito.

So, what does it all come down to? Mainstream is whatever the Democrats decide it is at the moment. In their eyes, there is no Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Because their beliefs will always be mainstream simply because they say their beliefs are mainstream. Ok, well, if it's mainstream, why not just pass a law requiring all new born babies to be aborted? After all, if it's mainstream according to Libs and Democrats, then all of America will get on board right?