Samuel Alito Next Justice

[Clem D]

The Conservatives got the guy they wanted. I have no issue with him. By all accounts a great Judge. Staunch conservative Roe V Wade in trouble? I don't have a dog in that fight so not that big of a deal to me. Anyone who does care likely forgot to vote last year or was getting their nails done.

Bottom line the president won in november. As long as he names competent judges for these vacancies it is his right.

To the victor go the spoils.

 

[Clem D]

The only thing I will say is they timed it to get everyone off the corruption

 

[dawgball]

Very valiant post, Clem.

 

[djv]

Where this one come from. Must have been after careful thought. Lets see Miers out Thursday and in three days we have a new one.
Bush must just pick names from a paper bag.

 

[dawgball]

Presidents always keep a list of names for things like this, so it's not a drawn out process when the time comes.

 

[Chadman]

This nomination will spark a strong fight on both sides. Very much what the right wing would like to see, and the worst fears for the left wing. This candidate certainly seems to have judicial qualifications, but very much in the mold of Scalia...and anyone supportive of women's rights should be very concerned about the tilting of the court. I don't think we have many of "those people" here, though...ha. This would also make the fifth Catholic on the Court, which is something to think about. I'm not saying it is good or bad, maybe has no place. But everything will be on the table in this battle - which is what it will be.

Clem, you have made good points. It is part of the deal, and the one of the main reasons to think past the individual (if you don't care or like the candidates) and support your basic beliefs when voting. I do not agree with the one-issue complainers, like Pro-Life or Pro-Choice eliminating someone no matter what else they stand for, but that is their right.

I think there will be fireworks with this one.

 

[smurphy]

too many catholics, not enough mormons

 

[Master Capper]

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President?s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as ?sloppy seconds? during today?s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: ?So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what??

Scott McClellan: ?Not at all, John.?

Sloppy seconds? is described in the United Kingdom?s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: ?A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ?I?m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.??

 

[dawgball]

...and anyone supportive of women's rights should be very concerned about the tilting of the court.

When you say "rights", are you referring to the right (not plural) to have an abortion? This is a very angled way to say something.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Probably be hard pressed to fins someone out there right now more qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The issue should not be philosophy - that was never the intent of the confirmation process. We get to thank the Dems in 1987 ragging Bork for the nonsense judicial appointments are today.

 

[Chadman]

I was not actually referring to that specifically, although the abortion issue is one this candidate is measurable on. From what I have heard this AM (not saying it's true, just what is being reported) that one of his rulings was overturned by the Supreme Court which dealt with a woman having to obtain approval by her husband prior to having an abortion. The logic in the ruling did not outline specifics on the issue very deeply, like issues of marital rape, how one obtains "permission", what happens to a doctor, etc. I am not advocating any of this, just mentioning that this candidate seems to be very conservative on this issue, and for those who are avid "Choice" supporters and would not like to ask permission to have an abortion, etc., then they will have a hard time with this person. Interestingly, I think I heard that O' Conner presented the courts position on the overturn, and had the deciding vote on it, or one of them. This candidate certainly does not hold the same values that she does.

I am not saying that anyone should be for or against him based on what I heard. I'm not saying it's true, just what I heard. Again, sounds like this person is more than qualified for the position based on his experience and constitutional understanding. But the balance of the court is something that will matter to pretty much everyone, when you get right down to it.

 

[dawgball]

OK. Your example is not whether the woman has a right to an abortion. It is more on whether or not she has more right than her husband. Point taken.

 

[dr. freeze]

I was not actually referring to that specifically, although the abortion issue is one this candidate is measurable on. From what I have heard this AM (not saying it's true, just what is being reported) that one of his rulings was overturned by the Supreme Court which dealt with a woman having to obtain approval by her husband prior to having an abortion. The logic in the ruling did not outline specifics on the issue very deeply, like issues of marital rape, how one obtains "permission", what happens to a doctor, etc. I am not advocating any of this, just mentioning that this candidate seems to be very conservative on this issue, and for those who are avid "Choice" supporters and would not like to ask permission to have an abortion, etc., then they will have a hard time with this person. Interestingly, I think I heard that O' Conner presented the courts position on the overturn, and had the deciding vote on it, or one of them. This candidate certainly does not hold the same values that she does.

I am not saying that anyone should be for or against him based on what I heard. I'm not saying it's true, just what I heard. Again, sounds like this person is more than qualified for the position based on his experience and constitutional understanding. But the balance of the court is something that will matter to pretty much everyone, when you get right down to it.

of course the leftists will always come up with "what happens if it is a rape by the husband" but will not think of "what happens if the woman is not mentally stable or has some kind of pre-maternal depression"

Ironically, Miers would havfe been more of a Conservative idologue but was not a very sharp tack

Alito is a Conservative jurist but consistently does not let his ideology get in his way....most Conservative Constitutionalists believe abortion is a legislative issue....as are many issues...

For some reason, the leftists are only happy with people who feel free to legilate from the bench

they would rather see the jurist as an aristocrat who can impose his view on others no matter how extreme he might be

Conservative jurists believe people should decide such matters and leave them alone

its a wonder why both political parties do not advocate such thinking

and its also a wonder how Conservatives turn down the ideologue for the Constitutionalist who has a history of advocating restraint, and we are criticized in doing so

 

[Chadman]

Alito is a Conservative jurist but consistently does not let his ideology get in his way....

It's always interesting when people make these assertions when it forwards their argument. How do you know how much idealogy gets into his decision-making process? It's certainly not a leap of faith to look at his rulings and see a right-wing conservative idealogical theme to them, the Constutution notwithstanding.

and its also a wonder how Conservatives turn down the ideologue for the Constitutionalist who has a history of advocating restraint, and we are criticized in doing so

I don't think Miers was turned down because she was an idealogue, I think she was turned down because she didn't have the judicial qualifications nor the belief of the right wing extremists that she would be looking out for that sector. Rarely do you see your own party come out of the woodwork to openly criticize one of their own, nominated by their leader.

Personally, I criticize Bush for nominating his personal attorney that a large majority of the United States was against for lots of reasons. Very poor judgement, which is a continuing theme of this President. My opinion, of course.

 

[AR182]

i'm pro-choice....but i think he is an excellent choice....think this will hurt the dems if they fight this guy's nomination...

 

[kosar]

i'm pro-choice....but i think he is an excellent choice....think this will hurt the dems if they fight this guy's nomination...

I agree on all of that. The democrats need to let this one go through without a filibuster. Giving him hell during the hearings? Sure, whatever. But if they try to draw a line in the sand with him, they will pay dearly.

If some(even more than the 22 against Roberts) must vote against him, fine, no big deal. But if they filibuster, it won't be pretty.

This thing that they're all focusing on, this PA case where he dissented and opined that a husband should be notified if a woman was going to have an abortion has been distorted.

Some outlets have it that his opinion was that the husband had to give his APPROVAL for the abortion. That is not the case.

In fact, he agreed with most of the ruling, but thought that the husband should have at least been notified.

On top of that, the dems are glomming onto the fact that he couldn't convict the Jersey mob family at the time that he was trying to prosecute them.

Not sure what the point of that is, but it's weak. I guess they're trying to say he's weak on crime or something.

Ginsburg, for one, was smoothly confirmed. The dems should return the favor, as it were.

 

[LUX]

Ginsburg, for one, was smoothly confirmed. The dems should return the favor, as it were.

I see what you're saying, but don't think it will go smoothly based on some of the early comments that I've heard from the dems. IMO, he gets the nod, but I think they'll work him over pretty good.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Think it will be dogfight.I can't really see all this Roe vs Wade being such a big hoopla--doubt if it ever being overturned is in the picture.
--I just want a court that will put halt to Judges elsewhere making law or ignoring law--and curb all this 9th district/Aclu BS.

 

[kosar]

I see what you're saying, but don't think it will go smoothly based on some of the early comments that I've heard from the dems. IMO, he gets the nod, but I think they'll work him over pretty good.

No question, man. This will not go smoothly at all. The dems will try to make a stand here, but they will lose. Schumer is already annoying the hell out of me.

 

[djv]

Give him his up or down vote. If he ends up being for crap it's just another mark on Bush. Lately he's been acting like someone looking for a hole to hide in anyway. And at the rate he spends money that will be a blessing for us all. It sure was nice how his party treated Miers. Make her walk away was the cry. That was OK with all the rights. Now if the Left gives this guy a little hell it's some how wrong. Such BS.