Judge Samuel Alito

[Art Sandusky 0]

No, it's because the Supreme Court is pretty fucking important and, as much as people try to say otherwise, has a much greater impact on peoples' personal lives than either of the other branches. The President can veto a bill, Congress can override it, but both have to answer to the Supreme Court. And there's that small part about justices serving indefinately. I have no problems with nominations being fought, no matter who's doing it. You can't just rubber stamp everyone. Where I have a problem is attacking whoever might be resisting it, as is happening now. Seriously, how will it be rationalized when the current excessively outraged people do it themselves later on?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

No, it's because the Supreme Court is pretty fucking important and, as much as people try to say otherwise, has a much greater impact on peoples' personal lives than either of the other branches. The President can veto a bill, Congress can override it, but both have to answer to the Supreme Court. And there's that small part about justices serving indefinately. I have no problems with nominations being fought, no matter who's doing it. You can't just rubber stamp everyone. Where I have a problem is attacking whoever might be resisting it, as is happening now. Seriously, how will it be rationalized when the current excessively outraged people do it themselves later on?

 

And I agree with you for the most part. However, I think almost every nominee should be able to get a vote without being filibustered on the Senate floor. The GOP does have some liberal and moderate minded senators who I'm sure don't want a far right-wing nut on the Supreme Court (ex. Susan Collins). I could only view a filibuster in terms of extraordinary circumstances where someone is so unqualified it necessitates one (ex. Harriet Miers) and I don't think that fits Alito at all.

 

I just think the Democrats should let this one go b/c I think they are positioned well for 2008 if they run someone like Mark Warner or maybe an Evan Bayh and then that person can put a liberal on the court to shift the balance again. Believe me, Stevens is probably going to be the next to go but he's just holding out for a Democrat to come in so he has another liberal replace him.

[EricMM 0]

Noone is going to give the Dems points for letting him through easily.

 

Anyone approving of him is going to vote ® anyways.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yes Danville, filibustering is unacceptable for a nominee to me also unless it's someone who really shouldn't be near a court that influences the lives of 300 million people, whether it's lack of qualification or some really far-out shit the person's said or supported before (and I mean consistently, not a single line of a memo written twenty years ago or whatever). Of course, in those cases, the person usually withdraws or goes down in flames. The system works in this case, so all that's really left to be worked up about are the reported leanings of a nominee.

 

It also doesn't help that stuff the nominees are allowed to answer explicitly by their handlers is legal claptrap that flies over the heads of 99% of the country.

[The Robfather 0]

The Dems may be falling into a no-win situation, actually. If they have 41 votes or greater against Alito, many people on the left will demand they filibuster, then Frist will respond with the nuke. They may wish to save the filibuster for a next time (it can only work if they have the popular support of the American people, I believe).

 

But honestly, if there really were extraordinary circumstances to filibuster Alito or some other nominee, it wouldn't be necessary because that person wouldn't be able to get majority support on the floor.

[Boon 0]

72-25 to end debate.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Believe me, Stevens is probably going to be the next to go

 

I guess you haven't heard about Anthony Kennedy's penchant for base jumping and gator wrestling.

[NoCalMike 0]

With the current state of the Democratic Party, I am almost convinced it is going to take people taking to the streets before the Democrats grow some balls back.

 

Harry Truman said it best, "If People have to choose between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, they will choose the Republican everytime"

[Vyce 0]

Good for you, Mike, keep believing in that myth that Alito is some sort of extremist.

 

Hell, he's not even half as extremist as certain justices on the Court today area. And no - I'm not talking about Scalia or Thomas.

[NoCalMike 0]

Good for you, Mike, keep believing in that myth that Alito is some sort of extremist.

 

Hell, he's not even half as extremist as certain justices on the Court today area. And no - I'm not talking about Scalia or Thomas.

 

 

Who said he's an extremist? All I said is that he is a believer in the expansion of unilateral executive power, which BY ITSELF, in my opinion should disqualify you from the Supreme Court.

[SuperJerk 0]

So...the abortion split is now 5-4, huh?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Worrying about abortion is pointless, because we're too far along to get rid of it at this point.

 

I'm worried more about corporate cases and executive power rulings.

[NoCalMike 0]

The Roe v Wade issue is a smokescreen. Overturning it would just mean it is up to the states whether they individually want to make it illegal or not, and most states would probably not get enough votes to make it illegal despite what Laura Ingram or Ann Coulter or Rick Sanitorum would have you believe.

 

The fear with Alito is that, when reviewing a lot his higher profile cases, he flat out goes against the rule of law, trying to set some sort of precident when there is none. He was often the "one guy" on a panel of judges voting not according to the law, but by his own ideology.

 

That and his opinion on executive power.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Some conservatives seem to already be up in arms over Alito's "heel turn". For those not keeping track he voted with the "liberal block" to prevent some guy from getting executed today.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Worrying about abortion is pointless, because we're too far along to get rid of it at this point.

 

I'm worried more about corporate cases and executive power rulings.

 

I would actually enjoy it if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The pro-life politicians would finally be held accountable for their views, because their views would actually mean something. The ensuing political war over it would also be entertaining, because you would basically have 30% of the electorate calling the other 70% baby-killers.

[SuperJerk 0]

Worrying about abortion is pointless, because we're too far along to get rid of it at this point.

 

Care to place a wager on that? All this "the issue is settled" nonsense is just lip service from conservatives to get pro-choice women to vote for them.

 

The Roe v Wade issue is a smokescreen. Overturning it would just mean it is up to the states whether they individually want to make it illegal or not, and most states would probably not get enough votes to make it illegal despite what Laura Ingram or Ann Coulter or Rick Sanitorum would have you believe.

Visit the Bible belt much?

 

I would actually enjoy it if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The pro-life politicians would finally be held accountable for their views, because their views would actually mean something. The ensuing political war over it would also be entertaining, because you would basically have 30% of the electorate calling the other 70% baby-killers.

 

While it be cool to alleviate the right's bullshitting on the issue because they'd actually have to put up or shut up about it, I'm not looking forward to the onslaught of pro-life TV ads that will make the last presidential election look like civil discourse.

[Vyce 0]

That argument only applies should Roe get overturned and it go to the states to decide. If such a circumstance of events occur, conceivably some of the "Bible Belt" states would not vote to make abortion legal. But the idea that abortion would suddenly be banned by even a majority of states should Roe v. Wade be overturned is so ludicrous as to be practically beyond all serious consideration. And yes, 'Art' is actually right, because regardless of all of the hand-wringing Alito's confirmation caused among some of the liberal wings of the Democratic party, he isn't going to overturn RvW. The Court just isn't doing that. Personally, I think the worst you could see happen, the absolute worst, would be a possible ban of partial birth abortions. Although the odds of even THAT happening are slim.

 

The fear with Alito is that, when reviewing a lot his higher profile cases, he flat out goes against the rule of law, trying to set some sort of precident when there is none. He was often the "one guy" on a panel of judges voting not according to the law, but by his own ideology.

 

He'll fit right in on the Supreme Court, then. Because the Court has been doing just that for a few decades now.

[snuffbox 0]

Roe v Wade wont be overturned as it is simply not politically feasible. The religious whackos want it banned and they have to be pandered to for votes. The Republican Party isnt stupid...overturning Roe v Wade would cripple the Party.

[The Czech Republic 0]

The fear with Alito is that, when reviewing a lot his higher profile cases, he flat out goes against the rule of law, trying to set some sort of precident when there is none. He was often the "one guy" on a panel of judges voting not according to the law, but by his own ideology.

 

That and his opinion on executive power.

You know, almost everybody else left and right, supporters and many detractors, bar associations and other legal experts, all seem to feel that Alito is a well qualified judge who does his job with the utmost professionalism, going by the law rather than personal beliefs. What do you, NoCalMike, know that apparently all these legal experts don't know?

[Art Sandusky 0]

While not particularly useful in this discussion, it's important not to listen to "experts" too much. That kind of behavior has produced the massive gap between Americans inside and outside the Beltway.

[Vyce 0]

There's probably some truth to that.

 

However, if you have a few dozen individuals who have many, many years of legal experience to their credit, including the ABA (which is not a conservative organization) say that Alito can perform his duties as a Justice fairly, without letting personal bias cloud his legal judgment, I think I'm going to weight their opinion a little more than NoCalMike's.

[SuperJerk 0]

Roe v Wade wont be overturned as it is simply not politically feasible.

The Supreme Court isn't an elected body. Political feasibility of decisions just isn't a factor.

 

 

That argument only applies should Roe get overturned and it go to the states to decide. If such a circumstance of events occur, conceivably some of the "Bible Belt" states would not vote to make abortion legal. But the idea that abortion would suddenly be banned by even a majority of states should Roe v. Wade be overturned is so ludicrous as to be practically beyond all serious consideration.

 

Its fun to watch people argue against points no one was trying to make.

[Vyce 0]

I'm sorry, I was trying to decipher whether you actually had a point other than the typically bullshit "THEY"RE GONNA OVERTURN RvW!!!".

[snuffbox 0]

George Bush, like him or not, is clearly an intelligent/savvy politian. He wouldnt nominate people that would overturn certain laws and hinder anyone in his party from ever being elected again. There is a screening process involved, its not like the craziest zealots alive are rising out of Kansas Sunday school's to reach the level of SCOTUS.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Oh yeah, shit like this, sure, listen to people who know better. I just mean in general. We always run to find statistics and experts to support our positions instead of doing it ourselves and maintaining some autonomy.

[Vyce 0]

I'm not saying that people like Y2Jerk shouldn't be concerned about RvW being overturned. I'm just saying that while it's a legitimate concern, it's not a realistic one.

[SuperJerk 0]

George Bush, like him or not, is clearly an intelligent/savvy politian. He wouldnt nominate people that would overturn certain laws and hinder anyone in his party from ever being elected again.

Or perhaps Bush has principles he'd put above party loyalty and political feasibility? To people like Bush, abortion is murder. They'd take an election loss if that's what it takes to outlaw it.

 

I'm sorry, I was trying to decipher whether you actually had a point other than the typically bullshit "THEY"RE GONNA OVERTURN RvW!!!".

I don't share the opinion that the Supreme Court rolling back personal freedom "typically bullshit", especially considering Bush has only nominated people so far who agree with his view on the issue. If there's another vacancy, Roe v. Wade is as good as gone.

[EricMM 0]

I agree that Bush is a principled guy, who has morals and does what he thinks is right.

 

But what he thinks is right is far off what I believe or what I know to be true it isn't even funny.