NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I won't provide the link, but this is cut and paste. Not usually my style, but this makes good, concise points that I agree with.

Listen very carefully within the marbled, storied corridors of the Capitol and you're apt to hear one question above all whispered from senatorial lips to senatorial ears: "Give me one good reason I should filibuster Samuel Alito and not simply allow him to be confirmed for the seat being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court? Why risk the majority's wrath, their threat to violate the rules of the Senate and exercise the Nuclear Option"?

Fair enough. I'll give you not just one but ten good reasons for Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans to stand tall and reject this nomination, pandering to those far to the right of the mainstream (Source: SaveTheCourt.org):

10. Alito has supported extremist positions overall.

"There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court." — Jonathan Turley, law professor who supported John Roberts but opposes Sam Alito

Alito's dissents are more conservative than those of even fellow Republican judges 91% of the time.

Alito's dissents argue against individual rights 84% of the time.

Alito has been criticized by many of his fellow judges for "ignoring, abandoning, or overruling precedent" and for "disregard of established principles of stare decisis."

Alito testified that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted strictly in accord with its text and the "meaning someone would have taken 'from the text' at the time of its adoption"; a position that The Oregonian characterized as an "18th century view" that could "roll back many hard-fought federal protections that Americans enjoy today."

9. Alito has opposed "one person, one vote."

Alito wrote that he disagreed with Supreme Court decisions on reapportionment that established the "one person, one vote" principle inherent in equal voting rights.

8. Alito has opposed the First Amendment separation of church and state.

Alito ruled that a child evangelism group was discriminated against by a school district that did not allow it to distribute and post materials in back-to-school nights.

Alito voted to allow group prayer at school-sponsored graduation ceremonies; O'Connor and a majority of the Supreme Court struck down a similar policy.

Alito supported city-sponsored religious displays; in a similar case, the Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor in the majority, ruled otherwise.

7. Alito has opposed a woman’s right to choose.

Alito wrote: "The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Alito upheld in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey a law requiring a woman to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion; Sandra Day O'Connor and a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed, stating "a State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."

6. Alito has opposed remedies for victims of discrimination.

Alito as an applicant for a job in Edwin Meese's Justice Department proudly cited his membership in an alumni group notorious for opposing admission of women and minorities to his alma mater.

Alito repeated wrote dissenting opinions putting up barriers to victims of discrimination — particularly women and people of color — to bring their cases to trial, let alone to prevail; one court majority went so far as to write that Alito's view would have "eviscerated" federal anti-bias laws.

Alito has sided against 75% of people raising discrimination claims and against immigrants in seven out of eight cases before him.

Alito as a federal judge agreed that American citizens could be kept off juries in some cases simply because they spoke Spanish.

Alito as a federal appeals court judge argued that discrimination cases should not even reach a jury if an employer claimed to have picked the "best candidate," even if the employer exercised conscious racial bias; the other judges in the case rejected his reasoning as having the potential to gut legal protections against racial discrimination.

5. Alito has opposed workers, consumers, and small business hurt by big business.

Alito applied legal doctrines inconsistently in various discrimination cases, consistently siding with powerful corporate interests against such victims as disabled or injured workers.

Alito has "seldom sided" with consumers suing big business.

Alito as judge ruled against a small business hurt by the anti-competitive practices of a large corporation that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act; the other judges in the case overruled him.

4. Alito has opposed environmental protection.

Alito voted to make it more difficult for citizens to sue alleged polluters under the Clean Water Act; his reasoning was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court in another case.

Alito as a government lawyer and as a federal judge tried to limit the power of Congress to apply the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives the federal government the authority to regulate activities within and between states, as to protect the environment with pollution controls or the Endangered Species Act; the Supreme Court will soon hear cases that could well render the Clean Water Act unenforceable.

3. Alito has opposed laws to protect society from violent crime as well as Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the accused.

Alito as a government lawyer and as a federal judge tried to limit the power of Congress to apply the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as to regulate the distribution of machine guns.

Alito rejected claims by an African American that he had been denied a fair trial by an all-white jury from which black jurors had been excluded because of their race; a higher court reversed the ruling and criticized Alito's analysis as absurd.

Alito as Assistant Solicitor General argued that it was acceptable for police officers to shoot in the back an unarmed 15-year-old boy fleeing the scene of a burglary; not only the Supreme Court but also every police group that acted as friends of the court in the case rejected Alito's argument.

2. Alito has opposed Fourth Amendment restraints on abuse of power.

Alito upheld the strip search of a mother and her ten-year-old daughter, unnamed in a search warrant; Michael Chertoff, then judge, now head of the Department of Homeland Security, warned that would turn the Constitution's search warrant requirement into little more than a "rubber stamp."

Alito as judge upheld video surveillance by the FBI without a warrant.

Alito in the Solicitor General's office argued that Cabinet officials are entitled to immunity from legal liability for authorizing illegal wiretaps of Americans in America; the Supreme Court rejected his argument.

And the Number One reason to reject Samuel A. Alito for the Supreme Court:

1. Alito on the Supreme Court would effectively hand George W. Bush — and each of his successors as president, from either or any party — virtually unrestrained power.

And what could be more "extraordinary circumstances" — worthy of filibuster — than that?

So, in other words, Alito is the ideal Supreme Court Justice of the New World Order as envisioned by the neo-cons, which should serve as proof that 1) the neo-cons are anti-American radicals and 2) they are so confident that they have won their little bloodless revolution that they're not even trying to hide that fact anymore.

So, in other words, Alito is the ideal Supreme Court Justice of the New World Order as envisioned by the neo-cons, which should serve as proof that 1) the neo-cons are anti-American radicals and 2) they are so confident that they have won their little bloodless revolution that they're not even trying to hide that fact anymore.

I am afraid that may be accurate.

*applauds*

Is 10 all they could come up with? I bet I can come up with 100 more.

Wish I was a Senator. :(

I already wrote my two senators advising to filibuster.

If the Repubs are going to kill the ability to filibuster, then alito is a worthy last effort.....

You could have just said "because he's an asshole," and you'd be right on target. I can't stand the guy.

Is 10 all they could come up with? I bet I can come up with 100 more.

Wish I was a Senator. :(

Aww... I'd vote for you :D

If I lived over there that is.

I already wrote my two senators advising to filibuster.

If the Repubs are going to kill the ability to filibuster, then alito is a worthy last effort.....

They're not going to kill the fillibuster, just postpone it until they're a minority again.:rolleyes:

I think your pleas are falling on deaf ears. The majority of people want him approved, according to the polls. I don't believe that the Democrats have enough votes for a filibuster. And I don't believe that the majority of Americans would support one, either.

They're not going to kill the fillibuster, just postpone it until they're a minority again.:rolleyes:

Not if you listen to that Hack Friest. ;)

I think your pleas are falling on deaf ears. The majority of people want him approved, according to the polls. I don't believe that the Democrats have enough votes for a filibuster. And I don't believe that the majority of Americans would support one, either.

I'm not sure what polls you are referring to or on what basis the majority of people want him confirmed. Both are irrelevant.

I do think he will be confirmed. He just shouldn't be.

I'm not sure what polls you are referring to or on what basis the majority of people want him confirmed. Both are irrelevant.

I do think he will be confirmed. He just shouldn't be.

Now now. Didn't you get the memo? The Shrub is a uniter not a divider!

He just shouldn't be.

Seconded.

I think your pleas are falling on deaf ears. The majority of people want him approved, according to the polls. I don't believe that the Democrats have enough votes for a filibuster. And I don't believe that the majority of Americans would support one, either.
Unfortunately, I can't think of an answer that wouldn't bring a Godwin accusation. I think the Godwin principle is too broad. You should be able to draw historical parallels without being accused of name-calling.

So I'll just say majorities choose to do lots of things that they later regret.

And frankly, in this case, it's the exact same working and middle class majority being manipulated by the exact same corporatist minority as in the last two world wars. They've just changed location and titles, that's all. But that doesn't make them less wrong.

It also doesn't change the anti-Americanism of it, either. It just means that a large chunk of Americans are choosing to abandon everything that made America great. That doesn't make me feel better about it.

Where are the Bush worshipers in this thread?

Where are the Bush worshipers in this thread?
I don't consider myself a Bush worshiper (no public figure is worthy of that).

But I fail to see that Alito is the Antichrist and the End Of The World As We Know It.

The ABA says he's "well qualified". So be it. A majority of Americans want him confirmed.

Any other questions? Or should Supreme Court nominees produce a long list of decisions that they either promise to overturn or not overturn during their entire tenure, regardless of future arguments and evidence made before the Court?

I don't consider myself a Bush worshiper (no public figure is worthy of that).

But I fail to see that Alito is the Antichrist and the End Of The World As We Know It.

The ABA says he's "well qualified". So be it. A majority of Americans want him confirmed.

Any other questions? Or should Supreme Court nominees produce a long list of decisions that they either promise to overturn or not overturn during their entire tenure, regardless of future arguments and evidence made before the Court?

So it is irrelevant how a judge has deicded in the past or could decide in the future?

So much for advise and consent. Just ask the ABA and run a poll.

So it is irrelevant how a judge has deicded in the past or could decide in the future?

So much for advise and consent. Just ask the ABA and run a poll.
I believe it's unethical to ask a judge how they would rule in the future. It's even more unethical to ask them to guarantee that they won't change their mind in the future, especially if you ask them to guarantee that specific decisions will or will not be overturned at the first opportunity.

Sure, examine what they did in the past. But it's unethical to speculate how that would apply in the future, and ask the nominee to give you a guarantee.

It's called pre-judging a case. Not allowed.

It is good to see that our democratic friends have not yet figured out that the rest of the country has caught on to Norm Lear's "People for the American Way" scam. The Barbra Striesand Foundation should really ask for a refund.

I am glad to see that the US has finally dropped the pretense of a independant judiciary. I am sure that it wasn't all that important anyway.

OMG, why dont the senators stop this "Elito"? I caught this (http://home.arcor.de/genius23/bin/alitoad.wma) ad on the radio and really, this man should not be a judge.

I believe it's unethical to ask a judge how they would rule in the future. It's even more unethical to ask them to guarantee that they won't change their mind in the future, especially if you ask them to guarantee that specific decisions will or will not be overturned at the first opportunity.

Sure, examine what they did in the past. But it's unethical to speculate how that would apply in the future, and ask the nominee to give you a guarantee.

It's called pre-judging a case. Not allowed.
But it's not unethical to ask them about the theories they've espoused in the past, which is what the Senate did, and here's the basis of what we learned--Alito believes Roe is not settled law, and since he's on record as opposing it in the past, we can assume he still believes that. Alito believes in the power of the unitary executive, which is as destructive to our system of checks and balances as any theory ever espoused (ask yourself--do you want Hillary Clinton with unlimited executive power? How about Al Sharpton? Lyndon LaRouche? Put your worst-case scenario person as president and then ask yourself if you want him or her with that kind of control).

And it's not unethical to make assumptions about how they will rule in the future based on their past rulings--to do otherwise is willful blindness and an abdication of the Senate's responsibility to advise and give or withhold consent.

Does it matter who other than Alito gets appointed? The SCOTUS is gonna keep destroying our rights as it has been doing for a while...

I believe it's unethical to ask a judge how they would rule in the future. It's even more unethical to ask them to guarantee that they won't change their mind in the future, especially if you ask them to guarantee that specific decisions will or will not be overturned at the first opportunity.

Sure, examine what they did in the past. But it's unethical to speculate how that would apply in the future, and ask the nominee to give you a guarantee.

It's called pre-judging a case. Not allowed.

And yet it is done in every confirmation hearing. Its only called unethical when the side that thinks is winning wants to shut down the debate.

But it's not unethical to ask them about the theories they've espoused in the past, which is what the Senate did, and here's the basis of what we learned--Alito believes Roe is not settled law, and since he's on record as opposing it in the past, we can assume he still believes that. Alito believes in the power of the unitary executive, which is as destructive to our system of checks and balances as any theory ever espoused (ask yourself--do you want Hillary Clinton with unlimited executive power? How about Al Sharpton? Lyndon LaRouche? Put your worst-case scenario person as president and then ask yourself if you want him or her with that kind of control).

And it's not unethical to make assumptions about how they will rule in the future based on their past rulings--to do otherwise is willful blindness and an abdication of the Senate's responsibility to advise and give or withhold consent.


I happen to personally believe that the executive is more powerful than interpreted by some Democrats.

I also believe that if you assume how a judge will rule based on past rulings, the first time that you really, really have to count on that, you'll be wrong.

Look at the various Reagan nominees - I remember hearing the same fear that they would overturn Roe.

Didn't happen. They turned out to be far less conservative than initially claimed.

I want a justice with an independent mind, and no promises. That's why there are more than one.

I happen to personally believe that the executive is more powerful than interpreted by some Democrats.

I also believe that if you assume how a judge will rule based on past rulings, the first time that you really, really have to count on that, you'll be wrong.

Look at the various Reagan nominees - I remember hearing the same fear that they would overturn Roe.

Didn't happen. They turned out to be far less conservative than initially claimed.

I want a justice with an independent mind, and no promises. That's why there are more than one.
So you do want to consolidate power in the hands of the president as an individual? You do want him to be able to take both military and domestic executive action at home and abroad without reference to the Congress? And you do want to protect him against any counter actions on the part of citizens or the Congress in the courts? Because that's what Bush has been arguing for and what he's been doing with programs like NSA surveillance and arbitrarily designating prisoners as "enemy combatants" and then unilaterally declaring that this allows him to deny them access to attorneys, courts, or even family.

In other words, you don't believe in the American system of checks and balances, and you would like to see it scrapped in favor of giving the president the power to dictate.

But you haven't answered the question: What if that power belonged to a person you thought was dangerous to the country and yourself? A leftwinger? A liberal? Someone who might want to regulate business, increase taxes, etc? What then?

Or are you assuming that would be impossible? Perhaps, like so many who would claim the power to dictate, you assume that your side would never lose power.

<snip>
I want a justice with an independent mind, and no promises. That's why there are more than one.
But we are arguing that Alito is NOT independent and that he has and will prejudge cases. In fact, we believe that his approval constitutes a promise to the rightwing that they will get cases decided a certain way. You conveniently ignore this argument and all of the evidence from Alito's past decisions that back it up.

So you do want to consolidate power in the hands of the president as an individual? You do want him to be able to take both military and domestic executive action at home and abroad without reference to the Congress? And you do want to protect him against any counter actions on the part of citizens or the Congress in the courts? Because that's what Bush has been arguing for and what he's been doing with programs like NSA surveillance and arbitrarily designating prisoners as "enemy combatants" and then unilaterally declaring that this allows him to deny them access to attorneys, courts, or even family.

In other words, you don't believe in the American system of checks and balances, and you would like to see it scrapped in favor of giving the president the power to dictate.

But you haven't answered the question: What if that power belonged to a person you thought was dangerous to the country and yourself? A leftwinger? A liberal? Someone who might want to regulate business, increase taxes, etc? What then?

Or are you assuming that would be impossible? Perhaps, like so many who would claim the power to dictate, you assume that your side would never lose power.


I personally believe that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He, not Congress, is their Commander.

In military chain of command references, there is NO reference to Congress or the Supreme Court. None.

The Congress has the power to declare war - that is, force the President to go to war. They also have the power of the purse, and thus, if the President wants a long term fight with someone, they can prevent it if they have the balls.

An examination of the surveillance program apparently indicates that they are listening only to people who communicate from within the US to outside contacts who are known al-Qaeda associates. Known. I see no Constitutional protection for non-US citizens abroad.

Along the same lines, I see no constitutional protections for non-US citizens aboard - if they are caught fighting against US troops or interests or carrying arms against US forces. If they are not members of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, they are NOT entitled to its protections, per the Conventions themselves.

Next question?

Alito is as independent as any other jurist - and that's always a question of subjectivity. I don't think he'll be a poor Justice, and I'm looking forward to having another conservative on the court.

The Court has been trending towards reducing federal authority - all kinds of federal authority, not merely Congressional - and giving it back to the states. I like that. Any reduction in the massive gaping maw of the commerce clause as the catchall for federal usurption of state authority is good.

Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will always remain legal in some portions of the United States. Some states will always keep it legal. Even Roe vs. Wade doesn't state that abortion should be cheap and easy to obtain.

The President is given the authority to choose Supreme Court justices. There's no rule that the court has to be balanced. In fact, most of the time the court hasn't been balanced.

The primary criteria, in my mind, for determining the fitness of a Supreme Court justice is whether or not the person is qualified. Alito is obviously qualified. Just like Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens and plenty of other justices. Whether or not I agree with their legal views doesn't make them less qualified.

Alito will be confirmed tomorrow, and the world will not end. Trust me.

Along the same lines, I see no constitutional protections for non-US citizens aboard - if they are caught fighting against US troops or interests or carrying arms against US forces. If they are not members of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, they are NOT entitled to its protections, per the Conventions themselves.

Just to add this: Technically, we should shoot them dead on sight. Why? They're not wearing a uniform. That makes them a spy under the Geneva Convention. It doesn't say that they can even be tried in a military tribunal. That they're being classified as "Enemy Combatants" is gracious.

'Cause if I captured them and they had a gun and fired it...I'd kill 'em. :sniper:

I take all of this w/ a grain of salt. Especially after comments like this:

John Kerry on NPR: "Confirming Judge Alito to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court would have irreversible consequences that are already defined if Senators will take the time to measure them.

In my judgment, it will take the country backwards on critical issues."


So irreversible reverses?


And politicians like Shumer attacking effectively anybody nominated by Bush:

Hugh Hewitt interviews "The Smart Guys" - USC professor Erwin Chemerenski from the Left, and Chapman University law professor John Eastman from the Right, weekly. On Wednesday, June 8, 2005 the topic was Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to the DC Circuit, and this exchange was transcribed over at Radioblogger:

John Eastman: You know, I mean, it's just so preposterous, I don't even know where to begin. The reason Chuck Schumer is so upset about this, is Justice Brown is the kind of judge who will, you know, adhere to the Constitution. And when the members of the legislature, even the exalted Chuck Schumer hismelf, want to take actions that is not authorized by the Constitution, she'll be willing to stand up and do her duty, and strike it down. That's not an arrogance, that's what the judges are there for, to adhere to the Constitution, and not to let the legislature roll over them and do whatever they want. You know, it really is preposterous. We've turned this upside down. The judges that do exactly what they're supposed to do are demonized, and those that take a powder and let the legislature get away with every abuse, every extension of power imaginable, are touted at the cocktail circuit.

Erwin Chemerenski: I think what Senator Schumer is saying, and is absolutely right, is that Janice Rogers Brown's repeated statements that she believes that the New Deal programs like social security are unconstitutional, is truly a radical view. That's not a judge who wants to uphold the Constitution. That's a judge who wants to shred the last eighty years of American Constitutional law. Janice Rogers Brown saying she believes that the Bill of Rights should not apply to the states, would undo the last seventy years of Constitutional law. That's not a judge who wants to follow the law. That's a judge who wants to make the law in her own radical, conservative views.

John Eastman: Hang on, here, because Erwin...there's a wonderfully subtle change in your phraseology that demonstrates what's going on here. You said she won't follow the Constitution, and then you said it's because she won't follow the last seventy or eighty years of Constitutional law. What happened seventy or eighty years ago that changed the Constitution? There was not a single amendment at issue in the 1930's that changed the Constitution. Some radical, federal programs were pushed through. Some radical judges, under pressure, finally signed on them, and the notion that we can't question that unconstitutional action that occurred in the 1930's, and somehow that defending that unconstitutionality is adherent to the rule of law, is rather extraordinary. There are scholars on left and right that have understood that what went on in the 1930's was...had no basis in Constitutional law, or in the letter of the Constitution itself.

They're not afraid of "irreversible change." They're afraid of reversal of their changes. And, typically, they won't come out and say that.






* Much of this blatantly plaigarized from www.smallestminority.blogspot.com/

[QUOTE=Brians Room]
Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will always remain legal in some portions of the United States. Some states will always keep it legal. Even Roe vs. Wade doesn't state that abortion should be cheap and easy to obtain.


QUOTE]
I live in Oklahoma. If the decision is left to the states, I could have to drive half-way across the country for a legal abortion. I realize most of us are too young to remember the days of illegal abortions, but not having access to a safe legal abortion didn't stop abortions from happening. Instead of just carrying the fetus to term, women died to try to end a pregnancy.

I personally believe that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He, not Congress, is their Commander.

In military chain of command references, there is NO reference to Congress or the Supreme Court. None.

The Congress has the power to declare war - that is, force the President to go to war. They also have the power of the purse, and thus, if the President wants a long term fight with someone, they can prevent it if they have the balls.

An examination of the surveillance program apparently indicates that they are listening only to people who communicate from within the US to outside contacts who are known al-Qaeda associates. Known. I see no Constitutional protection for non-US citizens abroad.

Along the same lines, I see no constitutional protections for non-US citizens aboard - if they are caught fighting against US troops or interests or carrying arms against US forces. If they are not members of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, they are NOT entitled to its protections, per the Conventions themselves.

Next question?
1. So, if the president wants to order the military to attack NYC or Paris or Moscow for any reason, he's free to do that, as long as he doesn't keep it up too long? And he doesn't have to tell Congress or anybody else. He can just order it.

2. And here you are, advocating that the Congress should stand up for itself by withholding military funds, even though, in all other threads, you're all gungho for supporting the troops. So you're saying that Congress should preserve its political power by leaving innocent American troops to die in foreign lands without adequate supplies.

3. I also enjoy your vision of a multi-branched government in which all the branches are at war with each other. Yeah, that'll work well.

4. Your understanding of the NSA surveillance program is based on nothing but the latest rounds of talking points issued by the people who started the program in the first place. The Bush administration itself has given conflicting information about this program, with Bush saying it's only incoming overseas calls, and Cheney saying it's also outgoing overseas calls to certain countries. And some officials saying they're only looking at known numbers and others saying they're pursuing expanding connections of different numbers based on calls placed, and some officials saying it's very limited and others saying they are looking at 1000s of numbers weekly. Plus, you are completely ignoring the FBI's complaints about the randomness of the so-called leads the NSA has been sending them. Once again, Kimchi, you blindly accept whatever statements will let you claim that Bush is right in the fewest words possible and the hell with anything else.

5. Likewise, your understanding of the Geneva Conventions is just plain wrong. It is based solely on the Bush admin's own claims in defense of their tactics, and not on the actual applications of the Conventions under international law.

OMG, why dont the senators stop this "Elito"? I caught this (http://home.arcor.de/genius23/bin/alitoad.wma) ad on the radio and really, this man should not be a judge.
I'm sorry, is that ad for or against him? It's so preposterous that I think it's a beat-up by his supporters to make those opposed to him look ridiculous. Especially the bit about him being an Italian-American like Columbus and therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of native Americans.

I live in Oklahoma. If the decision is left to the states, I could have to drive half-way across the country for a legal abortion. I realize most of us are too young to remember the days of illegal abortions, but not having access to a safe legal abortion didn't stop abortions from happening. Instead of just carrying the fetus to term, women died to try to end a pregnancy.

I've heard this story before. This isn't the 1950s. Oklahoma isn't that far from Illinois or Pennsylvania, both of which probably won't ban abortion.

Here's a good story about what South Dakota does:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600747.html

Like I said, there is nothing in the Constitution or Roe vs. Wade that says that states need to make abortions convenient. They simply have to be legal. Each state should be able to legislate on the issue, based on the opinions of the folks who live there.

If a woman decides that taking her life into her own hands by going to a back-alley abortionist is easier or better than hopping a train or driving to a state where they're legal ... well, that's her choice isn't it?

The ABA says he's "well qualified". So be it. A majority of Americans want him confirmed.


Sadly true. You can't underestimate the power of stupid people in great numbers.

The ABA basically flunked Thomas(well they have him a C) and he made it.....

It is good to see that our democratic friends have not yet figured out that the rest of the country has caught on to Norm Lear's "People for the American Way" scam. The Barbra Striesand Foundation should really ask for a refund.


Ahhh the troll speaks!

I believe it's unethical to ask a judge how they would rule in the future. It's even more unethical to ask them to guarantee that they won't change their mind in the future, especially if you ask them to guarantee that specific decisions will or will not be overturned at the first opportunity.

Sure, examine what they did in the past. But it's unethical to speculate how that would apply in the future, and ask the nominee to give you a guarantee.

It's called pre-judging a case. Not allowed.

Meh! If he refuses to comment about past cases then it's fair game as he implies he already has an opinion.
[

If a woman decides that taking her life into her own hands by going to a back-alley abortionist is easier or better than hopping a train or driving to a state where they're legal ... well, that's her choice isn't it?
I forget what it is specifically called, but there is a Supreme Court precedent that laws (law2) in adherence with another law (law1) that the lawmakers don't like cannot prevent people from doing things they would be able to do under law1 because of excessive restriction.

For example, everyone can vote, but if you were required to write a 50 page essay on American history, that would be excessive restriction.

I forget what it is specifically called, but there is a Supreme Court precedent that laws (law2) in adherence with another law (law1) that the lawmakers don't like cannot prevent people from doing things they would be able to do under law1 because of excessive restriction.

For example, everyone can vote, but if you were required to write a 50 page essay on American history, that would be excessive restriction.
And in the interest of underscoring the obvious, for those too caught up in their own rhetoric to follow the argument, that means that going out of your way to make it inconvenient for a woman to get a legal abortion will eventually end with you violating the law that makes abortion legal. Stopping people from doing what the law says they can do is against the law.

So, to be obvious again, if it turns out that a state's mere "inconvenience" is an actual obstacle for, say, poor rural women, that's going to be a problem for that state.

Meh! If he refuses to comment about past cases then it's fair game as he implies he already has an opinion.
[
Just like here, when refusal to address a point signifies concession of the point, silence speaks volumes. If everyone knows he has an opinion, but he refuses to say what it is, well, hell, why shouldn't we conclude we are right and he is refusing to say something he knows would have gotten him rejected?

1. So, if the president wants to order the military to attack NYC or Paris or Moscow for any reason, he's free to do that, as long as he doesn't keep it up too long? And he doesn't have to tell Congress or anybody else. He can just order it.

2. And here you are, advocating that the Congress should stand up for itself by withholding military funds, even though, in all other threads, you're all gungho for supporting the troops. So you're saying that Congress should preserve its political power by leaving innocent American troops to die in foreign lands without adequate supplies.

3. I also enjoy your vision of a multi-branched government in which all the branches are at war with each other. Yeah, that'll work well.

4. Your understanding of the NSA surveillance program is based on nothing but the latest rounds of talking points issued by the people who started the program in the first place. The Bush administration itself has given conflicting information about this program, with Bush saying it's only incoming overseas calls, and Cheney saying it's also outgoing overseas calls to certain countries. And some officials saying they're only looking at known numbers and others saying they're pursuing expanding connections of different numbers based on calls placed, and some officials saying it's very limited and others saying they are looking at 1000s of numbers weekly. Plus, you are completely ignoring the FBI's complaints about the randomness of the so-called leads the NSA has been sending them. Once again, Kimchi, you blindly accept whatever statements will let you claim that Bush is right in the fewest words possible and the hell with anything else.

5. Likewise, your understanding of the Geneva Conventions is just plain wrong. It is based solely on the Bush admin's own claims in defense of their tactics, and not on the actual applications of the Conventions under international law.

1. You really need a lesson in how the military operates. Should the president give a LAWFUL order, ie, one that does not violate the UCMJ or Constitution, then the US Military has to follow it. Its why we have a Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise the President on actions that he should/should not take. Otherwise, yes, a president can tell us to invade Paris and we'd have to do it. As for telling Congress...Navy SEALs go into foreign countries all the time...and sometimes the President doesn't even know. Neither does Congress. Most especially congress. They have a tendency to tell people crap the Military doesn't want them to.

2. The War Powers Act says that the President can send in ground combat forces for up to 60 days prior to informing Congress. That means, he could (on a technicality) send in the 1st Infantry Division for 60 days, then take them out and replace them with the 2nd Marine Division...etc. DoD would have to get the funds from Congress, but they also have a pretty big budget to cover things like that.

3. All three branches of our Government are SUPPOSED to be at war with each other. Its called Checks and Balances. They keep things at some sort of tolerable level.

4. I'd help out with this one but its classified.

5. Maybe you should first read the Geneva Convention...if I capture someone, in a COMBAT ZONE, and they are not wearing a uniform, but they are armed they can be treated JUST like a hostile soldier. Thankfully, we do not do that...we capture them, feed them, and send them on back to Gitmo. What would happen if I got captured by Al-Qaeda? I'd be paraded down a street, stripped down, without my head. And they'd film it...

NOTE: I won't provide the link, but this is cut and paste. Not usually my style, but this makes good, concise points that I agree with.

why not? here's a guess- it's from an uber-lefty group that lack any semblance of rationality.

reveal your source for this crap.

And in the interest of underscoring the obvious, for those too caught up in their own rhetoric to follow the argument, that means that going out of your way to make it inconvenient for a woman to get a legal abortion will eventually end with you violating the law that makes abortion legal. Stopping people from doing what the law says they can do is against the law.

So, to be obvious again, if it turns out that a state's mere "inconvenience" is an actual obstacle for, say, poor rural women, that's going to be a problem for that state.

Read the article I linked. It doesn't seem to be a problem for North Dakota, South Dakota or Mississippi.

1. You really need a lesson in how the military operates. Should the president give a LAWFUL order, ie, one that does not violate the UCMJ or Constitution, then the US Military has to follow it. Its why we have a Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise the President on actions that he should/should not take. Otherwise, yes, a president can tell us to invade Paris and we'd have to do it. As for telling Congress...Navy SEALs go into foreign countries all the time...and sometimes the President doesn't even know. Neither does Congress. Most especially congress. They have a tendency to tell people crap the Military doesn't want them to.

Yawn. No, the military can not invade paris upon the whim of the president. The ability to declare war upon a nation state is the power of congress, and congress alone. No branch is allowed to abdicate it's powers to another, nor is the president allowed to go completely willy nilly even in war time. Look at truman back in the 50's, when he tried to nationalize the steel industry.

Bullshit.

Show me specific cases. Not some guys "analysis" of stuff he may or may not have actually researched.

Also, show me how his reasoning is wrong. Not how the results are wrong.

the point of being a judge (especially a supreme court justice) is to interprit, not create.

the constitution is not a mean to an end, it's interpritation is the end.

Yawn. No, the military can not invade paris upon the whim of the president. The ability to declare war upon a nation state is the power of congress, and congress alone. No branch is allowed to abdicate it's powers to another, nor is the president allowed to go completely willy nilly even in war time. Look at truman back in the 50's, when he tried to nationalize the steel industry.
Who said anything about declaring war?

The president can do whatever he wants with the military for, IIRC, 3 months before congress can put a stop to it (ie cut funding).

Yawn. No, the military can not invade paris upon the whim of the president. The ability to declare war upon a nation state is the power of congress, and congress alone. No branch is allowed to abdicate it's powers to another, nor is the president allowed to go completely willy nilly even in war time. Look at truman back in the 50's, when he tried to nationalize the steel industry.

Actually, s/he can, freaknasty. Where the hell did you pull up these facts from? "Look at Truman back in the 50's, when he tried to nationalize the steel industry"...that's not relevent.

Example 1: President Bush (JR) put troops into Iraq
Example 2: President Bush (JR) put troops into Afghaniland
Example 3: President Clinton put troops into Kosovo
Example 4: President Clinton put troops into Bosnia
Example 5: President Bush put Marines in Somalia
Example 6: President Bush put the troops into
Example 7: President Bush went into Panama
Example 8: President Reagan went into Grenada
Example 9: President Reagan put the US Navy and Air Force into Libya
Example 10: President Reagan went into Lebanon
Example 11: President Carter tried to go into Iran (and failed miserably)
Example 12: President Nixon did more with Vietnam
Example 13: President Johnson put more troops in Vietnam
Example 14: President Kennedy almost invaded Cuba
Example 15: President Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and left troops there and in Japan
Example 16: President Truman put troops into Korea
Example 17: President Roosevelt put Marines into Iceland and Greenland
Example 18: President Hoover put Marines into several Carribean and Central American countries in order to restore order, as did several others before him...need I go on?

1. So, if the president wants to order the military to attack NYC or Paris or Moscow for any reason, he's free to do that, as long as he doesn't keep it up too long? And he doesn't have to tell Congress or anybody else. He can just order it.

They might impeach him for it, some units may not obey, but yes, he certainly can order the military to attack a target of his choosing without asking Congress. As an example, the President can start a nuclear war without Congressional authorization simply by using "the football". I've been through the training on nuclear command authority, and Congress does not enter into it. He could, theoretically, have ordered the nuking of Afghanistan after 9-11, and the military most certainly would have obeyed.

2. And here you are, advocating that the Congress should stand up for itself by withholding military funds, even though, in all other threads, you're all gungho for supporting the troops. So you're saying that Congress should preserve its political power by leaving innocent American troops to die in foreign lands without adequate supplies.
I'm not advocating that - I'm saying that's their only option.

3. I also enjoy your vision of a multi-branched government in which all the branches are at war with each other. Yeah, that'll work well.
Where did I say they would be at war with each other?

4. Your understanding of the NSA surveillance program is based on nothing but the latest rounds of talking points issued by the people who started the program in the first place.
And your understanding of it is based on your hatred of Bush, not on any real evidence.

5. Likewise, your understanding of the Geneva Conventions is just plain wrong. It is based solely on the Bush admin's own claims in defense of their tactics, and not on the actual applications of the Conventions under international law.

I'm a lawyer. And I refer you to Convention I, Article 2, in its entirety. It says word for word what I said, and is how it is applied under international law. That's not to say that some nations never go beyond the provisions of the Conventions and extend the same protections to everyone they fight, but there isn't anything in the Conventions or Protocols as signed by the United States (and we didn't sign all of the Protocols) that would force the US to recognize any fighters who did not fight for a High Contracting Party.

I personally believe that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He, not Congress, is their Commander.

In military chain of command references, there is NO reference to Congress or the Supreme Court. None.

The Congress has the power to declare war - that is, force the President to go to war. They also have the power of the purse, and thus, if the President wants a long term fight with someone, they can prevent it if they have the balls.

An examination of the surveillance program apparently indicates that they are listening only to people who communicate from within the US to outside contacts who are known al-Qaeda associates. Known. I see no Constitutional protection for non-US citizens abroad.

Along the same lines, I see no constitutional protections for non-US citizens aboard - if they are caught fighting against US troops or interests or carrying arms against US forces. If they are not members of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, they are NOT entitled to its protections, per the Conventions themselves.

Next question?

And yet, for all that prevaricating, you've still managed to completely miss the point.

The point is that the FISA act specifically states that all wiretapping surveillance that involves domestic parties and not cleared with the court is illegal. Bush has admitted that surveillance 1) involving domestic parties and 2) not cleared by the FISA court has taken place, and furthermore, the President has repeatedly authorized continued use of the NSA dragnet operations in full knowledge of this. As such, he has willfully broken the law.

The President is not allowed to break the law. That is why Art. II, Sect. 3 specifically states "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed", and why in the Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer specifically states that the President does not have unlimited power to override Congress, even in matters of defense, war, or national security. In fact, to quote Jackson's concurring opinion in that case, the powers of the President are in fact "at their lowest ebb" when acting directly contrary to Congressional legislation. Put more simply, if the President acts directly contrary to Congressional statute, he better have a damn good justification for doing so.

Finally, the Senate resolution cited by the President was clearly not intended to override the FISA provision. How do we know this? We know it because the Bush administration explicitly tried to include language permitting such NSA dragnet searches in the legislation, and Congress explicitly rejected including such language. As such, it was clearly never legislative intent to allow Bush to bypass FISA.

So in effect, we know that the President broke the law, we know that he is constitutionally bound to uphold and protect the law, and we know that his justification for breaking the law does not meet the threshold set by the Supreme Court for what the President can and should do in a democratic system. As such, he is in violation of his oath to the Constitution, not upholding it, and he deserves to be removed from office. If the President does it, that doesn't mean that its illegal, and you ought to know that Kimchi.


Actually, s/he can, freaknasty. Where the hell did you pull up these facts from? "Look at Truman back in the 50's, when he tried to nationalize the steel industry"...that's not relevent.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. is the steel mill Truman tried to seize in order to ensure production of steel to meet the needs of troops in combat during the Korean War. The Supreme Court specifically said that Truman could not do so in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, because there was a congressional law on the books that said that he couldn't. Truman was forced to rescind his order.

Pray tell how is that not relevant?

I personally believe that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He, not Congress, is their Commander.

In military chain of command references, there is NO reference to Congress or the Supreme Court. None.

The Congress has the power to declare war - that is, force the President to go to war. They also have the power of the purse, and thus, if the President wants a long term fight with someone, they can prevent it if they have the balls.

An examination of the surveillance program apparently indicates that they are listening only to people who communicate from within the US to outside contacts who are known al-Qaeda associates. Known. I see no Constitutional protection for non-US citizens abroad.

Along the same lines, I see no constitutional protections for non-US citizens aboard - if they are caught fighting against US troops or interests or carrying arms against US forces. If they are not members of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, they are NOT entitled to its protections, per the Conventions themselves.

Next question?

Am I going to have to drag out the Conventions to prove yet again that you are wrong in your cavalier attitude towards the rights of non-Americans?

We've danced this dance before and you lost.

Actually, s/he can, freaknasty. Where the hell did you pull up these facts from? "Look at Truman back in the 50's, when he tried to nationalize the steel industry"...that's not relevent.

Example 1: President Bush (JR) put troops into Iraq
Example 2: President Bush (JR) put troops into Afghaniland
Example 3: President Clinton put troops into Kosovo
Example 4: President Clinton put troops into Bosnia
Example 5: President Bush put Marines in Somalia
Example 6: President Bush put the troops into
Example 7: President Bush went into Panama
Example 8: President Reagan went into Grenada
Example 9: President Reagan put the US Navy and Air Force into Libya
Example 10: President Reagan went into Lebanon
Example 11: President Carter tried to go into Iran (and failed miserably)
Example 12: President Nixon did more with Vietnam
Example 13: President Johnson put more troops in Vietnam
Example 14: President Kennedy almost invaded Cuba
Example 15: President Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and left troops there and in Japan
Example 16: President Truman put troops into Korea
Example 17: President Roosevelt put Marines into Iceland and Greenland
Example 18: President Hoover put Marines into several Carribean and Central American countries in order to restore order, as did several others before him...need I go on?
All upon the orders of congress. You're not that stupid, are you?

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Read up on it kid, one day you might be able to argue constitutional law too. A president has extraordinary powers in a time of declared war ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT HE IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY CONGRESS. Nothing more.

They might impeach him for it, some units may not obey, but yes, he certainly can order the military to attack a target of his choosing without asking Congress. As an example, the President can start a nuclear war without Congressional authorization simply by using "the football". I've been through the training on nuclear command authority, and Congress does not enter into it. He could, theoretically, have ordered the nuking of Afghanistan after 9-11, and the military most certainly would have obeyed.


I'm not advocating that - I'm saying that's their only option.


Where did I say they would be at war with each other?


And your understanding of it is based on your hatred of Bush, not on any real evidence.



I'm a lawyer. And I refer you to Convention I, Article 2, in its entirety. It says word for word what I said, and is how it is applied under international law. That's not to say that some nations never go beyond the provisions of the Conventions and extend the same protections to everyone they fight, but there isn't anything in the Conventions or Protocols as signed by the United States (and we didn't sign all of the Protocols) that would force the US to recognize any fighters who did not fight for a High Contracting Party.


First of all, Afghanistan and Iraq are Contracting Parties. So are most other nations of the world. So the number of people not "covered" by the Conventions even by your standards are less than you intimate.

Moreoever, the Conventions make provisions for others than combatants of the Contracting Parties. They specifically guarantee all a certain level of rights.

Am I going to have to drag out the Conventions to prove yet again that you are wrong in your cavalier attitude towards the rights of non-Americans?

We've danced this dance before and you lost.

No, I recall that you had no rebuttal to Convention I, Article 2.

Chapter I. General Provisions

Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The Taliban government was never either a High Contracting Party, nor did they agree to recognize the Conventions - so any protection for them is moot. In even more explicit terms, the members of Al Ansar (al-Qaeda) not only rejected the Conventions, they went out of their way in advance not to follow them - thereby demonstrating that they were neither a High Contracting Party, nor were they agreeable to abiding by the Conventions.

It's pretty simple - if you're not a member of the armed forces of a High Contracting Party, and not a citizen acting as a member of a resistance (and your country was definitely a High Contracting Party), or if you're not even a citizen of the country at all (as most members of Al Ansar were not), you're toast.

This is why native Iraqis fighting as resistance fighters are entitled to the protections of the Conventions, and members of Al Ansar ARE NOT.

All upon the orders of congress. You're not that stupid, are you?

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Read up on it kid, one day you might be able to argue constitutional law too. A president has extraordinary powers in a time of declared war ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT HE IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY CONGRESS. Nothing more.

Are you freaking kidding me? Half of those were NOT on the orders of Congress...most congressional support came AFTER the president put them in, in accordance with the WPA. Seriously, you need to really inspect your history, because you don't know it.

Are you freaking kidding me? Half of those were NOT on the orders of Congress...most congressional support came AFTER the president put them in, in accordance with the WPA. Seriously, you need to really inspect your history, because you don't know it.
Which ones, my dear?


Your reference to the war powers ACT is also very confusing. Your (I'm assuming this is what you mean) reference to the war powers RESOLUTION is even more confusing, as the entire point of the WPR is to prevent presidents from running around attacking nations without the consent of congress.

Why does this always boil down to politics? Why does partisan politics always have to take the place of a well qualified justice?

I'm not sure what polls you are referring to or on what basis the majority of people want him confirmed. Both are irrelevant.

I do think he will be confirmed. He just shouldn't be.

Why shouldn't he be confirmed? He is a well qualified candidate from all that I am hearing.

I am glad to see that the US has finally dropped the pretense of a independant judiciary. I am sure that it wasn't all that important anyway.

Our judiciary is still independent.

Alito is as independent as any other jurist - and that's always a question of subjectivity. I don't think he'll be a poor Justice, and I'm looking forward to having another conservative on the court.

The Court has been trending towards reducing federal authority - all kinds of federal authority, not merely Congressional - and giving it back to the states. I like that. Any reduction in the massive gaping maw of the commerce clause as the catchall for federal usurption of state authority is good.

Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will always remain legal in some portions of the United States. Some states will always keep it legal. Even Roe vs. Wade doesn't state that abortion should be cheap and easy to obtain.

The President is given the authority to choose Supreme Court justices. There's no rule that the court has to be balanced. In fact, most of the time the court hasn't been balanced.

The primary criteria, in my mind, for determining the fitness of a Supreme Court justice is whether or not the person is qualified. Alito is obviously qualified. Just like Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens and plenty of other justices. Whether or not I agree with their legal views doesn't make them less qualified.

Alito will be confirmed tomorrow, and the world will not end. Trust me.

I like this comment. :)

[QUOTE=Brians Room]
Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will always remain legal in some portions of the United States. Some states will always keep it legal. Even Roe vs. Wade doesn't state that abortion should be cheap and easy to obtain.


QUOTE]
I live in Oklahoma. If the decision is left to the states, I could have to drive half-way across the country for a legal abortion. I realize most of us are too young to remember the days of illegal abortions, but not having access to a safe legal abortion didn't stop abortions from happening. Instead of just carrying the fetus to term, women died to try to end a pregnancy.

As my momma drilled into my head from the time I was 6, don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex.

Judge Samuel Alito is exactly what this country needs at this point in our nation's history. We are living in a very dark day where someone can go in and shoot up a school, and can kill a child that can't even defend itself. WE HAVE LEGALIZED MURDER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope that you realize this. Judge Alito will make this country a great place again with more morals. We severly lack any sort of moral background in any facet of life. We need to realize our spiruality again and we should be a light unto the rest of the world by being strong and morally correct. If you want to spend an enternity in hell then to each his own.

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]

As my momma drilled into my head from the time I was 6, don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex.

Well, it's easy to follow when you're six. . .

Why shouldn't he be confirmed? He is a well qualified candidate from all that I am hearing.
I think it's mostly sour grapes from the Democrats. They aren't getting their way and they don't like it. The problem for them is that they can't even survive a cloture vote because they don't have enough seats in the Senate. And they don't like what that says about their base.

[QUOTE=WesternPA]

Well, it's easy to follow when you're six. . .

I've been following it because my parents and I talk about it constently. Didn't your parents?

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]

I've been following it because my parents and I talk about it constently. Didn't your parents?
Now that's just silly! EVERYONE knows that it's the governments job to take care of our kids. :rolleyes:

Now that's just silly! EVERYONE knows that it's the governments job to take care of our kids. :rolleyes:

It is? I always thought it was the parents

It is? I always thought it was the parents
Wow did you honestly miss THAT sarcasm?

Judge Samuel Alito is exactly what this country needs at this point in our nation's history. We are living in a very dark day where someone can go in and shoot up a school, and can kill a child that can't even defend itself. WE HAVE LEGALIZED MURDER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope that you realize this. Judge Alito will make this country a great place again with more morals. We severly lack any sort of moral background in any facet of life. We need to realize our spiruality again and we should be a light unto the rest of the world by being strong and morally correct. If you want to spend an enternity in hell then to each his own.Aw Jeez...

Another advocate for Theocracy....



Precisely why we don't need Alito...

Why does this always boil down to politics? Why does partisan politics always have to take the place of a well qualified justice?
Because partisan politics were at play when Bush nominated him. Don't try to play the aggrieved here--the stench of hypocrisy rises even through a computer screen.

I've been following it because my parents and I talk about it constently. Didn't your parents?

No, my parents stuck with the tried and true method of punching me in the side of the head, coupled with the threat of a lot more where that came from if I had sex before I was 35.

I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze, as it were.

Because partisan politics were at play when Bush nominated him. Don't try to play the aggrieved here--the stench of hypocrisy rises even through a computer screen.

So does sour grapes. You want another liberal judge on the Supreme Court? Win the presidency back. It's. Just. That. Simple.

When back alley abortions make a comeback along with the death tolls, not to mention organized crime picks up on it as a new moneymaker all because of Scalito, I can't wait until Shrub or his hand-picked successor declares a "War on Abortion."

So does sour grapes. You want another liberal judge on the Supreme Court? Win the presidency back. It's. Just. That. Simple.Or we can just steal it back...



Hey it worked for you guys...

Does it matter who other than Alito gets appointed? The SCOTUS is gonna keep destroying our rights as it has been doing for a while...
Agreed.

Well, I'm not going to address that Top-10 list, since so many of the referrences and statistics are either irrelevant or inaccurate (was I supposed to care if The Oregonian considers originalism an 18th-century idea? Or that some UCLA law professor doesn't like him? No matter.) and because, having finished college recently, I consider my essay-writing days over.. :p

However, I will say that I was very pleased with the Senate's vote today, and with the democrats who let reason rule their judgment and voted to end debate. I especially appreciate the votes of Senator Byrd and others, who, unlike some people I've encountered online, are apparently capable of disagreeing with the President on one issue, but allowing his Administration to make necessary progress on other important issues unimpeded. But I mostly wanted to post to wish Justice-to-be Alito an excellent next possible 25+ years on the Court. :)

Or we can just steal it back...



Hey it worked for you guys...

You already tried that with Ohio on the last presidential election. Didn't work, though, did it? It helps if you actually have a numerical advantage, however small, to survive a recount.

So does sour grapes. You want another liberal judge on the Supreme Court? Win the presidency back. It's. Just. That. Simple.
I don't expect a liberal--elections have consequences. But Alito is replacing a moderate, and I don't think it's too much to ask that we get someone that is at least willing to fake moderation for the sake of appearances. Alito will replace Thomas as the most conservative justice on the Court, and it won't even be close.

I havn't read the six pages of replies. When I look at Alito I have to wonder one thing. How many other judges get overturned with as much scorn and venom as Alito? His disicions have been refererd to as absurd as well as a whole bunch of other not so friendly comments.

I don't expect a liberal--elections have consequences. But Alito is replacing a moderate, and I don't think it's too much to ask that we get someone that is at least willing to fake moderation for the sake of appearances. Alito will replace Thomas as the most conservative justice on the Court, and it won't even be close.

Who appointed Sandra Day O'Conner? It was Reagan. Who was more conservative, Reagan or George W? I think Reagan would approve of a replacement of his with Alito, moderate or not is hardly meaningful. One could say, a conservative nominee judge for a conservative nominee judge, but I think that's silly. As President, you appoint a judge for the stance you ran for office on, regardless of what you ran on.

I wonder if George W will get yet another slot to fill before the next election?

However, I will say that I was very pleased with the Senate's vote today, and with the democrats who let reason rule their judgment and voted to end debate. I especially appreciate the votes of Senator Byrd and others, who, unlike some people I've encountered online, are apparently capable of disagreeing with the President on one issue, but allowing his Administration to make necessary progress on other important issues unimpeded. But I mostly wanted to post to wish Justice-to-be Alito an excellent next possible 25+ years on the Court. :)



I figured you would like the court swinging heavily to the right.

I can only hope he doesn't follow an agenda but I am not going to hold my breath.

I wonder if George W will get yet another slot to fill before the next election?

Probably not. If they had thoughts of retiring, they will probably hold out till the shrub is gone.

Who appointed Sandra Day O'Conner? It was Reagan. Who was more conservative, Reagan or George W? I think Reagan would approve of a replacement of his with Alito, moderate or not is hardly meaningful. One could say, a conservative nominee judge for a conservative nominee judge, but I think that's silly. As President, you appoint a judge for the stance you ran for office on, regardless of what you ran on.

I wonder if George W will get yet another slot to fill before the next election?
I hope he doesn't, but if he does, I hope he has a Democratic party controlled Senate to push him or her through.

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]

As my momma drilled into my head from the time I was 6, don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex.

Too bad the world is never black and white.....

Probably not. If they had thoughts of retiring, they will probably hold out till the shrub is gone.

Justice Stevens is 86 years old in April. 86. At what point will he not be able to hold out?




*edit: wrote 87, but I think it's 86? Anyone know for sure what it is?

Justice Stevens is 86 years old in April. 86. At what point will he not be able to hold out?

*edit: wrote 87, but I think it's 86? Anyone know for sure what it is?

There is no age limit.

As long as you hold your senses you can sit on the bench. IQ is not needed as seen by Thomas.

There is no age limit.

As long as you hold your senses you can sit on the bench. IQ is not needed as seen by Thomas.

Age limits have nothing to do with it. I asked how long they can hold out based on trying to evaluate how long they will 'want' to hold out. Ginsburg will be 73 this year I think, that's the average life expectancy of an American born male, even though she's female, she's also suffered from colon cancer a few years back? Why would they not want to retire? Scalia will be 73 this year too, I think, perhaps he will retire next year, to ensure George W gets to replace him with a younger man... who knows. Depending on their health and desire to stay on the court instead of writing memories and spending time with family, who knows what they might choose to do. Bush has a couple of years to go still. He might get another two or more slots to fill before he's done.



EDIT: BTW: IQ not needed? Shown by Thomas? Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977; Legislative assistant to Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, 1979-1981; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982; Chairman U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1982-1990. Sure doesn't look like the resume of an idiot to me.

I figured you would like the court swinging heavily to the right.

I can only hope he doesn't follow an agenda but I am not going to hold my breath.

I dunno.. my math says Justice Kennedy is going to be holding many of the cards nowadays.. he's notoriously unreliable.. to either side, really.

=snip=
One very good reason to support Alito - The Cat-tripe opposes him.

One very good reason to support Alito - The Cat-tripe opposes him.I swear idiots are like cockroaches... every time you step on one, two or three others take it's place.


The world is doomed.

EDIT: BTW: IQ not needed? Shown by Thomas? Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977; Legislative assistant to Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, 1979-1981; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982; Chairman U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1982-1990. Sure doesn't look like the resume of an idiot to me.

And yet the ABA gave him a barely passing mark.

How about a crap judge? Is that better?

NOTE: I won't provide the link, but this is cut and paste. Not usually my style, but this makes good, concise points that I agree with.

Listen very carefully within the marbled, storied corridors of the Capitol and you're apt to hear one question above all whispered from senatorial lips to senatorial ears: "Give me one good reason I should filibuster Samuel Alito and not simply allow him to be confirmed for the seat being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court? Why risk the majority's wrath, their threat to violate the rules of the Senate and exercise the Nuclear Option"?

Fair enough. I'll give you not just one but ten good reasons for Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans to stand tall and reject this nomination, pandering to those far to the right of the mainstream (Source: SaveTheCourt.org):
(snip)

For someone as hyper-technical as you, Im surprised you started this thread, cut and paste and all.

Didn't Kennedy's own "study" of Alito's record say everyone of his decisions was based very soundly on the law and showed no evidence of distortion or over-reaching to fit his "ideology"?

I happen to personally believe that the executive is more powerful than interpreted by some Democrats.

I also believe that if you assume how a judge will rule based on past rulings, the first time that you really, really have to count on that, you'll be wrong.

Look at the various Reagan nominees - I remember hearing the same fear that they would overturn Roe.

Didn't happen. They turned out to be far less conservative than initially claimed.

I want a justice with an independent mind, and no promises. That's why there are more than one.
Those are lovely rose colored glasses you are wearing, do you look at everthing through them?

Those are lovely rose colored glasses you are wearing, do you look at everthing through them?
I guess you don't remember the fears that Justice Souter would overturn Roe, and the same negative statements about him.

Sure didn't turn out like that, did it? Not at all.

Try taking a dose of reality.

I dunno.. my math says Justice Kennedy is going to be holding many of the cards nowadays.. he's notoriously unreliable.. to either side, really.
Maybe that means he's thinkking for himself, rather than trying to keep his political promises to one party or the other.

Aren't you glad there are so many judges on the SC?

Makes the Founding Fathers look pretty smart.

why not? here's a guess- it's from an uber-lefty group that lack any semblance of rationality.

reveal your source for this crap.

It's from www.savethecourt.org.

An excerpt from the "Who we are" section of their website:

People For the American Way is a national nonpartisan advocacy organization that mobilizes Americans to promote progressive values and policies, to defend public institutions and democratic values under attack by the radical right, and to preserve the rights, freedoms, and legal protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

For nearly 25 years, we have documented, exposed, and challenged efforts by radical right groups to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary and gain ideological domination of the federal courts.

So yeah, basically a far left group.

Those are lovely rose colored glasses you are wearing, do you look at everthing through them?
No, because they tend to obscure the blacks and whites, like facts. Kind of a colour/hue-filtering technique, i guess.

I mistrust any group that wants to "gain ideological domination of the federal courts."

I dunno.. my math says Justice Kennedy is going to be holding many of the cards nowadays.. he's notoriously unreliable.. to either side, really.
Well, he was the swing vote in Bush v Gore according to the clerks who were interviewed for a piece a couple of years back--O'Connor was fully on board from the beginning, and Kennedy was the one who had to be swayed.

But even if Kennedy becomes the swingiest of the swing votes, the court still lurches rightward with this nomination. Now, instead of a three man voting bloc (Thomas, Scalia and Roberts), you'll have a four man bloc, and Kennedy does tend to side with them more often than with the other four. Casey, the controlling abortion case right now, was decided 6-3, and Alito will presumably take that to 5-4, but Kennedy is unpredictable (shaky, I'd call him), and he's certainly the most important vote of the 9.

I guess you don't remember the fears that Justice Souter would overturn Roe, and the same negative statements about him.

Sure didn't turn out like that, did it? Not at all.

Try taking a dose of reality.
Souter really was a wild card--he had no case background to speak of, and when he got on the court, he shifted left, which is why there was never a chance in hell that the right-wing would allow something like that to happen again. They sunk Miers for precisely that reason--they thought she could be another Souter. It had nothing to do with her qualifications or lack thereof--it had everything to do with the fact that she wouldn't be a reliable anti-Roe vote.

There are no such questions with Alito, and the fact that you protest so much makes me wonder what you're scared of--are you afraid that if right-wing judges are open about their beliefs that the Republicans will take it in the teeth next election? 65% of Americans polled said that Alito ought not be seated on SCOTUS if he would vote to overturn Roe. He's a reliable anti-Roe vote, but wouldn't be loud and proud about it--what is he scared of?

Wow did you honestly miss THAT sarcasm?

Sarcasm? I thought he was being serious.

Because partisan politics were at play when Bush nominated him. Don't try to play the aggrieved here--the stench of hypocrisy rises even through a computer screen.

uh? Why are you calling me a hypocrit?

uh? Why are you calling me a hypocrit?
Because the post I replied to had the tone of "why must partisan politics come into this nomination" as though it never has before. It's always an issue, so to ask a question like that either means you're ignorant (possible) or a Bush apologist (likely). We could always call in CSI:Nationstates to dust your chin for Bush's ball prints to determine which it is. Would you like that?

[QUOTE=WesternPA]

Too bad the world is never black and white.....

Tell me about it! I've been grappling with my own personal crisis with no clear answer.

I mistrust any group that wants to "gain ideological domination of the federal courts."If your talking about Savethecourt read that quote again. It reads that they want to stop right wing groups that want to "gain ideological domination of the federal courts".


Kind of a big difference.

Because the post I replied to had the tone of "why must partisan politics come into this nomination" as though it never has before. It's always an issue, so to ask a question like that either means you're ignorant (possible) or a Bush apologist (likely). We could always call in CSI:Nationstates to dust your chin for Bush's ball prints to determine which it is. Would you like that?

Well I'm sorry for whatever offended you. That doesn't give you an excuse to be mean :(

EDIT: BTW: IQ not needed? Shown by Thomas? Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977; Legislative assistant to Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, 1979-1981; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982; Chairman U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1982-1990. Sure doesn't look like the resume of an idiot to me.

No, looks like the resume of a hack political appointee.

No, looks like the resume of a hack political appointee.
I always thought that "assistant" in a government title meant that you were good at bending over.

1. You really need a lesson in how the military operates. Should the president give a LAWFUL order, ie, one that does not violate the UCMJ or Constitution, then the US Military has to follow it. Its why we have a Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise the President on actions that he should/should not take. Otherwise, yes, a president can tell us to invade Paris and we'd have to do it. As for telling Congress...Navy SEALs go into foreign countries all the time...and sometimes the President doesn't even know. Neither does Congress. Most especially congress. They have a tendency to tell people crap the Military doesn't want them to.

2. The War Powers Act says that the President can send in ground combat forces for up to 60 days prior to informing Congress. That means, he could (on a technicality) send in the 1st Infantry Division for 60 days, then take them out and replace them with the 2nd Marine Division...etc. DoD would have to get the funds from Congress, but they also have a pretty big budget to cover things like that.

3. All three branches of our Government are SUPPOSED to be at war with each other. Its called Checks and Balances. They keep things at some sort of tolerable level.

4. I'd help out with this one but its classified.

5. Maybe you should first read the Geneva Convention...if I capture someone, in a COMBAT ZONE, and they are not wearing a uniform, but they are armed they can be treated JUST like a hostile soldier. Thankfully, we do not do that...we capture them, feed them, and send them on back to Gitmo. What would happen if I got captured by Al-Qaeda? I'd be paraded down a street, stripped down, without my head. And they'd film it...
I'm sorry (and I'm sorry for responding to this before reading the thread to see if anyone else already has), but you are so wrong it's not even funny. You clearly have no understanding of how the US government works, or what checks and balances are or how they work. And not only do you misunderstand the Geneva Conventions, you apparently don't read the international news much, either.

1. Both US and international law gives each individual soldier not only the right but also the obligation to refuse to follow any illegal or immoral order. You can thank Nuremburg for that -- no more "just following orders" as an excuse. Unless US soil is already under attack by enemies, the president has no authority to order an attack against his own country, so such an order would be illegal. Commander in chief is not the same as King or God. He DOES NOT own the military and cannot do anything he likes with it. If he does, he will be breaking the law, and if you as a soldier obey such orders, you'll be breaking the law, too.

2. Irrelevant. Neither Deep Kimchi's statement nor my response to it have anything to do with the War Powers Act. He was claiming that Congress's best and only way to limit the actions of the president is by denying money. I was accusing him of trying to set up the Dems for another of his partisan attacks, because he always goes on about how nobody supports the troops but the rightwing. First, neither party is going to cut off funds to troops in the field, and second, the Congress does, in fact, have more and better ways to limit the president than budget.

3. Checks and balances is not a constitutionally mandated turf war or pissing contest. It is the equal sharing of power through demarcation of work and authority. Its purpose is to diffuse power through multiple hands in order to prevent one party or person from taking all of it. The branches are equal and complementary to each other. They don't fight for control, unless one is trying to take over from the others. Your notion that the branches are supposed to fight a) would give us a paralyzed government that could do nothing and b) indicates that you in fact don't believe in checks and balances and that you'd rather see power consolidated in one group or person. Sorry, but that's not the American way.

4. HAHAHAHA! Then maybe somebody should tell Cheney to shut up about it. Sorry, but I really don't care how tip-top secret this latest pile of bullshit is supposed to be.

5. I think you're the one who doesn't understand what the Geneva Conventions are and how they work. You also don't understand the Bush admin's arguments which you are trying to defend. You seem to be saying that if you captured a uniformed enemy soldier on the field you'd just shoot him, but because of the Conventions, you don't do that to armed people you capture who are not in uniform. However, the Conventions require you to not just summarily shoot uniformed captives -- i.e. the enemy soldier. If you do that -- capture and then shoot -- you are violating the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions apply to uniformed enemy captives. Bush's argument is that they don't apply to non-uniformed enemy captives, but the consensus of the international community is that A) the Geneva Conventions do apply to all enemy combatants captured in a war zone whether uniformed or not, B) that there are other laws that protect civilians in war zones that the US is obliged to obey, too, and C) that even if you don't strictly have to apply the Conventions to a captive, you'll probably get blamed for not doing it, so you should err on the side of civilization and stick to the damned Conventions already. Your implied argument that, because al-quaida commits crimes, we should be able to get away do it too, doesn't wash with me.

Read the article I linked. It doesn't seem to be a problem for North Dakota, South Dakota or Mississippi.
Remind me, which Dakota was it that passed a law nearly 100% banning abortions WITHOUT any exception to save the life of the mother because, as one of their legislators put it, they couldn't see the logic of sacrificing an innocent life in such a case. They didn't bother to tell us why the mother's life didn't qualify as innocent and so deserved to be sacrificed.

The fact that you claim these three states as support for your argument indicates to me that you wish to strip women of their rights -- including their own right to life -- so the hell with you. And the hell with your preferred kind of judge.

I always thought that "assistant" in a government title meant that you were good at bending over.
Or good at licking arse.