Author Topic: Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court  (Read 722 times)

Offline Pooh21

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3145
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2006, 09:53:32 PM »
lol no filibuster, hes confirmed :rofl  :aok

Quote
Originally posted by Eric Cartman
Yes! Yesss!! Oh, let me taste your tears,Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet. Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-ymmuy

eat it :o 's
Bis endlich der Fiend am Boden liegt.
Bis Bishland bis Bishland bis Bishland wird besiegt!

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2006, 10:02:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes. Hopefully this is the beginning of ripping America from the arms of liberal chaos thats been going on for 40+ years.


You mean the Nixon/Ford Administration from '68-76, and the Reagan Administration from '80-88, and the Bush Administration from '88-92, and the current Bush Administration from '00-Present were/are Liberal?

From '68 to the Present the Republicans have held the White House 68% of the time or (26 of 38 years).  

Rip, I'm not a liberal, but at the very least, give the facts a passing nod as you whiz by.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2006, 10:09:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
You mean the Nixon/Ford Administration from '68-76, and the Reagan Administration from '80-88, and the Bush Administration from '88-92, and the current Bush Administration from '00-Present were/are Liberal?

From '68 to the Present the Republicans have held the White House 68% of the time or (26 of 38 years).  

Rip, I'm not a liberal, but at the very least, give the facts a passing nod as you whiz by.

Quote
In 1969 and 1970, the Senate rejected two of President Richard Nixon's nominees over criticism of the nominees' personal qualities and philosophical positions. The defeat of President Ronald Reagan's nominee, Robert H. Bork, in 1987 was, all sides agree, based on considerations of judicial philosophy. In short, nominees have been rejected for a wide variety of reasons, partisan, personal, and philosophical.

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2006, 10:27:17 PM »
Are you saying those admins didn't get to appoint Justices?

As I recall, at the time, SCJ Kennedy was referred to as Bork without the beard from an idealogy standpoint.

Your quote does not refute my point nor does it support your contention.

Now, also, over those years the Repubs have stacked the SC rather well. A point I don't think you can argue, to wit:

Seven of today's nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Ages range from 57 (Thomas) to 85 (Stevens) ; four atttended Stanford; six attended Harvard. Six had been in private practice; seven were already federal judges.

1. Roberts--Appointed by Bush II (replaced a Rhenquist who had been appointed by a Republican)

2. Stevens--Appointed by Ford

3. Alito--Appointed by Bush II (replaced O'Connor who had been appointed by Reagan)

4. Scalia--Appointed by Reagan

5. Kennedy--Appointed by Reagan

6. Souter--Appointed by Bush I

7. Thomas--Appointed by Bush I

Stupid facts!

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2006, 10:48:57 PM »
As not to cloud one post with too many facts for you, I'll also quote the more of the passage from your rip and paste....

And the most important part------


The second phenomenon of overriding importance -- one closely related to the first -- is that the American people expect and demand that the Supreme Court will be independent of the political branches of government

And for your Nixon example, here's the story on the rejected nominees--

When Abe Fortas resigned in 1969, Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, a Southern jurist. His nomination was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 45-55 on November 21, 1969.

Haynsworth was nominated to the Supreme Court on August 21, 1969 by President Richard Nixon to replace Abe Fortas on the court. Haynsworth was opposed by Democrats, Liberal Republicans, and the NAACP and he was alleged to have made court decisions favoring segregation and decisions on subjects where he had a financial interest.

And just who voted against Haynsworth: 17 Republican senators -- including most of the GOP leadership --  joined  in opposing Haynsworth's nomination.



In response, Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell, a Southerner with a history of supporting segregation. The Senate rejected his nomination 45 to 51 on April 8, 1970.

Carswell was praised by Senators such as Richard Russell; he was criticized for the high reversal rate (58%) of his decisions that were later appealed, and by civil-rights advocates for his judicial record and for vocally supporting White supremacy in 1948 while running for office in Georgia.

Of course how could he loose with endorsements such as this:

In a famous speech in Carswell's defense, Republican Sen. Roman Hruska of Nebraska argued: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers, and they are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that."


This is the best part Rip:

!!Carswell was arrested and convicted of battery, in 1976, for advances he made to an undercover police officer in a Florida men's room;some claim him as the first homosexual or bisexual nominated to the Supreme Court.



Now onto Bork:

Bork lost confirmation by a Senate vote of 42 to 58, largely because Bork had written about his views on many controversial constitutional issues, but perhaps also because of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre

The "Saturday night massacre" (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the forced resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the controversial and drawn-out Watergate scandal.

Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere – Bork had made no such assurance to the committee.

Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of Presidential power. In the days that followed, numerous bills of impeachment against the President were introduced in Congress. Nixon defended his actions in a famous press conference on November 17, 1973, in which he said,

"...in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life that [sic] I've welcomed this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook!"


Dang, those stupid facts again!!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2006, 11:11:55 PM by Stringer »

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2006, 10:55:13 PM »
Alito proved one thing during the hearings...that he is far more of a gentleman than his inquisitors.

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2006, 06:33:24 AM »
And a goodly percentage of Republican-nominated judges have turned out to be liberals....(Kennedy...) the reverse isn't true for the Democrats
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2006, 07:50:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by bj229r
And a goodly percentage of Republican-nominated judges have turned out to be liberals....(Kennedy...) the reverse isn't true for the Democrats


OK, but as you noted they were Republican nominated.  

And the reverse is true, actually.  You just have to research it some.  One of the best examples is Roosevelts nominee for the Chief Justice position (I can't remember his name right now) turned on him and struck down as unconstitutional a huge chunk of Roosevelts New Deal legislation.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2006, 08:17:09 AM »
I am thinking that Alito and Roberts are both as they seem... conservative constitutionalists.

The things I wanted Bush to do.. he did.  I don't like the guy but he did get the firearm industry protected from frivolous lawsuits and he did get two good SC judges and he did let the "assault weapons" ban expire.

lazs

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2006, 09:01:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
You mean the Nixon/Ford Administration from '68-76, and the Reagan Administration from '80-88, and the Bush Administration from '88-92, and the current Bush Administration from '00-Present were/are Liberal?

From '68 to the Present the Republicans have held the White House 68% of the time or (26 of 38 years).  

Rip, I'm not a liberal, but at the very least, give the facts a passing nod as you whiz by.


Can you say S-u-p-r-e-m-e  C-o-u-r-t.... you see they have been making law for the past thirty years, their not supposed to do that. The legislative branch (the peoples representatives) does that. The president Administers the law, thats why it's called "The Administration".

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2006, 09:11:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
OK, but as you noted they were Republican nominated.  

And the reverse is true, actually.  You just have to research it some.  One of the best examples is Roosevelts nominee for the Chief Justice position (I can't remember his name right now) turned on him and struck down as unconstitutional a huge chunk of Roosevelts New Deal legislation.


Thats because they were "Unconstitutional". Not because he turned on him. It would have been legislation passed by the legislators that was deemed "Unconstitutional". Presidents can only sign or veto legislation, they can't pass it. The administration can work with the congress (House and Senate) but ultimately they have the responsibility of making law.

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2006, 09:38:06 AM »
Weasalsan,

I think you misinterpeted the intent of my post.  It is exactly the position you have taken.  My post was in reply to Rips's assertion that the SC has somehow been controlled by Democratic Nominees, which it has not.

You may have also missed in my post this part:

The second phenomenon of overriding importance -- one closely related to the first -- is that the American people expect and demand that the Supreme Court will be independent of the political branches of government

An ideal I completely agree with.

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2006, 09:40:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by weaselsan
Can you say S-u-p-r-e-m-e  C-o-u-r-t.... you see they have been making law for the past thirty years, their not supposed to do that. The legislative branch (the peoples representatives) does that. The president Administers the law, thats why it's called "The Administration".


Well then, if that's true, the Republicans have done a poor job of nominating Justices.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2006, 10:43:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
Weasalsan,

I think you misinterpeted the intent of my post.  It is exactly the position you have taken.  My post was in reply to Rips's assertion that the SC has somehow been controlled by Democratic Nominees, which it has not.

You may have also missed in my post this part:

The second phenomenon of overriding importance -- one closely related to the first -- is that the American people expect and demand that the Supreme Court will be independent of the political branches of government

An ideal I completely agree with.



i call spin here.

they were nominated by republicans but they had to be passed by a democratic controlled congress.

so only nominees who were approved by democrats were appointed to the SC.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Senate confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2006, 10:51:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes. Hopefully this is the beginning of ripping America from the arms of liberal chaos thats been going on for 40+ years.


OK, I'm gonna type really slow, but this quote ^ in the same post as...

 
Quote
"My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make."President G.W.Bush


Has got to win some award for irony. The Irony's? Maybe we could make a statue that looks like an iron and stick it on a wood base.
 


Executive - Republican
Legislature - Republican
Judicial - 7 of 9 Republican nominees.

When exactly do the republicans decide they can go ahead and be responsible?