Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on October 31, 2005, 09:32:06 AM
-
Man I just think it's funny to watch the democrats squirm.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173968,00.html
-
They say he is a "strict interpreter of the Constitution", in which case I would support him regardless of the rest. I havent looked into his decisions or opinions much yet though.
-
I saw the word "radical" several times in the article but there was nothing there to back up that label. :huh
I did see a couple things I definately like in a Supreme nominee.
"He understands judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."
As well as:
"Alito's 15 years on the federal court and say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced.
They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion."
I hardly find this to be a sign of a "radical". IMO this type of position is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be. They are a check in the checks and balances. Their main emphasis is to determine the constitutionality of what comes before the bench, based on OUR constitution not another countries, again IMO.
What I have quoted here is all based on a single article. The disenting vote in the PA. case didn't have sufficient info to determine exactly what he was dissenting about. It may have just been a specific section of the law rather than the "principal" or intent of the law. There is insufficeint info to tell in this article.
-
yeah he looks good at first glance to me too.
Wonder what dirt the dems with digup/makeup about him.
-
Just a "quick glance" search turned up these
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/alito/index.html
The blog showing some of his case decisions has links to the actual court documents. His words are really very illuminating as to the way he thinks.
I have to say, I like this guy so far.
-
Im sure that whole miers things was just a cheney con job. They (even she) knew she wouldnt make the confirmation but that her losing the spot opened up the way for a far more right leaning conservative (anti abortion).
Smart and deceitful politics for sure.
I like the guy and hope he gets confirmed.
-
the louder the dems holler, the more I like him
it will be a huge waste of tax dollars this go round ending in the nuclear option by the Reps ... too bad we have to waste all the time and money 1st
-
I saw a 30 second blurb on him and another guy as possible nominees early this morning. Of the two I liked him better. Let's see if he has any skeletons in the closet before we get all gushy.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Man I just think it's funny to watch the democrats squirm.
Yeah, that is a favorite pastime of mine. :D
Of course, you want a Supreme Court Judge to rule based on a literal interperatation of the Constitution. That is the problem the liberals will have with him, they will only want to accept someone who interperates it their way, the way they want it to be, not the way it is actual written.
-
What is the literal interpretation of the US Constitution as regards abortion? Just askin' - I don't think there are any direct references to it in the text. So what's a literalist to do?
-
"What is the literal interpretation of the US Constitution as regards abortion? Just askin' - I don't think there are any direct references to it in the text. So what's a literalist to do?"
The info is in there if you look:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
And:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
Those two amendments (the 10th and the 9th) are probably the two most abused portions of our Constitution, even moreso than the 2nd.
J_A_B
-
sounds like a good un. Sounds like he will get in too.
oboe... Abortion? who cares... I think only a few extremests on either side really think it is a litmus test for something as important as the SC.
lazs
-
Harriet Miers... The most qualified candidate due to her lack of experience.
Judge Alito.... The most qualified candidate due to his wealth of experience.
:aok
-
or... from your side of the isle..
meirs... not qualified because of lack of experiance..
alito... not qualified because of too much experiance..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sounds like a good un. Sounds like he will get in too.
oboe... Abortion? who cares... I think only a few extremests on either side really think it is a litmus test for something as important as the SC.
lazs
Abortion is just an example, cuz it seems to me all the issues I'm hearing about that people want to question his views on - abortion, civil rights, environmental protections - well it seems like this issues weren't addressed specifically be the Constitution - even indirectly. I mean, in the pre-Industrialized era that the Constitution was written in, environmental protection wasn't even a concept. So it seems there could be no intent for that specific issue for the literalists to even begin to interpret.
Though the framers were smart enough to know they couldn't anticpate everything, and it looks to me as pointed out by J_A_B, that for all these issues the ball is thrown right back to the States (or to the people - which I assume means either there should be no legislation at all, or, that the 'people' should use the legislative process to address anything that needs addressing.
-
Thats exactly the point. Such issues should be decided by the people through the legislative process. That was provided for in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say that judges, even at the SC level, get the right to legislate. Its time the judges got back to judging according to the laws as written and stop trying to do the writing themselves.
-
oboe... I am not sure that the sc should have anything to do with "environmental protection" unless it is in the context of human rights...
civil rights? Is there any real dissention in the parrties about this? It is a constitutional matter tho and I want it to be interpreted as such. abortion? again... the constitution may not have anything to say about a fetus but it certainly is against killing innocent humans.... being still attached to mom shouldn't matter. You can't play whack a mole with a chrome ball peen as their little head peeks out.
The constitution covers everything I am interested in or want the supreme court to hear.
lazs
-
Hi All,
First the Miers nomination was withdrawn, and then the guy I most wanted on the court was nominated. I think this might be a sure sign that the Apocalypse is imminent. Ah well.
Alito has a reputation for being an originalist and a defender of original intent, for this reason he is of course compared to Scalia (who until Roberts was confirmed was the only originalist left on the court) and labeled "Scalito" by the left. Predictably, the jabs are going to be aimed at the fact that he is not going to continue the progressive interpretation of the constitution that produced rulings like Roe v. Wade (and our current property rights debacle). Unfortunately they are already also going after his Italian ancestry with thinly veiled suggestions that being a Goombah himself he was soft on the Mafia. That approach will probably backfire in a hurry, and unless I'm completely out to lunch, current popular disaffection with the ongoing progressive reshaping of constitutional law will probably cause that tack to backfire as well.
Given that he's a top notch Princeton and Yale Grad who has been on the bench for over 25 years, the "not qualified" thing isn't going to wash. The only hope will be that he has a rather large collection of previously undiscovered skeletons or that the Bush Administration's problems will become so huge that nothing they do or propose will be successful.
- SEAGOON
-
Actually I don't think the dems have a leg to stand on fighting this nomination.
He is imminently qualified. I disagree with his politics, but he is qualified.
-
MT
Do you think that will stop them from trying?
-
hehe
:rofl
-
i heard Alito is Catholic
a bit plus for me:aok
-
GTO,
I'm not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I think the probable course of action will be to define Alito as "out of the mainstream*" and then fillibuster. A friend of mine in D.C. says groups like NOW are already demanding it. Unfortunately, if the Dems stay in lockstep on that, such a fillibuster would be the end of the nomination. The political reasoning goes, "Ok we tick off the American people by fillibustering a qualified nominee - but on the other hand, with the upcoming "Scooter" and Delay circuses, the high price of oil, and the overwhelming unpopularity of the administration - we can weather it. Plus we make our own base VERY happy."
* Regarding the Mainstream: Just what is this mythical "mainstream" anyway? Obviously I'm not it, but then again neither is Chuckie Shumer, although we differ in that I'm aware of that fact and apparently he isn't. Just why is the "mainstream" so important anyway? Among things the "mainstream" didn't support we have:
Leaving England and settling America
The American Revolution
The Louisiana Purchase
The Abolition of Slavery
Airpower
Opposing Hitler's Rise to Power
Civil Rights
And so on... Who cares what the mainstream thinks anyway? Those aren't the guys who get written up in history books.
- SEAGOON
-
Does anyone really thing Roe V wade ( I cant be assed to spell it right I so dont give two ****s about that stupid issue) will change?
How could a case even get to the Supreme court on this?
only thing I could see is a minor restriction or two like a partial birth ban etc.
-
Politicians on both sides have no clue what main stream is.
To busy listening to their handsomehunk advisors who have no clue what we want as a people or dont give a ****.
I think the main stream is the people in the middle who don't buy into the left or right BS and go for what would make life better easier for them.
I dont think either side has any idea how to to appeal to them.
The main stream does not give a **** about Envirnmental wackoism but is ok with reasonable laws to protect the our lands.
They don't want to ban abortion because its murder or people will burn in hell, they just dont like it but want it to be legal and to stop hearing people whine about it. Because they know it is none of their damn buisnes.
They dont give a **** about left pork versus right pork, all politicians suck and they know this, they just want it to be better.
They dont want guns banned but they dont want just anyone to be able to buy one at a 7/11 it is about reasonable controlls.
They dont give a **** why illegals are pouring accross the borders they just want the borders closed and a imagration policy put into place that works and allows for people who want to work here to come here legaly. A policy that would bring in workers but also make the nation safer as well.
They are horrified by 911 but do not want to give up the rights that make this nation special to fight terror.
They are the people who want the nation to be a better place, not for the left or right, but for everyone.
ETC
Neither the dems or the rep get this.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Politicians on both sides have no clue what main stream is.
To busy listening to their handsomehunk advisors who have no clue what we want as a people or dont give a ****.
I think the main stream is the people in the middle who don't buy into the left or right BS and go for what would make life better easier for them.
I dont think either side has any idea how to to appeal to them.
The main stream does not give a **** about Envirnmental wackoism but is ok with reasonable laws to protect the our lands.
They don't want to ban abortion because its murder or people will burn in hell, they just dont like it but want it to be legal and to stop hearing people whine about it. Because they know it is none of their damn buisnes.
They dont give a **** about left pork versus right pork, all politicians suck and they know this, they just want it to be better.
They dont want guns banned but they dont want just anyone to be able to buy one at a 7/11 it is about reasonable controlls.
They dont give a **** why illegals are pouring accross the borders they just want the borders closed and a imagration policy put into place that works and allows for people who want to work here to come here legaly. A policy that would bring in workers but also make the nation safer as well.
They are horrified by 911 but do not want to give up the rights that make this nation special to fight terror.
They are the people who want the nation to be a better place, not for the left or right, but for everyone.
ETC
Neither the dems or the rep get this.
wow first good argument i have heard yet.
Wanna be on the court??
-
Surprised so many are supporting a Guy from Joisey.:)
-
I really cant see what the issue is. Its one of the reasons that people vote for the president surely. So that positions will be filled by people that share the presidents views and therefore the views of the people that voted for him.
What would be strange is if he put forward someone that wasnt an established conservative.
-
Like Miers?
-
was she even a lawyer?
-
Miers was a smoke screen to get everyones mind off Rove and Libby.
-
An effective one too.
-
I thought that Alito's career would have been over after that OJ fiasco.
-
:huh
You mean Ito?
-
Oh that's right... my mistake...this guy used to be Mayor of San Francisco.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Politicians on both sides have no clue what main stream is.
To busy listening to their handsomehunk advisors who have no clue what we want as a people or dont give a ****.
I think the main stream is the people in the middle who don't buy into the left or right BS and go for what would make life better easier for them.
I dont think either side has any idea how to to appeal to them.
The main stream does not give a **** about Envirnmental wackoism but is ok with reasonable laws to protect the our lands.
They don't want to ban abortion because its murder or people will burn in hell, they just dont like it but want it to be legal and to stop hearing people whine about it. Because they know it is none of their damn buisnes.
They dont give a **** about left pork versus right pork, all politicians suck and they know this, they just want it to be better.
They dont want guns banned but they dont want just anyone to be able to buy one at a 7/11 it is about reasonable controlls.
They dont give a **** why illegals are pouring accross the borders they just want the borders closed and a imagration policy put into place that works and allows for people who want to work here to come here legaly. A policy that would bring in workers but also make the nation safer as well.
They are horrified by 911 but do not want to give up the rights that make this nation special to fight terror.
They are the people who want the nation to be a better place, not for the left or right, but for everyone.
ETC
Neither the dems or the rep get this.
Dead. Solid. Perfect.
-
GtoRA2 fer Prezidant!
-
Thanks Sandy.
I sat and thought about that for some time.
-
LOL
Hang!
I have soul so I don't think I would fit in around washington lol!:D
-
Common sense and logic are unassailable.
Go fer it.
I'll vote for yah.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Common sense and logic are unassailable.
Go fer it.
I'll vote for yah.
We can all get it right once in awhile! I am not sure I could pull it off everyday;)
-
I sat and thought about that for some time.
We can all get it right once in awhile! I am not sure I could pull it off everyday
Yah. using my brain everyday gives me a headache too. I try not to do it during daylight hours when I'm sober.
Just don't get lieutenant syndrome:
'for every solution, there are insurmountable problems.'
;)
-
This is going nookular.
Thars no way 30% of the population dictates this stuff w/o a fight.
-
I love it. Alito is going to be confirmed and there is not anything the tired old liberal fanatics can do about it. The American voters put republicans in charge, not the few hysterical dems who always oppose ANYTHING that doesn't follow their fringe views.
They will try though, and that's part of what I like most about it......they will continue to alienate themselves and take their party down even further.
-
again... nash comes off with some out in left field weird comment.. must be a canadian thing.
here's a clue for ya.... 100% of the canadian population has no say in it and no one will even care.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
here's a clue for ya.... 100% of the canadian population has no say in it and no one will even care.
How much "say" do you think you or I have in Alito's confirmation?
-
we live in a representitive republic... how much more say do you want?
Do you think we should all vote on it? maybe so... We did all understand the process tho when we voted ... It is probly one of the main reasons bush got elected.
lazs
-
OOooooo, he's gonna take some heat over this one.
''I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.''
-- Samuel Alito, in a document from 1985, when he was applying to become deputy assistant attorney general
WASHINGTON (Nov. 14) - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito boasted about his work arguing that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" while trying to become a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, according to documents released Monday.
Alito, a federal appellate judge nominated by President Bush to the nation's highest court, was a young lawyer working for the solicitor general's office in 1985 when he applied for the position under Attorney General Edwin Meese.
As part of his application, Alito sent a document saying his work in the solicitor general's office had included helping "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly."
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he wrote.
That sentence provides one of the first clear-cut statements attributed to Alito about abortion, which will be one of the main topics of his January confirmation hearing as retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement.
"I think that it is more reason to question him closely at the hearing," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will run Alito's Jan. 9 hearings as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Specter, an abortion rights moderate, said a lot of people have shifted their views about abortion over the years and that he has found Alito to have "a very heavy commitment to legal interpretation which might differ from his own personal views."
Bush picked Alito after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her Supreme Court nomination when confronted by withering criticism by some conservatives.
"This may explain why the right wing expressed such enthusiastic support for Judge Alito after campaigning against Harriet Miers," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., one of several senators who will meet with Alito privately on Tuesday. "When he comes before the Senate, Judge Alito faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he no longer holds these extremely troubling views and would bring an open mind and a real commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms."
O'Connor has been a crucial swing vote on abortion on the Supreme Court, and Alito's opponents fear that he and recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts would swing the Supreme Court to the right and lead to the overturning of the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision establishing abortion rights.
Alito, 55, has told senators in his two weeks of private meetings that he has "great respect" for Roe v. Wade as a precedent, but he did not commit to upholding it.
Alito "joins a long list of jurists who have written that Roe was wrongly decided, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she was confirmed to the court," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "The question is whether he will put his personal views aside as any judge should and base his rulings on what the Constitution says. His long track record as a federal appeals court judge shows that he has indeed put his personal views on abortion aside, and I have every confidence he will continue to do so."
The document was included in more than 100 pages of material about Alito released by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library on Monday.
Some abortion rights groups already have come out against Alito because of his work as a federal appellate judge, including a dissent on an appeals court decision striking down a law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
But White House spokesman Steven Schmidt said Alito's 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shows "a clear pattern of modesty, respect for precedent and judicial restraint."
When he wrote this document, he was working as an assistant to the solicitor general, where he stayed from 1981 to 1987. Although he sought the job of deputy assistant attorney general in 1985, he did not win that job until 1987.
In the document, Alito declared himself a "lifelong registered" Republican and a Federalist Society member, and said he had donated money to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee and several GOP candidates.
"I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration," Alito said.
Alito also wrote that he believed "very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."
The 1985 document on abortion was first reported by The Washington Times in Monday editions.
Kennedy, who is also a Judiciary Committee member, wrote Alito on Monday questioning his explanations for ruling on a Vanguard case after telling the committee in 1990 that he would recuse himself from cases involving that company.
Alito holds six-figure investments with Vanguard.
In a Thursday letter, Alito told senators he was "unduly restrictive" in promising to avoid Vanguard's appeals cases, and he did not believe he was required to disqualify himself on the basis of ownership of shares in a mutual fund. The White House has added that there was a computer glitch that allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected.
The Vanguard name was prominent throughout the case, Kennedy said. "Surely, whatever the system, the oversight should have been obvious when the case reached you," the letter said.
-
"This may explain why the right wing expressed such enthusiastic support for Judge Alito after campaigning against Harriet Miers," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., one of several senators who will meet with Alito privately on Tuesday. "When he comes before the Senate, Judge Alito faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he no longer holds these extremely troubling views and would bring an open mind and a real commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms."
huh??
what "extremely troubling views"?
nope, just another ant hill mountain from the likes of drunk teddy is all
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"This may explain why the right wing expressed such enthusiastic support for Judge Alito after campaigning against Harriet Miers," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., one of several senators who will meet with Alito privately on Tuesday. "When he comes before the Senate, Judge Alito faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he no longer holds these extremely troubling views and would bring an open mind and a real commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms."
huh??
what "extremely troubling views"?
nope, just another ant hill mountain from the likes of drunk teddy is all
agreed. That was written a whole 20 years ago and one can develop a different sense for law/prescedent in that "short" amount of time. The guy can really swing both ways depending on what the law says and personal feelings aside as this:
Some abortion rights groups already have come out against Alito because of his work as a federal appellate judge, including a dissent on an appeals court decision striking down a law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
I'm assuming these abortion rights groups are actually right to life type peopel because he ruled against them in the quoted text. I think you're going to hear alot of hemming and hawing from the extreme liberals in the senate but the majority of them are really going to like this guy. Good ole "driving instructor teddy" never passes up air time to say something bad about conservatives.
-
Originally posted by tikky
i heard Alito is Catholic
a bit plus for me:aok
What does being catholic help?
Aren't religion and the State separated in US ?
Or are you thinking that he might let his beliefs to affect his rulings?
-
staga... all that is seperate is that the constitution says that the government can't have a state sponsored religion... it says nothing about individual beliefs other than that we are entitled to em.
lazs
-
More to the point is there anyone who believes that a strict constructionist reading of the constitution will discover a "fundamental right" to abortion on demand or ethnic and racial quotas? Certainly a positivist reading of the Constitution did, but a positivist reading is capable of discovering literally anything that the reader feels would be a good law that would contribute to the progress of the society.
In essence Teddy and his cadre do not really want a constitution that functions in the way that constitutions are intended to -- i.e. to provide a neutral and objective arbiter amidst competing philosophies that will restrain either the designs of an interest group or the tyranny of the majority. Neither do they want a Supreme Court that serves simply to strictly interpret and apply that document, they want a legislative body consisting of 9 appointed oligarchs with a liberal/progressive point of view. Unfortunately, the grave danger is that as Scalia has warned, both sides will eventually come round to this view and the Lawyer/Interpreter paradigm will dropped in favor of "we want a partisan to decree our views from the bench" at which point the Supreme Court ceases to be an asset to the Republic and becomes instead only a liability that nullifies all the checks and balances built into the American system.
We've already seen this in the tendency to fish around for decisions in foreign law that support the viewpoint of the Judge. People get caught up in debating the legitimacy of applying foriegn law without stopping to think, "Hey wait a minute, that means he arrived at his decision first and then searched around for material to support it rather than doing what he is paid to do, i.e. interpret the constitution."
I know this will sound odd, but I don't want an Evangelical or a Catholic or a Republican or a member of the John Birch society on the court - I want a person who simply understands and applies the Constitution as it was originally written. If that means my worldview doesn't always get advanced, so be it. I'd rather have that than an unelected body dictating their preferences any day of the week. Under that system we all lose an even more fundamental part of American government, the right to self-governance.
- SEAGOON
-
Well spoken Seagoon.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I know this will sound odd, but I don't want an Evangelical or a Catholic or a Republican or a member of the John Birch society on the court - I want a person who simply understands and applies the Constitution as it was originally written. If that means my worldview doesn't always get advanced, so be it. I'd rather have that than an unelected body dictating their preferences any day of the week. Under that system we all lose an even more fundamental part of American government, the right to self-governance.
- SEAGOON
Nailed it... except for the "originally written" part. The Constitution was intended to be changed as necessary.
-
Sandy, They will deal with it depending on if or when someone raises the constitutionality of the change and it makes it to the supremes.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandy, They will deal with it depending on if or when someone raises the constitutionality of the change and it makes it to the supremes.
If the Constitution is amended. It is by definition constitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't get to decide if they like the amendment or not.
-
Sandy,
As I've said before, I have nothing against the ammendment process, it should be used when necessary and ammendments once incorporated into the constitution become part of the constitutional law that all of our other legislation should be judged by until and unless they are repealed. For that reason, ammending the constitution is rightly a difficult process and should not be entered into lightly.
What I do object to however is simply circumventing that rightly difficult amendment process by interpreting the constitution as if it had already been amended according to the judge's preferences. 5 yeas has become the standard for new constitutional law, and that is just plain wrong.
I know I'll get in trouble for saying this, but I firmly believe the positivist legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes with all of its faulty assumptions about human nature and the "progress of society" needs to be flushed and replaced with the healthy scepticism and restraint of the founders. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton understood human nature and the dangers of arbitrary government far better than most of the policy wonks of the 20th and 21st centuries.
- SEAGOON
-
yep... interpret all amendments in a constitutional manner... they say what they say... if you want something changed or added.... go through the process... it was made intentionally difficult in order to keep every nanny and do gooder big government socialist from destroying the freedoms it sought to protect.
lazs