Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Texsox

Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Recommended Posts

There are articles everywhere, so I won't link or quote.

 

Seems like a solid citizen. I don't believe being a conservative or liberal should factor in the debate. Is he fair and honest? Has he himself committed any crimes (Nannygate)? Does he have legal experience? All seem to fall in his favor. Our Constitution allows for the President and Legistlative branches to decide this. With the current political climate, a conservative will be nominated, and I am fine with that. Just as long as he is a solid citizen, of high moral and ethical behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush really dropped the ball by nominating Miers in the first place. Its clear to all that she's little more than a hack and the appointment was viewed, I believe correctly, as a payment for years of service.

 

 

Alito appears to be qualified in every respect and should have been the one picked in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the early rhetoric appears to be leading to the 'nuclear option'.

 

Buckle in, folks, this is likely to be the most politicized event for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 10:43 AM)
All the early rhetoric appears to be leading to the 'nuclear option'.

 

Buckle in, folks, this is likely to be the most politicized event for some time.

In all likelihood, everybody had better get ready to rumble, but it's not yet a foregone conclusion. Moderate republicans in Congress are goinng to be key here. There's just a handful of them, but they are largely pro-choice and also in favor of social equality. Rhetoric can maybe stay civil if Alito's disappointing decisions on issues of sexual equality in the workplace are illuminated and not just his potential hostility to Roe v Wade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been an originalist with the Constitution. They could not begin to comprehend today's world and I believe changes can be made to improve and to keep up with the world we live in.

 

That battle sometimes comes down to party politics, which unfortunately pollutes the discussion and debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 10:57 AM)
I've never been an originalist with the Constitution. They could not begin to comprehend today's world and I believe changes can be made to improve and to keep up with the world we live in.

 

That battle sometimes comes down to party politics, which unfortunately pollutes the discussion and debate.

 

Folks demanding that SCOTUS appointees being originalists forget that the framers of the Constitution were slaveowners, and apparently they never noted an ethical conflict, so certainly we as a society have conceded that the Constitution has been open to interpretation since day 1 and is also not beyond ammending.

 

That is the nature of a living document.

 

That said, :cheers to the framers for drafting a document that seems prescient to maybe 95% of societal issues 220 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alito is qualified, but probably isn't a good consensus nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks like the President is going to blow the Senate up, probably on purpose to take attention away from other failures.

Edited by JHBowden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.

 

I don't know if I can articulate this, but I'll try.

 

I 1000% disagree with the statement that our constitution should be called upon to reflect upon societal changes of today.

 

In effect, you're saying that it's ok for the judicial branch to influence existing law based on society. That's a dangerous, dangerous viewpoint in my estimation.

 

The courts were originally set up to interpret laws written and base those laws against the US constitution as a standard, not some societal norm that might change again in 50 years.

 

You CANNOT got to other countries' decisions, IMO, like Justice Kennedy did on a couple of laws last spring. If you cannot decide law based on the US constitution itself, something's wrong.

 

I'll try to expand and clarify my thoughts on this later, but this is so important - I doubt I change anyone's mind - that's usually the case around here - but this one is a good debate.

 

:cheers

 

Kap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 08:43 AM)
All the early rhetoric appears to be leading to the 'nuclear option'.

 

Buckle in, folks, this is likely to be the most politicized event for some time.

I agree. This looks like the fight that the far right wing was furious they didn't get with Miers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 11:29 AM)
I 1000% disagree with the statement that our constitution should be called upon to reflect upon societal changes of today. . .

 

The courts were originally set up to interpret laws written and base those laws against the US constitution as a standard, not some societal norm that might change again in 50 years.

 

But if the Constitution as written was set in ston and covered all the bases for all time, then why is there an amendment process?

 

Even the Bill of Rights are a set of amendments to the Constitution as originally drafted.

 

Even though a right to the pursuit of happiness was present, the inheritors of the Constitution knew that an end to slavery had to be spelled out (Amendment XIII), a rights of black and women's suffrege had to be spelled out (Amendments XV and XIX), etc.

 

Sure, the inheritors of the constitution can and do get it wrong, as with XVIII and prohibition, but mistakes can also be corrected as with XXIand its repeal of the "Noble Experiment."

 

Here's a sincere question, Kap, because I am ignorant of the precise definition of the term despite how much it is being thrown around lately. What makes a a person a Constitutional "originalist" if they concede that the existing amendment process is necessary to keep the Constitution fully relevant in the face of changing society. Does it have something to do with the gray areas of interpretation prior to the creation of a clarifying amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a difference between an amendment process, which indeed does reflect upon societal changes, and striking down laws or upholding them on some basis of societal norms. Therein lies the difference to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1997, Alito authored the majority opinion upholding a city's right to stage a holiday display that included a Nativity scene and a menorah because the city also included secular symbols and a banner emphasizing the importance of diversity. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3.
Mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just...wow.

 

In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Balta. Find some positions you support that the guy has done.

 

It's too easy to cherry pick cases about what you're against.

 

I also think it's too easy for the media to cherry pick all these quotes without really reading the backgrounds of these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 12:39 PM)
I think there's a difference between an amendment process, which indeed does reflect upon societal changes, and striking down laws or upholding them on some basis of societal norms.  Therein lies the difference to me.

Then perhaps I'm am "originalist" as well. I don't like gray areas that can be interpreted ery different ways by different justices either. I don't like that there is support for a federal gay marriage ban amendment, but I don't believe that the Constitution is immune to such atttempts at amendment (In that particular case, however, I think the Constitutional freedoms ostensably granted to all citizens would supercede). But, again, with clarity of hindsight bad amendments can also be repealed.

 

Abortion is still the flash point issue though. Roe v Wade probably remains part of the 'gray' interpretive landscape because ther is a tenuous balance of people who would very much like to see a federal amendment protecting abortionand those who are equally eager to see a federal amendment looking to ban it.

 

A large swing of SCOTUS in either direction is worrisome to the 70% of moderate Americans that are not at the extremes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 11:03 AM)
Ok, Balta.  Find some positions you support that the guy has done.

 

It's too easy to cherry pick cases about what you're against.

 

I also think it's too easy for the media to cherry pick all these quotes without really reading the backgrounds of these cases.

You can find his opinion in the search case here and the federal opinion in the "notify your husband" case at that link.

 

I'll look into the guy more later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the "gay marriage" amendment. That stinks to high heaven. And I don't think it would pass anyway, which is why the amendment process is so complex. Thank goodness it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 06:17 PM)
You can find his opinion in the search case  here   and the federal opinion in the "notify your husband" case at that link.

 

I'll look into the guy more later.

Good deal. I think that's the prudent thing to do is look at what he's supported that you can back, and then make a better decision. The smear campaign has already began on this, as we all knew it would. It's so unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spousal notification dissenting opinion came up on NPR this morning right after the nomination was announced and it immediately had me concerned. If Alito doesn't think that cases where a wife is choosing to have an abortion rather than bringing another victim into the home of an abusive/possible rapist husband is worthy of consideration, then he will see parental notification as an absolutely black and white issue as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 06:22 PM)
The spousal notification dissenting opinion came up on NPR this morning right after the nomination was announced and it immediately had me concerned.  If Alito doesn't think that cases where a wife is choosing to have an abortion rather than bringing another victim into the home of an abusive/possible rapist husband is worthy of consideration, then he will see parental notification as an absolutely black and white issue as well.

It's so hard to figure this issue out.

 

I think that there should be parental notification for a young woman (under 18) to get an abortion. But I also think that the abusive issue you say above is an interesting slant on a law, that to me, is not so black and white. I think that "conservatives" are damned if they do and damned if they don't on the whole issue of abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 01:20 PM)
Good deal.  I think that's the prudent thing to do is look at what he's supported that you can back, and then make a better decision.  The smear campaign has already began on this, as we all knew it would.  It's so unfortunate.

It will be very unfortunate. And the truth is that the ultra conservatives spoiling for the fight are going to win even if their guy goes down. It galvanizes and energizes the conservative base, puts their cause into the spotlight, and will be a vehicle by which they raise 10s of millions of dollars. There will be political fallout come election time, but the social conservatives are looking to be paid for their loyalty to the GOP the last few election cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 06:26 PM)
It will be very unfortunate.  And the truth is that the ultra conservatives spoiling for the fight are going to win even if their guy goes down.  It galvanizes and energizes the conservative base, puts their cause into the spotlight, and will be a vehicle by which they raise 10s of millions of dollars.  There will be political fallout come election time, but the social conservatives are looking to be paid for their loyalty to the GOP the last few election cycles.

That's true. That's very true.

 

If the Democrats had half a clue, they would win back support. But, they don't. They don't know how to fight a "minority" battle. That's a lot of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 11:26 AM)
It will be very unfortunate.  And the truth is that the ultra conservatives spoiling for the fight are going to win even if their guy goes down.  It galvanizes and energizes the conservative base, puts their cause into the spotlight, and will be a vehicle by which they raise 10s of millions of dollars.  There will be political fallout come election time, but the social conservatives are looking to be paid for their loyalty to the GOP the last few election cycles.

And it dramatically reduces the number of times "Rove, Libby and Fitzgerald" will have their names in the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 06:28 PM)
And it dramatically reduces the number of times "Rove, Libby and Fitzgerald" will have their names in the news.

No, it won't. Not by a long shot. The "mainstream" media will be sure it stays up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alito's mother shed some light. "Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic

-as reported on the AP wires

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×