Article I don't know much about him except he is about as conservative as they come (earing the nickname Scalito for himself). Bush kept his promise to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia quite literally. Like I said, I don't know much about him, but I think this speaks volumes... Let's hope the cluster fuck that is the Democratic Party gets their act toegther for at least long enough to squash this one.
Since you already know, can you tell us why he'd not be a good Supreme Court justice? I mean, just give us the benefit of your knowledge so we won't have to go searching all over and find so much conflicting information. Baron Max
My first impression is that he'd be another arch-conservative on a court already loaded with conservatives.
This guy is great. It almost makes one wonder if the Miers Nomination was a rope a dope to throw the Democrats off balance. First nominate someone obviously unqualified to place the focus on qualifications, then nominate someone with stellar qualifications. Everyone is so happy about having a qualified nominee, we all forget this guy is the most conservative appointee since Bork. It's good to see Rove back in action.
Yes, that would be a good reason to squash the nomination. He dissented by saying that he believed the father had a right to know if his child was about to be murdered for the sakes of women's rights. Good one!!
Baron, My problem with him being a Supreme Court Justice has nothing to do with his experience, abilities or whether or not he would be a "good justice". It has everything to do with balance being an inherent necessity in the highest judicial authority, a distinct branch of government that is not directly accountable to the citizens in what is supposed to be a fair and just democratic (notice the lower-case "d") system. I would have JUST as much problem with him if he were a staunch Liberal, as opposed to a staunch Conservative. In the democratic ideal, the government is supposed to strive to represent the people as a whole to the best of its ability. I am sure that you are fully aware that with the balance of power currently is in the Supreme Court, another Conservative would tip the scales to a predominately Conservative view. This is unhealthy and counter to the democratic ideal of government. I think our goal should be to strive to place intelligent, pragmatic and a-political Justices on the court, but in lack of that, the political views should be at least balanced, if not accurately reflect the view of the people. To keep that fair balance, we need someone in the mold of O'Connor, not Scalia.
Yes, actually, I think it would. I also think that a potential father should know if his poential child was about to be aborted. If a wife of mine aborted a potential child of mine without discussing it with me I would be livid, and most likey would divorce her. THAT, however, is my personal opinion, value system and how I chose to live my life. I also think that is not possible to fairly legislate such a thing, nor is it constitutional (and the Supreme Cout agrees by more than the political dividing line) to usurp a woman's freedom to do such. There is no way anyone can write legislation that would fairly and accurately take the personal relationships between husbands and wives into account with such legislation (seperations, cheating, abuse, etc). Also, if you look at my above post about bakance and take into consideration the fact that this nation has been so sharply divided on the abotion/women's rights issues since Roe v Wade, then it is obvious that I feel shifting the balance to virtually guarantee an overturn of Roe v Wade would not be in the best interest of the democratic system we live in. As I said, the goal should be to keep the balance representative of the people in this country and shifting the balance (both on the general ideological front and on the Roe v Wade case specifically) would work against that.
I hear that the guy is pleasant, smart exprienced but is also a very conservative very activist Judicial activist who will legislate from the bench if given a chance. There are concerns that his interpretation of the law moves in the direction of indirectly allowing: 1. the dumping of toxic waste in neighbors well, 2. the groping your coworkers breasts against her wills, 3. the permanent imprisonment without trials of anybody who pisses off the government, 4. Any act the government wishes to do to any dissident people or groups, 5. politically connected or Republican feeling corporations and people to steal from unconnected corporations and people, 6. discrimnation in hiring and any other area in which you might wish to discriminate against any group that you might want to discriminate against, 7. Vote fraud or voter intimidation or bribery or anything else the Republicans need to to win. These are fears people and now I have about Alito. The good news is that Alito + Thomas + Scalia means there are only three reliable votes to crucify Jesus should he turn up in America. It is not clear that Alito being on the court means the overturning of Roe versus Wade. I don't know if Roberts vote is clear. Alito + Thomas + Scalia + Roberts +? They need one more vote. If the Republicans hold together then there is not a damn thing Democrats can do to stop Alito. I do think Dems should make it real clear to the nation that the by adding Alito the right fifth of America has Three Judges on the supreme court while the left fifth of America has no Judges on the Supreme court.
nirakar, You have a point about Roe v Wade (it looks like Kennedy will take over the role of O'Connor on abourtion issues), but this is about a lot more than just Roe v Wade. Roberts seems about a fair replacement for Rhenquist (if perhaps slightly more moderate, but time will tell) which is why I didn't say a word about his appointment. By replacing an historical moderate swing with an ultra-right Conservative, however, the balance of power is sharply shifted.
I am not sure if Ginsberg is part of the left fifth. There are some other judges besides the Scalia Thomas and Alito who might be in the right fifth but I am not sure which fifth they belong in. The left fifth finds it difficult to get in postions of political power because money matters and those who spend money on politics don't trust the left fifth to not interfere against the activities that those who spend money on politics do to accumulate more wealth. Clinton appointed Ginsberg and his wing of the democratic party sucks up to money almost as hard as Bush does. Notice how Clinton and Bush agree about giving away working class jobs to immigrants and third world nations. Both crowds drank the Wall Street Cool-Aid and I think Ginsberg may have drunk it also. If she did drink the Cool-Aid, then she might be in the fifth second from the left but she can not be part of the left fifth. The Brie and Chablis limousine liberals are usually not part of the left fifth. Ginsberg has working class roots but she and her tax lawyer husband may have lost touch with that. There are differences between the left fifth and the second from the left fifth. Scalia and Thomas did something that the left fifth likes when they voted against the right of New Haven to take land from one land owner to give it to another land owner. This is a case where the left and right fifths are united against the government and the politically connected wealthy. Ginsberg went along with the government and the politically connected wealthy against the left fifth. Ginsberg worked on Womens rights cases for the ACLU. I am not sure if they paid her. At the following link you can see why she did that. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ard/bios/ruth.html "Martin D. Ginsburg"&hl=en
I posted this on the Closed Door Senate Meeting Thread, but think it bears repeating here... The top seven pussies are at it already. This smells bad for the dems. Hopefully Reid (or the voters in their districts will write MANY letters threatening them with midterm rejections) will get to them before it's too late to avoid dirty games that will stain their hands. That would be the last thing they need when fighting an uphill battle on the wind of "Republican Corruption", and they know that (and so do the Republicans). The dems will be scared to take any action, and the "Mod Squad" will be fucking their party over by this action. Fillibuster is not the Senate's only option, but it is the "cleanest" one. If the "Mod Squad" makes another pact, the dems will be driven to back down or play dirty politics to keep Alito off the bench. Either way, it doesn't look good for the dems. If they seal another pact their only positive course of action will be to back down, allow the Republicans to give Alito the becnh, play it clean, hope for the best and swing the houses in the midterms.
That is what Alito was saying. So do you believe then that you would automatically be disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court? That is a very shallow reason for squashing a nomination. The abortion issue itself is very shallow stream to defend in the overall scheme of things. Incidently, roe v wade is not going away. Nor should it from the perspective of legitimate health concerns. However, as another form of contraceptive it needs to go.
Care to expand on that? This is must be lefty thing. I am sure most would say that I am a righty, of which I cannot deny. But I would not speak of democrats as corrupt. Thus, do you care to expand?
actually, his opinion in that case was a vote to support a whole fucked up system of laws that required women to go through a lot of absurd things in order to get an abortion. i heard a woman who is testifying about the alito nomination before the judiciary committee talking about what his dissent supported. at the time of the case, women had to get their spouse's permission in order to have an abortion. all well and good if youre together, however this particular woman had an abusive husband and had left him and they were legally seperated and she had the choice of either tracking him down and getting his permission which she undoubtedly would not have gotten, or go before an all male "medical" review panel and prove to them that there was a medical or otherwise compelling reason why she should have an abortion. i dont know about you, but i think thats a reason to vote the guy down. yeah, abortion isnt the only issue in american politics, but this guy is going to shut down roe v wade if he can, and its exactly the chance that the holy rollin righties are waiting for. imagine that woman having to go before a medical review board in the town where they held the scopes monkey trial and the majority of the population doesnt even believe in evolution? hell would freeze over before anyone would have an abortion. its for reasons like that that he isnt a good nominee. there's a lot of people out there who are well qualified to read a law and have an opinion on it, what matters is whether their opinions will represent anything that resembles fairness, compassion, or a sense of equality.
radicand, It is exactly the type of situation above that I do not think the ideal can be fairly or justly legislated. If a person wanting to be a justice does not recognize that, I think it most certainly IS a reason to reject him. As I said, in my personal life, I agree. This, however is NOT a matter of public policy. If someone can not seperate his personal ideals and fairly and impartially judge matters of law according to legislation that was written while protecting personal freedoms, that person should not be on the bench, and definitiely not on the Supreme Court.
Janice Rogers Brown would have been better: Oh well...Justice Brown made it to the most important of the lower courts-- the D.C. Circut Court of Appeals. I thought Charles Schumer would drink Drano before that happened. Maybe someday she'll be appointed to SCOTUS and we'll really start to undo the damage done in 1937. In the meantime Alito will block ACLU types such as Ginsberg and Breyer from usurping anymore power.
Alito will unbalance the court. part of what kept the court from being far too liberal or conservative either way was justice O'Conners swing vote. she was neither a reliable liberal or conservative and tempered the decisions of the court by a de facto requirement that one side or the other make a well reasoned case for why she should vote with them. this is the woman Alito would replace, and he most certainly would not have the same character as she did. you can argue about whether that would be a good or bad thing based on your political affiliation, but without a doubt it leaves the court in the throes of partisanship on many issues that bitterly divide the country at the present time. i dont think thats a good choice.
I wouldn't mind Alito being a Supreme Court judge, just not as this moment. Once one of the conservative judges retire, he can take their place, but for now, the time is not right. Roberts took the slot that could have been given to him. I don't want too many lefties or righties on the panel as they won't wind up representing the people but rather their personal idealogy. - N
