Bush picks conservative Sam Alito for Supreme Court

[LadyDay]

No. You said he thought it was "a good idea". He offered no opinion on that. He interpreted the rulings of the higher court. He did not state his preference and as the last paragraph said:

Well than let me clarify: I'm sure Alito didn't think requiring a married woman to inform her husband was an undue burden according to his interpretation of O'Connor's undue burden standard, but Sandra Day O'Connor did in 1992. She thought it was an undue burden and even chided Scalia when he tried to justify it. That was reported at the time.

Frankly, how anyone cannot see the inherent invasion of privacy of a married woman by the Alito's opinion is amazing to me.

I just think his opposition are going to have to pick something else to get breathless about.

We'll see how this "dog hunts" with the Republican mainstream including the soccor moms. My guess is a positively giddy Pat Robertson doesn't play well to that group.

 

[scubamouse]

typical of this admin - when the going gets rough, pick a fight - doesn't matter if you can win the fight or it's the right fight, the radical right needs a fight. either you're with them or against them

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Given the tension that appears to be growing on Capitol Hill over this nomination, it appears likely that the words "filibuster" and "nuclear" are going to get a real workout, not only by Senators, but also by the media. This is from the NYT today:

Mr. Reid had already said he would object to the selection of Judge Luttig or Judge Owen. And on Sunday, he did not rule out the possibility that Democrats would try to block a nominee by a filibuster or refusing to close debate and vote. "We are going to do everything we can" to see that the president names "somebody that's really good," Mr. Reid said.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

Mr. Graham's warning was significant because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees. His comments on Sunday indicated that this time, he would support that rule change; Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a battle that could snarl Senate business for months.

Both sides are on edge in anticipation. "There's a lot of anxiety," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on "Late Edition." "There could be a real tough battle here and a real tough fight, depending on whom the president puts up."

Mr. Specter said he was "very worried" about the possibility of a filibuster. "The topic which dominates the discussion, as we all know, is a woman's right to choose," said the senator, who supports abortion rights.

He continued: "You have both sides poles apart, and insistent on finding some answer to that question in advance of the hearing, which no one is entitled to. Guarantees are for used cars and washing machines, not Supreme Court justices."

"Fasten your seatbelts; we're in for a bumpy ride!"

 

[DawnCt1]

Opinions? Takes? Needlessly provocative? With Republican governors asking the President to please not help them campaign, does Bush have enough political capital left to get this choice pushed through?

If it leaves Chucky Schumer and Reid wringing their hands, its a hit with me!

 

[DawnCt1]

It sounds like the prevailing opinion is that the Democrats should have NO say-so in any decisions. So much for having a Republican form of government.

The President is a Republican. The House and Senate are Republican. They won the election. They get to chose. That's how it works!

 

[DawnCt1]

My guess............Bush just pooped in his own punchbowl again. Now he loses the Republican middle and the soccer Moms.

Nope, he shore's up the conservative base which is what he needs to do. There is a saying; "You dance with the one that brought ya!" This was the right decision and an outstanding choice. Alito has more judicial experience than any nominee in the last 70 years. Ginsberg on the other hand was a card carrying liberal, member of the ACLU who made the far left proud. Did you become apoplectic during her nomination??

 

[LadyDay]

The President is a Republican. The House and Senate are Republican. They won the election. They get to chose. That's how it works!

I could understand people rewriting history from years ago, but now people are rewriting history from several weeks ago.

Same Republican president, same Republican House, and Same Republican Senate: So how come there was none of the "the president gets to choose" for Harriet Miers?

You remember Harriety Miers? She was the Bush nominee that was torpedoed by the religious rightwing of the Republican party.

 

[eclectics]

Nope, he shore's up the conservative base which is what he needs to do. There is a saying; "You dance with the one that brought ya!" This was the right decision and an outstanding choice. Alito has more judicial experience than any nominee in the last 70 years. Ginsberg on the other hand was a card carrying liberal, member of the ACLU who made the far left proud. Did you become apoplectic during her nomination??

Regarding Ginsburg, Dawn, how about you? Did you meekly say "Well, President Clinton was duly elected. He gets to choose". Somehow I doubt you didn't make a little fuss. Why shouldn't we be able to protest someone we don't think is the best choice for this country?

 

[LadyDay]

Regarding Ginsburg, Dawn, how about you? Did you meekly say "Well, President Clinton was duly elected. He gets to choose". Somehow I doubt you didn't make a little fuss. Why shouldn't we be able to protest someone we don't think is the best choice for this country?

Well..............because............well..........just because.

This "duly elected so he/she gets to choose" argument, in light of the Harriet Miers debacle, is really making me question whether or not anyone proofread the Republican talking points.

This is bizarre. I know some people have short attention spans, but an entire party.

And in answer to the question of whether or not the poster in question meekly accepted the Ginsburg nomination as being "the right of the president to choose, the answer is obviously no as it has been 8 years, and the poster in question still hasn't gotten over it.

Just as an aside, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed in a 96 to 3 vote. Doesn't look like there were too many naysayers there.

 

[bsnyder]

Regarding Ginsburg, Dawn, how about you? Did you meekly say "Well, President Clinton was duly elected. He gets to choose". Somehow I doubt you didn't make a little fuss. Why shouldn't we be able to protest someone we don't think is the best choice for this country?

Knock yourself out and protest away!

 

[eclectics]

Knock yourself out and protest away!

We are! But you guys keep interrupting!

 

[LadyDay]

Ooops, make that 12 years since Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed.

 

[sodaseller]

Given the tension that appears to be growing on Capitol Hill over this nomination, it appears likely that the words "filibuster" and "nuclear" are going to get a real workout, not only by Senators, but also by the media. This is from the NYT today: "Fasten your seatbelts; we're in for a bumpy ride!"

It is a shame it has come to this. To my mind, Reid did what a Minority Leader should - inform the President of nominees there would be no fight over. Neither Roberts nor Meirs would have been nominees had Kerry won. Both were conservative. But they were at least within the horizon sightline of the center. Our extreme interest groups like NARAL opposed both and got some negative Roberts votes as a result, but nothing significant.

But that type of confirmation process is not what the Pharisaic Right desired. They thrive on conflict and hatred, and, unfortunately, they have enough power within the GOP to overwhelm the more numerous reasonable minds.

I don't now enough about Judge Alito to judge him, though I would have voted to confirm either Roberts of Meirs. But it is rare that someone could have the support of the Pharisaic Right and still show the appropriate temperament for public service. Witness Justice Thomas. I pray that those that think Judge Alito is of similar temperament are wrong

 

[Geoff_M]

I just think his opposition are going to have to pick something else to get breathless about.

The Left tried to spin Roberts as being sympathetic to abortion clinic bombers, so how they're trying to spin Alito this doesn't surprise me. It's only a matter of time before the "His confirmation will mark the end of Civil Liberties as we know them" meme is rolled out.

Did you meekly say "Well, President Clinton was duly elected. He gets to choose". Somehow I doubt you didn't make a little fuss.

I didn't. I realized it was Clinton's call. He was a liberal, and to no one's amazement he nominated a justice with a liberal background. (BTW, she didn't just belong to the ACLU, she was their head counsel and on their BOD) But in what is no doubt the last such vote in the Senate history, she was confirmed without a fuss from the GOP by a vote of 96 to 3.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Well..............because............well..........just because.

This "duly elected so he/she gets to choose" argument, in light of the Harriet Miers debacle, is really making me question whether or not anyone proofread the Republican talking points.

This is bizarre. I know some people have short attention spans, but an entire party.

It is not bizarre at all. President Bush when he was "candidate" Bush made some specific promises regarding nominations to SCOTUS should any openings occur during his presidency. The conservative base that elected him is holding his feet to the fire regarding those promises. Harriet Miers was lacking in both qualifications and credentials to satisfy conservatives, therefore, the outcry over her nomination occurred.

SCOTUS nominations don't happen that often and when a presidential candidate makes specific promises about what he will do, he shouldn't be surprised when those who elected him demand that he stick to those promises. As Anne Coulter pointed out in a column, Bush has stuck it to his conservative base on a number of issues and told them to "trust me." Sticking it to the base re: SCOTUS is not something they are willing to trust him over.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

It is a shame it has come to this. To my mind, Reid did what a Minority Leader should - inform the President of nominees there would be no fight over. Neither Roberts nor Meirs would have been nominees had Kerry won. Both were conservative. But they were at least within the horizon sightline of the center. Our extreme interest groups like NARAL opposed both and got some negative Roberts votes as a result, but nothing significant.

But that type of confirmation process is not what the Pharisaic Right desired. They thrive on conflict and hatred, and, unfortunately, they have enough power within the GOP to overwhelm the more numerous reasonable minds.

I don't now enough about Judge Alito to judge him, though I would have voted to confirm either Roberts of Meirs. But it is rare that someone could have the support of the Pharisaic Right and still show the appropriate temperament for public service. Witness Justice Thomas. I pray that those that think Judge Alito is of similar temperament are wrong

I don't know anything about Miers, and certainly not enough to assess whether she is/was/will be a "conservative." After reading about her, I thought she simply was not qualified to be a justice on SCOTUS. I prefer someone with at least some judicial experience under their belt and with a resume that's a bit more substantive than Miers' was.

As for who thrives on conflict and hatred, I believe there's enough people on BOTH sides who thrive and even live for that. It's hardly owned free and clear by any group, conservative or liberal or anywhere in between.

I believe Judge Alito's conservative credentials are more well established than Ms. Miers' were and he has the added advantage of some substantive judicial experience under his belt. Still, like you, I don't know much about him other than the brief bios appearing online. I'd like to learn more, but unfortunately, that has to wait until the hearings start. Until then, we'll be left with the media's portrayal of his record. Let the spinning begin in earnest!

 

[sodaseller]

The Left tried to spin Roberts as being sympathetic to abortion clinic bombers, so how they're trying to spin Alito this doesn't surprise me. It's only a matter of time before the "His confirmation will mark the end of Civil Liberties as we know them" meme is rolled out.

I didn't. I realized it was Clinton's call. He was a liberal, and to no one's amazement he nominated a justice with a liberal background. (BTW, she didn't just belong to the ACLU, she was their head counsel and on their BOD) But in what is no doubt the last such vote in the Senate history, she was confirmed without a fuss from the GOP by a vote of 96 to 3.

Actually, if he is who the Pharisaic Right hopes he is, that will not be hyperbole. Much of their complaint is that past nominees have not seriously eroded civil rights, namely, the minority rights of those that disagree with them. Heck, Justice Thomas is on record in Zelman-Simmons as saying that the Constitution does not prevent individual states from establishing a religion, i.e., Catholicism is the official religion of the state of Florida. I am not making this up..

The Pharisaic Right is not even a majority of the GOP, but they deeply want the civil rights of others to be curtailed, and that is what they hope he represents. And on top of that danger, Alito is also tied into the intellectually indefensible view of commerce clause issues

And the Ginsberg nomination battle is being misrepresented. She was vetted by Hatch first, much like Reid gave a list of who would not be opposed, which included Meirs and Roberts. Much was made, rightly so, that 22 Dems still voted against Roberts. That was evidence of the continuing influence of single issue groups on our side, which it was. Then we see Meirs get scuttled in a far more powerful display of special interest politics, and a deliberately provocative nominee intended to incite a battle that could have been avoided.

But the recounting of the Meirs process is just false, more talking points putt out there to deceive

 

[DawnCt1]

You remember Harriety Miers? She was the Bush nominee that was torpedoed by the religious rightwing of the Republican party.

Nope, it was a good part of the conservative base. There were those on the "religious right" that were quite happy with her. Others felt that she didn't have the academic or experiential qualifications for the highest court in the land and that President Bush nominated her to avoid a fight. One thing is clear and should have been consistantly clear from the get go; If your enemies want to fight it's often unavoidable. He should have learned that lesson when he let Ted Kennedy write "no child left behind" and had ole Teddy stab him in the back.

 

[DawnCt1]

Regarding Ginsburg, Dawn, how about you? Did you meekly say "Well, President Clinton was duly elected. He gets to choose". Somehow I doubt you didn't make a little fuss. Why shouldn't we be able to protest someone we don't think is the best choice for this country?

No, I didn't make a fuss but protest away. Join NOW who will be out in front of the Supreme Court today. Of course he isn't there.....yet! But he will be. He is another John Roberts, just not as good looking.

 

[sodaseller]

He should have learned that lesson when he let Ted Kennedy write "no child left behind" and had ole Teddy stab him in the back.

That is bizarrely wrong, even for you. The example of NCLB are exactly the opposite of what you portray. Do you ever get anything remotely correct? Do you have any remote idea how NCLB was supposed to work? What the dispute was between Kennedy and Bush? I'm certain you don't, and I would be closer to Bush on the substantive elements of that dispute than Kennedy.