Bush picks conservative Sam Alito for Supreme Court

[eclectics]

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.

I'm not so sure much "spin" is going to be needed. This man seems to have enough on paper to stir up the political hornets nest all by himself. As for the Ginsburg vote, I don't recall the Thomas or Scalia vote being neck and neck either (although I don't recall the exact vote). As for Clinton, I could never understand the "liberal" label. I'm a life long Dem and always regarded him as a moderate. All Democrats are not neccesarily liberals.

 

[Geoff_M]

Scalia was confirmed 98-0, Thomas made it in with 52-48.

Actually, if he is who the Pharisaic Right hopes he is, that will not be hyperbole.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) the "Pharisaic Right" doesn't control Alito. The Conservatives were hopeful about Souter too. I think you and I both know he won't likely be the thing either group that gravitates towards either pole of the political spectrum claims he'll be.

I could never understand the "liberal" label. I'm a life long Dem and always regarded him as a moderate. All Democrats are not neccesarily liberals.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. The years before he was forced to work with a GOP controlled House could hardly be described as "moderate" in my opinion. The only two prominate examples of "moderate" political behaviors on the part of him here his support of NAFTA and Welfare Reform. But I'll grant you the man campaigned like a moderate... but mostly he head faked right and then went left.

She was vetted by Hatch first...

With all due respect, I don't think it's reasonable (as the Robert's vote showed) to declare one person should be the arbitor for how their party votes. As for Miers, I didn't know what to make of her. Her Constitutional credentials were almost non-existent . I realize this isn't a requirement, but it was a real head scratcher coming on the heal of Roberts (who seemed to be a model candidate, even to his detractors).

 

[eclectics]

Didn't remember the Thomas vote being that close. Thanks for the info.

 

[bsnyder]

Pharisaic Right

Cute. Did you think that up all on your own?

 

[yeartolate]

The Left tried to spin Roberts as being sympathetic to abortion clinic bombers

I never heard this, can you quote a source?

 

[yeartolate]

I just google, NARAL did this. Well, thank goodness NARAL does not speak for me, because that kind of innuendo is disgusting, unless it is absolutly true.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I never heard this, can you quote a source?

There was commmercial runing for a while that flat out said it..I think it was from moveon...They pulled it,as they should have

 

[jodifla]

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

so much for, I'm a uniter, not a divider.

 

[yeartolate]

There was commmercial runing for a while that flat out said it..I think it was from moveon...They pulled it,as they should have

I found it when I googled, and all indications from googling is that it was pulled.

I have no respect for groups who cunduct business like that. That kind of behavior is what angered me about many of the swift boat ads.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

so much for, I'm a uniter, not a divider.

And the Dems unite?


http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2001/010620TJfcc.asp

 

[DisDuck]

One thing bothers me. No one on any media outlet that I have scanned has ever asked this question concerning Judicial Activisism vs. Strict Constructionism. Pundits constantly mention that judges so interpret law not make law. That is the job of congress and the state legislatures. Yet, ever since 1803(or there abouts) the Supreme Court has exercised Judicial Review. That is ruling on the constitutionality of laws. So my question is:

If a justice rules that a 'law' is unconstitutional are they not 'making' law and therefore, being a Judicial Activist?

To me therefore, if a justice will not truly exercise Judicial Review, ie. feel that they are not there to 'make' law then some very bad laws could be left active.

I would want someone who will exercise Judicial Review and if a law does not violate the constitution then do not 'make' law; however, if that law when laid against the constitutional and its admendments fails then it should be struck down, ie. a justice should 'make'(unmake) law.

 

[JimB.]

If a justice rules that a 'law' is unconstitutional are they not 'making' law and therefore, being a Judicial Activist?

No........

They are ruling that a law that has been passed by the legislature is not constitutional.

They are not 'making' law, they are striking down a law that does not pass constitutional muster.

 

[DisDuck]

Ah but by striking down that law they are making law in the negative sense. Isn't that what the court has been doing in several of the abortion cases. Striking down certain restrictions passed into law by individual states. Are not the Justices stating that these restrictions do not pass Constitutional muster and therefore must be stricken.

The conservatives scream that this is Judicial Activisism, legislating from the bench. Yet all the court is doing is saying that under the concept of Judicial Review that 'law' is not constitutional.

 

[Brainhammer]

Ah but by striking down that law they are making law in the negative sense. Isn't that what the court has been doing in several of the abortion cases. Striking down certain restrictions passed into law by individual states. Are not the Justices stating that these restrictions do not pass Constitutional muster and therefore must be stricken.

The conservatives scream that this is Judicial Activisism, legislating from the bench. Yet all the court is doing is saying that under the concept of Judicial Review that 'law' is not constitutional.

Striking down a law is not the same as making a law by judicial fiat. By striking down a law the court is basically saying..."Uh...try again, but his time, follow the Constitution". That's different than reading things into the Constitution that simply are not there (<cough> right to privacy <cough> ). Or misinterpreting obivious clauses in the Constitution (<cough> eminent domain <cough>)

 

[richiebaseball]

Oh, that's a given, based on Alito's record. How in the world does the President suppose that he has any chance of getting the 5 or 6 Dems to cross the aisle and vote in favor of Alito?

I would think Senators Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Kent Conrad (North Dakota) would vote aye. Both are up for reelection in heavily Republican states and voted to confirm Roberts. Senators Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) and Max Baucus (Montana), while not up for reelection, voted to confirm Roberts and are also in heavily Republican states. You may be able to add Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) to that list.

 

[richiebaseball]

We'll get the standard reply answer "But that was different"! And if they can work Clinton into this somehow, they will. I don't know much about Alito and will have to read up. The fact that Pat Robertson was positively giddy, tells me a lot already. I smell a filibuster. W, yet again, missed the chance to "unite" us.

Who would you have nominated that would "unite" us?

 

[Brainhammer]

Let's see, the President has nominated three individuals so far. The only one that was sunk was due to opposition from the Right. Yet, Dems remain the bogeyman? How does that make sense?

Well, unlike the Democrats that seem to blindly follow whoever is in power, when conservatives see something that is not right, like the nomination of Harriet Miers, they call the President on it. The conservatives did not agree with the nomination of Miers and worked to rectify it.

It seems the Dems have all their talking points pre-written, no matter who gets nominated.

 

[eclectics]

Who would you have nominated that would "unite" us?

That's a good question. It's quite a hefty goal isn't it? I'm just repeating a oft repeated campaign theme promise made by GWB and the RNC for the 2000 election. Just speaking for me, and perhaps a few others, I'm still waiting.



Just realized I misinterpreted your question (although what I said goes for GWB in general). Sorry! Too much sugar tonight! Actually I wasn't upset about the Roberts nomination. He seems to be very credible and I believe he will be fair in his interpretations. I think Bush could have spent a bit more time and met with a few more non partisan advisors and found someone more in the Roberts vein. This nomination was rushed, imo, and caters to a certain political group. Not the best way to "unite" the American people behind your decision.

 

[LadyDay]

Who would you have nominated that would "unite" us?

I probably would've nominated someone like Arlen Spector. I lilke the idea of having a non-judge on court, but Miers just wasn't it.

 

[richiebaseball]

That's a good question. It's quite a hefty goal isn't it? I'm just repeating a oft repeated campaign theme promise made by GWB and the RNC for the 2000 election. Just speaking for me, and perhaps a few others, I'm still waiting.

That's nice and all but do you believe that a President John Kerry would have "united" us? Or would it have simply have made you and perhaps a few others unlikely to criticize because it would have been a Democratic administration.

Or perhaps you and a few others would have given a President Kerry a pass simply because he didn't make "uniting" us a campaign promise.