Bush picks conservative Sam Alito for Supreme Court

[richiebaseball]

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.

How about Evan Bayh?

Edited to add: I'm not saying Senator Bayh is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, I just pulled his name out of the blue to see how you answer.

 

[eclectics]

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.

Okay. Now I'm confused. I just realized I misunderstood your original question. I corrected it in my original post. Now you are going back to what I thought you meant. Whew! Okay. No prob. I'll answer this one too. Would Kerry have united us? Nope. Same thing as Bush only reversed. I see no one outstanding enough to unite this Country. We are too divided among too many issues. Nobody gets a "pass" from me. I elect the person I feel most comfortable with (usually a Dem). Although I voted for John Kerry, I was not thrilled with the man. I hoped Al Gore would have run again. I dislike George Bush in general, not because he is a Republican.

 

[richiebaseball]

Okay. Now I'm confused. I just realized I misunderstood your original question. I corrected it in my original post. Now you are going back to what I thought you meant. Whew! Okay. No prob. I'll answer this one too. Would Kerry have united us? Nope. Same thing as Bush only reversed. I see no one outstanding enough to unite this Country. We are too divided among too many issues. Nobody gets a "pass" from me. I elect the person I feel most comfortable with (usually a Dem). Although I voted for John Kerry, I was not thrilled with the man. I hoped Al Gore would have run again. I dislike George Bush in general, not because he is a Republican.

Fair enough. And I'm not sure there's anyone that can "unite" us either. I'm willing to bet most people feel that way right now. And I also vote for the person I feel most comfortable with. Sometimes a Republican, George W. Bush, sometimes a Democrat, Bill Clinton (twice).

Now, seeing as how you and I agree that probably noone can "unite" us right now, Democrat or Republican(again, I think most feel this way), why do some continue to use the "he said he would unite us but he isn't" argument when most agree there's noone that could unite us right now?

 

[eclectics]

Fair enough. And I'm not sure there's anyone that can "unite" us either. I'm willing to bet most people feel that way right now. And I also vote for the person I feel most comfortable with. Sometimes a Republican, George W. Bush, sometimes a Democrat, Bill Clinton (twice).

Now, seeing as how you and I agree that probably noone can "unite" us right now, Democrat or Republican(again, I think most feel this way), why do some continue to use the "he said he would unite us but he isn't" argument when most agree there's noone that could unite us right now?

Probably because that phrase was all we heard from them during the election. That campaign phrase also probably caused quite a bit of swing votes over to Bush. Dems in particular have that phrase caught in their craw (me included) because it probably lost the election for Al Gore. So sorry if we feel "ripped off" by this man. If uniting us was just a RNC campaign ploy, at least come clean and admit it. Until he does, I for one am going to continue to wait for that glorious day he promised and will call him on it whenever he panders to his right wing core.

 

[LadyDay]

How about Evan Bayh?

Edited to add: I'm not saying Senator Bayh is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, I just pulled his name out of the blue to see how you answer.

I don't know enough about Evan Bayh to say yes or no. I do know that Arlen Spector was a former prosecuter in Pennsylvania and has umpteenth years in the Senate. There would not be a floor fight over Spector. I would be damned surprised if the vote to confirm wasn't unanimous.

I think Spector would've been a unifiying, interesting choice because he has the combination of legal experience and the advantage of RL experience outside of the judiciary.

But, unlike the rightwing, I do believe a president has the right to nominate whoever he/she wants and the Senate has the right to "advise and consent" whether through a unaimous vote or a filibuster.

I feel sorry for Harriet Miers because she appears to be a decent woman who got a raw deal from the president in nominating her to a postion to which she was not qualified. And she got a raw deal from the rightwing who called her everything from incompetent to the cleaning lady. That's just plain wrong.

As to the moderates and mainstreamers who are now uneasy about Alito and voted for Bush last November, I don't know what the hell they expected. You get what you pay for. They voted for Bush and now you live with that choice. You make your choices in life and then you live with them.

Next question...............

 

[Galahad]

How about Evan Bayh?

Edited to add: I'm not saying Senator Bayh is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, I just pulled his name out of the blue to see how you answer.

As one of his constituents I can say that Evan Bayh is very bright, very effective, very likable, and very, very, slick.

 

[sodaseller]

And the Dems unite?


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

This is a patently dishonest piece, to wit:

Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that Republicans turned down 55% of President Clinton's appeals court nominees. Tough to understand even what he's talking about since Mr. Clinton's appointment record was 374-1. The Senate only turned down one judicial nominee, and that was to the U.S. District Court, not the U.S. Court of Appeals.

According to data from the Congressional Research Service, Mr. Clinton nominated 68 individuals to the U.S. Court of Appeals during the six years Republicans ran the Senate and the Senate failed to vote on 20 of them. That's 29%. Senator Reid exaggerated the truth by a whopping 90%.;

This consciously omits the whole blue slip process and those that never got voted out of committee. These are the kind articles intended to employ artifice to make the Pharasaic Right feel justified, but it uses deception to do so. Those that care about truth do not buy this.

 

[sodaseller]

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.

That is all a court ever does, including the two most hearlded and despised examples of "judicial activism" in the modern era - Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade. In both cases, the Court struck down legislation as unconstitutional

 

[sodaseller]

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

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 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.

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).

You are correct. They cannot control him. But they seem assured about him. I am not certain why, so I don't feel that I can yet be certain that he is what they think he is, but they certainly think they have reason to.

FWIW, my extremely limited review of his Roe jurisprudence, consisteing of three decisions, did not convince me that he is as radical as they would prefer. In two instances, he deferred to precedent. Personally, I am not a particular fan of Roe, but I am concerned about someone with a Thomas-like mentality that blithely looks to overturn years of established jurispridence with no deference or understanding of the underlying policy considerations that led to earlier decisions. It's really a form of immodest egotism that never serves anyone well.

I am more concerned about summaries of his Lochner jurisprudence, though to date, I am relying only on summaries.

As for Clinton, we disagree. He was a founding member and former head of the DLC, and his record predated the Presidency.

As for the "one person" point, the issue was that those senators were deemed to speak for their caucus, Reid by dint of his role as leader and Hatch by dint of his chairmanship of judiciary committee. Senate rules vest an immense amount of power in a single Senator by dint of "privilege", so individual Senators cannot be controlled by leadershipo to the degree that House members are. But the point was, Presidents that seek to avoid confirmation battles consult with the opposition in advance and see if there is candidate that both sides can accept. In all cases, the nominee is far more in line with the President's views than the opposition's, but the attempt at compromise is admirable. Pres. Bush, to his credit, attempted just that, but he was attacked from the portion of the Right that feeds on conflict and the holy war mentality.

 

[sodaseller]

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>)

The right to privacy is most definitely in the Constitution. I appreciate those that think it does not include the right to abort, but it is there. And Kelo was a close call as to the proper judicial role in definbing the scope of that power, but it was fairly defensible as an example of judicial restraint, i.e., deferring to elected officials

 

[Brainhammer]

The right to privacy is most definitely in the Constitution. I appreciate those that think it does not include the right to abort, but it is there. And Kelo was a close call as to the proper judicial role in definbing the scope of that power, but it was fairly defensible as an example of judicial restraint, i.e., deferring to elected officials

Please cite the explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Which Article would that be, exactly?

I understand that past decisions have inferred that 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th amdenments indicate a right to privacy. The SC basically says the "right to privacy is implicit" But, the SC seems to pick and choose when one can have a right to privacy. If there is indeed a specific right to privacy, then why has the SC ruled your bank records belong to the bank? Why has the SC ruled that there are certain circumstances in which wire-tapping is legal?
Or aerial surveillance? In short there is a history of inconsistent SC descions in the area of "right to privacy", particulary concerning the 4th Amendment. Without an explicit right to privacy, these inconsistent decisions will continue, and quite possibly erode whatever implied right we think we have.

As for Kelo, well at the end of the day, local laws cannot trump the Constitution. That's why we have a Constitution and the SC in the first place.

 

[Brainhammer]

That is all a court ever does, including the two most hearlded and despised examples of "judicial activism" in the modern era - Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade. In both cases, the Court struck down legislation as unconstitutional

True, but striking down laws as "unconstitutional" without being able to cite specific constitutional violations treads into the area of making new laws.

I tend to agree with Judge Rienquests dissent on Roe v Wade

I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law.

 

[Brainhammer]

But, unlike the rightwing, I do believe a president has the right to nominate whoever he/she wants and the Senate has the right to "advise and consent" whether through a unaimous vote or a filibuster.

INext question...............

What causes you to say "the rightwing" does not believe a president has a right to nominate whoever he wants and the Senate as a right to advise and consent?

The vote on Ruth Bader Ginsberg (96-3) and Breyer (87-9) would appear to disprove your "unlike the rightwing" theory.

How many of the former President's SC nominations were voted down?

 

[yeartolate]

What causes you to say "the rightwing" does not believe a president has a right to nominate whoever he wants and the Senate as a right to advise and consent?

I think you left out the "through unanimous vote or filabuster" - I believe that poster may have been speaking to threats of the "nuclear option" .

 

[sodaseller]

Please cite the explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Which Article would that be, exactly?

I understand that past decisions have inferred that 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th amdenments indicate a right to privacy. The SC basically says the "right to privacy is implicit" But, the SC seems to pick and choose when one can have a right to privacy. If there is indeed a specific right to privacy, then why has the SC ruled your bank records belong to the bank? Why has the SC ruled that there are certain circumstances in which wire-tapping is legal?
Or aerial surveillance? In short there is a history of inconsistent SC descions in the area of "right to privacy", particulary concerning the 4th Amendment. Without an explicit right to privacy, these inconsistent decisions will continue, and quite possibly erode whatever implied right we think we have.

As for Kelo, well at the end of the day, local laws cannot trump the Constitution. That's why we have a Constitution and the SC in the first place.

That's as close as you get - the Constitution is not meant to be read as a civil law documents cf it's length with the proposed EU constitution. Addressed many of you general points here, perhaps in a former screenname of yours

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=855245&page=5&pp=15&highlight=dormant+commerce+clause

You also show little idea of how the Constitution is interpreted in many ways , i.e. 13th Am Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause, and Executive Power. For the latter two, neither is explicit but inherent in the Constitutional Architecture, not to mention history. The Constitution was intended to replace the deficient Articles of Confederation, the two principal critiques of which that the Executive was too weak and states were to sovereign economically. Makes sense to read to the contrary as a rule of construction. Models of Constitutional Construction that you deem the recent product of liberal bogeyman haunting your imagination have been the norm for 200 years.

If you want a perfect example of "strict constructionism", try Dred Scott v. Sanford. If you want activism, try Brown v. Board of Education. That's what you get

 

[sodaseller]

Please cite the explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Which Article would that be, exactly?

I understand that past decisions have inferred that 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th amdenments indicate a right to privacy. The SC basically says the "right to privacy is implicit" But, the SC seems to pick and choose when one can have a right to privacy. If there is indeed a specific right to privacy, then why has the SC ruled your bank records belong to the bank? Why has the SC ruled that there are certain circumstances in which wire-tapping is legal?
Or aerial surveillance? In short there is a history of inconsistent SC descions in the area of "right to privacy", particulary concerning the 4th Amendment. Without an explicit right to privacy, these inconsistent decisions will continue, and quite possibly erode whatever implied right we think we have.

As for Kelo, well at the end of the day, local laws cannot trump the Constitution. That's why we have a Constitution and the SC in the first place.

Why are any of those inconsistent? First, no right is inviolate, pace OW Holmes’ example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Even the First Amendment is subject to regulation in certain defined circumstances. So merely saying that the right is not recognized in all circumstances says nothing legally. Heck, even Roe, by its language (if not in application), recognizes that the right to privacy as applied there yields to a state interest as pregnancy progresses. So that’s an illogical argument

And your 4th Am arguments make little sense – that’s the right to be free against “unreasonable” search & seizure, “reasonable being having a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. Other “exceptions” though they are not that legally, occur in situations in which a reasonable person has no expectation of privacy. But merely stating that a right does not apply in all circumstances doesn’t mean it exists. I have the right to redress of grievances, but I have to get a permit under exacting circumstances if I want to shut down a main thoroughfare with a march

 

[Brainhammer]

Why are any of those inconsistent? First, no right is inviolate, pace OW Holmes’ example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Even the First Amendment is subject to regulation in certain defined circumstances. So merely saying that the right is not recognized in all circumstances says nothing legally. Heck, even Roe, by its language (if not in application), recognizes that the right to privacy as applied there yields to a state interest as pregnancy progresses. So that’s an illogical argument

And your 4th Am arguments make little sense – that’s the right to be free against “unreasonable” search & seizure, “reasonable being having a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. Other “exceptions” though they are not that legally, occur in situations in which a reasonable person has no expectation of privacy. But merely stating that a right does not apply in all circumstances doesn’t mean it exists. I have the right to redress of grievances, but I have to get a permit under exacting circumstances if I want to shut down a main thoroughfare with a march

Again, where is the "right to privacy" explicitly defined in The Constitution?. Another example, why is it legal for a bank to inform the govt when I make a cash transaction of over $10,000?

 

[Brainhammer]

That's as close as you get - the Constitution is not meant to be read as a civil law documents cf it's length with the proposed EU constitution. Addressed many of you general points here, perhaps in a former screenname of yours

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=855245&page=5&pp=15&highlight=dormant+commerce+clause

you flatter me. Alas, that is not me.

 

[sodaseller]

Again, where is the "right to privacy" explicitly defined in The Constitution?. Another example, why is it legal for a bank to inform the govt when I make a cash transaction of over $10,000?

Again, it's not "explicitly defined". You can keep trying that schtick as if it means something, but it doesn't. Constitutions are not meant to be read like statutes. The Dormant Commerce Clause isn't there either, and not one constutional scholar of any stripe denies it exists. Ya'll have been programmed over the years with some Miltonian lsot utopia caused by those enforcing something other than enumerated rights. Heck the do you constrcut a model of constitutional interprestaion that says rights must be enumerated to be recognized with the 9th Am, to wit

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the currency reporting threshold is legal, because, to my knowldege, it's never been challenged. Were someoine to bring a privacy challenge to it, I imagine it would easily survive balancing test of governmental interest to prevent counterfeiting, money laudering etc.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Just reported on NBC, and I don't know if it has been brought up yet, but in college, Alito wrote a paper that stated that any sex act between consentual adults should not be illegal and that hiring discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional...uh, oh!!! Could granting homosexual partners the right to legally marry be far off?!?!? Imagine if W was the President to usher in the dawning of a new day in America! Wonder if Christian Conservatives are starting to worry again?