BS: Alito... Another Scalia???

Subject: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:10 AM

Well, well, well...

Looks as if Bush has reloaded and appointed Samuel A. Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Conner...

Some compare Alito's philosophies to that of Judge Scalia...

Hmmmmmm???....

If so, better hide yer wallets 'cause he will come down on the side of big business every time...

Roe v. Wade???

Affirmative Action???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Charley Noble
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:54 AM

Maybe Sandra Day O'Conner will reconsider stepping down.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 12:50 PM

Hopefully he'll be another Bork.

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM

I don't know enough about him to make a judgement. And I most certainly won't depend upon the media! I'll do my own research.

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:33 PM

Dunno anything about the guy yet, but Mier stepped down because the Ultra-Right had a hissy-fit because she wasn't conservative enough. So Bush appoints Alito and so far, the Right seems to think he's just dandy.

What does that tell you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:35 PM

Be scared.

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:49 PM

Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren because he thought Warren would be a conservative.

Besides, I like to make up my own mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:24 PM

"...but Mier stepped down because the Ultra-Right had a hissy-fit because she wasn't conservative enough

Not even close. The "ultra-right", as generally discussed here -- including the religious right -- was for the Miers nomination.

Who was claiming that she wasn't conservative enough?

George Will, Bill Kristol and their ilk were not claiming that she wasn't "conservative enough". They were saying that she wasn't "qualified enough". Of course, George Will, Bill Kristol and their ilk aren't "ultra-right".

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:54 PM

????

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 03:10 PM

Apparently he upheld a spousal notification requirement in PA for abortion rights. I think he's from the wrong century, along with a lot of other problems.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Janie
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 04:10 PM

Let us face it, fellow liberals--a conservative president is NOT going to nominate anyone who appears to be liberal-leaning to the Supreme Court. Like Rapaire, I'll nose around on my own to see what I think (not that what I think matters.) The best judges are fair, thoughtful, clear thinking, and able to discern the difference between their judical thinking and political leanings.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:30 PM

John, where have you been for the past few weeks?

THIS is the first of a long list of newspaper and magazine articles I found on google detailing the conservative disapproval of Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers on the basis of their fear that she might do as several other consevative Supreme Court appointees have done—veer toward the center. If you need more, I can easily supply enough reading to keep you busy for days. Oh, what the heck, here's ANOTHER ONE (lots more where these came from—or you can just pick up a recent news magazine).

Many conservative commentators, particularly those speaking for the religious Right, complained that Miers' position on what they view as "moral issues" (Roe v Wade, gay marriage, school prayers, display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, etc.) are not sufficiently delineated for them to feel satisfied that she will rule the "right way." The Democrats, figuring that she was about the best they could hope to get out of Bush, didn't raise any huge objections, other than to question her legal qualifications and experience. Then, rather than making an issue of it, and noting the murmuring among the conservatives, the Dems just stood back and let Bush self-destruct.

Ye gods, man, it's been all over the news!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:17 PM

Also ruled that private ownership of machine guns is just hunky dory...

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:26 PM

If the Dems have any cojones they'll put a stop to Alito early. Congressional majority or not, Bush is as weak as a kitten and even his own core constituency is doubting him. I believe he has completely lost sway over the Republican moderates, who are starting to look out for their own butts with the next elections looming. Kennedy and McCain lead opposing forces against the nomination? Not that far-fetched.

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:18 AM

When I was a freshman in college, I joined the Debate Panel, as I'd been on the debating team in high school. One of the juniors who ran it was a guy named Sam Alito. Nice guy, as I recall. But I didn't know much about his politics back then. (I didn't last long on the debate panel, either--those guys were way out of my league.)

Speaking of conservative classmates, another guy in my college class was named Bill Frist. Didn't know him too well, either. Another was Lisa Halaby, later to become Queen Noor of Jordan.

Needless to say, I didn't fit in real well at Princeton.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:03 AM

So that's why you aren't the Surgeon General, eh, Dr. Mark? **bg**

LeeJ, well put!

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 07:46 AM

Let's get our facts straight about Alito.

He did come down on the side of requiring spousal notification, (not consent)
supporting a Pennsylvania law) on abortion. But he also endorsed exceptions to that, as for instance in the Pennsylvania case, women who "might reasonably fear domestic abuse from their husbands."

He has not indicated he wants to overturn Roe--from the public radio commentaries I've heard, it appears Bush and his minions are totally aware of the majority US opinion--which favors abortion rights. In fact, what I heard was that any attempt to overturn Roe was likely to provoke a huge backlash.

I think he's dead wrong on the machine gun issue, though even here he did not say private ownership of machine guns is just fine, but that federal control on this issue was wrong since it has nothing to do with insterstate commmerce, the Constitutional handle used to ban it. As I said, he's dead wrong here--the overriding importance of banning sale of machine guns trumps Constitutional questions. But for him, virtually nothing does.

On the Jersey City creche issue-it seems reasonable that the addition of Frosty the Snowman did, as he said, defuse the religious issue--that's not exactly the endorsement of religion by the state.

Bush has been losing ground recently, but, contrary to assertions made on Mudcat, this nomination will help him rally his troops in a big way. And, since Alito knows how to portray himself as a reasonable and calm jurist (not a flaming reactionary a la Scalia), unless a smoking gun is found in his personal life, he likely will be confirmed. He will probably receive the support of most Republican moderates in the Senate. We may of course see a filibuster--then the "nuclear option". It ain't over by quite a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Alito... Another Scalia???
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:01 PM

From the New York Times, 12/24/2005:

ith the Bush administration claiming sweeping and often legally baseless authority to detain and spy on people, judges play a crucial role in underscoring the limits of presidential power. When the Senate begins hearings next month on Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, it should explore whether he understands where the Constitution sets those limits. New documents released yesterday provide more evidence that Judge Alito has a skewed view of the allocation of power among the three branches - skewed in favor of presidential power.

One troubling memo concerns domestic wiretaps - a timely topic. In the memo, which he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans. Judge Alito argued for taking a step-by-step approach to establishing this principle, much as he argued for an incremental approach to reversing Roe v. Wade in another memo.

The Supreme Court flatly rejected Judge Alito's view of the law. In a 1985 ruling, the court rightly concluded that if the attorney general had the sort of immunity Judge Alito favored, it would be an invitation to deny people their constitutional rights.

In a second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito made another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."

In the memo, Judge Alito noted that one problem was the effect these signing statements would have on Congressional relations. They would "not be warmly welcomed by Congress," he predicted, because of the "novelty of the procedure" and "the potential increase of presidential power."

These memos are part of a broader pattern of elevating the presidency above the other branches of government. In his judicial opinions, Judge Alito has shown a lack of respect for Congressional power - notably when he voted to strike down Congress's ban on machine guns as exceeding its constitutional authority. He has taken a cramped view of the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional provisions that limit executive power.

The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have had to repeatedly pull the Bush administration back when it exceeded its constitutional powers. They have made clear that Americans cannot be held indefinitely without trial just because they are labeled "enemy combatants." They have vindicated the right of Guantánamo Bay detainees to challenge their confinement. And they will no doubt have to correct the Bush administration's latest assertions of power to spy domestically. The Senate should determine that Judge Alito is on the side of the Constitution in these battles, not on the side of the presidency - which the latest documents strongly question - before voting to confirm him.