And The Winner Is...Samuel Alito
Yes, fellow court watchers, the president redeemed himself with this choice, and we are about to get a very, very good jurist. I posted up his information and some case notes late last week when word started leaking out that Judge Alito was the guy the president was looking at. And we know that this is a good choice because the Democrats are already lobbing insults in his direction.
But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned that a nomination of Alito, or any other candidates too far to the right, could run into trouble.
"This is not one of the names I've suggested to the president," Reid said yesterday of Alito on CNN's "Late Edition."
"In fact, I've done the opposite," he said. "I think it would create a lot of problems."
Sen. Reid forgets his place, and should be reminded of it by the president. It is the president who gets to nominate, and to demand he follow your list is a clear-cut attemtpt to undermine his authority; an authority that is more than clear in the Constitution. "Advice and consent" doesn't mean you get to call the shots. You vet the nominee. And as for Sen. Reid's problems, he might want to consult with Sen. Graham, a signatory of the Gang of 14 deal.
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.
Memo to Democrats: You want to pull a filibuster? Then roll the dice, and take your chances. You resort to a filibuster, and you'll watch your power disappear faster than Ted Kennedy puts away a twelve martini lunch. Judge Samuel Alito is a superb jurist, and one of the best choices the president could have picked. When my phone rang this morning, and it was Thomas with the news (I wasn't around a TV or radio as yet, and hadn't jumped online) we agreed that we were disappointed that it wasn't Luittig, but we are still ecstatic over Alito.
Alito is experienced, having been placed on the appellate court by Bush (41), and is highly thought of by Constitutional scholars. The man has been dubbed "Scalito" by his law clerks because of his similarities to Justice Scalia. The only difference between the two is that Alito is not nearly as scathing as Scalia is in written opinions. This time the president didn't rely on nepotism for his choice, nor was he diverse. The president chose the right person for the right job. Let NOW, the PFAW, and any other wacky liberal special interest group do their worst. Alito will make it to the court. There is nothing that can stop him.
And I'd like to point out to Sen. Schumer, and any other Democrat idiot out there that referred to us as an "right-wing, extremist special interest group." We aren't extremists. We defend the Constitution better than the Democrats, and we didn't even have to take an oath to do it. They do, and spend their time busying themselves with ways on how to dismantle it. Your extremist special interest groups are well-known. As a matter of fact, it took only a few minutes before this popped up on the People For The American Way's (PFAW) site.
“We had hoped President Bush would nominate someone with a commitment to protecting Americans’ rights and freedoms,” said Neas. “That’s what the American people want, and it’s what they deserve. Unfortunately, with Judge Alito, that’s not what President Bush has given us. He has chosen to divide Americans with a nominee guaranteed to cause a bitter fight.”
Neas said that People For the American Way will mobilize its 750,000 members and activists to wage a massive national effort to defeat Alito’s nomination and will work closely with its coalition partners to educate Americans about the threats posed by this nomination.
“Replacing a mainstream conservative like Justice O’Connor with a far-right activist like Samuel Alito would threaten Americans’ rights and legal protections for decades,” said Neas. “Justice O’Connor had a pivotal role at the center of the Court, often providing a crucial vote to protect privacy, civil rights, and so much more. All that would be at risk if she were replaced with Judge Alito, who has a record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, and more.”
Neas said the President’s capitulation to the far right demonstrates the importance of our system of checks and balances and the importance of the Senate’s role in that system. “President Bush wasn’t willing to stand up to the far right, so Americans must count on senators to stand up for the Constitution,” said Neas. “Americans will have to live with the next justice long after President Bush has left office.”
Neas called on senators from both parties to take seriously their obligation to make a careful independent evaluation of the nominee’s record and judicial philosophy, especially given the red flags raised by Judge Alito’s record. “It is senators’ duty not to act as rubber stamps for the President’s nominees, but to examine all the evidence about the nominee’s record and make an independent judgment. We are confident that a careful examination of Samuel Alito’s record and judicial philosophy will ultimately lead to his rejection by the Senate.”
Yes, mainstream to these fools means abortions on demand, and a striking down of any symbol of faith from public view, save the Islamic crescent. (That would change if we were still fighting communism; communists hated religion, too.) And, of course, Neas takes the same road the Democrats did last week, accusing average Americans who are concerned for their nation as being "far right." Funny, when Reagan won two landslides we weren't "far" anything. We were mainstream, and I still consider myself that. When the Judiciary Committee sees this man's record, and sees that his judicial philosophy, I have a feeling all eight Democrats are going to be placed on suicide watch. Kennedy will have to move some of his private stock from home to his office. "Befuddled" Biden is going to need his straight-jacket. Chuck Schumer this morning invoked Rosa Parks, and stated that Judge Alito has the ability to roll back the "civil rights gains made" by a courageous woman. Oh please.
Leading a Revolution Against Laws Protecting Individual and Other Rights
Alito is a leader of the radical right legal movement to prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections and otherwise acting on behalf of the common good. According to one of Alito’s opinions, Congress had no authority to require state employers to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act through payment of damages when they violate the law, a ruling that was repudiated by the Supreme Court. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, a fellow ultraconservative, wrote the court’s decision. Alito also dissented from a ruling by the Third Circuit that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows.
He was correct in the first decision, as the federal government--while it and it's laws may trump the states--does not always affect states and their laws. This is especially true when it comes to state employers. It falls to the state government to hold those employers accountable for their mistakes. And he was correct in the second decision as that is not "interstate" commerce. It is "intrastate" commerce, which is what Raich was argued on behalf of. In Raich, the sale and distribution of medicinal marijuana was all within the confines of the state. the ICC technically had no basis in the case. Likewise with the gun show case (US v. Rybar) the Congress has zero authority to step in, and exercise their authority under the ICC. That citation bears no merit in a case where interstate commerce isn't involved. Citing it is like citing the Ninth Amendment in Roe; it's silly and irrelevant.
Against Basic Protections for Workers
Alito’s record shows an alarming trend toward standing against protections for workers. In a number of dissenting opinions, Alito has taken positions that, if adopted, would have made it more difficult for victims of race and sex discrimination to prove their claims. In one case involving claims of race discrimination, the court majority sharply criticized Alito’s dissent, stating that his “position would immunize an employer from the reach of Title VII” in certain circumstances.
Okay, I really hate this "victim" crap that comes from the liberals. The biggest problem is that in this day and age, if I were black and I was turned down for a job, I could scream racism, get a lawyer, and sue the potential employer. The same thing goes for sexual discrimination. We have become a society that is willing to blame EVERYONE else except ourselves. I'm a woman, and a damn good lawyer. If I leave the firm I'm with now, and try to get a job at another firm, and I'm turned down there it wasn't because I'm a woman. It's because my qualifications didn't meet the standards that they wanted. Racism and sexism are charges lobbed by fifth-column liberals. And their minions that buy this garbage deserve what they get as they're too stupid to advance themselves further in life.
Hostile to Privacy and Reproductive Rights
Alito wants government to be able to interfere in personal decisions on reproductive rights. In one case, Alito attempted to uphold a provision of Pennsylvania’a restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. Alito’s colleagues on the Third Circuit and Supreme Court disagreed, and overturned the provision.
I guess the PFAW forgot the name of that case. It's Casey--Justice O'Connor's pride and joy. Yes, Judge Alito did dissent from that case because the Third Circuit and Supreme Court screwed up the decision. Abortion is not an end-all, be-all. It's not absolute. States should still have the right to regulate abortion. If a state, like Pennsylvania, makes a law that states a wife must inform her husband prior to having an abortion, then that's the law. When Casey hit the Supreme Court, O'Connor and her liberal cronies immediately fell back on Roe, and ruled in favor of abortion. Justice Scalia gave a particularly withering dissent in the case, and chastised the court for "re-inventing" provisions of Roe without revisiting Roe de novo.
Fails to Consider Racial Discrimination in Capital Punishment
In one case that came before Alito, an African American had been convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death by an all-white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck. Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting the defendant’s claims. The full Third Circuit reversed Alito’s ruling, and the majority specifically criticized him for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution’s exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed. According to the majority, “[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants.”
Again, Judge Alito gets it right, and the court screwed things up. Our Constitution--the rock-solid foundation of our laws--was written with a very simple idea in mind. Yes, it enumerated our rights and our liberties, but it was also written with the idea of being color-blind. A jury of one's peers is precisely that; no specific gender or race need be predominate. I want an unbiased jury. I want a jury that goes into the courtroom with no preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. I want a jury that will look at all the evidence presented, listen to the arguments, and make a sane, reasoned, common-sense decision whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. Gender and/or race doesn't figure into the equation.
The Future of the Supreme Court
The current vacancy on the Supreme Court is the second this year, and additional vacancies may occur in the next few years. Many important cases in recent years have been decided by just one or two votes, often with Justice O’Connor casting a decisive vote to uphold critical rights and liberties. Confirming additional far-right judicial activists like Samuel Alito to the Court would threaten hundreds of Supreme Court decisions that protect privacy, civil rights, religious liberty, reproductive choice, clean air and water, worker rights, consumer safety, educational opportunity, and much more.
Someone get the over-acting Oscar out for Ralph Neas and his bunch of twits. O'Connor was a liberal swing vote in her later years. Earlier in her career, she was closer to the right and the middle. Stress, I'm sure, is an explanation for her gradual fall to the "dark side," safe in the bosom of the liberals on the court. But she made mistake after mistake on the court as the swing vote, including the swing vote on Casey and Grutter. Alito won't make such bone-headed decisions. His track record is solidly on the side of the Constitution. And it is evident from the comments I have cited that the president upset the right people in this decision. This man is a home-run, and quite honestly I think Thomas was right in the end-of-the-month post yesterday. He had hoped that the president learned his lesson over Miers. I think that Alito proves that the president listened.
Mistress Pundit
Yes, fellow court watchers, the president redeemed himself with this choice, and we are about to get a very, very good jurist. I posted up his information and some case notes late last week when word started leaking out that Judge Alito was the guy the president was looking at. And we know that this is a good choice because the Democrats are already lobbing insults in his direction.
But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned that a nomination of Alito, or any other candidates too far to the right, could run into trouble.
"This is not one of the names I've suggested to the president," Reid said yesterday of Alito on CNN's "Late Edition."
"In fact, I've done the opposite," he said. "I think it would create a lot of problems."
Sen. Reid forgets his place, and should be reminded of it by the president. It is the president who gets to nominate, and to demand he follow your list is a clear-cut attemtpt to undermine his authority; an authority that is more than clear in the Constitution. "Advice and consent" doesn't mean you get to call the shots. You vet the nominee. And as for Sen. Reid's problems, he might want to consult with Sen. Graham, a signatory of the Gang of 14 deal.
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.
Memo to Democrats: You want to pull a filibuster? Then roll the dice, and take your chances. You resort to a filibuster, and you'll watch your power disappear faster than Ted Kennedy puts away a twelve martini lunch. Judge Samuel Alito is a superb jurist, and one of the best choices the president could have picked. When my phone rang this morning, and it was Thomas with the news (I wasn't around a TV or radio as yet, and hadn't jumped online) we agreed that we were disappointed that it wasn't Luittig, but we are still ecstatic over Alito.
Alito is experienced, having been placed on the appellate court by Bush (41), and is highly thought of by Constitutional scholars. The man has been dubbed "Scalito" by his law clerks because of his similarities to Justice Scalia. The only difference between the two is that Alito is not nearly as scathing as Scalia is in written opinions. This time the president didn't rely on nepotism for his choice, nor was he diverse. The president chose the right person for the right job. Let NOW, the PFAW, and any other wacky liberal special interest group do their worst. Alito will make it to the court. There is nothing that can stop him.
And I'd like to point out to Sen. Schumer, and any other Democrat idiot out there that referred to us as an "right-wing, extremist special interest group." We aren't extremists. We defend the Constitution better than the Democrats, and we didn't even have to take an oath to do it. They do, and spend their time busying themselves with ways on how to dismantle it. Your extremist special interest groups are well-known. As a matter of fact, it took only a few minutes before this popped up on the People For The American Way's (PFAW) site.
“We had hoped President Bush would nominate someone with a commitment to protecting Americans’ rights and freedoms,” said Neas. “That’s what the American people want, and it’s what they deserve. Unfortunately, with Judge Alito, that’s not what President Bush has given us. He has chosen to divide Americans with a nominee guaranteed to cause a bitter fight.”
Neas said that People For the American Way will mobilize its 750,000 members and activists to wage a massive national effort to defeat Alito’s nomination and will work closely with its coalition partners to educate Americans about the threats posed by this nomination.
“Replacing a mainstream conservative like Justice O’Connor with a far-right activist like Samuel Alito would threaten Americans’ rights and legal protections for decades,” said Neas. “Justice O’Connor had a pivotal role at the center of the Court, often providing a crucial vote to protect privacy, civil rights, and so much more. All that would be at risk if she were replaced with Judge Alito, who has a record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, and more.”
Neas said the President’s capitulation to the far right demonstrates the importance of our system of checks and balances and the importance of the Senate’s role in that system. “President Bush wasn’t willing to stand up to the far right, so Americans must count on senators to stand up for the Constitution,” said Neas. “Americans will have to live with the next justice long after President Bush has left office.”
Neas called on senators from both parties to take seriously their obligation to make a careful independent evaluation of the nominee’s record and judicial philosophy, especially given the red flags raised by Judge Alito’s record. “It is senators’ duty not to act as rubber stamps for the President’s nominees, but to examine all the evidence about the nominee’s record and make an independent judgment. We are confident that a careful examination of Samuel Alito’s record and judicial philosophy will ultimately lead to his rejection by the Senate.”
Yes, mainstream to these fools means abortions on demand, and a striking down of any symbol of faith from public view, save the Islamic crescent. (That would change if we were still fighting communism; communists hated religion, too.) And, of course, Neas takes the same road the Democrats did last week, accusing average Americans who are concerned for their nation as being "far right." Funny, when Reagan won two landslides we weren't "far" anything. We were mainstream, and I still consider myself that. When the Judiciary Committee sees this man's record, and sees that his judicial philosophy, I have a feeling all eight Democrats are going to be placed on suicide watch. Kennedy will have to move some of his private stock from home to his office. "Befuddled" Biden is going to need his straight-jacket. Chuck Schumer this morning invoked Rosa Parks, and stated that Judge Alito has the ability to roll back the "civil rights gains made" by a courageous woman. Oh please.
Leading a Revolution Against Laws Protecting Individual and Other Rights
Alito is a leader of the radical right legal movement to prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections and otherwise acting on behalf of the common good. According to one of Alito’s opinions, Congress had no authority to require state employers to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act through payment of damages when they violate the law, a ruling that was repudiated by the Supreme Court. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, a fellow ultraconservative, wrote the court’s decision. Alito also dissented from a ruling by the Third Circuit that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows.
He was correct in the first decision, as the federal government--while it and it's laws may trump the states--does not always affect states and their laws. This is especially true when it comes to state employers. It falls to the state government to hold those employers accountable for their mistakes. And he was correct in the second decision as that is not "interstate" commerce. It is "intrastate" commerce, which is what Raich was argued on behalf of. In Raich, the sale and distribution of medicinal marijuana was all within the confines of the state. the ICC technically had no basis in the case. Likewise with the gun show case (US v. Rybar) the Congress has zero authority to step in, and exercise their authority under the ICC. That citation bears no merit in a case where interstate commerce isn't involved. Citing it is like citing the Ninth Amendment in Roe; it's silly and irrelevant.
Against Basic Protections for Workers
Alito’s record shows an alarming trend toward standing against protections for workers. In a number of dissenting opinions, Alito has taken positions that, if adopted, would have made it more difficult for victims of race and sex discrimination to prove their claims. In one case involving claims of race discrimination, the court majority sharply criticized Alito’s dissent, stating that his “position would immunize an employer from the reach of Title VII” in certain circumstances.
Okay, I really hate this "victim" crap that comes from the liberals. The biggest problem is that in this day and age, if I were black and I was turned down for a job, I could scream racism, get a lawyer, and sue the potential employer. The same thing goes for sexual discrimination. We have become a society that is willing to blame EVERYONE else except ourselves. I'm a woman, and a damn good lawyer. If I leave the firm I'm with now, and try to get a job at another firm, and I'm turned down there it wasn't because I'm a woman. It's because my qualifications didn't meet the standards that they wanted. Racism and sexism are charges lobbed by fifth-column liberals. And their minions that buy this garbage deserve what they get as they're too stupid to advance themselves further in life.
Hostile to Privacy and Reproductive Rights
Alito wants government to be able to interfere in personal decisions on reproductive rights. In one case, Alito attempted to uphold a provision of Pennsylvania’a restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. Alito’s colleagues on the Third Circuit and Supreme Court disagreed, and overturned the provision.
I guess the PFAW forgot the name of that case. It's Casey--Justice O'Connor's pride and joy. Yes, Judge Alito did dissent from that case because the Third Circuit and Supreme Court screwed up the decision. Abortion is not an end-all, be-all. It's not absolute. States should still have the right to regulate abortion. If a state, like Pennsylvania, makes a law that states a wife must inform her husband prior to having an abortion, then that's the law. When Casey hit the Supreme Court, O'Connor and her liberal cronies immediately fell back on Roe, and ruled in favor of abortion. Justice Scalia gave a particularly withering dissent in the case, and chastised the court for "re-inventing" provisions of Roe without revisiting Roe de novo.
Fails to Consider Racial Discrimination in Capital Punishment
In one case that came before Alito, an African American had been convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death by an all-white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck. Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting the defendant’s claims. The full Third Circuit reversed Alito’s ruling, and the majority specifically criticized him for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution’s exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed. According to the majority, “[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants.”
Again, Judge Alito gets it right, and the court screwed things up. Our Constitution--the rock-solid foundation of our laws--was written with a very simple idea in mind. Yes, it enumerated our rights and our liberties, but it was also written with the idea of being color-blind. A jury of one's peers is precisely that; no specific gender or race need be predominate. I want an unbiased jury. I want a jury that goes into the courtroom with no preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. I want a jury that will look at all the evidence presented, listen to the arguments, and make a sane, reasoned, common-sense decision whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. Gender and/or race doesn't figure into the equation.
The Future of the Supreme Court
The current vacancy on the Supreme Court is the second this year, and additional vacancies may occur in the next few years. Many important cases in recent years have been decided by just one or two votes, often with Justice O’Connor casting a decisive vote to uphold critical rights and liberties. Confirming additional far-right judicial activists like Samuel Alito to the Court would threaten hundreds of Supreme Court decisions that protect privacy, civil rights, religious liberty, reproductive choice, clean air and water, worker rights, consumer safety, educational opportunity, and much more.
Someone get the over-acting Oscar out for Ralph Neas and his bunch of twits. O'Connor was a liberal swing vote in her later years. Earlier in her career, she was closer to the right and the middle. Stress, I'm sure, is an explanation for her gradual fall to the "dark side," safe in the bosom of the liberals on the court. But she made mistake after mistake on the court as the swing vote, including the swing vote on Casey and Grutter. Alito won't make such bone-headed decisions. His track record is solidly on the side of the Constitution. And it is evident from the comments I have cited that the president upset the right people in this decision. This man is a home-run, and quite honestly I think Thomas was right in the end-of-the-month post yesterday. He had hoped that the president learned his lesson over Miers. I think that Alito proves that the president listened.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home