Alito: The Aftermath
Well, well, well. Judge Samuel Alito endured Hell last week. From accusations from the chief bloviator and resident beached whale (Sen. Ted Kennedy), to the rambling, bumbling, stumbling Sen. Joe "I don't like Princeton" Biden, they took plenty of nasty little swipes at the man. But as she did after the Roberts' hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated that she doesn't see anything involving a filibuster from the Democrats.
WASHINGTON - A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.
"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."
She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.
And, it should be noted here that her vote isn't based on his judicial philosophy. In her own words, she dislikes his "conservative record." That's a partisan issue, not a judicial issue. But, at least the woman is being honest; a hard trait to find amongst Democrats, especially when it comes to intellectual honesty. That's a trait not even Ted Kennedy can seem to locate.
"If there's a filibuster of this man based on his qualifications, there would be a huge backlash in this country," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. He is one of 14 centrist senators who defused the Senate's showdown over judicial filibusters last year, saying such a tactic is justified only under extraordinary circumstances.
And, I'm not a fan of Sen. Graham, but he's right. He, along with Sen. Kyl, defended Judge Alito in interviews all week. If you have a Ganf of 14 member stating that there are no extraordinary circumstances, then a filibuster is ruled out. Sen. Graham was on the record in a few interviews that should such a move be made, he would side with Sen. Frist in executing the Constitutional Option.
The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said last week that unidentified Democrats will "exercise their rights" to delay a committee vote that Republicans sought for Tuesday.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called on party members to hold off making a decision until after a meeting Wednesday.
Does it matter, really? There won't be a filibuster because we'll have the votes to break it. There will be no holds ( a common tactic used by Sen. Boxer, frequently) as that, too, can be broken. The Democrats are out of options.
Sen. Charles Schumer,D-N.Y., would not rule out a filibuster, saying committee Democrats were still going through the hearing transcripts and awaiting answers to written questions.
"It's premature to say anything till we fully assess the record," said Schumer, who appeared with Graham on "Fox News Sunday."
Leave it to Schmuckie Chuckie to put the cart before the horse. No, he's not ruling it out, but his colleagues may overrule him. If Sen. "Know Nothing" Schumer really wants to provoke a fight in the Senate over Judge Alito, let him. It'll be the worst pummeling the Democrats ever received.
But Feinstein, who said she was concerned about Alito's conservative record on abortion rights and deference to executive power, acknowledged the 15-year appellate judge had the legal credentials to serve on the Supreme Court.
"I was impressed with his ability to maintain a very even demeanor," she said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
And I'm sure that wasn't easy especially with Sen. Kennedy accusing him of sharing the same outrageous views that CAP members did in regard to minorites and women. Or his accusations of a "conflict of interest" in the Vanguard case; a case in which the legal ethics board stated there was no such conflict.
"I think there is an additional weight you must give to his background, his qualifications and his ability," she said.
The Washington Post, in an editorial Sunday, said Alito is "undeniably a conservative" but that nominees should not be opposed on ideology alone.
"To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law — which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law," the newspaper said. "While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat."
Democrat law and Republican law? What planet is the editorial board from the WaPo from? We are a nation of laws. Those laws are fair and equal to all. Some aren't moreso than others. And neither party makes up special laws for the treatment of people ideologically on their side. (Though the Democrats have been known to place themselves above the law. Ring any bells, Sen. Kennedy?)
All 10 Republicans on the committee have announced their support for Alito, a 55-year-old former prosecutor and Reagan administration lawyer who is President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Likewise, the Senate's 55 Republicans are expected to line up strongly behind Alito.
Sen. Arlen Specter the committee chairman who supports abortion rights, acknowledged that Alito gave himself latitude during the hearings to revisit the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by declining to call it "settled law."
But Specter, R-Pa., noted that other justices such as O'Connor and David H. Souter also were believed to be hostile to the Roe decision, only to surprise everyone later with an opposite view once they were confirmed.
"The rule seems to be that there is no rule," Specter said on ABC's "This Week."
So, in essence, they've run up the white flag on another nominee. This has got to be absolute torture for them. They keep stepping up to knock these nominees down, and they keep getting slapped around. And had it been Harriet Miers, the Dems would have been the ones coddling her, and throwing the softballs, the GOP would have been hitting her with hard questions. The press would've painted us as sexist, misogynistic bullies breating up on her, and they would've shown the Democrats "giving due respect" to a nominee.
Give me a break. Instead, we're the ones focused on showing his judicial philosophy--the main point of the hearings--The Democrats launch attack after attack on him, and we're the ones painted to be "bad guys" because we're tossing him "softball" questions. Well, we weren't going to be like Kennedy, and attack Alito over CAP records and Vanguard--two issues that were so irrelevant to the hearings that they shouldn't even have brought it up. We weren't going to be like Biden, who stumbled his way through the hearings, and showed everyone why he was a plagerist in the first place. (This man rambled on about so many subjects--from Little League to I don't like Princeton, I do like Princeton, that I'm surprised he was even able to spit out one question. He constantly spoke as though he were sidetracked.)
The reactions from the Democrats during the hearings said it all. Heads in hands, hands covering their faces, many of them leaving for long periods of time (which I get, don't get me wrong. Senators do have other duties on the Hill, however, aside from the leadership of the committee and the GOP, only Sen. Feinstein stuck around for the questioning of those people that came after Alito; those against him and those vouching for him.) They knew they were facing a no-win scenario with Alito, especially after Day One. Each and every senator that questioned him on the Democrat side was beaten like a bongo drum.
And now, he's heading to the Senate. Even if the committee does a straight partisan vote, it'll be 10-8 in favor of Alito. Once on the floor of the Senate, I'm sure we will hear the bloviator, again, trying to slander a good man. Joe Biden might pull out his new "lucky hat," and speak of how h had hoped his son had been interested in women at Princeton. Dianne Feinstein will do the "back-alley abortion" speech she always does. Dick Durbin will see distrubing shades of "Nazism" in Judge Alito's rulings backing up the president. And Russ Feingold will proclaim that Judge Alito will only do what the administration tells him to do (no Russ, that was Harriet Miers, and a chief fear of mine). And they'll all miss the mark.
On Friday, Hugh Hewitt referred to the four originalist jurists as the Supreme Court's "16 inch guns." Indeed they are. They will rule as the Founding Fathers deemed; rooted in jurisprudence and sound judgment rather than the emotional wailings and gnashings of those so irritated that society hasn't swung to their side yet that they must make up law. And what's worse for the Left is that these four men believe in the Constitution not just from a point of jurisprudence. They believe in it with every moral fiber of their being. Now, let me calm down the Michael Newdow morons out there.
That doesn't mean that they're going to inject religion into their decisions. With Alito going up there it will not end up being the beginning of theocratic rule from the bench. However, all too often, we seek a lack of morals in some decisions that have been rendered from the high court. Kelo comes to mind when the court dictates that the government can seize your home. When the court rules that it's "cruel and inhumane" to put someone under the age of 18 to death even though they committed a brutally heinous capital crime. When they invade the state's territory to make laws for their citizens, and strike down those laws (as they did in Lawrence), then they aren't abiding by a level of morals expected by the Framers.
Respect, above all else, for the law is what these men are striving for. It's written. It's enumerated. It's in black-and-white. They, as much as the public, want a return to that sort of jurisprudence. Judge Alito is step number two in retaking the courts, and returning this nation back to it's rightful path. We are a nation of laws created through the various legislative branches. An adherence to those laws are what we expect. We don't want nine unelected people sitting up on high making laws. That's not their job, and under the definition of "good Behaviour" under Article III, Section 1 legislating from the bench is anything but such behavior.
Publius II
Well, well, well. Judge Samuel Alito endured Hell last week. From accusations from the chief bloviator and resident beached whale (Sen. Ted Kennedy), to the rambling, bumbling, stumbling Sen. Joe "I don't like Princeton" Biden, they took plenty of nasty little swipes at the man. But as she did after the Roberts' hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated that she doesn't see anything involving a filibuster from the Democrats.
WASHINGTON - A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.
"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."
She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.
And, it should be noted here that her vote isn't based on his judicial philosophy. In her own words, she dislikes his "conservative record." That's a partisan issue, not a judicial issue. But, at least the woman is being honest; a hard trait to find amongst Democrats, especially when it comes to intellectual honesty. That's a trait not even Ted Kennedy can seem to locate.
"If there's a filibuster of this man based on his qualifications, there would be a huge backlash in this country," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. He is one of 14 centrist senators who defused the Senate's showdown over judicial filibusters last year, saying such a tactic is justified only under extraordinary circumstances.
And, I'm not a fan of Sen. Graham, but he's right. He, along with Sen. Kyl, defended Judge Alito in interviews all week. If you have a Ganf of 14 member stating that there are no extraordinary circumstances, then a filibuster is ruled out. Sen. Graham was on the record in a few interviews that should such a move be made, he would side with Sen. Frist in executing the Constitutional Option.
The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said last week that unidentified Democrats will "exercise their rights" to delay a committee vote that Republicans sought for Tuesday.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called on party members to hold off making a decision until after a meeting Wednesday.
Does it matter, really? There won't be a filibuster because we'll have the votes to break it. There will be no holds ( a common tactic used by Sen. Boxer, frequently) as that, too, can be broken. The Democrats are out of options.
Sen. Charles Schumer,D-N.Y., would not rule out a filibuster, saying committee Democrats were still going through the hearing transcripts and awaiting answers to written questions.
"It's premature to say anything till we fully assess the record," said Schumer, who appeared with Graham on "Fox News Sunday."
Leave it to Schmuckie Chuckie to put the cart before the horse. No, he's not ruling it out, but his colleagues may overrule him. If Sen. "Know Nothing" Schumer really wants to provoke a fight in the Senate over Judge Alito, let him. It'll be the worst pummeling the Democrats ever received.
But Feinstein, who said she was concerned about Alito's conservative record on abortion rights and deference to executive power, acknowledged the 15-year appellate judge had the legal credentials to serve on the Supreme Court.
"I was impressed with his ability to maintain a very even demeanor," she said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
And I'm sure that wasn't easy especially with Sen. Kennedy accusing him of sharing the same outrageous views that CAP members did in regard to minorites and women. Or his accusations of a "conflict of interest" in the Vanguard case; a case in which the legal ethics board stated there was no such conflict.
"I think there is an additional weight you must give to his background, his qualifications and his ability," she said.
The Washington Post, in an editorial Sunday, said Alito is "undeniably a conservative" but that nominees should not be opposed on ideology alone.
"To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law — which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law," the newspaper said. "While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat."
Democrat law and Republican law? What planet is the editorial board from the WaPo from? We are a nation of laws. Those laws are fair and equal to all. Some aren't moreso than others. And neither party makes up special laws for the treatment of people ideologically on their side. (Though the Democrats have been known to place themselves above the law. Ring any bells, Sen. Kennedy?)
All 10 Republicans on the committee have announced their support for Alito, a 55-year-old former prosecutor and Reagan administration lawyer who is President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Likewise, the Senate's 55 Republicans are expected to line up strongly behind Alito.
Sen. Arlen Specter the committee chairman who supports abortion rights, acknowledged that Alito gave himself latitude during the hearings to revisit the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by declining to call it "settled law."
But Specter, R-Pa., noted that other justices such as O'Connor and David H. Souter also were believed to be hostile to the Roe decision, only to surprise everyone later with an opposite view once they were confirmed.
"The rule seems to be that there is no rule," Specter said on ABC's "This Week."
So, in essence, they've run up the white flag on another nominee. This has got to be absolute torture for them. They keep stepping up to knock these nominees down, and they keep getting slapped around. And had it been Harriet Miers, the Dems would have been the ones coddling her, and throwing the softballs, the GOP would have been hitting her with hard questions. The press would've painted us as sexist, misogynistic bullies breating up on her, and they would've shown the Democrats "giving due respect" to a nominee.
Give me a break. Instead, we're the ones focused on showing his judicial philosophy--the main point of the hearings--The Democrats launch attack after attack on him, and we're the ones painted to be "bad guys" because we're tossing him "softball" questions. Well, we weren't going to be like Kennedy, and attack Alito over CAP records and Vanguard--two issues that were so irrelevant to the hearings that they shouldn't even have brought it up. We weren't going to be like Biden, who stumbled his way through the hearings, and showed everyone why he was a plagerist in the first place. (This man rambled on about so many subjects--from Little League to I don't like Princeton, I do like Princeton, that I'm surprised he was even able to spit out one question. He constantly spoke as though he were sidetracked.)
The reactions from the Democrats during the hearings said it all. Heads in hands, hands covering their faces, many of them leaving for long periods of time (which I get, don't get me wrong. Senators do have other duties on the Hill, however, aside from the leadership of the committee and the GOP, only Sen. Feinstein stuck around for the questioning of those people that came after Alito; those against him and those vouching for him.) They knew they were facing a no-win scenario with Alito, especially after Day One. Each and every senator that questioned him on the Democrat side was beaten like a bongo drum.
And now, he's heading to the Senate. Even if the committee does a straight partisan vote, it'll be 10-8 in favor of Alito. Once on the floor of the Senate, I'm sure we will hear the bloviator, again, trying to slander a good man. Joe Biden might pull out his new "lucky hat," and speak of how h had hoped his son had been interested in women at Princeton. Dianne Feinstein will do the "back-alley abortion" speech she always does. Dick Durbin will see distrubing shades of "Nazism" in Judge Alito's rulings backing up the president. And Russ Feingold will proclaim that Judge Alito will only do what the administration tells him to do (no Russ, that was Harriet Miers, and a chief fear of mine). And they'll all miss the mark.
On Friday, Hugh Hewitt referred to the four originalist jurists as the Supreme Court's "16 inch guns." Indeed they are. They will rule as the Founding Fathers deemed; rooted in jurisprudence and sound judgment rather than the emotional wailings and gnashings of those so irritated that society hasn't swung to their side yet that they must make up law. And what's worse for the Left is that these four men believe in the Constitution not just from a point of jurisprudence. They believe in it with every moral fiber of their being. Now, let me calm down the Michael Newdow morons out there.
That doesn't mean that they're going to inject religion into their decisions. With Alito going up there it will not end up being the beginning of theocratic rule from the bench. However, all too often, we seek a lack of morals in some decisions that have been rendered from the high court. Kelo comes to mind when the court dictates that the government can seize your home. When the court rules that it's "cruel and inhumane" to put someone under the age of 18 to death even though they committed a brutally heinous capital crime. When they invade the state's territory to make laws for their citizens, and strike down those laws (as they did in Lawrence), then they aren't abiding by a level of morals expected by the Framers.
Respect, above all else, for the law is what these men are striving for. It's written. It's enumerated. It's in black-and-white. They, as much as the public, want a return to that sort of jurisprudence. Judge Alito is step number two in retaking the courts, and returning this nation back to it's rightful path. We are a nation of laws created through the various legislative branches. An adherence to those laws are what we expect. We don't want nine unelected people sitting up on high making laws. That's not their job, and under the definition of "good Behaviour" under Article III, Section 1 legislating from the bench is anything but such behavior.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home