Bush Nominates N.J. Judge Alito
President Bush is nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, rebounding from a stinging rebuke over his first choice by tapping a conservative federal judge to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate.
A conservative nominated up to the Supreme Court. A Roman Catholic conservative, even - - at least we know his religion and his political leanings. Suppose we can get this one confirmed through the Senate?
They’re already calling him ‘Scalito!”
Related:
Judge Alito’s Biography at Law.Com
…has endorsed abortion restrictions
Alito Opinion: ACLU v. Schundler -holding that the Establishment Clause was not violated by a city hall holiday display that contained a creche, a menorah, secular symbols of the season, and a banner proclaiming the city’s dedication to diversity.
Alito Opinon: Saxe v. State College Area School District - Saxe v. State College Area School District - triking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work.
Alito Opinion: Williams v. Price -ranting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.
A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, “[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems–such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition–that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.” Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito’s dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito’s reasoning.
More of Alito’s opinions to be found at the SCOTUSBlog.
Volokh has argued before Alito once.
Ann Althouse has a post on the fight in the Senate the next nominee may face.
Nomination Watch thinks the Meirs nomination should have continued through confirmation hearings.
The Confirm Alito Coalition has emerged.
October 31, 2005 - 09:56 AM on October 31st, 2005
Will the demacrats pull another filibuster like they have dont put it past some of these reptiles for more of their dirty work:lol:
October 31, 2005 - 10:08 AM on October 31st, 2005
let them try.
October 31, 2005 - 11:07 AM on October 31st, 2005
1- it won’t work.
October 31, 2005 - 11:24 AM on October 31st, 2005
3, I hope the donkeys try a filibuster. It will put the gang of 14 squarely on the spot. If any of the 14 support the filibuster, Frist ought to implement the nuclear option and NUKE THEM!
October 31, 2005 - 08:50 PM on October 31st, 2005
Uh oh. Whatever shall the spineless RINOs in the Senate do now? President Bush has nominated a strict constructionist with a solid paper trail of conservative judicial temperment to the Supreme Court. Do they support the President’s choice and risk angering the Democrats that don’t vote for them anyway, or do they suck up to the Democrats and go against the President’s choice and anger the conservative Republican base that DOES vote for them? Why do I think an editorial cartoon of Bush playing chess against Shumer and Kennedy moving Alito into place and saying “Check Mate” is appropriate? Or perhaps the proper phrase for what’s been done to the liberals in the Senate is “Bush-whacked”. LOL
I wonder if all of the political pundits realize how President Bush has used them to fire up the base to force the RINOs to support a true strict constructionist to the bench. The Gang of Fourteen Can’t go back on their deal or the entire US populace will be looking for their hides. I still think Bush has to be doing a George Peppard impersonation with his boots up on the desk, lighting a cigar, and saying “I Love it when a plan comes together”. And the best part is all of the MSM pundits think they’re winning.
November 1, 2005 - 05:03 AM on November 1st, 2005
Surely there can be no more extreme right winger than Alito! GW is now pandering to his Xtian extremist core!
We cannot allow this to go through! If it does, FIFTY YEARS of social progress will be lost! Bush must not be allowed to make whatever choice he wants so he can pack the SC! Apparently he has forgotten that there is a Congress, and it is their say too.
We need another moderate in the mold of Sandra O’Connor. If only another Justice Ginsburg was available!!!
I hope Michael Moore comes out with a “Plamegate” documentary, revealing how Rove conspired with Libby and others to get back at Joe Wilson through his wife. If that prosecutor can’t find the evidence, supersleuth Moore surely can! Moore could find some catchy title for it, like “Treason 911″! Michael would also be able to tie it all together! That is, how this conspiracy proves that the Iraq war was wrong from the get go, leading Democrats who all opposed it were right all along. It also proves that the neocons stole the 2000 and 2004 elections!!!!!!!
Michael could prove that too, and I bet he will if he does this documentary!!!
November 1, 2005 - 08:01 AM on November 1st, 2005
6, MM Troll, get used to it. You are going to have to act civilized and start recognizing the rights of others, else get thee to an insane asylum.
November 1, 2005 - 10:11 AM on November 1st, 2005
good morning pcd - how are you?
November 1, 2005 - 10:12 AM on November 1st, 2005
shiloh, I am fine.
November 1, 2005 - 10:38 AM on November 1st, 2005
Hey Shiloh, How are you feeling today?
November 1, 2005 - 11:44 AM on November 1st, 2005
fine thanks Mike. it’s a lovely day in Montana & i hope it is where you are, too.
do you think this nomination will be a dogfight in the Senate. will it go nuclear?
November 1, 2005 - 12:28 PM on November 1st, 2005
I don’t think it’s going to go nuclear. it will be partisan, but I think in the end, he’ll get through with 60+ votes.
November 1, 2005 - 01:05 PM on November 1st, 2005
it seems to me the main subtext of the choice is his history vis-a-vie abortion rights.
i think that’s the flashpoint. never mind his views on affirmative action - the commerce clause (read states-rights) & abortion is the main reason for the right’s euphoria, isn’t it?
November 1, 2005 - 01:08 PM on November 1st, 2005
P.S. it’s sunny and lovely in Philadelphia..high of 71 degrees, no humidity…perfect.
November 1, 2005 - 01:11 PM on November 1st, 2005
It may seem so to those who view everything through the narrow prizm of the abortion debate. This choice is a reward to the President’s supporters who demanded he nominate an originalist, a constructionist, and one who would NOT leglislate from the bench. All indications are that Judge Alito fits this mold to a T.
November 1, 2005 - 01:43 PM on November 1st, 2005
so would you be okay if he maintained a strict constructionist view yet voted to keep Roe in place, given that he thought it was the proper call?
November 1, 2005 - 01:57 PM on November 1st, 2005
16, shiloh, you forget Roe was based on a lie, and then the Constitutional reasoning is faulty.
What you are asking is, “Will you allow the Left to keep their illegally and extralegally gotten gains?”
November 1, 2005 - 02:03 PM on November 1st, 2005
virtually every legal scholar I have heard from considers Roe to be bad precedent. That being said, Yes, if her were a strict constructionist, yet voted to uphold roe, I would be satisfied. I am not an advocate of “banning” abortion. I am an advocate of eradicating the business of abortion and the carefree and irresponsible behavior of those who make it necessary.
November 1, 2005 - 02:07 PM on November 1st, 2005
your opinion on Roe in shared by many on your side.
it’s not as if overturning Roe, which polls say most of the country does not support, will stop abortion.
but i understand that the pro-lifers need to make a statement.
it’s so ironic. the party of small government has expanded government over the past 5 years & the party that wants government out of people’s lives so they can determine their own destiny cannot leave a woman’s uterus.
i am completely against abortion & would like every fertilized egg to be loved and nutured.
but if i say words like freedom & choice & privacy i know the arguements against those concepts when it comes to abortion & know the firestorm which would result.
November 1, 2005 - 03:53 PM on November 1st, 2005
Wow, have the kids finally grown up and begun communicating like adults? I’m impressed guys.
November 1, 2005 - 04:43 PM on November 1st, 2005
No one gives a shit what you are impressed with.
Shiloh, at the same time, would you not agree that there are elements out there who think that the government has no business interfering with people’s bodies, but at the same time think that the government has every right to 30, 40, 50, percent of the paychecks of the productive? You’ll agree that there is a glaring double standard there as well.
At least we can begin with the idea that neither of us, nor I suspect most right-minded people, wants to see millions of babies aborted every year. The question is, how do we get to that point?
November 1, 2005 - 07:06 PM on November 1st, 2005
#20: Shiloh’s back on his meds agaian.
November 1, 2005 - 07:38 PM on November 1st, 2005
“No one gives a shit what you are impressed with.”
It’s hard to leave the sandbox. Give it time.
November 1, 2005 - 07:44 PM on November 1st, 2005
I don’t get it; why are some of shiloh’s posts deleted at the speed of light, and some are completely ignored?
November 2, 2005 - 01:58 AM on November 2nd, 2005
Okay one more time on the Constitutional side of the appointment of Federal Judges. Congress does NOT have the ability to dictate to the President who he may or may not nominate. That is solely the responsibility of the President. The SENATE, not the Congress, has the responsibility of confirming or rejecting the nomination under the “Advise and Consent” section of the Constitution. They are only supposed to only consider the nominee’s qualifications, i.e. suitably educated and of good moral character (Bill Clinton might have trouble being named to an ambassadorship to Antarctica). They are NOT supposed to take anything else into account. In fact religion ( in Democrat double speak that’s “deeply held personal beliefs”) as a litmus test is strictly prohibited by the Constitution.
Okay now that they have no REAL grounds to oppose his nomination, let’s discuss the “repealing of 50 yrs of social progress” nonsense.
Anyone who believes that the Supreme Court can repeal “50 years of social progress” needs to do a few things. First - Put down the crack pipe. Then take a long hard look around and tell me how much better off we as a whole are than we were before all of this social progress began. Yes there has been a lot of good happen through social reform. Schools are now desegregated, voting reform has happened (though I still think that people should be required to at least be able to pass a reading test before being handed a ballot. If you don’t know who or what you’re voting for, why should you be allowed to vote?)criminals are now made aware that they do not have to incriminate themselves. Wages are now supposedly based on ability rather than other factors ( B.S. honestly. Ever take a look at a pharmaceutical sales rep? I don’t think they hire them, I think they have a contract with Mattel and the Stepford wives company. There was also a recent lawsuit wherein a cosmetic company fired a sales rep for not fitting the company appearance standard. i.e. she wasn’t pretty enough and weighed too much. It was a right to work state. The Plaintiff lost the lawsuit.)
Now look at some of the less than stellar results of the “Social Progress” of the last 50 years. Educational levels are higher, but the standards are so low that some people graduating high school are functionally illiterate. One high school was going to give out completion certificates instead of diplomas to anyone who failed the standardized tests. The parents of the uneducated students sued saying that not getting a diploma would stigmatize their children and hurt their employment opportunities. Personally I thought not doing the assignments and therefore not learning a damn thing was what was hurting their kids’ chances of getting a good job. The concepts of hard work and education have been replaced by hedonism and the entitlement mentality. And what do these young people, who have never been told to get off their arses and work to earn what you want, turn to when they discover that with no education they are going to fail? Crime. Education needs to be revamped from the “I’m alright, you’re alright” Mr Rogers feel good because noone fails crap that has been passed off as the savior of a system that turned out neurotic but competent individuals versus the current crop of antisocial, hedonistic, incompetent thugs. It’s much better (and easier) to teach a child that they will fail if they don’t work at 6 than it is at 18. Screw the “But we don’t want to hurt hi/her self esteem nonsense”. A 6 yr old who has 12 years to learn how to read and do math before being cast into the world has time to develop skills that will promote self esteem, and 18 yr old is being cast into a world for which he/she may have tremendous self esteem, but no skills to be able to do anything with it. It is also a false self esteem because they have never had to accomplish anything to justify it. Maslo’s pyramid for human motivation put one thing above all others - Self actualization. Self actualization is the development of the self to one’s utmost potential. People will endure hunger, cold, thirst and any number of hardships in that quest. Don’t believe me? Why do you think people climb mountains? Simply for the ability to say ” I did that”. Kids who are never taught the skills to be all that they can be (Anyone ever wonder why that slogan was the single most successful recruiting slogan in US Army history? Now you know.)
Okay now back from the tangent on how wonderful the world is after 50 yrs of this wonderful social progress.(?) Roe v Wade will never come before the court again. It is a settled case and the woman who originally filed it is way too old at this point to be able to become pregnant. Therefore, she can’t refile the suit and at this point it is settled law. Now the only way that it can be overturned would be for a state to pass a statute to ban abortion and then be sued over it. As there is already settled case law on the books i.e. precedent that declares any law banning abortion to be an invasion of an imaginary right to privacy, I highly doubt that any state would even attempt to pass a law that would almost certainly be struck down in the courts. That leaves one and only one way to overturn Roe V Wade. That would be a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that one and the Supreme Court has no say whatsoever on the implementation of Constitutional amendments. With that being said, all of the liberal Democratic kool aid drinkers shoud just shut and realize that the way you get to appoint someone to the Supreme Court is to win elections. You , now here’s that mean awful word that the teacher’s are trying to remove from all of the schools, LOST THE ELECTION. You lost and until you win you don’t get to select justices to the Supreme Court. When you get off your butts, and do the work necessary to win, you’ll get to choose until shut up and sit down. Except for Michael Moore, you go get on the treadmill and don’t get off until you’ve lost 75 lbs. I know that sounds harsh, but you’ll thank me for it later.
November 2, 2005 - 03:33 AM on November 2nd, 2005
:idea:This guy is big on Mexico and loves sewers and hates our freedoms and loves the new and up coming slave class, in other words he is just one more self righteous rat inside Washington.:sad: