Alito

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mariner, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    I don't understand my fellow Democrats' and liberals' attempts to bring down Alito's nomination. While I disagree with Alito's likely positions on abortion and presidential powers, it's clearly the President's right to nominate whoever he wishes, and the Senate minority's power to advise and consent is fairly limited.

    My biggest concern with Alito is that he may not believe in one man, one vote. Although the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created equal, the Constitution unfortunately neglected to repeat this idea. Alito dissented in a case concerning apportionment. The reason the House of Representatives has remained so solidly in Republican hands is the skillful use of bizarre apportionment formulas, which disenfranchise voters by piling them into large, computer-designed districts where their voting power is nullified.

    I don't understand why most Republican voters go along with this--sure it's good in the short term, but what about when the tables are turned, and Democrats have the opportunity to redraw districts in their favor? Tom DeLay is the biggest innovator in this regard, changing Texas from a 16 to 16 tie to 21 to 11, simply by redrawing districts so that Hispanic and black voters' votes wouldn't count, all in a highly questionable between-census redistricting, which I hope the Supreme Court overturns.

    Alito, for no reason I can fathom, thinks it's just fine if my vote is worth 10 or 100 times yours. It's bad enough that rural states get extra power in the Senate via two senators per state, no matter how big. Republican apportionment games do the same thing the House, where it's become effectively impossible to unseat an incumbent, because of these salamander-shaped custom districts. It's an un-level playing field, which seems the opposite of Republican equal-playing-field philosophy about life.

    Mariner

    From today's New York Times, on this subject:

    quote

    In his 1985 job application, Mr. Alito said that his interest in constitutional law was motivated by disagreement with some decisions of the Warren Court, among them those concerning reapportionment. The decisions, from the 1960's, required states to draw voting districts with equal populations. Some legal scholars at the time contended that the decisions did not have a basis in the Constitution.

    Judge Bork, too, was critical of the decisions at his confirmation hearings. "There is nothing in our history that suggests 'one man one vote' is the only proper way of apportioning," he said.

    In November, after the disclosure of the 1985 job application, the White House said that Judge Alito now believes that one person one vote is "bedrock principle."

    unquote

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/politics/politicsspecial1/09legal.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    25 years can change a man. I mean, the girl who won Roe vs. Wade is trying to get the decision overturned. For the most part, I've seen that states tend to draw up congressional districts based on population. If they don't, then it's not actually within the power of the Federal government to force them to. It's up to the state government and the citizens of that government, as the constitution dictates that the states themselves are responsible for managing their own elected representatives and electoral votes.

    As for rural states having more power thanks to the two senate seats, that was entirely intentional. While the majority of people live in urban areas like New England and the Pacific Coast, it would be a catastrophe if they were allowed to run the country. Think abou it. If cities ran the country, they'd just crap all over the rural folk, getting crop prices lowered and the like, for their own benefit. The Senate itself was designed as the balancing factor that would make sure the rural states had any voice at all, rather than always being able to be outvoted by the more populous states.
     
  3. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    Been watching the hearing`s for Alito this morning, a couple of things struck me as I watched.

    First, politian`s can carry on, the only people I know, that can talk for ten minutes, and not say a thing.

    Second, I get the sense, that by, and large, hearings such as these, accomplish NOTHING, other than provide a platform for speech making.

    I would suggest that EVERYONE`S mind is already made up, and all this speech making, and postering isn`t going to make one bit of difference.

    I belive that the position of Supreme Court Justice is of such importance, that the PEOPLE should vote on it, NOT a political body, such as Congress.
     
  4. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Law is a complex matter, and few citizens have enough time or motivation to inform themselves on the issue. Do you realy want the Supreme Court nominations subject to the perversion that is the modern election process. I mean, JFK beat Nixon because he was good looking. Clinton also won many votes based on appearance. Do you really want a Supreme Court judge in office because he's a better liar, good at smearing, and looks better? The solution to this issue, is to reign in the Supreme Court back to their origninal powers as a non-legislative body. Public elections only work when the elected are accountable to those who elect them. The Supreme Court is supposed to be accountable only to the Constitution, so they get life terms, and elections for them are not a good idea.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I for one am really sick and tired of all these political diatribes ie:Kennedy et al...going on and on about what they perceive as issues...we all know it boils down to two issues for the Dem's..'Abortion and Gay rights'...Alito is not going to express his opinion on either issue as he is, as all are in the judicial system, bound by judicial protocal... to not address issues that can be heard at a later date...this is just a political 'look at me' see how concerned I am...give me a break...move it to the vote and let's all move on! :rolleyes:
     
  6. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    Of course, you make good sense.

    I suppose my suggestion comes from watching the circus being made out of the hearings.

    Just think there should be a better way.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Not televising them would shorten them considerably.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Supreme Court nominations are to be approved based on their qulaifications for the job. Meaning, do they know the law. All this hold up over whether or not he's for abortion or against it is bullshit. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the biggest liberal nomination that could possibly be proposed. She was voted in 99 to 1 because she had a substantial background in law and understood the law. If Republicans then were like Dems now, Ginsberg would have been rejected based on party line diferences.

    In the end i think Alito gets through but with a ridiculously low number for a man of his qualifications.
     
  9. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Keep in mind that some prominant democrats have supported redristicting legislation as well, Bob Graham, Betty Castor, and Bob Butterworth all of Fla. As well as Democrats in California.
    It's a game played on both sides of the aisle.
     
  10. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    Are you refering to the Electoral college in your 10 or 100 time vote analogy? If so that is not for Alito to "think" rather to agree with the constitution.

    And how is it that any state can have extra power if all states have 2 senators?
     

Share This Page