Alito

[manu1959]

anyone listen to ted "i killed her but couldn't find a phone" kennedy pontificate about bush? what a prick....

anyway.....where in the constitution does it say an abortion is a constitutional right?

i have read it through twice tonight and can't find it

 

[Hobbit]

were actually overturned, it would be a disaster for Bush and the Republican Party. They'd lose the soccer moms and half the business people that they've cobbled together with their fundamentalist base to make a winning party.

I tend to trust Bush to have chosen someone unlikely to do this kind of damage to his party and legacy.

It's funny we're talking about reversing abortion law here. In South America, Brazil and Peru--solidly Catholic countries--are looking into legalizing abortion, due to the thousands of botched abortion procedures per year.

Mariner.

See, this is where nearly all Americans show a basic lack of understanding of the ruling. Roe vs. Wade didn't legalize and nationally illegal act, it made the act an inalienable right. Before Roe vs. Wade, states were allowed to make their own laws concerning abortion of any type. If it was overturned, we would go back to that, and I'd be willing to bet that most states would keep abortion legal, but some would regulate it more than others.

 

[Mariner]

Hobbit, but unfortunately, some heartland states would make abortion illegal or very hard to get, and we could count on botched abortions and dead young women as a result, just as happens in Peru and Brazil, and exactly as used to happen pre-Roe v. Wade. In any case, I think it would be political suicide for the President actually to appoint someone who would overturn it.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

from USA Today:
http://usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-09-troubling-times_x.htm

Troubling times, a troubling nominee

By Jonathan Turley

The confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito will focus greatly on his stated opposition to Roe v. Wade. The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues. For Alito, this may have the welcomed effect of obscuring a more troubling question from his past writings and cases: Alito's extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights.

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito's cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito's bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

Power grabs

This country is facing one of the most serious constitutional crises in its history. President Bush has claimed virtually absolute authority to act in contradiction of federal and international law. In the recently disclosed National Security Agency operation, he has claimed the right to order surveillance that may be a crime under federal law. Last week, it was disclosed that when Bush signed a prohibition on torture he had long opposed, he reserved the right to violate it if he deemed it in the nation's interests.

The Framers gave our nation three branches in a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. The Republican-controlled Congress has remained largely passive in the face of these extreme assertions of power, leaving only the judicial branch as a check. Over the past five years, many federal judges — including Republican appointees — have stood against some of the president's most extreme actions.

We are down to our last branch, and Alito would supply the final vote to shift the balance of power toward a president claiming the powers of a maximum leader. Alito's writings and opinions show a jurist who is willing to yield tremendous authority to the government and offer little in terms of judicial review — views repeatedly rejected not only by his appellate colleagues but also by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an assistant solicitor general, Alito strongly opposed the ruling of a court of appeals in the seminal case of Garner v. Tennessee. In that case, a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 15-year-old boy when he fled with $10 from a home. Alito supported the right of the officer to kill the boy for failing to stop when ordered, a position ultimately rejected by six members of the Supreme Court and decades of later decisions.

Likewise, Alito authored another memo that argued strongly in favor of giving immunity to officials who violate the rights of citizens — a position long rejected by the federal courts.

As he did as a Reagan administration attorney, Judge Alito often adopts standards so low that any government excuse can overcome any government abuse.

For example, in Doe v. Groody, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that police officers could strip-search a mother and her 10-year-old daughter, despite the fact that neither was named in the search warrant nor suspected of crimes. The majority opinion was authored by fellow Republican and conservative Judge Michael Chertoff (now serving as secretary of Homeland Security). Chertoff criticized Alito's views as threatening to "transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliché 'rubber stamp.' "

In Baker v. Monroe Township, Inez Baker and three of her children, all minors, were approaching the home of her son as a search was being conducted. Even though the warrant allowed a search of only the premises, the mother and her children were forced at gunpoint onto the ground. At least one of the teenagers, a 17-year-old boy, was searched, Baker's purse was dumped out on the ground, and they were left handcuffed for as long as 25 minutes. Where the two Reagan appointees found "a very substantial invasion of the Bakers' personal security," Alito dissented and wanted to bar them from presenting their case to a jury, a view effectively gutting the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Judicial bias

An independent judiciary means little if our judges are not independently minded. In criminal, immigration and other cases, Alito is one of the government's most predictable votes on the federal bench. Though his supporters have attempted to portray this as merely a principle of judicial deference, it is a raw form of judicial bias.

The Alito vote might prove to be the single most important decision on the future of our constitutional system for decades to come. While I generally defer to presidents in their choices for the court, Samuel Alito is the wrong nominee at the wrong time for this country.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of the USA TODAY's board of contributors.

 

[Hobbit]

Hobbit, but unfortunately, some heartland states would make abortion illegal or very hard to get, and we could count on botched abortions and dead young women as a result, just as happens in Peru and Brazil, and exactly as used to happen pre-Roe v. Wade. In any case, I think it would be political suicide for the President actually to appoint someone who would overturn it.

Mariner.

Travel today is much easier than it used to be, and it will probably be no problem to make it to a state that supports abortion, especially if abortion advocates actually are in it to get people abortions rather than force everybody to accept them. I also doubt there will be that many people dieing as a result. Back alley abortions were rare before, and while I'm not a big supporter of people being dead, maybe a woman will think twice about killing her baby for the sake of convenience if she has to risk her own life in the process. I know it sounds cruel, but no more so than killing a defenseless baby.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

from USA Today:
http://usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-09-troubling-times_x.htm

Troubling times, a troubling nominee

By Jonathan Turley

The confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito will focus greatly on his stated opposition to Roe v. Wade. The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues. For Alito, this may have the welcomed effect of obscuring a more troubling question from his past writings and cases: Alito's extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights.

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito's cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito's bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

Power grabs

This country is facing one of the most serious constitutional crises in its history. President Bush has claimed virtually absolute authority to act in contradiction of federal and international law. In the recently disclosed National Security Agency operation, he has claimed the right to order surveillance that may be a crime under federal law. Last week, it was disclosed that when Bush signed a prohibition on torture he had long opposed, he reserved the right to violate it if he deemed it in the nation's interests.

The Framers gave our nation three branches in a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. The Republican-controlled Congress has remained largely passive in the face of these extreme assertions of power, leaving only the judicial branch as a check. Over the past five years, many federal judges — including Republican appointees — have stood against some of the president's most extreme actions.

We are down to our last branch, and Alito would supply the final vote to shift the balance of power toward a president claiming the powers of a maximum leader. Alito's writings and opinions show a jurist who is willing to yield tremendous authority to the government and offer little in terms of judicial review — views repeatedly rejected not only by his appellate colleagues but also by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an assistant solicitor general, Alito strongly opposed the ruling of a court of appeals in the seminal case of Garner v. Tennessee. In that case, a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 15-year-old boy when he fled with $10 from a home. Alito supported the right of the officer to kill the boy for failing to stop when ordered, a position ultimately rejected by six members of the Supreme Court and decades of later decisions.

Likewise, Alito authored another memo that argued strongly in favor of giving immunity to officials who violate the rights of citizens — a position long rejected by the federal courts.

As he did as a Reagan administration attorney, Judge Alito often adopts standards so low that any government excuse can overcome any government abuse.

For example, in Doe v. Groody, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that police officers could strip-search a mother and her 10-year-old daughter, despite the fact that neither was named in the search warrant nor suspected of crimes. The majority opinion was authored by fellow Republican and conservative Judge Michael Chertoff (now serving as secretary of Homeland Security). Chertoff criticized Alito's views as threatening to "transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliché 'rubber stamp.' "

In Baker v. Monroe Township, Inez Baker and three of her children, all minors, were approaching the home of her son as a search was being conducted. Even though the warrant allowed a search of only the premises, the mother and her children were forced at gunpoint onto the ground. At least one of the teenagers, a 17-year-old boy, was searched, Baker's purse was dumped out on the ground, and they were left handcuffed for as long as 25 minutes. Where the two Reagan appointees found "a very substantial invasion of the Bakers' personal security," Alito dissented and wanted to bar them from presenting their case to a jury, a view effectively gutting the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Judicial bias

An independent judiciary means little if our judges are not independently minded. In criminal, immigration and other cases, Alito is one of the government's most predictable votes on the federal bench. Though his supporters have attempted to portray this as merely a principle of judicial deference, it is a raw form of judicial bias.

The Alito vote might prove to be the single most important decision on the future of our constitutional system for decades to come. While I generally defer to presidents in their choices for the court, Samuel Alito is the wrong nominee at the wrong time for this country.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of the USA TODAY's board of contributors.

So bias toward government LAW is now the new liberal complaint? I guess I forgot, according to liberals, judges with "independent minds" get to actively CHANGE the Law as they go along...

 

[Mariner]

you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.

This whole idea of liberal judicial activist judges, in other words, is a figment of the Republican direct-mail-campaign imagination.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

a principled stand against abortion.

How do you feel about it in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother while giving birth?

Mariner.

 

[theHawk]

Watch a little bit of Alito last night on CSPAN. Was interesting watching some Dem question him. He asked Alito what he thought about "ground breaking" rulings like Brown vs Board of Education. Alito's answer was right on, saying the ruling didn't change the meaning of Equal Rights, it just actually enforced it when it had been ignored for so long.

I don't think the Dem realized the same mentality could be used to overturn Roe V Wade

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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

I honestly think you have two personalities ! But seriously, you are right about the president appointing whomever he pleases, with some reasonable boundries.

However, you lose it on the apportioning issue. It began when the Dems were in power, and is used by them just as much as the repubs, cuz fact is, the repub majority is quite slim. You honestly think its only repubs using it these days?

 

[manu1959]

you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.

This whole idea of liberal judicial activist judges, in other words, is a figment of the Republican direct-mail-campaign imagination.

Mariner.

so what you are saying is republicans appoint liberal judges that push forth an agenda you agree with.....not sure what your complaint is.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

so what you are saying is republicans appoint liberal judges that push forth an agenda you agree with.....not sure what your complaint is.

Excellent point, and also illustrates how liberals use statistics to KNOWINGLY lie and distort.

I would like to see that study and how far back it goes.

I will say it right now. I am so SUPREMELY CONFIDENT of the conservative posistion, that if the link to that study is given, I will check it out and I KNOW we will find that the conservative justices are less of judicial activists than the liberals.

 

[musicman]

you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.
Mariner.

Gee - if only that's what "judicial activism" meant...

Very clever ploy, Mariner. By inventing a new definition out of whole cloth, your friends get to frame the debate! Why don't we just say that Democrats were found to be greater supporters of Islamic terrorism, as measured by their choice of lawn care products? It makes about as much sense.

The willingness to overturn bad precedent in defense of the U.S. Constitution scarcely qualifies as "judicial activism", as I'm sure you know. Bad law should remain because...it's THERE!!?? Is THAT what you're saying?

 

[manu1959]

Gee - if only that's what "judicial activism" meant...

Very clever ploy, Mariner. By inventing a new definition out of whole cloth, your friends get to frame the debate! Why don't we just say that Democrats were found to be greater supporters of Islamic terrorism, as measured by their choice of lawn care products? It makes about as much sense.

The willingness to overturn bad precedent in defense of the U.S. Constitution scarcely qualifies as "judicial activism", as I'm sure you know. Bad law should remain because...it's THERE!!?? Is THAT what you're saying?

also an excllent point.....but let us rip his point apart further....

Originally Posted by Mariner:
you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.

anyone want to bet that the "republican judges" were overturning "precedents" which were in fact "liberal" judges' decisions which were "legislating from the bench"

 

[musicman]

also an excllent point.....but let us rip his point apart further....

Originally Posted by Mariner:
you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.

anyone want to bet that the "republican judges" were overturning "precedents" which were in fact "liberal" judges' decisions which were "legislating from the bench"

LMAO! It's just occurred to me that one of the most appealing aspects of liberalism is that it eliminates - for some - the need for complicated thought. Why trouble one's head with all these matters of jurisdiction, separation of powers, and such? How much simpler and happier life would be if we could live according to the one true constant:

conservatives - bad

liberals - good

 

[manu1959]

LMAO! It's just occurred to me that one of the most appealing aspects of liberalism is that it eliminates - for some - the need for complicated thought. Why trouble one's head with all these matters of jurisdiction, separation of powers, and such? How much simpler and happier life would be if we could live according to the one true constant:

conservatives - bad

liberals - good

exactly.....living just outside sf every day that i discuss politics i am told that my opinions and beliefs on any topic are wrong because i am stupid.

i think that the real draw to liberalism is the state of euphoric narcissistic superiority it appears to bring

 

[musicman]

exactly.....living just outside sf every day that i discuss politics i am told that my opinions and beliefs on any topic are wrong because i am stupid.

i think that the real draw to liberalism is the state of euphoric narcissistic superiority it appears to bring

And, without the requirement of any real thought! It's appeal is seductive, to be sure. Man is a fundamentally weak being by his nature; he loves flattery.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

also an excllent point.....but let us rip his point apart further....

Originally Posted by Mariner:
you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.

anyone want to bet that the "republican judges" were overturning "precedents" which were in fact "liberal" judges' decisions which were "legislating from the bench"

Precisely why I want to know how far back it goes.
We would also need to know percentages, not sheer numbers, maybe republican justices have presided over twice as many opportunities to instill "judicial activism", but yet only outnumber the Dems by ONE in the sheer volume count.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

exactly.....living just outside sf every day that i discuss politics i am told that my opinions and beliefs on any topic are wrong because i am stupid.

i think that the real draw to liberalism is the state of euphoric narcissistic superiority it appears to bring

I think the real draw of liberalism is that it panders to special interests, and many middle roaders who dont want to think of themselves as "intolerant", "racist", "against the working poor" "opposed to womens rights" "dont care about the enviorment"

All these issues are not looked at thouroughly enough by most libs to understand they are being lied to. They just read the bumper sticker lines and accept it as fact.

 

[musicman]

Hobbit, but unfortunately, some heartland states would make abortion illegal or very hard to get, and we could count on botched abortions and dead young women as a result...
Mariner.

You're making the common liberal mistake of assuming that human behavior is fixed - unaffected by surrounding circumstances (it's kind of like the way liberals can't understand why tax cuts promote spending and investment). You base your projections of gloom and doom on this faulty assumption, and wonder why you walk around scratching your heads in confusion most of the time.

Consider the glorious possibility that - faced with something less than abortion-on-demand with limo service to and from the execution chamber, some women might actually elect to =gasp= HAVE their babies - or even (smelling salts, please) conduct their lives in a more sexually responsible manner to begin with.

Moreover, if you are so convinced of the rightness of your viewpoint, why not convince your neighbors, enact such laws in your state, and afford that same courtesy to other states - heartland boobs though they may be? Then, you can display the sign, "Welcome to Massachusetts - where the elite meet to murder their unborn" with all the pride and splendor it merits. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. I don't know what's so difficult about that.