Alito

[Mariner]

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

 

[Hobbit]

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.

 

[trobinett]

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.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

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.

 

[archangel]

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!

 

[trobinett]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Not televising them would shorten them considerably.

 

[insein]

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.

 

[Bonnie]

Mariner..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.

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

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.

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?

 

[archangel]

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?

I like that 'Mikey'!

 

[Bonnie]

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.

Which is precisely why I am not watching the hearings. Kennedy being the biggest bloviator of them all, who is undoubtedly attempting to reduce a Alito's distinguished career to what his remarks were reg any abortion case he may have ruled on.

Given the Democrats are so willing to see the Constitution as a living breathing changable document that should be "re-adjusted" when bad law is created, why not then can Alito have a negative view of the tenents of Roe v Wade and still be considered a worthy Justice??

 

[archangel]

Which is precisely why I am not watching the hearings. Kennedy being the biggest bloviator of them all, who is undoubtedly attempting to reduce a Alito's distinguished career to what his remarks were reg any abortion case he may have ruled on.

Given the Democrats are so willing to see the Constitution as a living breathing changable document that should be "re-adjusted" when bad law is created, why not then can Alito have a negative view of the tenents of Roe v Wade and still be considered a worthy Justice??

but I already rep'd ya...sigh :halo:

 

[Mariner]

No, I'm referring to how you can carve districts up so you win, even if you're not in the majority.

Imagine a city/suburban area where the city-dwellers go Democrat 90/10 and the suburbanites are 50/50. If you're a Republican, and you can redraw the districts so 1% of the suburbanites now go Democratic, then you suddenly have one Republican and one Democratic legislator representing an area that really ought to be represented by two Democrats.

In that situation, the votes of the city-dwelling Democrats are worth less than the votes of the Republican suburbanites.

Using sophisticated computer techniques to draw districts, Republicans have led the way in this so-called "gerrymandering." The process was named after the salamander-like shape of districts created in the 19th century. Attempts to reform the system have not been generally successful. Bonnie is correct that Democrats have played this game too, but the most brazen and extreme examples in the past few decades are Tom DeLay's and other like-minded Republicans' doing.

As for two senators per state--hmm--the United States wasn't the same shape back then, pre-Louisiana Purchase. So I don't think the purpose was to make sure the heartland could protect itself from us Blue folk on the coasts. I don't know enough constitutional history to know why a large state like Virginia would have been willing to have the same number of senators as a small state like Delaware. Maybe someone else can answer that.

Mariner.

 

[MtnBiker]

During the Constitution Convention the smaller populated states threatened to pull out of the union if a compramise could not be made. Thus the House is based on population and the Senate made equal with all states having 2 senators. Southern states with much less populated yet very important for agriculture and trade for the Union. Population alone does not make a nation, rather a large land mass and people arcoss that land mass to take advantage of the natural resources. People in New York enjoy the benifit of coal mined in West Virginia.

 

[archangel]

No, I'm referring to how you can carve districts up so you win, even if you're not in the majority.

Imagine a city/suburban area where the city-dwellers go Democrat 90/10 and the suburbanites are 50/50. If you're a Republican, and you can redraw the districts so 1% of the suburbanites now go Democratic, then you suddenly have one Republican and one Democratic legislator representing an area that really ought to be represented by two Democrats.

In that situation, the votes of the city-dwelling Democrats are worth less than the votes of the Republican suburbanites.

Using sophisticated computer techniques to draw districts, Republicans have led the way in this so-called "gerrymandering." The process was named after the salamander-like shape of districts created in the 19th century. Attempts to reform the system have not been generally successful. Bonnie is correct that Democrats have played this game too, but the most brazen and extreme examples in the past few decades are Tom DeLay's and other like-minded Republicans' doing.

As for two senators per state--hmm--the United States wasn't the same shape back then, pre-Louisiana Purchase. So I don't think the purpose was to make sure the heartland could protect itself from us Blue folk on the coasts. I don't know enough constitutional history to know why a large state like Virginia would have been willing to have the same number of senators as a small state like Delaware. Maybe someone else can answer that.

Mariner.

sorry sounds fair to me...two Senators per state...I think our original formers of the constitution had a great grasp on future problems! :crutch:

 

[theHawk]

Thank god its not up to Americans (or the ones that take part in polls) to pick our Judges directly-

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A majority of Americans say President Bush's pick to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court should not be confirmed if his confirmation hearings reveal that he would vote to overturn a woman's right to have an abortion, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings Monday on the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to the high court.

Fifty-six percent of those polled said that they would not support the nomination if they were convinced during the hearings that Alito would overturn the landmark abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade, that guaranteed the right to an abortion. (View poll results)

Thirty-four percent said they would back the nomination in that event. Most questions in the poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Fifty-three percent of those polled described themselves as "pro-choice"; 42 percent characterized themselves as "pro-life."

In a 1985 application for a job in the Reagan administration, Alito wrote that he saw no constitutional basis for a right to have an abortion.

Tough questions for nominee
Several Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy of Vermont -- the ranking Democrat on the committee -- have said that Alito must answer questions about his positions on abortion. And at least one senator, Charles Schumer of New York, said if those answers indicate he would favor overturning Roe, it would increase the chances of a Democratic filibuster against him. (Full Story)

Republicans, however, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, have said that they see no rational reason for a filibuster and that what Alito said in a 1985 job application has no bearing on how he would rule in court now.

Without knowing Alito's answers to questions on abortion, more than 20 percent of those responding to the poll said they didn't know enough about the judge to decide whether to support him.

Forty-nine percent said he should be confirmed by the Senate, and 30 percent said he should not. The numbers are virtually the same as another poll taken early last month.

Most people seem to view Alito as relatively mainstream -- 52 percent said his views are mainstream, while 30 percent said they are too extreme, and 49 percent said he is "about right" on the liberal-conservative spectrum, while 29 percent said he is too conservative and 6 percent said too liberal. Those questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The nomination has engendered interest. Sixty-three percent said they planned to follow the confirmation hearings closely -- 18 percent very closely -- compared with 59 percent who said the same in August when the Senate panel held hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice.

Alito is the third person Bush has nominated to fill O'Connor's seat. Roberts' nomination was withdrawn when Bush tapped him for chief justice, and White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination after opposition from conservative Republicans.

O'Connor has said she will remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/09/alito.poll/index.html


I think alot of Americans don't understand how Row v Wade actually works, nor what would happen if it was overturned....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thank god its not up to Americans (or the ones that take part in polls) to pick our Judges directly-

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/09/alito.poll/index.html

I think alot of Americans don't understand how Row v Wade actually works, nor what would happen if it was overturned....

"And Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina warned Democrats against setting a precedent of filibustering Alito's nomination on the basis of abortion rights. If that became the standard, there are many senators who believe so deeply that "an abortion is certain death for an unborn child that they would stand on their feet forever," he said. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1488317

 

[Hobbit]

Precisely. Even when there weren't "Plains States," there were still urban and rural states. Most of the Southern states depended mostly on agriculture, which meant thousands of acres of sparsely populated land. The founding fathers did not want the more populous states bullying the other states out of their resources, but then again, why shouldn't the more populated states have more power? They have more people. Thus, a comprimise was reached. In the lower house, power was directly proportional to population. In the upper house, each state was equal, and during the electoral process, every state got two "bonus" votes from the senate seats, but no more. Thus, the bigger states do have more power, it's just not in *exact* proportion to their population.

 

[Mariner]

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.