Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[John-in-KC]

Given:

 

Judge Alito has impeccable credentials.

Judge Alito has honorable service to the Executive Branch.

Judge Alito, regardless of your political POV, works hard as a Federal appelate judge.

 

Also given:

Judge Alito is human and will goof up. I refer here to when he didn not recuse himself in the Vanguard case. We all goof up. It's part of human nature. Get over it.

 

If you do not accept those givens, please say so in your post.

 

Now, on to opinion:

 

We're replacing the first woman with another man. I, for one, would have preferred to see Janice Rogers Brown be the nominee. She has the personal story for the Judiciary that Dr Condoleeza Rice has for the Executive Branch.

 

We're going to have a political fight on our hands. Silly Season for 2006 just opened. Watch your TVs and listen to your radios for hyperbole filled attack ads on both sides of the issue.

 

We may well see the filibuster rules changed in the US Senate. As a conservative, but also as someone who learned his US History well:

 

MARK MY WORDS: If the Senate changes its rules on filibusters, the DAY WILL COME when the Democratic Party will have the Presidency and a Congressional majority.

- The Democrats will nominate someone unacceptable to the Republicans/conservatives.

- The day will come when Democrats will use the rule against the Republican minority.

- The day will come when Republicans will whine to TV news cameras about the unfairness of the cloture vote.

- The day will come when I will write my Senators "I told you so."

 

Let the games begin...

[TheScout]

Yes.

 

We need a strict constructionist to help preserve our rights and those of the States from the Federal government.

 

"The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

 

"In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." - James Madison

 

The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign. -John Randolph

[Kahuna]

I could see no reason that Harriet Miers should not be confirmed and see none why Alito shouldn't be. I only care that they be able and willing to read and interpret the Constitution according to its obvious meaning and intent.

 

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the filibuster rules, but two observations: it's my understanding they only want to change the rules as they apply to "advise and consent," and also it's my understanding that filibusters have not been used in the past for these type of confirmations. That said, I'm sure what you say is true, the time will come when Republicans will be the damaged party. However, I've never been a big fan of the filibuster anyway. I don't know of any case where it's been used to the benefit of the country (althought I confess I've not researched it much).

[John-in-KC]

Counselor,

 

In the old days, a filibuster MEANT something: One Senator started speaking, and didn't stop (save perhaps for the essential discharges of life) until he'd either stopped the legislation in play or cloture happened.

 

What is called a filibuster now has no resemblance to that. They do it on gentleman's hours. It needs to be a marathon to be effective, imo.

 

No, you are right, this change in the rules will only count for Article II nominations coupled to Article I "advice and consent."

 

Even so, we will see the day when Republicans have the weapon used against them ... and the conservative pundits of the day will have FORGOTTEN that it was conservative Republicans who crafted the weapon.

 

Now, if I can finish my prep of Den chief training for Pow-wow this weekend, to get back to important matters.

 

I used to be an Owl...

[Hunt]

Even if you're a strict constructionist, you still have to apply the words of the Constitution to real-life cases and controversies in which it is often not at all clear how to do that. A good example of this is the Second Amendment--reasonable people can and do disagree about what the Framers meant by the "right to bear arms" language, and how to apply it to the more devastating weapons that are available today. Imagine that you have two judges who claim to be strict constructionists, and you are deciding which you'd like to have on the Supreme Court. One says, "I think the term 'arms' in the Second Amendment has to be interpreted strictly in terms of what the Framers understood it to mean--in other words, single-action, hand-held firearms." The other says, "Arms are arms, and the Amendment says arms. That means all arms of any kind." Which is the stricter constructionist? Which will you support for the Supreme Court if you are an NRA lobbyist? Which if you are a Brady Campaign lobbyist? If you're unbiased, will you flip a coin?

[Rooster7]

One says, "I think the term 'arms' in the Second Amendment has to be interpreted strictly in terms of what the Framers understood it to mean--in other words, single-action, hand-held firearms."

 

Given the above, Id say your example lacks creditability in that it fails to represent this assertion:

 

reasonable people can and do disagree about what the Framers meant by the right to bear arms language

 

Certainly, the framers of this utmost important document did not intend to create it in such a way that every technological advance would create an impetus for it to be rewritten or redefined. I have more respect for those men and the Constitution than to subject it to that kind of nonsense.

 

Strict constructionists do not go on fishing expeditions to find ways to exclude clear and fundamental rights spelled out in the Constitution, and/or to include new rights which are not clearly stated. In other words, they dont seek avenues to create laws through legal precedent and/or reinterpretation. They strictly interpret the document unless there is overwhelming evidence to consider otherwise. Something the Supreme Court has failed to do on numerous occasions over the last 40 to 50 years.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Yeah, but I kind of doubt that the framers thought it would a good idea for everyone to have a nuclear weapon in their basement. Too expreme? Ok, how about howitzers? Still too much? Grenade launchers? Hmmmm, ok, then where do you draw the line on what the framers intended? How do we know? And that's the rub. We don't always know what they intended, and so it's very often a matter of interpretation as to what they had in mind.

 

Justices should not be creating new law from the bench; I think everyone should be able to agree on that. Problem is, unless you go with the exact wording of the Constitution using definitions of the words as used in the times of the framers, the justices are bound to be doing some interpretation. The question is how much is ok. And the political answer to that us usually "whatever amount meets our agenda".

[Kahuna]

Certainly it's not always easy, but what I think a strict constructionist would keep in mind in construing "right to bear arms" or "cruel and unusual punishment," or any other part of the Constitution that could conceivably have not taken into account modern developments in weaponry or modern sensitivity to some types of punishment is: Is this not an issue that can be dealt with by the States? Do we need to set in stone a rule of law that will govern the entire nation? and If the people of the United States feel strongly enough about this issue, will they not amend the Constitution to make it law? Until that point, they needn't split hairs to decide whether a firearm means a flintlock.

 

A strict constructionist will err on the side of the rights of the people and the States to decide.

[Hunt]

So for all you strict constructionists out there, let's say New York passes a law banning personal ownership of any arms using technology that was not available at the date of the enactment of the Second Amendment. OK by you? Let the State decide?

[Kahuna]

New York would be the likliest one to pass a law like that. Washington D.C. has an ordinance that essentially prohibits private ownership of firearms of any kind. Is that okay with me? Heck no, and I don't know why they put up with it. They have one of the highest murder rates in the country. But is it their right? Of course.

[scoutingagain]

Well, again to get back to Mr. Alito...From what I've read about this guy I'd give him a thumbs up. Frankly I have to wonder, given his credentials and qualifications, how he ended up as second string to Ms. Meirs, but that's the President's decision.

 

I am concerned about his nomination though. Some liberal groups are now beginning to support him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051102/ts_latimes/nomineehassomeunexpectedsupporters;_ylt=AmiIaco6EajRCsrONx4a3mNuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

Wonder if that may make some conservatives re-evaluate their support.

 

SA

[AK-Eagle]

-Rant mode on

What I would like to know is why this thread is here, what does it have to do with helping to run troop, pack, crew, etc. Can it improve your popcorn sales, make for high adventure campouts, cause the uniform police to point out its blasphemy against the uniform method? I dont see any references to anything scouting here please folks theres enough politics within scouting with the need to drag any more in.

-Rant mode off

 

AK-Eagle

[SR540Beaver]

AK-Eagle,

 

Perhaps you didn't notice that this thread is in the "Issues & Politics" forum. The forum exists because users requested such a forum to occasionally discuss issues and politics. I believe the admin has stated that it will stay unless people were not able to keep it civil. Scout oath and law still applies. It is kind of like TV.....no one forced you to click on the thread and read it. All of the rest of the forums are strictly scouting related.

[BrentAllen]

Anyone who thinks selecting Justices to the Supreme Court doesn't have anything to do with Scouting needs to read some not-too-distant history. Issues dear to Scouting will be before the Supreme Court again. We should be very concerned about this process.

From what I have heard and read so far, I agree with the selection of Alito. I'm glad Miers is off the ticket.

As for the Second Amendment, I've seen convincing arguments that "Arms" meant the equivalent of weapons used by the common soldier. Today, that would be the M16/M4 or AR-15. Of course, we can only own the semi-auto version, unless you are willing to pony up $5,000 to $10,000 for a pre-1986 model. We shoot the AR-15's in National Match Highpower competition - lot's of fun, and very accurate all the way out to 1,000 yards!

For those who don't like guns, remember - Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my firearms.

[Prairie_Scouter]

And out on a shooting range is exactly the place where a gun enthusiast should be able to use something like an AR-15, not in the hands of somebody running around their backyard shooting at an intruder. In the former, you have a controlled environment with a weapon in the hands of somebody who knows how to safely use it. In the latter, all bets are off.

 

Brent, the problem is, gun enthusiasts are sometimes their own worst enemy. How many stories do we have to see about morons shooting off their guns on the 4th, killing somebody a 1/2 a mile away, and having them tell the police, "gee, I didn't know it would go that far". Take a ride up to Wisconsin during hunting season and see the hunters, drunk, riding around shooting at street signs. See the stories about some guy opening up his front door, being scared by the person there, and shooting them because they didn't speak English. Are those the norm? Heck no. I'd bet for every idiot, there are 1,000 shooters who responsibly use their weapons. But perception is everything, and those 1,000 safe shooters aren't the ones that make the evening news.

 

I gotta think that when the framers talked about a right to bear arms, they probably were assuming that the "bearer" at least knew what he was doing when he "bore" it. Maybe the 2nd Amendment should have included the phrase "unless you're a total moron......