Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[packsaddle]

Same here. It could be that he is a true conservative. I'd go with that.

[Trevorum]

My thoughts, exactly

[Kahuna]

Alito is doing pretty well, I think. The Dems are going to get increasingly nasty as they try to shake him up. I don't think it's going to work.

[Prairie_Scouter]

What really struck me about the opening remarks is that pretty much ALL of the committee members were making speeches to their voters; it's early re-election season, I guess.

 

I got to hear about 2 hours of the inquisition this afternoon. About what you'd expect. Democrats throwing iceballs and Republicans lobbing in softballs. Except for one Repub who spent most of time pontificating about whether Roe V Wade was a "precedent", a "super-precedent", or a "superduperprecedent". And then, he didn't even ask a question about it!

 

One of the Dems yesterday made a pretty interesting point in regards to Harriett Meiers (sp?). I guess a Repub had made some comment in response to the possibility of a filibuster (unlikely, I think), and was making a speech about Alito deserving an up/down vote. Basically, the response from the Dem was that Harriett Meiers probably thought she deserved the same thing, and she was forced out by members of the same party as the President. So, I think *anybody* on that committee who says that this isn't about putting someone of their own political persuasion on the bench is just blowing hot air, and lots of it.

 

I don't know about Alito yet. He wrote and said some things I really wouldn't agree with, but a lot of that was a long time ago, and in a different context than the job he's currently "applying for". My guess is that he's more of an idealogue than Roberts, but that's just a guess based on Bush's need to placate his base with this nomination. I think with Meiers, he tried to pick someone more middle of the road, but his own party would have none of it, and I think that with Alito, he has someone more acceptable to his base. At least, that's my guess. I gave up a long time ago thinking that these selections had anything to do with picking the best jurists. That's just a "nice thing to have" along the way.

[Kahuna]

"a nice thing to have"

 

It's the greatest entertainment since the early days of Saturday Night Live. The Democrats have no clue what they are doing, which is talking away all their time and never asking questions. Biden used 20 of his 30 minutes talking. If Alito isn't talking, he can't say anything they can hang him with.

 

It's all over. Alito is in and Democrats are still out of power.

[Prairie_Scouter]

I dunno, Kahuna, seems like the Repubs are doing their share of ranting as well. Like I said, seems like many of them are spending their time running for re-election. Of course, they don't have to ask any questions, they've already got the votes. I'm wondering why we're wasting our time. Once the Dems say they're not going to filibuster, we might as well just wave the guy thru, because the we know both parties will vote as blocks and the Repubs have the majority. I guess the Dems figure they're just wasting their time asking questions, since Alito isn't really answering anything anyway. He's been well coached. Example. Alito apparently wrote in about 1985 that he thought that the Constitution didn't protect a woman's right to choose. One Dem questioner spent most of his time just trying to get Alito to say whether he still agreed with that or not. He absolutely refused to answer. As a result, I have no idea whether he'll be a good justice or not. We'll just have to hope. The man does seem to know his stuff; it's not like we're looking at another Clarence Thomas or anything.

 

Bush will get this one, but I think if he stays on the current track, he might be in for some surprises at the mid-term elections. The situation with the bribes seems to be getting worse every day. DeLay is out (he was known to be a jerk, anyway; I doubt that many in his own party will miss him). There's about a dozen more in the House that I bet are holding their breath right now. And then you've got that deal with the wiretaps. If that ever gets to court, it could get really ugly.

[OldGreyEagle]

The way I understood it, Joe Biden told Ruth Bader Ginsberg during her confirmation that she didn't have to answer questions on cases she might have to rule on. She didnt answer and was confirmed, so why should anyone else?

[captainron14]

I think that as long as Judge Alito stays true to his conservative past BSA will be safe (for the immediate future) from the likes of the ACLU and other wackos who are out to destroy Scouting as we know it. I just hope that there is no filibuster and the expected response from the Republicans.

If the left can not allow a up or down vote, they should remember Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg, no filabuster there.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, the "right" wouldn't allow an up/down vote on one of their own candidates the last time around. Wouldn't you think the "left" would consider it a fair tactic to use as well? I don't think it'll come to that, tho. No "silver bullet" has come along to derail the Alito nomination, and as long as he continues to successfully avoid answering questions, he'll get in with no problem.

 

I would ask some to remember that the ACLU is not a single-faceted organization who's sole mission is to destroy BSA. I've said before that while some of us were debating what the ACLU does and doesn't do recently, the ACLU was supporting the rights of some homeless children in the city of Chicago. Are they a liberal group? Sure. Do they sometimes provide legal counsel in cases in which the BSA is involved? Sure. Are they out to "destroy" the BSA? I doubt it. Wanting to see BSA change doesn't mean its "destruction"; change can be for the better, although there are certainly those who would want to keep the status quo.

 

Just a note. As I'm writing this, Senator Durbin (D) of Illinois has been doing his questioning of Alito. Very, very tough questioning, from the portion I heard. Personally, I think the candidate did quite well, although it seems like he did avoid some questions, as you might expect. What I'm finding really interesting is that at least a couple of Republican questioners seem to be making a case that, while precedent is important, sometimes it can be reversed, and they seem to be targeting Roe v Wade. So, as usual with these things, there are several different agendas in place. In this particular case, it's clear that Alito is going to be approved, so what appears to be happening is that the Dems on the Committee are trying to get Alito to agree that precedent should be supported except in extreme cases, while the Reps seem to be making a case the precedent can be overturned much more often. It's clear that Roe v Wade is at the center of this.

[John-in-KC]

I'm beginning to wonder if Ms Meiers wasn't a stalking horse nominated with malice aforethought by the President?

 

I still believe she would have been a competent Justice; but what's done is done there.

 

I'm waiting to see how the politics of confirmation will play out. I am exceptionally leery of the "Constitutional option;" it will come back to haunt those who put it in play.

 

Of course, with Judge Alito being rated a strong "well qualified" by the ABA, I believe the politics lie with the 14 who made the compromise last year. If they say they'll support 60 vote cloture in a filibuster, it's all over, including the shouting.

 

 

[Kahuna]

P_S: I don't let the Republicans off the hook for ranting. They're doing their share, but they have a different job than the Dems. They only have to give him a chance to rebut some of the Democratic allegations against Alito.

 

The harsh words between Kennedy and Spector this morning was pretty interesting.

 

As to the ACLU, I would point out that the Nazi government in Germany did many good things for the Germans. They just had a few issues with neighboring countries and some racial groups. I DO believe they are interested in destroying the culture. I do not fully understand the reasons, but I have some educated guesses. The main thing I don't understand is why anybody supports them. I recently received an invitation to join the ACLU. I suspect one of my friends of sending in my name to them, or maybe they just mail to all lawyers in Hawai'i. They enclosed a business reply envelope, which I used to tell them I'd consider joining when they leave the BSA alone. Which I feel safe will be when Hell freezes over.

[John-in-KC]

In one of my son's non-Scouting lives, he is a 4th year tuba player. I was taking him home from his lesson yesterday when NPR started the evening summary of the day's confirmation hearings.

 

We like backtalking the radio:

 

"Shut up, Ted! By the way, how's Mary Jo Kopeckne?"

 

"Shut up, Sam! This isn't the 2008 Presidential race yet."

 

"Shut up, Dianne! Do you understand the concept of Beating a Dead Horse? No? Too bad. You've been doing it for hours!"

 

Then I introduced him to that favorite line of Mr Clemens: "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a Member of Congress; but I repeat myself."

 

The Brits have it right. Our Congresscritters need to be able to stand some heckling!!!

[Prairie_Scouter]

Aloha, Kahuna, I hope the islands are enjoying the New Year!

 

Well, I listened to WAY too much of the hearings, and I would summarize the temperment of the questioning as follows.....

 

Republican questioners: "Hello, Judge, I love you and want to have your babies".

 

Democratic questioners: "Why do you eat small children?"

 

To me, it really was that silly. The Republicans asked really nothing of import. The Democrats asked the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over. If you didn't get the answer you wanted on the 1st try, what makes you think it's going to be any different 30 trys later? Sheesh.

 

One of the committee members commented to the press that the way things are going, they might as well just get rid of the hearings. I'd have to agree. You really don't learn anything about the candidates, and I can do without more ranting and raving by both sides.

[Torveaux]

I am watching the process as I type. What I have learned is that the 'issues' being raised about Judge Alito are even more minor than I first thought.

 

The 'Vanguard' issue is about a mutual fund. Mutual funds are specifically excepted from the laws about judge recusing themselves from cases. Also, when he realized his mistake he approached the chief judge of his circuit and asked for a new panel and/or a new trial. (It was denied as unnecessary)

 

The CAP issue is even more silly. The problem with CAP is that they have multiple points of interest and Judge Alito chose to put them on his job application in 1985. Those who have applied for jobs should understand that you always try to put your associations on so you look more well-rounded. At the time he was inexperienced and had only a couple of associations to place. The tenor of the hearings is such that if a member of the BSA were in Alito's position, he would be lambasted because he belonged to a group that was homophobic and intolerant. Even that is more appropriate as the BSA is viewed as such by some. The reason Alito was a member of CAP is simple. They supported keeping ROTC on Princeton's campus. He was a member of the ROTC.

[SemperParatus]

Torveaux,

 

You raise a good question. Was Sam Alito ever a scout?

 

I guess not. Surely, the 'gay illiterate' would have latched onto that like a dog on a bone.