Got only one thing to say about this right-wing ideologue:
filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster...
Monday, October 31, 2005
"Il duce" Alito
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 8:10 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I don't see it happening. He only has one questionable case on his resume (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). Besides that, he's just been a standard conservative justice.
In many ways, he's a perfect pick for Bush. He's young (55, I think) and right-wing enough to please the nutcases but not so right-wing to warrant a filibuster (I think). There is no comparing this guy to JRB or Owen. But you're right, he's certainly a bit scarier than Clement or Olson.
In retrospect, I was foolish to think Bush would nominate McConnell, the man who wrote a scathing criticism of the Bush v. Gore decision ...
// posted by Bell Curve
Hmmm... the more I learn, the less I like.
Check out this rundown of some of his more memorable decisions.
Bush wants to come back from the Miers debacle to putting the Senate into "nuclear option" mode. Let it come. Dems have not been stronger in 4 years.
// posted by LTG
From what I heard this morning, Alito is not a "standard conservative justice"--he's way out there. He voted to require spousal consent for abortions, to strike down a ban on machine guns, to strike down a federal law to guarantee unpaid leave to employees with sick relatives...and all these were overruled, by the way.
LTG is right. The Democrats paid a dear price to preserve their right to filibuster... and if they aren't going to use it against this guy, when will they use it? NPR even said that Sen. Harry Reid specifically warned Bush against nominating Alito. This is the nightmare nominee we've been afraid of since 2000.
Now is the time to draw the line in the sand. Force the Republicans to break the Senate before they can plant this reactionary on the Supreme Court. I expect our Democratic Senators to work together as a united bloc and use all means at their disposal to defeat this radical judicial activist.
Time to earn your pay, Senator Reid.
I think this guy will get confirmed. It will be nasty but in a country where Thomas get's confirmed this guy absolutely does.
Frankly, I'm increasingly coming to the opinion that I'm not worried about the Supreme Court with regard to Roe v Wade. If SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, it would cause such a backlash against the Republicans on the national level that SCOTUS (and arguably even the states' governments) would be outflanked by national legislation.
What does worry me is the possibility that the new era SCOTUS will regard employers' rights to control the lives of individual employees as being entirely unrestricted. This is harder for even a Demcorat controlled Congress to overcome.
With regards to abortion, the new court would say, "Absent federal laws, states may restrict abortions." With regard to employee rights, they would go about actively striking down federal and state laws.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
At least with Alito, his opinions are written very well, without any hint of ideology. In other words, I may disagree with what he says, but at least I can respect how he gets there.
I agree with RbR, I think he gets through.
Can we have Miers back?
I offer up Wikipedia's case history , which has a list of significant rulings mostly different from the list at Think Progress that Bell Curve listed.
Of particular note is Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, which if I read it right, is not the opinion you might expect.
Personally, I think there would be backlash if Roe v. Wade were overturned, but I think assuming the backlash would result in a peaceful implosion of the GOP and federal law re-protecting abortions is optimistic. This is the most divisive issue of our time, and if there's one thing that can re-galvanize the Republican base even in the turmoil of multiple scandals, this is it. The eventual outcome as well as the immediate consequences seem very unpredictable and potentially catastrophic.
It seems to me the Democrats have nothing to lose by filibustering. Showing backbone would be a refreshing change. It's not like they're shutting down the government. And why not hold off as long as you can, and see if anything juicy comes out of the DeLay debacle or L'Affaire de Wilson? These can only erode support for the administration, and who knows? Maybe the hearings will get postponed, if something more important comes along.
// posted by Bob
Thanks for that link Bob. The case you mentioned is indeed not what we have been led to expect from this guy. Is he perhaps more like O'Conner than we thought?
But as for Roe v Wade backlash etc. What I'm thinking is that more than half of all Americans are pretty much pro-choice. What's more, only about a quarter of US voters are true Religious Conservatives. Even in 2004, such voters only made up half of the GOP vote nation wide. The Religious Right has consistently overestimated their actual level of support because they mistake their Machievellian take over of the GOP leadership for a genuine mandate. For now they are able to keep hold of the GOP because they trade tax cuts and corporate welfare for a Theocratic social agenda. But if they actually succeed in imposing their agenda fully, the GOP will lose the Suburban voters to Democrats and/or pro-choice Republicans.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
My take is that the guy gets confirmed. But I think we need to consider the problem in the process. The judiciary committee is supposed to make a recommendation based on the quality of the nominee. He is qualified. So unless they turn up some hidden mental illness or something, he is in. If the committee doesn't recommend him for full Senate approval, then it is a political decision. And in an ideal world, decisions of this nature are not supposed to be based on politics. (This is where I chortle and wink). What worries me more than Alito's judicial record is the WAY he is being nominated. It is to placate the far right wing of the Republican party. (and they don't shy from calling that their "base"!).
No, you can't have Miers back. She was a decoy, as we said in other posts. After reading more about her, I actually think she wasn't a bad nominee in the end. She worked hard and seemed dedicated to some very good values. She has a reputation for placing the needs of the whole over her own personal needs-something we are sorely lacking in this country these days. And I think this was evident in her nomination and her resignation. She took one for the team. That was always her purpose.
// posted by Anonymous
Actually, the constitution doesn't say that the Senate has to use this or that criteria for their judgement political or otherwise. I think the expectation of the "founding fathers", based on their overall arguments for having overlapping powers in the first place, was that this would be a political issue. But they expected the main political arguments to be about division of powers between the states and the federal government (remember in the original constitution, the state assemblies chose all the Senators). I don't think they would be all that surprised by ideological motives for appointing or rejecting particular nominees.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
"She was a decoy, as we said in other posts."
If Miers was a decoy, what purpose did she serve? She drew the sting of the far right, but surely they would have been content with Alito anyway? I just can't believe Pres. Bush would use his friend like that. He is loyal to a fault... and I mean "fault."
I agree with Dr. Strangelove. I think Meiers was Bush's sincere choice. I think he was led to believe there would be little question of his choice from the right because of the way they completely rolled over for the Roberts nomination.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
"Force the Republicans to break the Senate before they can plant this reactionary on the Supreme Court." Won't this give W the opportunity to sneak Scalito in the back door?
// posted by Steve
Steve... what I was trying to say was that I wanted the Democrats to resist with all their might. If W can still push Scalito through, then so be it.
However, I am now hearing some more trustworthy voices that speak of Alito as more like John Roberts than Antonin Scalia--in which case, while Alito would still be a bad choice for the court, he would be within my acceptable tolerance.
These descriptions of a more moderate Alito are hard to reconcile with the abortion and machine gun decisions. Who is the real Alito? Does anyone think the hearings will actually help clarify anything about him?
Post a Comment