POLITICS: Bush Picks Alito For Supreme Court

President Bush has chosen another candidate for the US Supreme Court. Conservative Judge, Samuel Alito, is President Bush's new pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. President Bush's first candidate, Harriet Miers was rejected. "The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.



Another conservative judge? And the ride begins again and this time the candidate is not a woman

Unlike Miers who came under attack from both conservatives and liberals alike, Alito will draw the ire of all liberals. Alito is so conservative with all his views that his nicknames are "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite".

[edit on 31/10/05 by subz]

[edit on 31-10-2005 by Nerdling]

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Nerdling]

I remember reading recently (as in the past couple days) that Alito and Scalia were brothers...I am trying to find out where that was. Wouldn't it have been nice if Bush, instead of catering to the right had actually put the country first and chosen a moderate? Yeah right when pigs fly.

Scalito sounds fun.

Women should have to get their husband's permission to have abortions and other kooky dissenting decisions to make radicals happy.

He's a real hang 'em high kind of activist too.

On Criminal Law

USNews reports that Alito construes criminals' and prisoners' rights narrowly:

Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.

He'll be challenged but the freeper nation is just itching to use the nuclear option anyway. Every radical right wing activist deserves an up or down vote, don't you know? (Just not Miers since she gave that speech on women's rights once.)

the "joke" about conservative complaints of activist judges is that the majority were not only appointed by Republican presidents, but that if they get even more conservative judges which is what they want, they are activist as well if they make rulings based on political philosophy as opposed to interpting the constitution, and the joke about strict interpation of the constitution is that it is they very fact that it can be interpeted to fit changing times is what makes it a living document. Freeze it so that it cannot change and grow then it ceases to be be a living and becomes dead to the times. It is a civilization's ability to grow and change and adapt that makes it living and vibrant...when it loses that ability it becomes static and dead.

This article looks at a number of his decisions and finds his activist theme. Beyond regressionism, it's Judicial Hostility to Equality.

Beyond just his indifference to at risk and battered women seeking to end relationships as they terminate pregnancies (overturned by the SCOTUS)...

Alito's hostiliy to equality goes beyond that one ruling.

He tried to make it easier for employers accused of sex discrimination to get the cases thrown out, saying that cases don't automatically deserve to go to trial when employers make excuses for discrimination and plaintiffs cast doubt on them.

Similarly, he tried to protect Marriott Hotels when it was found to discriminate against an African-American employee.

The majority said Alito's "position would immunize an employer ... if the employer's belief that it had selected the 'best' candidate, was the result of conscious racial bias."

He sought the deny our democratically elected Congress the authority to have the Family Medical Leave Act apply to state government employees, arguing that there was no discrimination in employers' sick leave policies.

(That's a view that was overruled by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Rehnquist. Yes, he's to the Right of Rehnquist.)

Perhaps what's most disturbing is his view that girls sexually abused at school by other students cannot take legal action against the school for failing to protect them.

For Sandra Day O'Connor to be replaced by a man who has been defined as "an activist conservatist judge [who] has looked to be creative in his conservatism" will be a huge step backwards.

For the sake of the American ideal of equal protection under the law, bring out the filibuster.

Trick or treat? Bush just nominated a real live monster to the Supreme Court. Happy Halloween.

Scalito's America



Lot's of scary decisions and positions over the past 10 years.

This one's uh different.

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

Doesn't this guy watch Law & Order?

[edit on 31-10-2005 by RANT]

Well, the neo-cons wanted it and now they have it. This nomination will rally the liberals to attack in force.

It occured to me that Harriet Miers might have been offered up first knowing that she would eventually be discounted, in order to make the way for whom Bush really wanted.

Originally posted by RANT
Women should have to get their husband's permission to have abortions ...

Um ... no. The TV news read the input he gave. It was that
women should NOTIFY their husbands of their decision and that
this in no way conflicts with the Constitution because they are
free to ignore any and/or all advice the father of the child gives
the woman.

He also ruled that they didn't always have to tell the father -
such as when abuse was involved, etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 10/31/2005 by FlyersFan]

If I recall, somewhere in the illustrious 200+ year history of our great nation, a Democrat president nominated a Supreme Court Justice.

I mean surely that must've happened once, right?

Did the Democrat president say "Gosh, I better call every single loudmouth on the Republican side of the aisle and make sure they're ok with my nominee?" Did the Democrat president say "I'd better nominate someone that will be agreeable to the Republicans too!" or did he nominate someone who went with HIS beliefs?

Don't use Clinton please because we all know Clinton was hardly such a super liberal when in office. Remember the center lean to his administration.

So I'm just asking one of you historians to provide me with an example of a Dem president who has done what you suddenly expect Bush to do.

Guess what... they're all politicans, and they're going to appoint someone who will further their agenda. It's not a vast conspiracy to overturn old cases, it's politics functioning their normal way.

Originally posted by Djarums
If I recall, somewhere in the illustrious 200+ year history of our great nation, a Democrat president nominated a Supreme Court Justice.

I mean surely that must've happened once, right?

Did the Democrat president say "Gosh, I better call every single loudmouth on the Republican side of the aisle and make sure they're ok with my nominee?" Did the Democrat president say "I'd better nominate someone that will be agreeable to the Republicans too!" or did he nominate someone who went with HIS beliefs?

Don't use Clinton please because we all know Clinton was hardly such a super liberal when in office. Remember the center lean to his administration.

So I'm just asking one of you historians to provide me with an example of a Dem president who has done what you suddenly expect Bush to do.

Guess what... they're all politicans, and they're going to appoint someone who will further their agenda. It's not a vast conspiracy to overturn old cases, it's politics functioning their normal way.

While the president has the power to appoint anyone he wants, they can be blocked by the Senate. The Advice and Consent of the Senate is required for any Supreme Court appointment.

From Wikipedia:

Advise and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and ambassadors.

A majority of Senators are needed to pass a motion "to advice and consent," but a minority of Senators exercising a fillibuster can block the passage of the motion, and thus block a treaty or an appointment.

As for other presidents going through the same treatment as Bush, one of the most famous is LBJ's attempted appointment of Abe Fortas:

www.senate.gov...

Where, Johnson, attempting to nominate someone before he left office, fearing whom Nixon might appoint, wheeled and dealed and eventually was filibustered.

More here, in general:

www.npr.org...

And from here:

hnn.us...

Consider: From 1897 to 1968, the Senate rejected only one candidate for the Supreme Court (John J. Parker, in 1930). But since 1968, six candidates have been rejected or withdrawn, and four others have faced major hostility. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the willingness to challenge presidential prerogative spilled down to the level of appellate court nominees as well. Under Bush, federal court appointments have become an ongoing donnybrook.

This contentious new era began on June 13, 1968, when Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire, and President Lyndon B. Johnson tapped Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his old friend and advisor, to replace him. It’s often recalled that Fortas resigned from the court because of unethical financial arrangements. That’s true, but the disclosures that hastened Fortas’s resignation didn’t surface until 1969, months after his first ordeal. And, unfortunately, the ethical crisis that forced him from the bench has overshadowed and blurred memories of the details of his confirmation battle.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Um ... no. The TV news read the input he gave. It was that
women should NOTIFY their husbands of their decision and that
this in no way conflicts with the Constitution because they are
free to ignore any and/or all advice the father of the child gives
the woman.

Which was overruled as an unconstitutional decision.

As the Supreme Court determined in opposing Alito's view: "For the great many women who are victims of abuse inflicted by their husbands, or whose children are the victims of such abuse, a spousal notice requirement enables the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife's decision."

Alito had callously shrugged off such concerns, saying "The plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group would actually be adversely affected...". Classy.

Jadette, to your first post, no. Bush wanted Miers. He was scuttled by the radical right and is rewarding them for it now.

Djarums, understood. But I can't recall any Democrats appointing liberals lately. They were all put there by Republicans.

But I'm not talking about the agenda of Dems versus Reps. I'm talking about an activist conservative agenda the American people don't want.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by RANT]

In fact...

Is it only me who sees how undemocratic this process is?

Should it not be a case of who is "best" for the job? Not who will keep to the party line?

This is not a game, these are peoples lives on the line and decisions which can effect everyone for a damn long time. It is about time a lot of people grow up and realise that.

What a process we have to face, now come the Democrats to knock him down. But wait, the Republicans had their turn. I guess fair is fair.

No wonder Bush's jaw is spazzing

Originally posted by RANT
Which was overruled as an unconstitutional decision.

Absolutely. It was overruled. But my point was that he DID NOT
say what you claimed he said. He did NOT say that a woman
had to get 'permission' from her husband to abort his child.
He ruled that she should tell him that she was aborting, unless
there was abuse, etc. etc. (the etc.'s are listed in the link I
provided). No where did he say that she had to get 'permission'.
In fact, he said that it was her constitutional right to dismiss some
or all advice the father gave. ADDITIONALLY - he wasn't the one who
introduced this, it was someone else. He was not the author
of this. He merely ruled that it was not unconstitutional.

As the Supreme Court determined in opposing Alito's view:
"For the great many women who are victims of abuse ...."

... which he addressed saying these were exempt from having
to say anything ...

Alito had callously shrugged off such concerns, ... Classy.

Gee ... nonbiased language, eh? 'callously shrugged off concerns'
'classy'. .. that's not polluted with unsubstantiated biased
language, is it?

I guess Bush will watch the poll numbers to see if he wants to keep this one. I hope he doesn't flip-flop again and sticks with this one!

I was watching FOX and they were saying that they actually wanted an activist judge who would create a fight. So much for putting the country first.

Originally posted by RANT
This article looks at a number of his decisions and finds his activist theme. Beyond regressionism, it's Judicial Hostility to Equality.

Beyond just his indifference to at risk and battered women seeking to end relationships as they terminate pregnancies (overturned by the SCOTUS)...

Alito's hostiliy to equality goes beyond that one ruling.

He tried to make it easier for employers accused of sex discrimination to get the cases thrown out, saying that cases don't automatically deserve to go to trial when employers make excuses for discrimination and plaintiffs cast doubt on them.

Similarly, he tried to protect Marriott Hotels when it was found to discriminate against an African-American employee.

The majority said Alito's "position would immunize an employer ... if the employer's belief that it had selected the 'best' candidate, was the result of conscious racial bias."

He sought the deny our democratically elected Congress the authority to have the Family Medical Leave Act apply to state government employees, arguing that there was no discrimination in employers' sick leave policies.

(That's a view that was overruled by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Rehnquist. Yes, he's to the Right of Rehnquist.)

Perhaps what's most disturbing is his view that girls sexually abused at school by other students cannot take legal action against the school for failing to protect them.

Just look at that list....look at it....who is it protecting? Not the opressed or abused or downtrodden that is for damned sure...the business classes will love him as will the funnymentalists...but look at that list opinions, and I have seen more extensive ones than that and will try and post them...what decent American...nay human being would make such pronouncements muchless support and defend them. Dispite all the bruhaha they stand at a polar opposite to what the vast majority of Americans believe and the principles that made this country what it has long claimed to be...a hope to the world. Talk about a betrayal.

Originally posted by grover
I remember reading recently (as in the past couple days) that Alito and Scalia were brothers...I am trying to find out where that was. Wouldn't it have been nice if Bush, instead of catering to the right had actually put the country first and chosen a moderate? Yeah right when pigs fly.

I found the link and thats what I get for reading things before my morning coffee has had a chance to get into the bloodstream ...they were speaking figurtivitly about Alito and Scalia being brothers.

George Bush has gone too far this time! How dare he nominate a conservative!

Oh, and rant, define lately. If you mean the last time a Democratic president was elected, then we have to look all the way back to Bill Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. From what I understand, she's just a smidge on the liberal side. Just a smidge

wingnut or crony, wingnut or crony?

Miers was the crony, since that failed he chooses a wingnut.

Does anyone belive anything Bush says anymore? Bush said Miers was qualified because he picked her, yet she dropped out. Now he says Judge Alito is a trusted and respected Judge. Here is another Bush quote "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.. don't get fooled again"

Wonder if the republican moderates are going ot join forces with the Dems, now that "the Hammer" is charged with money laundering, and Frist is on thin ice