Posted: 31/October/2005 at 19:29 | IP Logged  |

Whos ready for a good ole fashioned fight before 06??Bill Maher said it best.....He said something like Republicans are like a good baseball team..Do just enough in the regular season and then come playoff time tear it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_scotus;_ylt=AmctA9rTqNoOydCh POMok4BuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote: WASHINGTON - President Bush nominated Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court on Monday, hoping to usher in a historic new era of judicial conservatism while ending a Republican divide that doomed an earlier pick.

Posted: 31/October/2005 at 20:42 | IP Logged  |

headrock wrote: Whos ready for a good ole fashioned fight before 06??

Too bad conservatives never gave Harriet Meiers her "up or down" vote, eh?

Posted: 31/October/2005 at 22:26 | IP Logged  |

Damn you......

But you think she would have gotten the votes???IF you cant vote for John Roberts on his qualifications how could the 23 or so Democrats justify voting for Meirs??Does that make any sense to you??I also think she wouldnt have got the Republican votes..Meirs was a disaster on almost every level and its a good thing for the American people that she withdrew her nomination.....

But the points well taken though I dont think it will be an effective talking point...Alitos going to get through with around 60 votes........

Posted: 02/November/2005 at 08:55 | IP Logged  |

WHo knows if she would have gotten through. The president could very well have pulled some last minute strings to bow Republicans into confirming her.

We simply did not know enough about Meirs, and that would have come out in the hearing process... or at LEAST committee process. She was dogged, however, because she wasn't "conservative enough" for the base.

On NPR, some Conservative guy whose name escaped me brought up a valid point though as he was working to have Meirs confirmed: All of the arguments conservatives have been lobbing against Democrats i.e. Roberts, etc, about how an appointee for the Supreme Court shouldn't be judged by religion, ideology, the way they MIGHT vote in the future, etc. are now out of the window and can't be used anymore because of the actions of the far right with regards to Meirs.

headrock wrote: But the points well taken though I dont think it will be an effective talking point...Alitos going to get through with around 60 votes........

We'll see. If I were working PR for democrats I'd have a massive campaign with respect to Alito's views on privacy issues to swing popular opinion against him. Though SOME conservatives like to say, "there is no right to privacy"... the American people think and believe otherwise, and can get quite uppity about it if they can be led to believe that someone wants to take that right away from them.

I'd "Swift boat" the hell out of him and wouldn't think twice about it. (I doubt anyone will bother doing it, however... though I can always hope).

Plus, I REALLY think Bush is an idiot for not picking a woman for the court. As if there are NO qualified women out there, he has to become the first president in 25 years to reverse the trend of appointing women?

Posted: 02/November/2005 at 08:55 | IP Logged  |

This is going to be a wonderful show to watch as the extreme left goes bonkers and gets its slander machine into full gear.

Posted: 02/November/2005 at 09:19 | IP Logged  |

TriMT7 wrote: We simply did not know enough about Meirs, and that would have come out in the hearing process... or at LEAST committee process.

"We"?

Seemed plain to me that she was totally out of her dept with this nomination. After all, when was the last time the committee sent back a questioneer as being insufficient?

By withdrawing she spared herself,and President Bush,f a lot of grief and embarrassment plus save everybody else a lot of time.

TriMT7 wrote: She was dogged, however, because she wasn't "conservative enough" for the base.

How about just plain unqualified? But then maybe that is just something that bothers conservatives.

TriMT7 wrote:  Though SOME conservatives like to say, "there is no right to privacy"... the American people think and believe otherwise, and can get quite uppity about it if they can be led to believe that someone wants to take that right away from them.

I don't know of anytime that Alito ever denied that the right to privacy was settled law. But that won't stop anybody.

TriMT7 wrote: I'd "Swift boat" the hell out of him and wouldn't think twice about it.

Cause that is all you have.

TriMT7 wrote: Plus, I REALLY think Bush is an idiot for not picking a woman for the court.

For me personally, not nominating a woman is the icing on the cake.

I want to make clear there are any number of qualified women which I would be thrilled with. But I am to much of a gentleman to subject the fairer sex to the torrent of 'swift boating", slander and lies that are sure to be thrown at her.

Posted: 02/November/2005 at 13:42 | IP Logged  |

tude dog wrote: Seemed plain to me that she was totally out of her dept with this nomination. After all, when was the last time the committee sent back a questioneer as being insufficient?

Again, she was never given a chance to fully defend herself. But I seriously don't think she "withdrew" because "she" "realized" she was unqualified after the fact.

tude dog wrote: By withdrawing she spared herself,and President Bush,f a lot of grief and embarrassment plus save everybody else a lot of time.

Damage was already done.... and a lot of it came from Bush's own camp. Most of it, I'd say.

tude dog wrote: How about just plain unqualified?

Again, unsubstantiated, and what test are you using? She wasn't a judge? Roberts was a judge for just two years and had little paper trail to speak of.

Additionally, there have been "unqualified" people on the court using this standard. Actually, nearly HALF of all justices in the history of this country had no prior experience on the bench:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html

tude dog wrote: But then maybe that is just something that bothers conservatives.

 You have GOT to be kidding me! :

Nice try Tude!   

But seriously, I hope you truly don't believe the true focus of why "the base" conservatives didn't like her was that she was "unqualified!"

If she were married with 10 kids and had a clear record of opposing abortion she'd still be around and you know it.

tude dog wrote: I don't know of anytime that Alito ever denied that the right to privacy was settled law.

That's not the point. His opinions have been decidedly "anti" what most would consider to be their right to privacy.

tude dog wrote: Cause that is all you have.

Stick around. Since the right wing won't destroy him before we can learn more about him like they did Miers, we will have more ammo.

But, if it's all we have, it's all we have. As we learned in 2004, unsubstantiated clap trap garbage is highly effective in making "middle Americans" choose a chickenhawk draft dodger over someone who served and won medals for his service to this country.

Democrats just have to learn how to play using Republican tactics.

tude dog wrote: But I am to much of a gentleman to subject the fairer sex to the torrent of 'swift boating", slander and lies that are sure to be thrown at her.

Unless it's Meirs..... or Hillary Clinton, maybe?

But honestly, no self respecting woman would appreciate your well-meaning if not counterproductive protective paternalism!

tude dog wrote: For me personally, not nominating a woman is the icing on the cake.

Yeap. Nothing says, "modern nation" than an all boys club branch of government!

Posted: 02/November/2005 at 19:53 | IP Logged  |

TriMT7 wrote: she was never given a chance to fully defend herself

I didn't realized she was gagged.

TriMT7 wrote: But I seriously don't think she "withdrew" because "she" "realized" she was unqualified after the fact.

I don't remember what I was trying to say at that time, but; OK, I'll give you that.

Thanks for the complement.

Need I go back to previous posts where I pointed out that Justices to the USSC need not have judicial experience? And I'll add, need nothing more than nomination by the President and Consent by the Senate.

No, not at all.

From history we all should know there is no guarantee.

TriMT7 wrote: But seriously, I hope you truly don't believe the true focus of why "the base" conservatives didn't like her was that she was "unqualified!"

I can't speak for the base.

Speaking for myself, I was much concerned over her close relationship with President Bush, and the possible values, many of which I share, influencing her decisions.

Unlike the extremists, of both sides, abortion, religious symbols and perceived racism etc. are hot button items.

Once anybody mentions any of those subjects they begin to lose me as an audience. I am much more interested in the reasoning than results.

I suppose I don't use emotions enough, that was suppose to be a bit of humor.

With that said, Sen. Clinton, like many elected officials endured, rightly or wrongly many political attacks, and apparently handled them deftly.

TriMT7 wrote: Yeap. Nothing says, "modern nation" than an all boys club branch of government!

If that is what it takes.

Seriously, thinking about it, a conservative woman nominated would, like Clarence Thomas, a black, would show that the whole "diversity" concept to be the claptrap that is is.

Posted: 02/November/2005 at 20:00 | IP Logged  |

Huh????

If your going to bash Alito then make sure you put out the WHOLE record......In Casey v.Parenthood he was following precedent..Funny that it was a DEMOCRAT who was part of that case..He also voted to strike down a partial birth abortion law because it didnt provide for the life of the mother.....So again,im not sure why following precedent,which is supposedly a good thing to Democrats when dealing with the asinine conclusions of Roe,but not with Casey and to call someone anti-choice as he follows the rule of law handed down in those prior cases.......

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/1 1/02/alito_writing_backed_privacy_gay_rights/

Alito writing backed privacy, gay rights

But heres the funny thing..You could be for sodomy,abortion,gay marriage,and privacy and still come to the conclusion that these arent Constitutional rights up there with freedom of speech......The drama queen at Americablog has his panties in a wad about the above article to please his robots but anyone with a brain can be for something and still claim that laws are absurd but that doesnt make them unconstitutional......

Just ask Clarence Thomas......

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD1.html

Quote: Justice Thomas, dissenting.     I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.     Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

TriMT7 wrote: and had a clear record of opposing abortion she'd still be around and you know it.

You assume that Bush didnt have her vote against Roe.......Im sure Dobson knew it as well..But its more than just Roe and always has been....

So your against him because hes a white male??That should do the trick.....

Posted: 03/November/2005 at 11:54 | IP Logged  |

headrock wrote: In Casey v.Parenthood he was following precedent..

Yeap. The sole dissenter in that case, which even received 6 - 3 when the Supreme Court heard the case, and not your typical 5-4 split on culture war issues.

But since the cusp of the conservative argument on his dissent in Casey was that he was following precedent like a good boy (while everyone else wasn't, apparently), and that he, like Thomas, "know the role of the courts" and don't think the court's judgment should supplant that of the elected legislators.

And so if that plus precedent is the big deal, I ask you then, "So you're OK with the Kelo decision? Where the Court deferred to the judgement of the elected officials and their "silly laws"?

I've said it once and I'll say it again - Conservatives are "activist" on economic and property issues, while Liberals are "activist" on personal rights and freedoms.

But of course, only conservatives are allowed to get away with calling the otherside activist!

headrock wrote: You assume that Bush didnt have her vote against Roe.......Im sure Dobson knew it as well..But its more than just Roe and always has been....

Ah yes. Dobson. Talk about being at the mercy of unelected polemics!

headrock wrote: So your against him because hes a white male??That should do the trick.....

Nope. One of many. Though you can leave "white" out of it, because I didn't mention white men at all. There's always the token black guy you conservatives love anyway. He should be around for a while.

Posted: 03/November/2005 at 14:49 | IP Logged  |

Ms. Miers was "shepherd" as she made the rounds to visit various senators, and it seemed counter productive.

I was talking about Constitutional requirements, not necessarily what I might expect of a particular nominee.

cwintraining wrote: Good thing I read this before responding. I was about to unload a serious can of feminist whoop-ass on you. And you know how much it hurts when I do that.

LOL

Thank you for making my point, that people of color, sex etc. ad nausea are suppose to think a certain way.

That whole concept makes me sick. 

cwintraining wrote: If the USSC was proportional, 5 would be women and I guarantee you that if they were representative they wouldn't all be conservative.

Actually once Alito is confirmed, and a few years down the road, the people will rejoice.

Posted: 03/November/2005 at 19:38 | IP Logged  |

He upheld the other FOUR......And it was a 2-1 split on the last.....

TriMT7 wrote: But since the cusp of the conservative argument on his dissent in Casey was that he was following precedent

Because its the TRUTH...Thats not a conservative argument at all but the reality of the situation......

TriMT7 wrote: And so if that plus precedent is the big deal, I ask you then, "So you're OK with the Kelo decision?

Following precendent isnt the same as overeaching for unlimited power which is what the DEM judges on the SC did once again......

TriMT7 wrote: I've said it once and I'll say it again - Conservatives are "activist" on economic and property issues,

Where??Point out the case and we can debate it.......Thats a pretty braod and sweeping statement and would need to at least see the dissents before making up my mind........

Huh??I agree that ANY judge can be an activist and some of the most ugly cases were because of Republicans but that doesnt change the fact that most rational people arent too worried about judicial activism in regards to economic issues....Want to know why your judges piss people off???It couldnt have come at a better time either......

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states /california/northern_california/13063359.htm

Quote: SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by elementary school parents who were outraged that the Palmdale School District had surveyed students about sex.

He was at the mercy of almost the whole party......And why does it irk you so much that EVERYONE from the party was pretty shocked and outraged by the Meirs nomination??I know you still want to use the religious right excuse but Conservatives from every aspect of the party were strongly against the nomination.....

Posted: 04/November/2005 at 17:11 | IP Logged  |

The other four what? Parts of Casey?

headrock wrote: Because its the TRUTH...Thats not a conservative argument at all but the reality of the situation......

Again, however, everyone else was out of line but Alito?

headrock wrote: Following precendent isnt the same as overeaching for unlimited power which is what the DEM judges on the SC did once again......

.... "Deferring" to the legislature is not "overreaching" for unlimited power.

And if worrying about "overreaching" and "unlimited power," then again, I see no problem in "Liberals" striking down laws they feel "overreach" power in the realm of personal rights.

Kelo merely affirms the next part:

headrock wrote: Where??Point out the case and we can debate it.......Thats a pretty braod and sweeping statement and would need to at least see the dissents before making up my mind........

I'm not going to drag out individual cases, because it's not going to help anything. I'll present the following link which states the case and you can match facts to case names if you think it would help you:

Article Excerpt wrote: ... At times, presidents place themselves and their associates above accountability by claiming that the separation of powers gives them an inherent right of "executive privilege." Executive privilege has been used by the White House to withhold information on undeclared wars, illegal campaign funds, Supreme Court nominations, burglaries (Watergate), insider trading (by Bush and Cheney), and White House collusion with corporate lobbyists. But the concept of executive privilege (i.e. unaccountable executive secrecy) exists nowhere in the Constitution or any law. Yet the wild-eyed right-wing activists on the Supreme Court trumpet executive privilege, deciding out of thin air that a "presumptive privilege" for withholding information belongs to the president. Bush just recently talked about "how important it is for us to guard executive privilege in order for there to be crisp decision making in the White House." Crisp? How can Bush represent himself as a "strict constructionist" while making claim to a wholly extra-constitutional juridical fiction known as "executive privilege"? With staggering audacity, the Court's rightist judicial activists have decided that states cannot prohibit corporations from spending unlimited amounts on public referenda or other elections because such campaign expenditures are a form of "speech" and the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to such "persons" as corporations. In a dissenting opinion, the liberal Justice Stevens noted, "Money is property; it is not speech." But his conservative colleagues preferred the more fanciful activist interpretation. They further ruled that "free speech" enables rich candidates to spend as much as they want on their own campaigns, and rich individuals to expend unlimited sums in any election contest. Thus poor and rich can both freely compete, one in a whisper, the other in a roar. Right-wing judicial activism reached a frenzy point in George W. Bush v. Al Gore. In a 5-to-4 decision, the conservatives overruled the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount in the 2000 presidential election. The justices argued with breathtaking contrivance that since different Florida counties might use different modes of tabulating ballots, a hand recount would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By preventing a recount, the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush. In recent years these same conservative justices have held that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause could not be used to stop violence against women, or provide a more equitable mode of property taxes, or a more equitable distribution of funds between rich and poor school districts. But, in Bush v. Gore they ruled that the equal protection clause could be used to stop a perfectly legal ballot recount. Then they explicitly declared that Bush could not be considered a precedent for other equal protection issues. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment applied only when the conservative judicial activists wanted it to, as when stealing an election! We hear conservatives say that judges should not try to "legislate from the bench," the way liberal jurists supposedly do. But a recent study by Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder of Yale University reveals that conservative justices like Thomas and Scalia have a far higher rate of invalidating or reinterpreting Congressional laws than more liberal ones like Byers and Ginsberg. By this measure, too, the conservatives are the more activist.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-10/13parenti.cfm

The whole article has a nice little history of conservative judicial activism in the realm of economics, from opposition to wage laws and child protection laws up to these more current examples.

headrock wrote: Huh??I agree that ANY judge can be an activist and some of the most ugly cases were because of Republicans but that doesnt change the fact that most rational people arent too worried about judicial activism in regards to economic issues....Want to know why your judges piss people off???It couldnt have come at a better time either......

Oh, ok... so it's not whether something is "Constitutional" that matters, but whether people would be "concerned" about judicial activism in a certain realm?

BUt that's been the crux of your argument all along, anyway - some sort of "popularity" test as to when something is justified. Since X residents want a 500 ft. Iron cross erected in the town center, any judge who dares say that this constitutes an establishment of religion has GOT to be a judicial activist, right?

headrock wrote: So dont be shocked when you lose election after election after election....

I'm not so sure what that has to do with Republicans vs. Democrats except that your side has falsely set itself up to be the guardians of sexual morality..... I mean, read any good books about 9 year old girls being raped by bears by Cheney aid "Scotter Libby" recently?

It's really not my fault that "my side" isn't as adept at exploiting fear of sex as you guys are. And besides, isn't your "you guys lose election after election" meme getting old, considering the state your party has fallen into?

headrock wrote: He was at the mercy of almost the whole party......

Please. He's the official unoffical spokesman for your base. The sooner you recognize that that quack has more legitimacy and power in your party than ANY equivalent leftist whacko like Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore has in the Democratic party, the better.

headrock wrote: I know you still want to use the religious right excuse but Conservatives from every aspect of the party were strongly against the nomination.....

No, it's only a segment of conservatives that believe Meirs WASN'T lambasted for her "unapproval ratings" with the religious right. A Segment that you obviously belong to that DOESN'T include the religious right.

headrock wrote: And why does it irk you so much that EVERYONE from the party was pretty shocked and outraged by the Meirs nomination??

But as Cwin and I have asked... WHY, Headrock? Why were you OUTRAGED by the nomination? Sure, she wasn't a judge, but since that isn't requisite, what else is there? She wasn't a constitutional lawyer, but then again, it's not clear that THAT is requisite either. She was a law trained individual with years of experience in government work.

Since law clerks do all the constitutional legwork (citing cases, etc) for the justices anyway, what excuse do you have left?... ESPECIALLY if you want her to be a "precendent following strict constructionist" -- in which case her entire tenure on the court will be like taking law school con law exams since she won't be required to "judge" anything, really?