Rookie120 0 #1 October 31, 2005 WASHINGTON (Oct. 31) - President Bush nominated veteran judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court Monday, seeking to shift the judiciary to the right and mollify conservatives who derailed his previous pick. Ready-to-rumble Democrats said Alito may curb abortion rights and be "too radical for the American people." Drawing an unspoken contrast to failed nominee Harriet Miers, Bush declared that the appeals court judge "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." Quote I dont think it matters what the quals of this guy are, the left is going to try to find any dirt they can on this guy and spin it to there advantage no matter how wrong or immoral it is.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #2 October 31, 2005 Looking forward to the fight. With this nomination the Dem's will have no problem exposing themselves for who they really are. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #3 October 31, 2005 Here are some links about him: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/alito.html Point of interest: A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group. A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work. and from Law.com http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052 Some if his views I do not agree with greatly, but I cannot expect to agree with somebody on everything. Law.com says his opinions are "devoid of passion"Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #4 October 31, 2005 I'm a Dem (sort of, they embarrass me) and though I'm not HAPPY with Judge Alito for a bunch of reasons, I haven't heard anything about him that should deny his appointment. I hate GWB's guts, but the fact is a President - ANY President - has the right to choose the Justices he wants. If the guy's not keeping a stash of child porn on his computer, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be approved. But I'm NOT happy about him. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rookie120 0 #5 October 31, 2005 QuoteLooking forward to the fight. With this nomination the Dem's will have no problem exposing themselves for who they really are. I really dont. Both side look like assholes in the end.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #6 October 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteLooking forward to the fight. With this nomination the Dem's will have no problem exposing themselves for who they really are. I really dont. Both side look like assholes in the end. That is one of the most intelligent things I have seen today. Anyone who WANTS partisan strife is simply [part of what is ruining this country.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #7 October 31, 2005 As a non-American can I ask the Americans about their opinion? The US Supreme is quite unique in regard to its influence and the way judges’ terms are unlimited. The following puzzles me: There is no limitation to a SC judge’s term except for death and impeachment. This can have the effect that a) A judge that has “lost competency” to any degree (e.g. due to age or medical condition) remains on the bench as long as he/she is not committing an impeachable offence. b) The timing of appointments is by “chance” – i.e. there can be a decade without a change and their could be a number of new appointments in a short time due to death or retirement. This fact gives some Presidents no chance to influence the court and others an enormous influence (like now with 2 new judges within a year). Is this good? Does it contribute to partisan "fights" within your institutions? Is there any debate in the US to change the way SC judges are appointed or in regard to limiting the length of their tenure?--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #8 October 31, 2005 No there is no real debate on how SC judges are chosen outside of law professors and the like. The reason they are given lifetime appointments is so that no matter which party is in power, they can not be ousted. Therby, the theory is that they will not be influenced by the current political landscape. If every president got a chance to appoint a judge, the "above partisan bickering" would completely fall flat because at least one judge would have to go to make room for the new one. Does this theory always work in reality? No, but it does not do too badly in my opinion. An alternative that I think might be good would be term limits (say 20 years -- longer than any single presidency at least), but I am doubtful that would happen Here is a debate that occured at Duke: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/04/Supreme.htmlWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #9 October 31, 2005 >I really dont. Both side look like assholes in the end. Everybody including myself can act like an ass from time to time. The courts are the lefts main tool for power, and they are concern that they will lose the one thing they count on, because they can't win elections. The majority of the country is not liberal nor is there this vast population of moderates. This nomination will allow the Rep. and Dem. the opportunity to show their real colors. And the American people are smart enough to see the difference. Bushes poll numbers are in the tank, because he was pissing off his base, me included. Those numbers will begin to rise when he returns to his base. As for the Dems, they need to come up with some ideas!!!! so far they lack leadership. This nomination process will be good for this country. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #10 October 31, 2005 What about a fixed maximum term? Say 10 years. Would that not ensure an influx of "younger judges" and still ensure their independence? Edit: ooops you changed your post and by this answered my question Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. For example this one: Quote Lindgren opened the conference with a look at Court statistics: While the average age of justices at the time of their appointments has long been steady at 53, the average retirement age has risen to 79, up from 68 for those retiring before 1970. Since 1970, too, the average length of service for justices has jumped from 14.9 years (more or less a constant since 1789) to 25.6 years. Among the reasons offered by participants for justices' working well into their 70s and 80s: improvements in health care resulting in increased longevity, and a workload in steady decline, partly due to the Court's power to select the cases it takes-the "certiorari power"-and partly the result of delegation to clerks, whose numbers have quadrupled in the past 60 years. "It is entirely possible for a justice in decay and decrepitude to grind out opinions with the help of clerks," alleged Daniel Meador of the University of Virginia. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #11 October 31, 2005 Take a look at my post again. I edited it with more info.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #12 October 31, 2005 >The courts are the lefts main tool for power . . . The court currently contains more liberal justices because the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. Now the GOP controls the legislature and the executive; good thing that there is at least one branch of government that neither party controls. Let's hope it stays that way. Besides, liberal justices are good things. They make new law less often. Compare how many liberal justices vs how many conservative justices strike down laws that the US Congress passes; conservative justices are far more likely to make their own law. >and they are concern that they will lose the one thing they count on, >because they can't win elections. That will change as it always has. >The majority of the country is not liberal nor is there this vast population > of moderates. 99% of the country are moderates by any Speaker's Corner definition. >This nomination will allow the Rep. and Dem. the opportunity to show >their real colors. And the American people are smart enough to see the >difference. Most americans won't even know his full name, never mind which party is doing what. Besides which, republicans won't trumpet his qualities. They will cover them up to try to get the moderates. For example, Alito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court later overturned. If they really wanted to "show their true colors" they'd say "Hell yes, we want a judge who will fight against abortion, because that's what we believe!" But they'd never do that, because winning (to them) is more important than coming out in favor of what they believe. Instead, they will say "yeah, but he also supported partial birth abortion, so he's clearly not anti-Roe" while winking at other conservatives. >As for the Dems, they need to come up with some ideas!!!! so far they >lack leadership. Of course. They lack power, so they lack leadership. Who's the democratic majority leader in the senate again? >This nomination process will be good for this country. The circus that this nomination becomes will be good for the media and the extremists on both sides. They will be able to call each other names and toot their own horns to their heart's content. The people of the US - who rely on the courts to protect their rights - will be the ones who lose in the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #13 November 1, 2005 QuoteAlito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court later overturned. Nice spin... He wrote a dessenting opinion that was in favor of spousal notification, a component of the PA law in question... the law was ultimately overturned by the SC, but of note, Rehnquist cited Alito's decent and aggreed with his reasoning... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest 1010 #14 November 1, 2005 Quote The court currently contains more liberal justices because the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. you're flailing badly Bill ... the court has had enough liberal justices to matter because Republican presidents appointed them, their own admitted mistakes. (My apologies for just beating up on your first sentence, but couldn't just let such, umm, stuff, pass. Long weekend? ) Stevens - Ford O’Connor - Reagan Scalia - Reagan Kennedy - Reagan Souter - Bush 41 Thomas - Bush 41 Ginsburg - Clinton Breyer - Clinton Roberts - Bush Rehnquist - Nixon (Alito - Bush) Nixon's other liberals - Blackmun and Powell The old court: - Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg - reliably liberal - Scalia and Thomas - reliably conservative - Rehnquist and Kennedy - leaned conservative - O'Conner held the middle ground, and so wielded the most power on the court My guess (hopes) for the new court: - Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg - reliably liberal - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - reliably conservative - Roberts and Kennedy lean conservative. Roberts will be the most powerful justice on the court. He will be in the majority much of the time, and will see to it that the majority opinion will be fearlessly clear and well written. Without needing O'Conner's vote, the conservative side won't need to water down or narrow their opinion. And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. (Remember how the Left howled when Bush did away with the ABM treaty - same thing here. Little will change post-Roe (unfortunately for many children not yet born ). The Left has been using the Roe Scare to get votes for years, they'll lose that political lever.) But along the way, if other privacy items currently NOT in the constitution are also overturned, and we the people decide that we WANT our privacy, I hope that we will do it explicitly and pass a constitutional amendment in my lifetime - an explicit right to privacy from both govt and private industry encroachment. I sincerely hope Robert's legacy 30 years hence will be the strengthening and upholding of that amendment. >> the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. << Whose past are your talking about ????????????? Counting back to Lincoln - 27 presidents, 18 were Republicans, 9 were Democrats The Democrats - Johnson (he was appointed TN gov by Lincoln, and elected veep by Republicans ), Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, Clinton [Blue] Blue Ones 1010 You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #15 November 1, 2005 Quote And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StevePhelps 0 #16 November 1, 2005 QuoteThe court currently contains more liberal justices because the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. Really? From 1980 - 2005 (in those 25 years there was one democratic president, Slick Willy. for 8 years) In fact he is the only democratic president to appoint a SC justice since LBJ. The truth is Republican presidents nominated some liberal and moderate SC justices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #17 November 1, 2005 Don't you know that lefties don't like the annoyance of facts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #18 November 1, 2005 QuoteDon't you know that lefties don't like the annoyance of facts? facts are generally annoying overall here's an arbitrary number - 7 ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #19 November 1, 2005 And I like Ice cream. An arbitrary flavor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 November 1, 2005 QuoteAnd I like Ice cream. An arbitrary flavor. me - "I don't get it" you - "It's a non-sequitor" me - "then I guess I did get it" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest 1010 #21 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuote And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then. Short answer - If in the future you don't like a federal law against abortion, then get to work electing people that will pass the laws you do like. Don't require the courts to tyrannically implement your social policy againt the will of the people. Change the people's will. Long answer - 1. The Republican party will no more outlaw abortion than they cut spending once they gained power. An illustration that Life is an issue they don't really care about, they use just to raise money with, is the end result for Terri Schiavo. Republican President, Senate, House, State Governor, State Senate, State House, State AG and she ended up dead. They provided much lip service as she was killed; in the end they were glad the story went away. Chilling, actually, if you value human life. 2. If I am wrong in #1, then the "short-answer" option awaits you. And YOU ARE MUCH LUCKIER, because a conservative court will obey the laws you get passed. The liberal courts here and everywhere ignore the will of the people and do whatever the hell they want to, divorced from precedent or the rule of law (eg - the 9th cir ct of appls - the court most often over-turned and re-over-turned by SCOTUS). (Edit: yes the new court's views on states' rights may be interesting, and might drive the agenda for a few decades, whatever those views turn out to be.) [Blue] Blue Skies 1010 You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #22 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteAlito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court later overturned. Nice spin... He wrote a dessenting opinion that was in favor of spousal notification, a component of the PA law in question... the law was ultimately overturned by the SC, but of note, Rehnquist cited Alito's decent and aggreed with his reasoning... J As a frequent allie of Bills, i have to step in and say I agree with JD. The law in question was a requirement for married women to inform their spouses before getting an abortion. There was nothing in the law about getting permission, just making notification. I'm a pro-choice democrat, but agree with his rationale. There is nothing in that requirement that put an undo burden on women seeking an abortion. There were built in exceptions for womein who feared abuse from their husbands, and the percentage of married women getting abortions was extremely low, let alone the percentage of them that would have done so without discussing with their husbands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #23 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then. Short answer - If in the future you don't like a federal law against abortion, then get to work electing people that will pass the laws you do like. Don't require the courts to tyrannically implement your social policy againt the will of the people. Change the people's will. Long answer - 1. The Republican party will no more outlaw abortion than they cut spending once they gained power. An illustration that Life is an issue they don't really care about, they use just to raise money with, is the end result for Terri Schiavo. Republican President, Senate, House, State Governor, State Senate, State House, State AG and she ended up dead. They provided much lip service as she was killed; in the end they were glad the story went away. Chilling, actually, if you value human life. 2. If I am wrong in #1, then the "short-answer" option awaits you. And YOU ARE MUCH LUCKIER, because a conservative court will obey the laws you get passed. The liberal courts here and everywhere ignore the will of the people and do whatever the hell they want to, divorced from precedent or the rule of law (eg - the 9th cir ct of appls - the court most often over-turned and re-over-turned by SCOTUS). (Edit: yes the new court's views on states' rights may be interesting, and might drive the agenda for a few decades, whatever those views turn out to be.) [Blue] Blue Skies 1010 You seem to completely miss the point that the SC is not there to guarantee that all laws passed by the government are implemented. It is there to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government. Take another look at the Bill of Rights... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #24 November 2, 2005 QuoteYou seem to completely miss the point that the SC is not there to guarantee that all laws passed by the government are implemented. It is there to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government. as well as unconstitutional actions by lower courts (we can read that as a subset of the infringement by the government, but I'd like to see it explicit) 1 - Check that congress doesn't pass unconstitutional laws 2 - Check that the laws on the books are enforced correctly (not reinterpreted in weird wacky ways by lower courts) I've changed my mind on an earlier topic about our current politics and who is best suited for which branch 1 - Judicial - very conservative (enforce what's on the books) 2 - Legislative - mostly fiscally conservative and socially neutral (libertarian without the wierdness since they control the money) 3 - Executive - liberal in general, but very protective of national interests (someone has to speak for all the people and still represent the country to the rest of the world) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #25 November 2, 2005 >because a conservative court will obey the laws you get passed. Historically, conservative justices are much more likely to go against laws passed by Congress. Doesn't mean that's wrong or right, but they are more likely to be 'activist' by most people's definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Channman 2 #2 October 31, 2005 Looking forward to the fight. With this nomination the Dem's will have no problem exposing themselves for who they really are. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #3 October 31, 2005 Here are some links about him: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/alito.html Point of interest: A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group. A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work. and from Law.com http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052 Some if his views I do not agree with greatly, but I cannot expect to agree with somebody on everything. Law.com says his opinions are "devoid of passion"Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #4 October 31, 2005 I'm a Dem (sort of, they embarrass me) and though I'm not HAPPY with Judge Alito for a bunch of reasons, I haven't heard anything about him that should deny his appointment. I hate GWB's guts, but the fact is a President - ANY President - has the right to choose the Justices he wants. If the guy's not keeping a stash of child porn on his computer, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be approved. But I'm NOT happy about him. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #5 October 31, 2005 QuoteLooking forward to the fight. With this nomination the Dem's will have no problem exposing themselves for who they really are. I really dont. Both side look like assholes in the end.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #6 October 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteLooking forward to the fight. With this nomination the Dem's will have no problem exposing themselves for who they really are. I really dont. Both side look like assholes in the end. That is one of the most intelligent things I have seen today. Anyone who WANTS partisan strife is simply [part of what is ruining this country.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #7 October 31, 2005 As a non-American can I ask the Americans about their opinion? The US Supreme is quite unique in regard to its influence and the way judges’ terms are unlimited. The following puzzles me: There is no limitation to a SC judge’s term except for death and impeachment. This can have the effect that a) A judge that has “lost competency” to any degree (e.g. due to age or medical condition) remains on the bench as long as he/she is not committing an impeachable offence. b) The timing of appointments is by “chance” – i.e. there can be a decade without a change and their could be a number of new appointments in a short time due to death or retirement. This fact gives some Presidents no chance to influence the court and others an enormous influence (like now with 2 new judges within a year). Is this good? Does it contribute to partisan "fights" within your institutions? Is there any debate in the US to change the way SC judges are appointed or in regard to limiting the length of their tenure?--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #8 October 31, 2005 No there is no real debate on how SC judges are chosen outside of law professors and the like. The reason they are given lifetime appointments is so that no matter which party is in power, they can not be ousted. Therby, the theory is that they will not be influenced by the current political landscape. If every president got a chance to appoint a judge, the "above partisan bickering" would completely fall flat because at least one judge would have to go to make room for the new one. Does this theory always work in reality? No, but it does not do too badly in my opinion. An alternative that I think might be good would be term limits (say 20 years -- longer than any single presidency at least), but I am doubtful that would happen Here is a debate that occured at Duke: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/04/Supreme.htmlWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #9 October 31, 2005 >I really dont. Both side look like assholes in the end. Everybody including myself can act like an ass from time to time. The courts are the lefts main tool for power, and they are concern that they will lose the one thing they count on, because they can't win elections. The majority of the country is not liberal nor is there this vast population of moderates. This nomination will allow the Rep. and Dem. the opportunity to show their real colors. And the American people are smart enough to see the difference. Bushes poll numbers are in the tank, because he was pissing off his base, me included. Those numbers will begin to rise when he returns to his base. As for the Dems, they need to come up with some ideas!!!! so far they lack leadership. This nomination process will be good for this country. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #10 October 31, 2005 What about a fixed maximum term? Say 10 years. Would that not ensure an influx of "younger judges" and still ensure their independence? Edit: ooops you changed your post and by this answered my question Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. For example this one: Quote Lindgren opened the conference with a look at Court statistics: While the average age of justices at the time of their appointments has long been steady at 53, the average retirement age has risen to 79, up from 68 for those retiring before 1970. Since 1970, too, the average length of service for justices has jumped from 14.9 years (more or less a constant since 1789) to 25.6 years. Among the reasons offered by participants for justices' working well into their 70s and 80s: improvements in health care resulting in increased longevity, and a workload in steady decline, partly due to the Court's power to select the cases it takes-the "certiorari power"-and partly the result of delegation to clerks, whose numbers have quadrupled in the past 60 years. "It is entirely possible for a justice in decay and decrepitude to grind out opinions with the help of clerks," alleged Daniel Meador of the University of Virginia. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #11 October 31, 2005 Take a look at my post again. I edited it with more info.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #12 October 31, 2005 >The courts are the lefts main tool for power . . . The court currently contains more liberal justices because the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. Now the GOP controls the legislature and the executive; good thing that there is at least one branch of government that neither party controls. Let's hope it stays that way. Besides, liberal justices are good things. They make new law less often. Compare how many liberal justices vs how many conservative justices strike down laws that the US Congress passes; conservative justices are far more likely to make their own law. >and they are concern that they will lose the one thing they count on, >because they can't win elections. That will change as it always has. >The majority of the country is not liberal nor is there this vast population > of moderates. 99% of the country are moderates by any Speaker's Corner definition. >This nomination will allow the Rep. and Dem. the opportunity to show >their real colors. And the American people are smart enough to see the >difference. Most americans won't even know his full name, never mind which party is doing what. Besides which, republicans won't trumpet his qualities. They will cover them up to try to get the moderates. For example, Alito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court later overturned. If they really wanted to "show their true colors" they'd say "Hell yes, we want a judge who will fight against abortion, because that's what we believe!" But they'd never do that, because winning (to them) is more important than coming out in favor of what they believe. Instead, they will say "yeah, but he also supported partial birth abortion, so he's clearly not anti-Roe" while winking at other conservatives. >As for the Dems, they need to come up with some ideas!!!! so far they >lack leadership. Of course. They lack power, so they lack leadership. Who's the democratic majority leader in the senate again? >This nomination process will be good for this country. The circus that this nomination becomes will be good for the media and the extremists on both sides. They will be able to call each other names and toot their own horns to their heart's content. The people of the US - who rely on the courts to protect their rights - will be the ones who lose in the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #13 November 1, 2005 QuoteAlito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court later overturned. Nice spin... He wrote a dessenting opinion that was in favor of spousal notification, a component of the PA law in question... the law was ultimately overturned by the SC, but of note, Rehnquist cited Alito's decent and aggreed with his reasoning... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 1010 #14 November 1, 2005 Quote The court currently contains more liberal justices because the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. you're flailing badly Bill ... the court has had enough liberal justices to matter because Republican presidents appointed them, their own admitted mistakes. (My apologies for just beating up on your first sentence, but couldn't just let such, umm, stuff, pass. Long weekend? ) Stevens - Ford O’Connor - Reagan Scalia - Reagan Kennedy - Reagan Souter - Bush 41 Thomas - Bush 41 Ginsburg - Clinton Breyer - Clinton Roberts - Bush Rehnquist - Nixon (Alito - Bush) Nixon's other liberals - Blackmun and Powell The old court: - Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg - reliably liberal - Scalia and Thomas - reliably conservative - Rehnquist and Kennedy - leaned conservative - O'Conner held the middle ground, and so wielded the most power on the court My guess (hopes) for the new court: - Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg - reliably liberal - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - reliably conservative - Roberts and Kennedy lean conservative. Roberts will be the most powerful justice on the court. He will be in the majority much of the time, and will see to it that the majority opinion will be fearlessly clear and well written. Without needing O'Conner's vote, the conservative side won't need to water down or narrow their opinion. And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. (Remember how the Left howled when Bush did away with the ABM treaty - same thing here. Little will change post-Roe (unfortunately for many children not yet born ). The Left has been using the Roe Scare to get votes for years, they'll lose that political lever.) But along the way, if other privacy items currently NOT in the constitution are also overturned, and we the people decide that we WANT our privacy, I hope that we will do it explicitly and pass a constitutional amendment in my lifetime - an explicit right to privacy from both govt and private industry encroachment. I sincerely hope Robert's legacy 30 years hence will be the strengthening and upholding of that amendment. >> the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. << Whose past are your talking about ????????????? Counting back to Lincoln - 27 presidents, 18 were Republicans, 9 were Democrats The Democrats - Johnson (he was appointed TN gov by Lincoln, and elected veep by Republicans ), Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, Clinton [Blue] Blue Ones 1010 You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #15 November 1, 2005 Quote And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StevePhelps 0 #16 November 1, 2005 QuoteThe court currently contains more liberal justices because the past has seen more democratic presidents than republican ones. Really? From 1980 - 2005 (in those 25 years there was one democratic president, Slick Willy. for 8 years) In fact he is the only democratic president to appoint a SC justice since LBJ. The truth is Republican presidents nominated some liberal and moderate SC justices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #17 November 1, 2005 Don't you know that lefties don't like the annoyance of facts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 November 1, 2005 QuoteDon't you know that lefties don't like the annoyance of facts? facts are generally annoying overall here's an arbitrary number - 7 ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #19 November 1, 2005 And I like Ice cream. An arbitrary flavor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 November 1, 2005 QuoteAnd I like Ice cream. An arbitrary flavor. me - "I don't get it" you - "It's a non-sequitor" me - "then I guess I did get it" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 1010 #21 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuote And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then. Short answer - If in the future you don't like a federal law against abortion, then get to work electing people that will pass the laws you do like. Don't require the courts to tyrannically implement your social policy againt the will of the people. Change the people's will. Long answer - 1. The Republican party will no more outlaw abortion than they cut spending once they gained power. An illustration that Life is an issue they don't really care about, they use just to raise money with, is the end result for Terri Schiavo. Republican President, Senate, House, State Governor, State Senate, State House, State AG and she ended up dead. They provided much lip service as she was killed; in the end they were glad the story went away. Chilling, actually, if you value human life. 2. If I am wrong in #1, then the "short-answer" option awaits you. And YOU ARE MUCH LUCKIER, because a conservative court will obey the laws you get passed. The liberal courts here and everywhere ignore the will of the people and do whatever the hell they want to, divorced from precedent or the rule of law (eg - the 9th cir ct of appls - the court most often over-turned and re-over-turned by SCOTUS). (Edit: yes the new court's views on states' rights may be interesting, and might drive the agenda for a few decades, whatever those views turn out to be.) [Blue] Blue Skies 1010 You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #22 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteAlito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court later overturned. Nice spin... He wrote a dessenting opinion that was in favor of spousal notification, a component of the PA law in question... the law was ultimately overturned by the SC, but of note, Rehnquist cited Alito's decent and aggreed with his reasoning... J As a frequent allie of Bills, i have to step in and say I agree with JD. The law in question was a requirement for married women to inform their spouses before getting an abortion. There was nothing in the law about getting permission, just making notification. I'm a pro-choice democrat, but agree with his rationale. There is nothing in that requirement that put an undo burden on women seeking an abortion. There were built in exceptions for womein who feared abuse from their husbands, and the percentage of married women getting abortions was extremely low, let alone the percentage of them that would have done so without discussing with their husbands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #23 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote And yes, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or dismantled. But it won't matter, because all the states will keep abortion legal. The liberal states up through birth as now, the conservative states with age/notification restrictions etc. Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then. Short answer - If in the future you don't like a federal law against abortion, then get to work electing people that will pass the laws you do like. Don't require the courts to tyrannically implement your social policy againt the will of the people. Change the people's will. Long answer - 1. The Republican party will no more outlaw abortion than they cut spending once they gained power. An illustration that Life is an issue they don't really care about, they use just to raise money with, is the end result for Terri Schiavo. Republican President, Senate, House, State Governor, State Senate, State House, State AG and she ended up dead. They provided much lip service as she was killed; in the end they were glad the story went away. Chilling, actually, if you value human life. 2. If I am wrong in #1, then the "short-answer" option awaits you. And YOU ARE MUCH LUCKIER, because a conservative court will obey the laws you get passed. The liberal courts here and everywhere ignore the will of the people and do whatever the hell they want to, divorced from precedent or the rule of law (eg - the 9th cir ct of appls - the court most often over-turned and re-over-turned by SCOTUS). (Edit: yes the new court's views on states' rights may be interesting, and might drive the agenda for a few decades, whatever those views turn out to be.) [Blue] Blue Skies 1010 You seem to completely miss the point that the SC is not there to guarantee that all laws passed by the government are implemented. It is there to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government. Take another look at the Bill of Rights... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 November 2, 2005 QuoteYou seem to completely miss the point that the SC is not there to guarantee that all laws passed by the government are implemented. It is there to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government. as well as unconstitutional actions by lower courts (we can read that as a subset of the infringement by the government, but I'd like to see it explicit) 1 - Check that congress doesn't pass unconstitutional laws 2 - Check that the laws on the books are enforced correctly (not reinterpreted in weird wacky ways by lower courts) I've changed my mind on an earlier topic about our current politics and who is best suited for which branch 1 - Judicial - very conservative (enforce what's on the books) 2 - Legislative - mostly fiscally conservative and socially neutral (libertarian without the wierdness since they control the money) 3 - Executive - liberal in general, but very protective of national interests (someone has to speak for all the people and still represent the country to the rest of the world) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #25 November 2, 2005 >because a conservative court will obey the laws you get passed. Historically, conservative justices are much more likely to go against laws passed by Congress. Doesn't mean that's wrong or right, but they are more likely to be 'activist' by most people's definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
