Home > Politics > Alito

Alito

January 9, 2006

I’ve read a number of good articles pro and con about Samuel Alito, including one on Dispatches, and I’ve just about decided Alito would be a disaster if he gets on the court.  He’ll tank Roe, dump privacy, and tilt for his neoconservative buddies every chance he gets.  He’s bad news. 

Unfortunately Kennedy is leading the opposition.  If there was ever anyone who should step down and get the hell out of the way, it’s him.  But he won’t.

Thing is, Alito is completely qualified to be a Supreme court justice.  Sure, if I were a democratic senator, I’d vote against him, but he is no Harriet Miers. I’ll be honest where Kennedy is not, and say I just don’t like his philosophy; nothing wrong with that.  I’d like to see a justice who cares about Justice.  Call me a lib-rool if you want to, I don’t mind. 

But he will be confirmed.  The faux-Republicans are in power right now, and they’ll vote in lock-step for the guy their president nominated.  And there’s nothing wrong with that, either

If we want to nominate good justices, we need to get someone elected president.  I read somewhere that John Kerry is considering another run.  Hillary Clinton of course wants to run.  Hey Democrats, this isn’t a damn vanity contest – no more poofy-haired society-page elites from Massachusetts , OK?

Yeah, I know Hillary is “from” New York, but still.  Let’s get somebody who can win this time, not just somebody who can make us feel good about being Democrats.

Categories: Politics
  1. January 10, 2006 at 09:42 | #1

    I like what I read about Alito. I think he is well qualified. The left wing of course does not like him and I don’t think that the far right wing will either because he is a man who makes his decisions based on the constitution and law-not the prevailing attitude of the public or what the Europeans are thinking.

    Of course I am one that does not believe that the constitution should be re interpreted every generation to meet the times. If that is the case why even have a constitution? Just go with tyrany by the majority which is what the democrats want—except that they are not in the majority.

  2. January 10, 2006 at 09:46 | #2

    Forgot to add-Roe should be tanked. It was a bad decision. I could really give a damn about abortion and I can see that the constitution could be used to uphold a law allowing abortion or a law prohibiting same. But it should be left up to the voters in the states. It takes one hell of a stretch of the imagination to find a right to abortion in the constitution.

    Part of the problems with the judiciary is that they have either made law or else were put in a position by congress to try to figure what congress meant by the laws congress passed. I blame congress more than I blame the courts

  3. January 10, 2006 at 14:53 | #3

    Yes he is well-qualified and I think he’ll do a good job.  He is a careful legal scholar but naturally I wish he were more liberal as some will wish he’d be more conservative.  He should be questioned in the hearings and given a vote.

    Mainly I’d just like to reiterate to Democrats; if you want to pick justices, get somebody elected president!  Of course Bush’s picks will be (neo)conservative – duh!

    There is no such thing as unbiased judgment.  We might like to think there is, but there isn’t.  My bias is in favor of the individual against the corporations and the government.  Corporations are nonliving, non-breathing things – they should not be afforded the same protections as individual breathing, living human beings.

    Rights not enumerated in the constitution aren’t necessarily to be assumed as not to exist (IX).  In fact, there’s a lot of things people take for granted that are not in the constitution

    Recently it occurred to me that Bush may have nominated Miers so all his subsequent nominations would get “Well at least he isn’t Harriet Miers”.

  4. January 11, 2006 at 12:02 | #4

    As far as abortion goes I do not understand how people can get so up-in-arms about it.  We are talking about women’s rights.  Even though it may be a stretch of the imagination to find it constitutionally accepted, it still comes back to basic rights, is a woman’s body hers, and are the choices she makes about it her decision (obviously as long as other things are held equal such as is she endangering others with her choice).  Besides this, if you look at the majority of those that have abortions, they are typically, women that would be, single mothers, teenage mothers, rape victims, and those that just do not want a baby or a combination of each.  Statistically each one of these are a group that produce criminals.  Why would we want to force each of these groups to have these babies born into society where they are statistically more likely to commit a crime.  This puts an extreme amount of burden on the mother and our society.  Now don’t get me wrong, I do not believe that abortion is a good means of getting rid of unwanted babies, nor do I condone it in any way.  I just think that if someone wants to get an abortion, especially a rape victim, it should be their choice.

    I do think that abortion is used more than it should be and that if our government, specifically the FDA, could pull their head out of their ass and allow the “morning after pill” to be bought and sold “over the counter”, many people would have little use for abortion, even rape victims.  This would create a situation where abortion would truly be used as a last result.

    As far as Alito… I think his chances of getting appointed are good, but I would never vote him in, especially after watching only 15 minutes of the confirmation hearings this morning.

  5. WeeDram
    January 11, 2006 at 18:40 | #5

    GUYK:  I don’t think you understand the nature of the constitution and bill of rights when you believe that right to choose should be up to the states.  That is the exact point of Roe v. Wade: that option is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so says the supreme law/constitution-interpreting body in the land.  And the Supreme Court is a constitutionally mandated body.  For the decision, see <http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop&gt;

    I am far more concerned about Alito’s positions on privacy.  His leanings on executive vs. congressional powers suggest that your medical records may one day be wide open to corporations and prospective employers.

  6. January 11, 2006 at 19:38 | #6

    As far as abortion goes I do not understand how people can get so up-in-arms about it.  We are talking about women’s rights.

    Maybe I can help.  As long as the discussion is about women’s rights (only), then yes; it is hard to imagine why abortion could be restricted if not (only) to control women.

    But try framing the problem differently: many people believe that the foetus is a person, and in particular, a defenseless person.  That one person should be killed for the convenience of another is a rather difficult pill to swallow even for the most earnest liberal, no?  It hinges on the question of just when ‘personhood’ arrives.

    The conviction that a foetus is a person may be based on a temporal connection between said foetus and the baby to come.  It may be based on religious doctrine, inferred from a number of scriptures.  Regardless; if one believes this, abortion is murder and worthy of getting quite worked up about.

    From a constitutional perspective the religious angle may be discarded; it is not a basis for lawmaking.  The temporal angle is more worthy of discussion but the pro-choice movement won’t even discuss it. 

    There will never be peace, let alone agreement, on abortion until each side learns to at look at the picture through the others’ frame.

    A third frame for the picture is to ignore the women’s rights, religious, and temporal arguments and focus only on the foetus.  When pre-frontal lobe activity occurs one might argue that the brain is reaching a stage where it might be called human.  This happens sometime in the second trimester and is quite easily measured in the third trimester.  For this reason some have suggested a compromise; no restrictions in the first trimester, some in the second trimester, and quite severe restrictions in the third trimester.

    This third position has the advantage of pissing off activists on both sides of the issue.

    I agree completely about the ‘Plan B’ morning-after pill; it should be available over the counter.  And I always add this to any discussion of the abortion issue: Planned Parenthood has prevented more abortions than all the sign-waving morons in the world combined.

  7. tIs
    January 11, 2006 at 21:54 | #7

    Although I believe you are mistaken, I agree with your analysis of what is needed in your party in the next election.  Hell, I would love to see a conservative candidate that I truly repsected and mostly agreed with!

  8. WeeDram
    January 12, 2006 at 21:40 | #8

    There will ALWAYS be an endless debate about when a fetus becomes “human”.  There is no testable hypothesis available, so science can be of no help.  Living in a non-religious democracy (until the 2000 “election”, at least), one’s religious/philosophical/spiritual belief is not helpful in matters of criminal and civil law.  If I personally believe a fetus is a human (at whatever stage of pregnancy,) then I cannot abort a fetus or counsel/approve it for my partner nor anyone else.  I can even consider someone with different views to be a “murderer” if they have or approve an abortion.

    But where does my feeling stand in law if there IS NO TEST that can PROVE a fetus is/was a “human being” at that stage?

    The problem with the religious right is not that they truly believe in their positions as instructed by their faith, but that they believe it is their right to impose those beliefs on others.  In a religious dictatorship, that would be true.  But that is not (yet) the case in the Excited States.

    Now, beyond all that, there is a “fourth way”, but I really don’t care to go down that road, because I’m not sure I can formulate the ideas in words at this time.

  9. WeeDram
    January 13, 2006 at 06:43 | #9

    For more information on Alito’s position regarding Presidential signing statements, see <http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13578051.htm&gt;

    Pretty disturbing.

  10. January 14, 2006 at 13:12 | #10

    My own position on abortion would probably not withstand profound scrutiny, and so I’m glad I’ve never faced the decision myself.

    That said, WeeDram, I think you’re oversimplifying the matter a bit.  This isn’t a question of “I believe that the Eucharist is turned into actual body of Christ, and therefore I am going to force a law through making descration of the Host a felonious assault, punishable by 10 years.” 

    If I think that a fetus is, indeed, human, whether or not I can prove it to your satisfaction, I have have an *obligation* to protect such life.  Considering that, at times, various groups (blacks, women, minorities, gays) have been considered less than human and less than fully entitled to human and civil rights, there’s a long tradition in trying to sway the public, get laws passed, etc., whether or not the basis for such a thing can be “proven” or my sense of it is religious in foundation.

    I can appreciate the “Pro-Life” movement’s motivations (at least some of them) even if I don’t agree with all their conclusions, their tactics, or their goals.

  11. January 15, 2006 at 08:59 | #11

    weedram: Yeah and a court decided that run a away slaves were still property too. The Supreme Court has made bad decisions and those bad decisions have been overturned. Roe Vs Wade was a bad decision and probably will be overtrurned just as several others in the past have been overturned.

Comments are closed.