New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

mmarsh

mmarsh

Active member
Well as you all know by now Samuel Alito has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Although he is amplefully qualified, his reputation as a hard-core right-wing extremist is bound to touch off a political firestorm.

This was another terriable choice for high office because it will totally unbalance the supreme court from a right leaning court to a hardcore extremist one. For the record is as follows

Extreme Right Conservatives
Scalia
Thomas
Alito

Conservatives
Roberts
Stevens

Moderate
Kennedy
Souter

Liberals
Ginsburg
Breyer


This is bad decision for mulitple reasons

1. Bush showed a total lack of spine as he let the extreme right Bulldoze his nominee and arm twisted him into accepting 'their' choice. Its now appearent that the religous right runs the White House, not the President of the United States. A total lack of leadership, Bush cannot even run his own base.

2. Bush did the one thing the Democrats asked him not to do (name an extremist). In fact Harry Reid asked him specifically NOT to name Alito. The Dems are almost certain to Filibuster this candidate, touching off a political firestorm. This was probably done on purpose as a smokescreen for Bush's other troubles.
 
Just a profile of the guy:

alito.jpg


Samuel Alito Jr
Age: 55

Education:
Princeton University, B.A, 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990. Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.

Professional Career:
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Law Clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977[/img]
 
Boy, what a poor choice. Ivy league middle of the road, intelligent, no skeletons in the closet, successful Judge with no red marks. What in the world is Bush thinking of? Did he run out of Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburgs? I don't really understand why the man accepted a position this much lower than his qualifications.
 
I don't understand Bush. He keeps picking candidates that are the "best qualified" after he nominates someone else is the best qualified. Why couldn't he have just researched more and picked one good one.
 
FutureDevilDog said:
I don't understand Bush. He keeps picking candidates that are the "best qualified" after he nominates someone else is the best qualified. Why couldn't he have just researched more and picked one good one.
Click to expand...

Strategy, my boy, strategy. When you are forced to deal with fools, sometimes what you are forced to do seems to be foolish. Wait and watch.
 
This isn't about intelligence and that isn't what some of us judge him on. We just don't share the same political view on most topics. Since justice and government shouldn't influence one another we have a hard time seeing Bush fill the Supreme Court with "Hawks".
Then you can say:"well the Democrates do the same!" and that is true... I'm just against any system that appoints judges: a) for a life time membership. We had that system during the middle ages and people do tend to be touched by age. b) I think politics should stay out of this appointing business.

The fact that he is a neo-con is just my personal touch. Since I can't alter the system I rather see a democrat in there instead of a republican. But as I said, that's just my opinion.
 
If Alito is a neocon, I'm happy because I agree with the view.

Anyways yeah, our judges are very poltical. Many of them also ran for office and were elected. Don't ask me under whose flag.
 
God-fore bid the president is appointing judges he promised to appoint during his campaign that AMERICA ELECTED HIM FOR.


Ra Ra gooooo Sca-alito!!!
 
Ted said:
I'm just against any system that appoints judges: a) for a life time membership. We had that system during the middle ages and people do tend to be touched by age. b) I think politics should stay out of this appointing business.

The fact that he is a neo-con is just my personal touch. Since I can't alter the system I rather see a democrat in there instead of a republican. But as I said, that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it Ted, it's an American affair. I'm sure you have things to worry yourself about over there in the Netherlands. We have our system which is different from yours by design and works quite well for us, thank you so much for your concern though.
Our Supreme Court is far from conservative. Take a look some facts about the Rehnquist Court (1986–2005).
Chief Justice William Rehnquist served from Burger's retirement in 1986 until his own death on September 3, 2005. The Rehnquist Court generally took a limited view of Congress's powers under the commerce clause, as exemplified by United States v. Lopez (1995). The Court made numerous controversial decisions, including Texas v. Johnson (1989), which declared that flag burning was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment; Lee v. Weisman (1992), which declared officially-sanctioned, student-led school prayers unconstitutional; Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which voided laws prohibiting late-term abortions; and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down laws prohibiting sodomy. Another controversial decision of the Rehnquist court in 2003 was Gratz v. Bollinger which upheld affirmative action. Perhaps the most controversial decision made by the Court came in Bush v. Gore (2000), which ended election recounts in Florida following the presidential election of 2000, allowing George W. Bush to become the forty-third U.S. President.
Personally, I think it needed an injection of conservatism to bring it back toward center. It just my opinion though.
 
That's right, the Supreme Court has long been far from being conservative. Everybody knows that. It's the first time now that the trend is reversing.
 
Most of you are under the believe that the Supreme Court was some sort of liberal bastion. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Presently, we have 4 right, 2 moderate, 2 liberals. Thats 4-2-2. If Alito gets in thats 5-2-2. Of that 5, 3 are of the 'Far-right' ideology which is the largest of all 3 groups. That doesn't seem very liberal or even centralist to me.

Missileer

Nobody ever said he wasn't qualified, he is. But thats only 1 preresquist. The other is his judical ideology. Right now there are a large group of senetors and a even larger group of Americans that are deeply disturbed by some of his rulings. Case in point, Robert Bork was perfectly qualified on paper, but his rulings were too extreme conservative for most, and he was rejected because of it. One thing Renquist (met him in 1997, a great man) did was to keep the far right part of the bench in check. Now Judge Roberts is going to have to do have the samething only the far right part of the bench is now considerably stronger.

I wouldnt draw a conclusion that just because Bush won the election thats a rubber stamp on judical choices. Remember its the Senate's job to confirm choices, not the president. Besides, a poll taken last week suggested that Bush would have certainly lost the election had it taken place this year and not last. As matter of fact I thinks its reasonable to suggest that a popularity drop from 51% to 38% would in fact suggest that Americans are pretty upset at some of the choices Bush as made so far on a varity of issues.

Ginsburg is a liberal, but she has voted several times on hot button topics like abortion as a conservative i.e Sternburg vs Carhart. When was the last time Scalia or Thomas voted left? I am not against Republicans or even Conservatives. I supported Chief Justice John Roberts, although there sure to be rulings I wont like, his past proved at least he was balanced. I get no such vibe from Alito, he strikes me as narrow-minded extremist like Thomas and Scalia. I'm oppossed to anyone who so solidly conservative (or liberal) as to rend them intransable. I would also suspect there are a few Republicans who are not so hot about this choice either. The pro-choice 7, for example are very quiet.
 
I don't want them to vote right, left, centrist, or any other way. I want them to interpret the Constitution of the United States, not legislate. God knows, the Legislators themselves can screw that up enough by themselves.
 
Take a look at those decisions I previously noted.
1. flag burning was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment;
2. officially-sanctioned, student-led school prayers unconstitutional;
3. voided laws prohibiting late-term abortions;
4. struck down laws prohibiting sodomy.
5. upheld affirmative action.
Do these sound like anything other than liberal decisions to you? If they do then you have a very different definition of liberalism than we do here in the United States.
 
DTop

A few rulings doesnt make him a liberal or even a moderate. His law clerks call him "Scalito", that isnt exactly a nickname you give to a liberal.
Anyway a few opposite side cases

1. Supported Pennslyvania law restricting abortion and stated went further than the court to say it was legal for a woman to notify her Husband. This view was rejected later on by the Supreme Court.

2. Alito argued 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.

3. Bray vs Marriott Hotels. Protected an employer from the reach of Title VII because the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.

4. Ruled against Family Medical leave Act

5. Upheld a City right to hold a nativity scene because they the city also had symbols expressing secularism.
 
When I speak of the Supreme Court, I do not spek of just one justice but the entire court. I guess you'll just have to agree to disagree with the rest of the U.S. for a definition of a liberal SC then.
 
DTop said:
When I speak of the Supreme Court, I do not spek of just one justice but the entire court. I guess you'll just have to agree to disagree with the rest of the U.S. for a definition of a liberal SC then.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about Alito not the court at large.

Although my point stands, I dont agree that 5 rulings, out of the dozens if not hundreds of rulings can adaquetly define the court as liberal or conservative. But lets assume you are right for a moment. If the court is liberal, then why did the court side with Bush in Bush vs Gore 2000. Surely if the court were liberal, Al Gore would be President. I sincerely doubt a liberal court would just hand over the presidency to conservatives. Thats why I dont blame the court when they gave it to conservatives.

I would say I disagree with the conservative definition of what a liberal SC is. You ask the liberals, and they will say its too far conservative. Same goes with the media, conservatives say its too liberal, liberals say its too conservative.

Its a matter of who you ask.

Addendum:
I just saw Ben Nelson support for Alito. I'm still very skeptical but I will keep an open mind, at least until the hearings. :?
 
I was in fact speaking of the Renquist Court and that it was liberal and could use a conservative to bring it more toward the center .

But lets assume you are right for a moment. If the court is liberal, then why did the court side with Bush in Bush vs Gore 2000.
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of our Supreme Court. Because they are appointed for life, they are not beholding to one party or the other to maintain their positions. They are free to interpret laws according to our Constitution. I think you may find the following interesting.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence.

"The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans . . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."
Click to expand...
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html[/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top