Evil Genius

Well, George W. Bush won his first victory of the new year!

Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to the United States Supreme Court, has shown amazing grace under fire. After hours of Democrats insinuating that he is a bigot because of his membership (even though he was an inactive member) in CAP in Princeton, an organization that took up the cause of protesting the removal of the ROTC from the campus, he is on his way to confirmation.

His defense of his rulings, his judicial temperament, pledged open-mindedness, and fifteen years as an appellate judge more than qualifies him to be a Supreme Court Justice. The American Bar Association giving him a "well-qualified" evaluation does not hurt him either. His rebuttal of Senator Schumer, who said there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution (there is not) was absolutely spectacular. Alito replied to Schumer by saying the Constitution enumerates free speech clearly as a right in the first amendment, and that abortion is only an interpretation of the right to privacy in the forth and fourteenth amendments.

Ted Kennedy, the most vicious attack dog on the Senate Judiciary Committee, could never compare to Alito’s brilliance and intellect. Alito graduated from Princeton in the top tear of his class. Ted Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating. Alito showed calm and poise while defending his record and showing once and for all that he is qualified to be a Justice on the high court.

here is a good WSJ article on the story

source

you are a republican, aren't you?

Nope!!!! I'm just a liberal who likes to take the side of stupid conservatives

interesting answer

ucrzymofo87 wrote:Nope!!!! I'm just a liberal who likes to take the side of stupid conservatives

Really? You bash the democrats every chance you get.

And comparing the character of Kennedy and Alito has nothing to do with how Alito stands on subjects and what not. That is a fallacy.

in my personal opinion it is better that a judge be impartial to both sides... this enables balanced justice... by appointing a party judge... this disrupts the supreme court for decades to come... regardless of this man's qualifications... of course time will reveal if alito is balanced or a party man... but to actually look for a party player in a judge is what is worrisome... it doesn't matter how qualified he is in law... again time will tell

Ayanami wrote:

ucrzymofo87 wrote:Nope!!!! I'm just a liberal who likes to take the side of stupid conservatives

Really? You bash the democrats every chance you get.

Someone has to make this stuff exciting, otherwise it'd be boring

Sortep wrote:in my personal opinion it is better that a judge be impartial to both sides... this enables balanced justice... by appointing a party judge... this disrupts the supreme court for decades to come... regardless of this man's qualifications... of course time will reveal if alito is balanced or a party man... but to actually look for a party player in a judge is what is worrisome... it doesn't matter how qualified he is in law... again time will tell

I think you are a very smart person.

thank you evilster....

of course compared to some of the brains in this forum.... i may be in the middle of the road... but thank you none the less

Oh, it's easy to tell what side of the political fence he is on but his friends are going to help him in. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get in but I'm not going for him.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: His rebuttal of Senator Schumer, who said there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution (there is not) was absolutely spectacular. Alito replied to Schumer by saying the Constitution enumerates free speech clearly as a right in the first amendment, and that abortion is only an interpretation of the right to privacy in the forth and fourteenth amendments.

I am surprised to read that Chuck Schumer said that there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution and would challenge you to produce documentation of that quotation.

I would also point out that the Court has, in several cases, pointed to a right to privacy under the NINTH amendment...you know, the one that says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Abortion is a key legal issue, not only because of the protections it affords women, but becuase it is precedent. The United States Supreme Court and lower courts operate according to horizontal (across time) and vertical (across courts) stare decisis. The Court lacks enforcement power (hence Andrew Jackson's "John Marshall has made his decision now let us see him enforce it") and its legitimacy as an institution is grounded in its continuity.

That's not to say that the Court should not overrule precedent nor is it to say that it has not done so in the past. We can all quote the big cases: Brown v. Board and the Switch in Time that Saved the Nine come immediately to mind. Moreover, that's not to say that the Court doesn't screw up from time to time (Bush v. Gore anyone?). However, history shows that the Court is very careful about tinkering with precedent.

Have you ever wondered why it is that the Brown v. Board decision came down in 1954 but schools in the south didn't desegregate until the late 1960's? So much for legislating from the Bench. The Court declared segregation unconstitutional yet had no power to enforce that decision. It was unpopular and ignored for 15 years. Conversely, much of FDR's New Deal was declared by the Court to be unconstitutional. FDR proposed to push the enormously popular legislation through the court with a "packing" scheme: Congress would vote to enlarge the size of the Court and FDR would appoint justices that agreed with him. Seeing that it was licked, the Court backed down. There are a lot of conservatives out there who bemoan activist Courts and judges. They say that the Court isn't accountable to the people. The aforementioned examples demonstrate that, to the contrary, it is.

Regardless of the grandstanding we've seen in recent confirmation hearings, the idea that the Court will overturn Roe v. Wade on a whim, or even after extended deliberation, is laughable. Conservatives would do well to get past the legal arguments all together. If you don't want women getting abortions try providing neo-natal care, try providing child care services for working mothers, try teaching sex education that actually prevents pregnancy, try some real family values. I've heard women who've had abortions called murderers. I seem to remember something in the Bible about those without sin casting the first stones.