.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Monday, October 31, 2005

Sam Alito It Is

Well, that didn't take long. Sam Alito is the nominee for the Supreme Court, and he's "ethnically insensitive", and really, it's all about the war anyway, not to mention the Libby indictment:
"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
"It's a pretty predictable move from a politically crippled president," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan. "Toss out a judicial extremist to pacify his base and provoke a fight that he hopes changes the subject away from indictments and Iraq and Katrina and a soft economy."
Ann Althouse thinks Sam Alito is a better pick than Roberts:
He has the impressive educational background followed by a stellar career before becoming a judge, but he also has a much longer record as a judge -- 15 years to Roberts's 2. I am glad to see Bush not shy away from a person with a real judicial record. The fear of putting up a nominee with actual cases to peruse puts too many fine candidates off limits. To see Roberts as the ideal nominee is to prefer a judicial mystery, someone who is hard to know and hard to attack. With Alito, we can read his cases. It will be important to recognize that an inferior court judge is profoundly limited compared to a Supreme Court justice, but the judicial record is still highly valuable.
Ann provides links and summaries of cases. Carl of No Oil For Pacifists is stuck on wide-eyed MoDo shock, complete with addled quotes. It's pretty funny.

ScotusBlog has a couple decent posts. Democratic Underground partially agrees with The Anchoress,: Miers was a fake-out ploy by the evil BusHitler team (okay, the Anchoress didn't come up with the evil BusHitler stuff).
42. Why didn't Harriet Myers get an up, or down, vote?
Just wondering...

Response to Reply #42
47. Um, she was a fake-out? Now we get the real nominee. Scalia-like.

Just a guess.
Their screams of agony are pitiful. They mourn Miers:
60. I don't think Meirs was a fake-out...

... I think Bush really wanted her. When the right wigged out, the Dems sat there laughing and singing "Ha ha, hoist by your own petard!" Jeez - this after Reid recommended her! Talk about short-sighted! Yeah, let's have some fun so that Bush has a rough time over Meirs.

So Meirs, with no support, pulled out, and now we get Alito.

Who is laughing now?
The only way to get your nominee onto the SCOTUS is to win the Presidency and have a majority in the Senate. Until that happens, the progressive wing needs to learn how to cut losses, not recreate Custer's last stand. Over and over again.
and call for a filibuster:
1. Start the filibuster now
Refer to the nomination as "dead in the water". No point in even discussing the nomination. No point in even delving into the personal/professional history of Alito. It's all moot. He won't serve on the Supreme Court, so there's no need to even discuss the issue. Start the filibuster now.

I am listing some decisions etc over at this post, which I will keep updating. Dingo (who hates him) has some links to decisions as well here.

I think you nailed it.
I think we are in for a really goood fight, I just hope we can expose the Democrats for what they really are along the way.
It should alternate between pathetic and funny.

I'm trying to find out what Alito's position on the 2nd Amendment is, or if he has one.
From what I have read of his opinions so far, if there is going to be a fight, count me in. I am not a happy camper witht his guy. Constructionist my ass.
Well, Dingo, it's hard to find the district court opinions. But so far he seems more meticulously careful than anything else.
I have posted some of his decisions.

I just found this also on the 2nd amendment. Haven't read the entire thing, but his decent is predicated on the commerce clause, so I don't know how much info it will give you.
oops, sorry. Here it is

Well, that hinges on the Commerce Clause reading. I like his reading.

He's definitely a careful legal technician. I'm really trying to get a feel for his way of analyzing the law.
I could go either way on his reading of the commerce clause. He had some good points and some not so good points. It is his reading of the 4th amendment in Doe v. Groody that scares the begeebers out of me. That strays way to far from the constitution for me. I also dislike his burden of proof in discrimination cases. The plainiffs would have to prove the thoughts of the defendants which is just not a real possibility. His rulings would pretty much end all discrimination cases.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?