Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

blatham wrote:

george

Pretty clearly, the full display and stock content of the Shoe Warehouse will have to drop on that anthem-echoing noggin before we see much improvement in your cognitive alertness.

Damn!!

I suppose I deserved that. Thomas is a bit challenging in an argument. He is very thorough, level-headed, and uses that phony German politeness and understatement to great effect -- unlike more colorful and excitable types such as us. We use different phony tricks.

0 Replies

Sure. Thomas is usually quite careful and his posts well reasoned. But much of what just passed is facile.

Today, we have our first SC decision where Roberts has been involved. We find him joining in the 6-3 dissent along with - surprise, surprise - Scalia and Thomas. As if political ideology is either either irrelevant or magically evaporated in the fellow. As if such opinions or ideas are freely and forthrightly offered up in the confirmation process. As if the murder boards have such forthrightness and transparency as their fundamental function. As if such a consequence as we saw today was not precisely the end goal of the Federalist Society's formation and operations. As if this wasn't designed to move as much as possible beneath the radar. As if the same will not hold true with Alito.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Today, we have our first SC decision where Roberts has been involved.

Actually, the first was last week.

Brown vs. Sanders

5-4 decision on a dealth penalty case. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, delivered the opinion of the Court.

0 Replies

Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on Alito nomination on Jan. 24

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court on Jan. 24, officials announced Monday night, and the full Senate will begin debate the following day.

0 Replies

JW

Thanks. My blunder. I've had my head down and fingers busy in a room stuffed to the rafters with silver and very beautiful stones.

0 Replies

Wow. Lead me to it, LOL.

<A little bling is ... a good thing Smile

>

0 Replies

Give us a couple of months and I'll lead you to the relevant Saks counter.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

blatham wrote:
Today, we have our first SC decision where Roberts has been involved.

Actually, the first was last week.

Brown vs. Sanders

5-4 decision on a dealth penalty case. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, delivered the opinion of the Court.

From a Catholic perspective--according to Scalia and St. Paul--the government carries the sword as God's minister. Therefore, when God's minister executes someone--it's God's will. (An apparently acceptable exception to the "thou shalt not kill" commandment.)

Also from a Catholic perspective, suicide is a sin. That suicide is unlawful is the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Church, which condemns the act as a most atrocious crime and, in hatred of the sin and to arouse the horror of its children, denies the suicide Christian burial.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm

Accordingly, Roberts' positions in Brown v. Sanders and Gonzales v. Oregon can be explained from a religious point of view. However, from a legal point of view, his positions are less defensible. The fact that he merely signs his name to the postition he agrees with and does so without setting forth his legal justifications in his own words demonstrates a coward. I'm looking forward to the decision in Ayotte. That should also be telling of whether he puts the rule of law first or his religion first.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Sure. Thomas is usually quite careful and his posts well reasoned. But much of what just passed is facile.

Today, we have our first SC decision where Roberts has been involved. We find him joining in the 6-3 dissent along with - surprise, surprise - Scalia and Thomas. As if political ideology is either either irrelevant or magically evaporated in the fellow. As if such opinions or ideas are freely and forthrightly offered up in the confirmation process. As if the murder boards have such forthrightness and transparency as their fundamental function. As if such a consequence as we saw today was not precisely the end goal of the Federalist Society's formation and operations. As if this wasn't designed to move as much as possible beneath the radar. As if the same will not hold true with Alito.

Is it really "facile", compared to the opposing views you express? After all Souter., Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsberg are, just as consistently, on the other side of these votes. Are they too motivated by political ideology, or do you mean to suggest that they consistently reach opposing views by a relatively objective process that just happens to always work out that way? As Thomas aptly noted, the Republicans did not stoop to such hyperbole and ideological hand-wringing during the confirmation processes for Breyer and Ginsburg, both of whom were rather obviously as left wing intheir ideologicalorientation as are Scalia and Thomas right wing in theirs.

No one is entirely free of a point of view,and it is probably good for the country that the court is relatively evenly divided. The transition from a court that is 5 - 4 Democrat on many issues to one that is 5 - 4 Republican does not seem to me to be an injustice, notwithstanding the whining and hand-wringing of the Democrats.

The evident fact is that the justices that do occupy the "center" on many issues have, in recent decades all been appointed by Republican, not Democrat Presidents. That counts for something too. Surely the party that appointed Ruth Ginsberg to the court cannot object to Alito.

0 Replies

george

"Evenly divided" is not the goal. Dominance is the goal.

Our Purpose

Quote:

Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

Recall that the White House attempted to have media outlets "correct" their claims that Roberts was a member of this Society...until the Wash Post revealed Roberts was a member of their steering committee. And the White House did this why, exactly?

Much more here... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federalist_Society

and here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Give us a couple of months and I'll lead you to the relevant Saks counter.

Blasphemy!

<All Saks counters are relevant>

0 Replies

Not to my bank account.

By the by...we were viewing a pair of earrings on the weekend. Quite sparkly. Five and a quarter million. But you got two.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Not to my bank account.

By the by...we were viewing a pair of earrings on the weekend. Quite sparkly. Five and a quarter million. But you got two.

And comes with the requisite bodyguard, no doubt.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

"Evenly divided" is not the goal. Dominance is the goal.

Is 5 - 4 "dominance" by right-of-center judges in principal any worse for the country than 5 - 4 "dominance" by left-of-center ones??

Quote:

Recall that the White House attempted to have media outlets "correct" their claims that Roberts was a member of this Society...until the Wash Post revealed Roberts was a member of their steering committee. And the White House did this why, exactly?

As well they should. The Library of Congress investigation of the Society in question revealed that Alioto (not Roberrts) was NOT a member of the steering comnmittee of the society in question; that he had not held any office in the comnmittee; that he was not cited in any document, coirrespondence or minutes of society meetiings; that there was no record of his ever having contributed to it financially, or even paid any dues to it. You can find this in the record of Judiciary Committee hearing. The Washington Post report was false,and the WhiteHouse was simply correct in requesting theretraction.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
blatham wrote:
Today, we have our first SC decision where Roberts has been involved.

Actually, the first was last week.

Brown vs. Sanders

5-4 decision on a dealth penalty case. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, delivered the opinion of the Court.

From a Catholic perspective--according to Scalia and St. Paul--the government carries the sword as God's minister. Therefore, when God's minister executes someone--it's God's will. (An apparently acceptable exception to the "thou shalt not kill" commandment.)

Also from a Catholic perspective, suicide is a sin. That suicide is unlawful is the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Church, which condemns the act as a most atrocious crime and, in hatred of the sin and to arouse the horror of its children, denies the suicide Christian burial.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm

Accordingly, Roberts' positions in Brown v. Sanders and Gonzales v. Oregon can be explained from a religious point of view. However, from a legal point of view, his positions are less defensible. The fact that he merely signs his name to the postition he agrees with and does so without setting forth his legal justifications in his own words demonstrates a coward. I'm looking forward to the decision in Ayotte. That should also be telling of whether he puts the rule of law first or his religion first.

What are you talking about? Roberts joined with the majority, and therefore he adopted the legal reasoning expressed there. Your statement that he is a coward because he didn't set forth "his legal justifications in his own words" is ludicrous. What do you think, every time a justice joins in the majority opinion without setting forth a separate opinion they are exhibiting cowardice?

Beyond that, the position presented is based on sound legal reasoning, not the rule of his or any other religion. Your stated concern reflects more your own bizarre and unsubstantiated fears -- and obvious opposition to the death penalty -- than it does reality.

0 Replies

Ticomaya:

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.

Roberts joined Scalia's opinion in the death penalty case making it the majority opinion by a vote of 5-4.

Roberts joined Scalia's dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon. He did NOT join the majority opinion that carried 6 votes.

I guess Bush got what he wanted: someone who would follow Scalia's lead.

I was hoping that Roberts, as the CHIEF JUSTICE, would be his own man instead of someone who would hide behind someone else's words. I am WAITING for Roberts to actually lead the ROBERTS' COURT. I am waiting for Roberts to write an opinion that would signal that he actually follows the rule of law rather than his religious beliefs.

I am not opposed to the death penalty. Case in point: Joseph Edward Duncan deserves the death penalty. The death penalty, however, is the ultimate punishment and should be used sparingly and only in cases where its application cannot be reasonably questioned. Given the facts and circumstances of the death penalty case, the imposition of the death penalty was highly questionable.

If you had read Scalia's commentary on the government as God's minister and wielding the sword (the death penalty) on God's behalf, maybe you might also have concerns whether it is actually the rule of law that is being applied--or the will of God as perceived by members of our highest court.

Thus far, Roberts has joined Scalia's opinions that conveniently adhere to their shared religious beliefs. Again, how convenient for them.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

thomas wrote
Quote:
The problem is that while current Republican pundits are cynical and self-serving about their misrepresentations, they know they are misrepresentations. The Democratic leadership seems to be much worse: They are idealistic about it, so tend to believe their own marketing lies.

Not a promising start, thomas. You hope someday to marry a woman both cynical and self-serving as such a creature is really better to be around than another who reaches towards hopeful personal and family ideals? After all, as your second sentence explains, there is nothing possible or even desireable other than lies.

I have no problem with idealism and love -- I like to practice them myself sometimes. The problem is that they both scale up badly beyond the social level of families, maybe communities. On the level of states and nations, both love and idealism do a lot more harm than good. While I don't like self-serving cynicism, I think its consequences are less bad in Big Politics.

blatham wrote:

Today, we have our first SC decision where Roberts has been involved. We find him joining in the 6-3 dissent along with - surprise, surprise - Scalia and Thomas.

If I may ask -- which explanations for this dissent other than ideology did you consider? Why did you reject them?

blatham wrote:

As if such a consequence as we saw today was not precisely the end goal of the Federalist Society's formation and operations. As if this wasn't designed to move as much as possible beneath the radar. As if the same will not hold true with Alito.

I have no problem with that for a substantive and a procedural reason: The substantive reason is that I basically agree with the goals of the Federalist Society. I find it amusing when Democratic Senators discuss someone's membership in it as if they were talking about the KKK. The procedural reason is that just a year ago, George Bush campaigned on a platform that included a pledge to appoint justices "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". John Kerry made this a major issue, and pledged in return that he would appoint justices that are non-ideological and just plain good. Bush's platform won the election, Kerry's lost. As it happens, Alito's opinions do not read like expressions of a sweeping judicial philosophy in the spirit of Scalia and Thomas, and I don't expect him to develop one once he's appointed. It is certainly possible that I am wrong about this and you are right. But even then, Bush would simply be enacting a platform that the American voters elected him to enact. As a general matter, I don't like Bush's agenda much more than you do. But I respect the American people's right to vote on it, and his right to enact it given the outcome of the people's vote.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
Recall that the White House attempted to have media outlets "correct" their claims that Roberts was a member of this Society...until the Wash Post revealed Roberts was a member of their steering committee. And the White House did this why, exactly?

As well they should. The Library of Congress investigation of the Society in question revealed that Alioto (not Roberrts) was NOT a member of the steering comnmittee of the society in question;

George -- I think Blatham is talking about the Federalist Society, not Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Roberts actually did sit on their steering committee. It is possible that Alito is a member as well, but if this was a major issue in his confirmation hearings, it escaped my attention.

I think a more pertinent objection to Blatham's post is that the passage he quotes neither supports nor contradicts his conclusion. Obviously, the Federalist Society tries to give its legal views more traction on the Court that they now have. Only three justices on the Supreme Court currently share those views. So the Federalist Society would consider it an improvement if the Supreme Court was evenly divided between the Burger Court's positions and the Society's. The passage Blatham cited does not allow us to discern which outcome would ultimately satisfy them, if any.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

George -- I think Blatham is talking about the Federalist Society, not Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Roberts actually did sit on their steering committee. It is possible that Alito is a member as well, but if this was a major issue in his confirmation hearings, it escaped my attention.

See: Judiciary Committee, Minority Staff: Fact Check: Fact Check: Judge Alito and the Concerned Alumni of Princeton

Law.com: Kennedy Seeks Documents on Alito's Involvement With Conservative Group

And all that started in November with this student paper report.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

See: Judiciary Committee, Minority Staff: Fact Check: Fact Check: Judge Alito and the Concerned Alumni of Princeton

Law.com: Kennedy Seeks Documents on Alito's Involvement With Conservative Group
Walter, I think you now have made the same mistake as George. Blatham had been talking about the Federalist Society. Roberts h

And all that started in November with this student paper report.

Walter, now you have made the same mistake as George. Blatham was talking about the Federalist society and (correctly) stated that Roberts was a member there, and that he sat on their steering committee. Blatham did not say anything about CAP. That was a misunderstanding by George, which I then responded to. I said "it is possible that Alito is a member as well", and thought it was clear from the context that I meant "a member of the Federalist Society". (I just checked with Wikipedia, which says he is a member of the Federalist Society.) As to the CAP: Alito was a member there, but the judiciary committee found no evidence for any active involvement when it searched for it in the Library of Congress. But that's irrelevant to the points Blatham raised and George replied to.

0 Replies

Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know