2
   

Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2006 08:56 pm
So you still don't know if what you posted is true or not and haven't even bothered to look it up. That is beyond pathetic.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 02:30 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013000392_pf.html

"In Judge Alito we see patterns, patterns which demonstrate a hostility to the disadvantaged and the poor," said Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee.

Added Kennedy: "In case after case, Judge Alito's decisions demonstrate a systematic tilt toward powerful institutions and against individuals attempting to vindicate their rights. How can a clear record like that possibly justify a lifetime position on the Supreme Court?"
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 02:30 pm
Jan. 31, 2006
Final Senate Vote

Republicans Vote Democrats Vote
Alexander (TN) Y Akaka (HI) N
Allard (CO) Y Baucus (MT) N
Allen (VA) Y Bayh (IN) N
Bennett (UT) Y Biden (DE) N
Bond (MO) Y Bingaman (NM) N
Brownback (KS) Y Boxer (CA) N
Bunning (KY) Y Byrd (WV) Y
Burns (MT) Y Cantwell (WA) N
Burr (NC) Y Carper (DE) N
Chafee (RI) N Clinton (NY) N
Chambliss (GA) Y Conrad (ND) Y
Coburn (OK) Y Dayton (MN) N
Cochran (MS) Y Dodd (CT) N
Coleman (MN) Y Dorgan (ND) N
Collins (ME) Y Durbin (IL) N
Cornyn (TX) Y Feingold (WI) N
Craig (ID) Y Feinstein (CA) N
Crapo (ID) Y Harkin (IA) N
DeMint (SC) Y Inouye (HI) N
DeWine (OH) Y Johnson (SD) Y
Dole (NC) Y Kennedy (MA) N
Domenici (NM) Y Kerry (MA) N
Ensign (NV) Y Kohl (WI) N
Enzi (WY) Y Landrieu (LA) N
Frist (TN) Y Lautenberg (NJ) N
Graham (SC) Y Leahy (VT) N
Grassley (IA) Y Levin (MI) N
Gregg (NH) Y Lieberman (CT) N
Hagel (NE) Y Lincoln (AR) N
Hatch (UT) Y Menendez (NJ) N
Hutchison (TX) Y Mikulski (MD) N
Inhofe (OK) Y Murray (WA) N
Isakson (GA) Y Nelson, Ben (NE) Y
Kyl (AZ) Y Nelson, Bill (FL) N
Lott (MS) Y Obama (IL) N
Lugar (IN) Y Pryor (AR) N
Martinez (FL) Y Reed, J. (RI) N
McCain (AZ) Y Reid, H. (NV) N
McConnell (KY) Y Rockefeller (WV) N
Murkowski (AK) Y Salazar (CO) N
Roberts (KS) Y Sarbanes (MD) N
Santorum (PA) Y Schumer (NY) N
Sessions (AL) Y Stabenow (MI) N
Shelby (AL) Y Wyden (OR) N
Smith (OR) Y
Snowe (ME) Y Independent
Specter (PA) Y Jeffords (VT) N
Stevens (AK) Y
Sununu (NH) Y
Talent (MO) Y
Thomas (WY) Y
Thune (SD) Y
Vitter (LA) Y
Voinovich (OH) Y
Warner (VA) Y



http://www.c-span.org/congress/alito_senate.asp
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 05:08 pm
Alito sworn in as Supreme Court justice

58-42 vote was most partisan for top court nominee in recent history

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. was sworn in Tuesday as the 110th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after winning confirmation in a fierce partisan battle over the future direction of the high court.

Earlier, the Senate voted 58-42 to confirm Alito — a former federal appellate judge, U.S. attorney, and conservative lawyer for the Reagan administration from New Jersey — as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been a moderate swing vote on the court.

All but one of the Senate’s majority Republicans voted for his confirmation, while all but four of the Democrats voted against Alito.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 06:49 pm
Interesting isn't it that Republicans did not play such partisan theatrics and voting positions when Justice Ginsberg was appointed after her long service in the ACLU
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 06:59 pm
What are you trying to say, georgeob1?

By voting "no" on Alito's nomination, the vast majority of the Democrats are trying to protect the people and our constitutional values from the evils of an autocratic president.

By voting "yes" on Alito's nomination, the vast majority of the Republicans are willing to sacrifice our civil rights and our constitutional values to show loyalty to an autocratic president.

The Ginsburg nomination and confirmation has absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis we are facing as a nation.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 07:06 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
What are you trying to say, georgeob1?

By voting "no" on Alito's nomination, the vast majority of the Democrats are trying to protect the people and our constitutional values from the evils of an autocratic president.

By voting "yes" on Alito's nomination, the vast majority of the Republicans are willing to sacrifice our civil rights and our constitutional values to show loyalty to an autocratic president.

The Ginsburg nomination and confirmation has absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis we are facing as a nation.


By voting "no" on Alito's nomination, the vast majority of the Democrats were being partisan, as you pointed out.

By voting "yes" on Ginsburg's nomination, the vast majority of the Republicans were NOT being partisan.

Had they been partisan, they would have voted "no," in order to protect the people from the evils of liberalism.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 08:13 pm
And I would offer the opinion that Alito is much more in the mainstream than Ginsberg. Ask people about the ACLU around here and you would be hardpressed to find anybody with a kind word for that organization. The Republicans could have clearly made the case that Ginsburg was way out of the mainstream and should not have been nominated as a valid candidate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Alito - take him or leave him - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 08:01:12