1
   

Alito - take him or leave him

 
 
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:43 am
Well, there should be about two weeks of grandstanding and posturing by both sides of the isle; so let's obsessively discuss it! The purpose of this thread is for discussion of the questioning/confirmation process.

ps, you jerks better not get this thread closed as well. I don't want to hear the word 'Clinton' once!

Ed Kennedy seems pretty pissed off. Are there going to be any actual questions for Alito today?

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,756 • Replies: 79
No top replies

 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:51 am
Re: Alito - take him or leave him
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ps, you jerks better not get this thread closed as well. I don't want to hear the word 'Clinton' once!

Stop saying 'nee!'
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:54 am
I think the actual questioning starts tomorrow.

He's a hard-right ideologue, but he'll try to avoid the tough questions like an Olympic slalom competitor glides by the flags. I suspect the Dems will grill him, then let him squirm through...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:02 pm
It's difficult for me to understand how someone who is applying for a lifetime appointment can refuse to answer questions.

I mean, it should be rather clear that he has a responsibility to answer questions put to him by Senators. Claiming that one cannot answer how they would judge on a certain case is BS. Why? Because you know for a fact Bush asked him questions such as this before he was nominated. Why should Congress not have the same right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's difficult for me to understand how someone who is applying for a lifetime appointment can refuse to answer questions.

I mean, it should be rather clear that he has a responsibility to answer questions put to him by Senators. Claiming that one cannot answer how they would judge on a certain case is BS. Why? Because you know for a fact Bush asked him questions such as this before he was nominated. Why should Congress not have the same right?

Cycloptichorn


This is how it has always been conducted. Why change? Just because it is a GW nominee?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:17 pm
Kennedy is an idiot that exemplifies the need for term limits.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:21 pm
I nominate Ted (The Incredible Hulk) Stevens for poster boy for the need for term limits.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:23 pm
""Perhaps the dominant issue is the widespread concern about Judge Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. This has arisen, in part, because of a 1985 statement by Judge Alito that the Constitution does not provide the right to an abortion," said Specter. "This hearing will give Judge Alito the public forum to address the issue, as he has with senators in private meetings, that his personal views and prior advocacy will not determine his judicial decision." --From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears (Posted 12:30 p.m.)
"

I await his answer to this. I happen to agree with the judge in this regard. Nowhere in the Consitiution is there a specific reference to abortion.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:57 pm
Feingold has raised a good point that Alito specifically promised to recuse himself from certain cases, and did not. There will be some pointed questions about why he did not recuse himself, I would think.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:22 pm
woiyo wrote:
""Perhaps the dominant issue is the widespread concern about Judge Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. This has arisen, in part, because of a 1985 statement by Judge Alito that the Constitution does not provide the right to an abortion," said Specter. "This hearing will give Judge Alito the public forum to address the issue, as he has with senators in private meetings, that his personal views and prior advocacy will not determine his judicial decision." --From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears (Posted 12:30 p.m.)
"

I await his answer to this. I happen to agree with the judge in this regard. Nowhere in the Consitiution is there a specific reference to abortion.


hmmm. which could also mean that the constitution does not prohibit it. <shrugs>

i was thinking about this last night. for some reason, it popped into my head that similarly, the constitution doesn't provide for a president to emancipate slaves that were bought and paid for by american citizens.

and yet, it was still the right thing to do.

so i wonder, do the anti-abortion proponents feel like a woman has less right to self determination of her physical body than the mistreated and physically abused slaves had ?

more importantly, does alito feel that way?

just a thought. Confused
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:26 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
woiyo wrote:
""Perhaps the dominant issue is the widespread concern about Judge Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. This has arisen, in part, because of a 1985 statement by Judge Alito that the Constitution does not provide the right to an abortion," said Specter. "This hearing will give Judge Alito the public forum to address the issue, as he has with senators in private meetings, that his personal views and prior advocacy will not determine his judicial decision." --From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears (Posted 12:30 p.m.)
"

I await his answer to this. I happen to agree with the judge in this regard. Nowhere in the Consitiution is there a specific reference to abortion.


hmmm. which could also mean that the constitution does not prohibit it. <shrugs>

i was thinking about this last night. for some reason, it popped into my head that similarly, the constitution doesn't provide for a president to emancipate slaves that were bought and paid for by american citizens.

and yet, it was still the right thing to do.

so i wonder, do the anti-abortion proponents feel like a woman has less right to self determination of her physical body than the mistreated and physically abused slaves had ?

more importantly, does alito feel that way?

just a thought. Confused


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html

"Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's difficult for me to understand how someone who is applying for a lifetime appointment can refuse to answer questions.

Because the senate lets them get away with not answering questions.

If the senators all took a principled stand ... er, wait a minute, there's something wrong with that sentence. Let me start again: if the senators all took the position that they would not vote for any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, who did not answer direct, pointed questions about proper subjects (including the kinds of questions about judicial precedents that recent nominees have refused to answer), then we'd soon see nominees actually providing answers during their confirmation hearings.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:50 pm
woiyo wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
woiyo wrote:
""Perhaps the dominant issue is the widespread concern about Judge Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. This has arisen, in part, because of a 1985 statement by Judge Alito that the Constitution does not provide the right to an abortion," said Specter. "This hearing will give Judge Alito the public forum to address the issue, as he has with senators in private meetings, that his personal views and prior advocacy will not determine his judicial decision." --From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears (Posted 12:30 p.m.)
"

I await his answer to this. I happen to agree with the judge in this regard. Nowhere in the Consitiution is there a specific reference to abortion.


hmmm. which could also mean that the constitution does not prohibit it. <shrugs>

i was thinking about this last night. for some reason, it popped into my head that similarly, the constitution doesn't provide for a president to emancipate slaves that were bought and paid for by american citizens.

and yet, it was still the right thing to do.

so i wonder, do the anti-abortion proponents feel like a woman has less right to self determination of her physical body than the mistreated and physically abused slaves had ?

more importantly, does alito feel that way?

just a thought. Confused


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html

"Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "


but the emancipation took place in 1863, years before the XIII was enacted.

so we're still left with the question about a woman's rights regarding self determination of her physical body.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:50 pm
The abortion issue is a side track. More important, IMO, is any recent role and views he holds towards executive privelege a plenary authority.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:57 pm
I agree. There are a lot of things that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. There's nothing in there about heart bypass surgery either, but if a state came up with a law against it, you can bet your ass we'd be challenging it on Constitutional grounds.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 02:01 pm
squinney wrote:
The abortion issue is a side track. More important, IMO, is any recent role and views he holds towards executive privelege a plenary authority.


is it? it seems to be a fairly core indicator of how a person feels about a citizen's personal freedom and liberty.

and by extension, the exec / plenary authority ?

what i mean is, to me at least, american citizens are either free and entitled to personal liberty and privacy, or we are not.

but, i do agree with you, what i've heard so far sounds like alito is far more concerned with giving more power to the presidency and less to the people and their elected representitives. surely, grampa dick is beside himself with glee at the prospect.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 06:19 pm
(DTOM sighting, DTOM sighting, whoo-hoo!)

(Howyadoin'?)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 07:47 pm
Kennedy could not figure out how to pronounce Alito and was calling him Alleyeto or something like that. Ha, what a dope.

Anyway to answer the question about not answering questions, the answer is simple. And of course liberal judges used the very same reasoning when they go through the confirmation process. Judges are not supposed to judge according to their personal belief. That is the theory. Everyone can debate whether they do it or not. So judges are supposed to judge a decision based on the law and if judging the constitutionality, according to what the constitution says, not what you can imagine it says. So if judges did their jobs absolutely perfectly, their personal opinions on issues do not matter. Their only pertinent skill is their ability to interpret law and the constitution as it is written.

Furthermore, there are more good reasons for them not to know how they would rule on something. As a Supreme Court justice, they would be aware of all the case before them, all the supporting evidence, and there would be extended study of the entire case for and against, plus all preceeding decisions that may impact the case. It is impossible to know all of this before they are actually sitting on the court and have access to everything about the case. To say again, a justice is pledged to interpret the law, not make it.

If a nominee comes out with how he would definitely rule on a case he has not seen the details of, that would not only be ill advised, but would likely show incompetence. The Democrats are so hypocritical about this because they know this. They are only trying to play the game of trying to make him look bad.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:57 am
I listened to Kennedy's lecture to Alito for 5 minutes this morning and I couldn't stomach any more of it. I had to turn it off. The man makes me physically sick. Is this as good as the Democrat Party has? Pathetic.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 10:54 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
but the emancipation took place in 1863, years before the XIII was enacted.



Not to change the subject, but just to clarify the point, slavery did not become unconstitutional until the 13th Amendment. Lincoln's proclamation of Jan 1, 1863 used his war powers to free only those slaves owned by people who were then currently in rebellion against the elected authorities of the United States. Slaves in the border states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky were not freed by the proclamation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Alito - take him or leave him
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:43:36