Alito - take him or leave him

I realy think Ed Kennedy should have drowned instead of the girl.

As I was reading some of these posts I felt myself in agreement. I too was thinking about how abortion, one way or the other, is not mentioned in the constitution.

I too was commenting to my co-workers about how congress wants a Justice nominee to give them opinions on how they would rule on a case without the evidence. I once called a magistrate for a legal question, in which he responded that he could not give advice in case he had to make a ruling. How can congress ask Alito what or how he would rule without him having all the information in front of him.

When are congressmen grilled aboout their beliefs?

Heaven forbid we ask someone who is going to be a lifetime appointee how they would do their job.

sheesh

Cycloptichorn

I think asking how he will do his job is perfectly fine to ask, Cy. And I think Alito has basically answered how he will go about doing it. It is the specifics of how he will rule in regard to certain possible cases that he (and all) nominees should refuse to comment on. After all, how can you say how you will rule on a case, the particulars of which you do not know? That is ridiculous. If any nominee can tell you the answer to that, then they should be immediately kicked out. After all, we don't allow people on juries who will tell you upon questioning how they will rule on a case ahead of time, so why should we expect judges to have already made up their minds about rulings on any particular issue, without knowing the particulars of a case?

For example, Alito has been undergoing a lot of questioning about presidential powers.

If Alito believes that the prez. has unlimited executive power, then that does not reflect the opinion that the vast majority of Americans have held, and therefore he should not be confirmed. In these times of presidential power grabs, wouldn't it be prudent to keep Bush from stacking the court with those who would back up his interpretation of expanded executive power? See Alito's statements on executive bill signing 'letters of intent.'

Also, there are some pretty tough questions he needs to answer about promising to recuse oneself, and then not doing so, don't you think?

Cycloptichorn

right, coastal.(and a happy new year btw ).

it additionally freed slaves in southern territories as they were reclaimed by the united states.


what i was trying to get to, though, is that the right to own or to free slaves was not covered in the constitution (as i understand it ).

hence, my feeling that when someone says "the constitution doesn't grant the right to have an abortion", my first thought is that the constitution doesn't deny that right either.

Sessions is "questioning" him now. Most of what he is doing is saying "I think...I believe and others have said about you... (insert bunch of positive sounding stuff here that many people would not agree with) would you agree with that?

Then Alito answers "Yes, blah blah blah..."


BUT, as he is answering in the afirmative, he is shaking his head no.

So I watch some more, and I notice when it is something more direct that I would expect him to agree with, and he does, he says "Yes, blah blah blah..." and is shaking his yead up and down.

Interesting.

I saw Feinstein's questioning and I thought she was the most thorough, though admittedly I didn't see them all. What I was able to hear sounded mostly like one of two things: either "you're the best, we love you, strokey strokey" or "I'm going to ask you this irrelevant and already addressed question in an angry sounding voice because it makes me feel strong". Feinstein's was very good, though.

Feinstein was superb. I loved it. Alito made no sense at all.

Alito made perfect sense. He said several times that he would not make a decision until he had all the facts. Would you rather have somebody make up their mind before they knew all the details?

ralpheb, I am trying to be intelligent on this forum by agreeing with all the liberals. They read Trudeau. He is a "national treasure." I am just trying to fit in.

Feinstein was superb AND Alito anwered very well. I don't know whay your problem is.

"Alito answered very well." This is hilarious. The Democrats are so stupid, it amazes me. Alito has learned well from Robert Bork. Don't ever say there is no "Right to Privacy" enumerated in the Constitution, which of course there is not, but it is not politically correct to say that anymore. So he admits there is such a thing implied with certain other rights that are enumerated.

But the joke is that Alito correctly says a judge is to interpret the law, thats all, the Democrats love that because they think they are following only the law as they imagine it, which they've conjured up in their minds as being implied in the law. What Alito really means, is strictly following the law, as it is written. This is just the opposite of the law as the Democrats read it of course. But I think its great they might think he is agreeing with them. The only problem is which side actually knows how to read the law, and the Constitution?

Who said that Democrats think that Alito is agreeing with them? I just said that he answered well (and I'm not a Democrat, if that's what you were getting at). I happen to believe in the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the president has the right to conduct surveillance either, but the courts decided that he does as an extension of his role as CIC. There are many many instances of that throughout our case law, and as long as Alito recognizes that then I'm fine with him. And it's pretty clear he does.

Sorry, I somehow got the impression you were a Democrat by reading some of your posts. I didn't mean to insult you. Both Democrats and Republicans apparently think they desire the rule of law. The rub comes in on what is the law.

I think Alito is a good and competent guy and would make a decent justice. I commend Bush for not nominating another liberal. Who knows what he will do for sure, but he sounds credible to me.

and if bush had nominated "another liberal", that would be bad for all americans how?

The Constitution does not grant or confer rights upon the people. When the people established the United States government, they RETAINED all their liberty interests; they surrendered nothing. The Constitution doesn't have to mention any particular LIBERTY interest in any express manner because ALL of our liberty interests, great and small, are SECURED against government denials and disparagements. Accordingly, the fact that the Constitution fails to mention abortion is not relevant.

One of the greatest blessings of LIBERTY for all individuals is the right to be left alone. The people did not delegate power to the government to intrude into the privacy of our lives. The people did not delegate power to the government to make decisions for the individual that belong to the individual to make for him or herself in accordance with his/her own conscience. The ability of the people to live together in an ordered society does not require the government to force women under the threat of criminal penalties to continue pregnancies that they desire to terminate.

And the fact remains, even if the GOVERNMENT announces that it will not recognize or secure a woman's right to self-determination, women will continue to exercise that right regardless. The only thing a state statutory ban on abortion does is to allow some people to impose their morals on others via the operation of unjust laws and deprive women of a safe means to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Inasmuch as our society hasn't advanced enough to value the rights of others and keep our noses out of their private business---then we haven't advanced to the point where wire hangers and back alleys are a thing of the past.

Debra, I certainly find nothing to disagree with you on in the above post concerning the Constitution. The problem with the Constitution where it comes to the abortion issue is simple. The USC is, in theory, to safeguard the rights of all people. The area of disagreement between the pro-abortionist and the anti-abortionists is at what point a child is covered by the safeguards in the USC.

Those who argue a pro-life stance believe that a child has legal rights at conception, for at that point life begins. Those who argue a pro-abortion stance believe that a child does not gain the legal protection of constitutional rights until some other point of time (either birth or a selected length of time after conception).

As you said, the fact that the USC does not enumerate each and every right does not mean a right does not exist. So anyone arguing that abortion is not enumerated in the USC and should thus be illegal is arguing from an untenable starting point.

Viewed in this manner, Alito's view on abortion (actually, any judges view) as it concerns the constitution must be based on some belief as to when life begins, for it is only at that point that the USC becomes involved.

yep, and there doesn't seem to be a likelyhood of a unanimous agreement on that in the near future.

as things are now, there's nothing to stop a person from asserting that a child's life begins at the time of his father and mother's conception.

so where would that leave us with issues like the death penalty and war ? would self defense still be a viable legal argument ?

it's a kinda kooky pov, but that's never stopped anyone from putting something out there.

I believe there has just been a precedent set for this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/11/fetus.carpool.ap/index.html

If the fetus doesn't count as a person for carpool lanes, then it obviously doesn't count for other matters.

Cycloptichorn

Well there we go Cy. The definitive answer.