Alito as Supreme Court Justice: Are you concerned?

The Republicans captured the center through disgust with the Dem. corruption in 94; but they have managed to turn themselves into the same thing they derided. The only way they hold the center nowadays is through fear; fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants, fear of gays.

The Supreme court makes rulings based on facts presented before it right? It's not as though they just throw out random rulings based on the whim of the day. So, why the concern over cases that most likely will not be brought before the court? Abortion? Why would another abortion case be brought before the supreme court? They have already mad a ruling on the subject.

Also, as far as Alito's appearance to lean towards expanded executive powers... Bush has 2 years left in office. Were Hitlery to make it to the White house (which I don't think she will, but suppose she does) wouldn't that be playing into the Dem's hands? Having a Supreme Court Judge willing to side with the executive branch? But, again, the case needs to come before the court... the FULL court, not just Alito...

This is why I feel a filibuster is not only appropriate, but required.

The filibuster is the best way to have justices that are at least acceptable to the moderates on both sides of the contentious issues for which he will act as arbiter.

As opposed to the Democrat's strategy of spreading fear about Social Security, the collapse of medical care, wild claims about loss of rights, etc.. ???

There is plenty of fear mongering going around on both sides. But fear, IMO, doesn't grab the middle. It strengthens the resolve of the bases.

As to the original question - I think Alito takes a well reasoned approach to the bench. Contrary to the fear mongering from the left, I don't think Roe is any danger of being overturned any time soon (I don't expect a wholesale overturning of Roe at all. If anything, it will be an incremental chipping away at it until there isn't much left.).

ebrown_p wrote:

This is why I feel a filibuster is not only appropriate, but required.

The filibuster is the best way to have justices that are at least acceptable to the moderates on both sides of the contentious issues for which he will act as arbiter.

That the frightened, politically emasculated Democrats have proclaimed the filibuster as the guarantor of democracy is too ludicrous to be abhorrent. The filibuster is anti-democratic. It is a relic of the past, a legacy of a scrivener's oversight that has ossified into a weapon of delay in the hands of an otherwise impotent minority. It ties the Democrats to a policy of inertia, and they have thus become the party of the do-nothings (as opposed to the Republicans, who remain the party of the know-nothings). It is a travesty that we have come to this point.

The best result for the republic is for the Democrats to filibuster the Alito nomination, the Republicans to successfully exercise the nuclear option, and the filibuster to be dead and buried forever.

This is why I feel a filibuster is not only appropriate, but required.

The filibuster is the best way to have justices that are at least acceptable to the moderates on both sides of the contentious issues for which he will act as arbiter.

Reid admits Democrats can't block Alito
Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:27 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted on Friday he and fellow Democrats lack the votes to block President George W. Bush's nomination of conservative appeals judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Everyone knows there is not enough votes to support a filibuster," Reid said, referring to the procedural roadblock that some Democrats said should be used to put off a vote on Alito ...

I strongly disagree Joe -- especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court should be seen as impartial. The closest we can get is to ensure that justices are not strongly feared by a large segment of society.

The filibuster means that even when the conservative Republicans are in control of both the executive and legislative branches of the government, there is still a check on them appointing political idealogues the the Court. Likewise when liberal Democrats are in control, there will be a check on them.

The filibuster doesn't mean that the minority Democrats can appoint liberals to the Court. It means that they can block the radical ones (like Alito) while accepting those who are Conservative, but reasonably acceptable to all segments of society.

You can argue whether the moderating influence on judge selection from the filibuster is worth the political machinery. I say the end result of the ability of the minority party to filibuster is more moderate judges from both sides-- and this is a good thing.

Disagree if you must, but your reasoning ignores the obvious effect of the filibuster which is pressure for judges who aren't on the fringes. It seems clear the result will be judges that are more acceptable to a larger swath of the American political landscape.

Over 59 million Americans did not vote for George Bush.

Many, if not most of us list fears over a radical supreme court as the reason why. We largely accepted Roberts. However, Alito is exactly what we feared. A two percent electoral majority would seem to suggest a more moderate choice.

The drafters of the constitution, in their infinite wisdom, set up a process whereby the voters tend to get the judges that they want. More to the point, they tend to get the judges they deserve.

There are enough checks and balances built into the system already. There is no reason why a minority party should have any additional power to impede legislation.

Several people have commented on "How will Republicans feel when there is a Democrat in the Whitehouse?" since the nomination process began. Alito and everyone else that sits on that bench understands that administrations change too. I don't think they are to likley to defer to one branch or the other favoring one side of the political spectrum without realizing that at some later point the scales may be tipped to the other side. Seems more like an argument for why they'd exercise judicial restraint than to make any radical course changes to me.

That the frightened, politically emasculated Democrats have proclaimed the filibuster as the guarantor of democracy is too ludicrous to be abhorrent. The filibuster is anti-democratic. It is a relic of the past, a legacy of a scrivener's oversight that has ossified into a weapon of delay in the hands of an otherwise impotent minority.

After Alito takes his place on the SC, the new trend in the court's decisions will slowly move the country to the right, and all those annoying liberal ideas will be mostly forgotten by the average person. My only hope is that Bush gets to appoint another SC justice later.

After Alito takes his place on the SC, the new trend in the court's decisions will slowly move the country to the right, and all those annoying liberal ideas will be mostly forgotten by the average person. My only hope is that Bush gets to appoint another SC justice later.

After Alito takes his place on the SC, the new trend in the court's decisions will slowly move the country to the right, and all those annoying liberal ideas will be mostly forgotten by the average person. My only hope is that Bush gets to appoint another SC justice later.

The filibuster doesn't mean that the minority Democrats can appoint liberals to the Court. It means that they can block the radical ones (like Alito) while accepting those who are Conservative, but reasonably acceptable to all segments of society.

<<<<<snip>>>>>>

Over 59 million Americans did not vote for George Bush. Many, if not most of us list fears over a radical supreme court as the reason why. We largely accepted Roberts. However, Alito is exactly what we feared. A two percent electoral majority would seem to suggest a more moderate choice.