Alito for Supreme Court Thread

[Cdewarior]

Does anyone else smell a Rove in this nomination?
You nominate a woman, vastly underqualified, so you have the 'we tried a woman' excuse while at the same time lowering the bar to such a point that any conservative judge you appoint who has any kind of credentials all of a sudden lookes like Oliver Holmes reborn.

I gotta say I know the man needs to re-solidify his base but come on, do you have to use a Supreme Court nomination to do it?
I hope the democrats filibuster his ass and force Republicans to change the rules.

[Kanaric]

Eh, at least hes not a cronie. Or maybe thats the way rove wants us to think!?

[Francisco Montana]

I hope the democrats filibuster his ass and force Republicans to change the rules.

I'm not jumping up and down about Alito, but truth be known, it's the Dems that changed the rules by filibustering judicial nominees in the 1st place. Something that had never been done on a nominee known to have the votes needed for confirmation. Never. So if the Reps 'change' the rules, it will only be in order to enforce over 200 years of Senate tradition, that until now, didn't need enforcing because nobody had the gaul to impose their will on the majority until this Dem leadership took over as the minority.

I'll wait to find out more about Alito before I pass judgement (punn intended).

[Kanaric]

I have HUGE doubts on the comment about people not filibustering judges in the past.

Judges will always be blocked, if the republicans were in power they would do the exact same thing. Clinton tried to appoint judges and TONS more were blocked by republicans than what democrats have supposidly done to the ruling party now.

[Francisco Montana]

Again, the facts are facts. Never in the history of the Senate has any judicial nominee been filibustered when it was clear they had the votes nessecary on the floor to win confirmation. Never. Not until this Dem minority at least.

Clinton's nominees were not filibustered. The Republican leadership which ran the committee would drag their feet on bringing some to committee, but they weren't filibustered. That was also perfectly normal and traditional in the Senate. After all, this country was founded on majority rule, not the other way around.

[Kanaric]

with minority rights. Minority has a right to *****. Filibustering doesn't stop the apointing, only delays it. I still doubt that a judge has never been filibustered, I doubt democrats pulled that out of their ass. Leaves them wide opened for an attack and i've never heard that arguement in tv ads yet.

BTW did they actually filibuster any judges yet?

[Peachy Carnehan]

Well, he looks god to me.

[danzig]

with minority rights. Minority has a right to *****. Filibustering doesn't stop the apointing, only delays it. I still doubt that a judge has never been filibustered, I doubt democrats pulled that out of their ass. Leaves them wide opened for an attack and i've never heard that arguement in tv ads yet.

BTW did they actually filibuster any judges yet?

Filbusting can stop a nomination because it simply stops it from advancing, why do you think Bolton was an out of term appointment? Despite the fact he had enough votes to be confirmed to UN post his nomination was basically blocked. In the case of Alto most likely he will have the votes to get confirmed the question will be whether Democrats try and gridlock it. Remember you only need 40 senators to basically block it, the Democrats hold 44 seats even if a nomination hold a majority it can be tied up.

And yes the democrats HAVE filibuster judges it was the whole point of the threat of the 'nuclear option'. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS...ght/index.html They basically blocked Priscilla Owens.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...4508-7971r.htm

[JP226]

same here, I think it's a great pick

[Francisco Montana]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9i.htm



I'm sorry Kanaric. You seem like a nice guy from what I've read of you before, but I don't have time right now to dig all your requests up. Go look for yourself. Yes the Dems actually filibustered a judge, how do you think we got to the "Constitutional" or "Nuclear" option in the 1st place?

And so far Alito seems very, very qualified. Maybe even more qualified than Roberts was, and those were some heavy credentials he brought into the hearings with him. Now let's see how he does in front of the committee.

[Francisco Montana]

TY Danzig. Between my son pulling at my arm and my wife asking me 100 questions a minute, I just didn't have the time to find specific links.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Judges will always be blocked, if the republicans were in power they would do the exact same thing. Clinton tried to appoint judges and TONS more were blocked by republicans than what democrats have supposidly done to the ruling party now..

Then how did Ginsberg sail in with an almost unanimous vote? As has been said

Never in the history of the Senate has any judicial nominee been filibustered when it was clear they had the votes nessecary on the floor to win confirmation. Never. Not until this Dem minority at least.

Also they wont be able to filibuster it or have your forgotten the deal struck by the gang of 14? Its pretty funny hear the dems say he should appoint a Judge like O connor. I didnt realise they had won the election.

[Atheist Peace]

I really really hate questioning the nominees on personal views and related things, but some of the things about this guy really raise some questions. He seems to be a huge advocate of big government stepping into the personal lives of citizens.

I usually think that when it comes down to it, nothing much should matter than the person being qualified and not too "activist" on the bench, but when someone is a threat, questions must be asked.

[Sétanta]

i agree that nominees shouldnt be questioned on personal issues. umm well this new guy looks good. if he gets confirmed than there will be 5 catholics on the supreme court which isnt a bad thing but i thought i would throw that out

[Rush Limbaugh]

Its pretty amazing considering Americas life long fear of Catholics.

[Francisco Montana]

Its pretty funny hear the dems say he should appoint a Judge like O connor. I didnt realise they had won the election.

It's amazing. I must have missed that election aswell.

[danzig]

It's amazing. I must have missed that election aswell.

One thing Democrats will have a problem with is Alito was voted unanimously by the Senate for his court of appeals seat and Ted Kennedy who is now attacking him said he had distinguished/worthy record so it will be tough to explain why was he voted in so decisively then that makes him suddenly so unworthy for Supreme Court.

And since most people won't know what I mean, or will pretend not to, I only mean that it is necessary to make sure that someone is not a radical, extremist, not suggesting this guy is hitler or anything.

Yeah that should be the limit of why you explore their political views, obviously someone who has no respect for the rule of law and the consitution has no business being on the supreme court. Of course it always goes beyond that as its clear there are more then a few democrats and republicans who generally require a judge hold a certain view to be approved.

[Nationalist_Cause]

The problem is that Dems, and most women, want the next nominee to be a woman. If that is the most important thing, then they had one. They complained she wasn't qualified enough, and I agree. But if it is quality people are looking for (and I assume we all are) then what difference does it make if it is a man or a woman? The whole "we must have another woman" debate smacks of sexism and discrimination against men. At any rate, Bush could have picked known female conservative circuit judges and that wouldn't have been good enough. What women and Dems want is a judge who is pro-choice. That is all they care about.

[Atheist Peace]

The problem is that Dems, and most women, want the next nominee to be a woman. If that is the most important thing, then they had one. They complained she wasn't qualified enough, and I agree. But if it is quality people are looking for (and I assume we all are) then what difference does it make if it is a man or a woman? The whole "we must have another woman" debate smacks of sexism and discrimination against men. At any rate, Bush could have picked known female conservative circuit judges and that wouldn't have been good enough. What women and Dems want is a judge who is pro-choice. That is all they care about.

Although it is good to get some kind of diversity on the court, I really am getting angry with all of this crap. Wolf Blitzer asked at least 5 or 6 different people in about one hour of "The situation room" the same question about whether they were angry the nominee was not a woman or "minority." Bush did not choose this guy to get more white guys on the court, it's who he felt was the best choice. Whether it's for his qualifications or his "judicial philosophy." (I strongly tend to think that the former is more of a vehicle for the latter here) The only thing all that whining does is almsot make me want every nominee to be white and male.

[Total Warrior X]

I think the Supreme Court should be a huge computer that interpets the constitution. No ideologies...thats just me.

I hope the Dems filibuster this nominee...this guy is more conservetive than John Roberts. He actually thinks congress has no right to ban automatic weapons. I at least tolerated John Roberts.