PDA

View Full Version : 52-48 Judge Samuel Alito Confirmed


ndebord
January 31st, 2006, 11:29 AM
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said at his confirmation hearing: "I'm my own person. And I'm not like any other justice on the Supreme Court now or anybody else who served on the Supreme Court in the past."

An interesting self-analysis by a judge who is likely to be the linchpin of conservatism on the Supreme Court.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. The 4 horsemen, if you'll pardon the dig.

P.S. Pls accept my apology for the original typo in which I said Alito was confirmed by a 52-48 vote. My typo or perhaps wishful thinking on my part.

Sigh

lensue
January 31st, 2006, 05:13 PM
>52-48 Judge Samuel Alito Confirmed <

Nick, I think you may have gotten the title of the thread wrong--the NY Times article says:
"Alito Is Sworn In as Justice After 58-42 Vote to Confirm Him" Regards, Len

rlohmann
January 31st, 2006, 05:54 PM
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. The 4 horsemen, if you'll pardon the dig.I'm sure the Usual Suspects are all off drowning their sorrows in some sleazy Democrat bar. :D

ndebord
January 31st, 2006, 07:30 PM
>52-48 Judge Samuel Alito Confirmed <

Nick, I think you may have gotten the title of the thread wrong--the NY Times article says:
"Alito Is Sworn In as Justice After 58-42 Vote to Confirm Him" Regards, Len

Len,

I plead failure of the fingers to translate the brain's instructions (or if you are a conspiracy theorist), my brain preferred the numbers I typed rather than the actual ones of these spineless senators (my opinion, others may differ).

ndebord
January 31st, 2006, 07:34 PM
I'm sure the Usual Suspects are all off drowning their sorrows in some sleazy Democrat bar. :D


Ralph,

Finally you have said a true thing. Yes, we're off drowning our sorrows, for tomorrow we may wake up and find the Republic is no more and we lost it on our watch.

ndebord
January 31st, 2006, 07:48 PM
I'm sure the Usual Suspects are all off drowning their sorrows in some sleazy Democrat bar. :D

But of course we are, as we are mourning the potential loss of our republican system of government, possibily eplaced by a unitary presidency led by our very own fundamentalist leader who responds to a "higher authority" than the rule of law. All it needs is for Kennedy to go along with the four horsemen.

Lindsey
February 1st, 2006, 01:18 AM
Finally you have said a true thing. Yes, we're off drowning our sorrows, for tomorrow we may wake up and find the Republic is no more and we lost it on our watch.
Funny, when I read Ralph's message, I was thinking along those same lines. If I weep, it is for my country. But it was not an unexpected thing; we've known that was coming since November 2000. It's only surprising that it took this long for it to actually happen.

--Lindsey

lensue
February 1st, 2006, 09:50 AM
>my brain preferred the numbers I typed rather than the actual ones of these spineless senators <

Nick, LOL on what you typed versus what you preferred! BTW why do you say spineless--the senators who voted for Alito may truly support him and feel he deserved the appointment--you may feel they are wrong but which senators were actually spineless. Regards, Len

lensue
February 1st, 2006, 09:55 AM
>If I weep, it is for my country. <

Lindsey, isn't this a little bit alarmist--a fully qualified and person of great integrity got appointed to the Supreme Court. This weeping almost reminds me of the nabobs of negativism from the Agnew days. Regards, Len

RayB (France)
February 1st, 2006, 02:59 PM
>If I weep, it is for my country. <

Lindsey, isn't this a little bit alarmist--a fully qualified and person of great integrity got appointed to the Supreme Court. This weeping almost reminds me of the nabobs of negativism from the Agnew days. Regards, Len

Fool!! Don't you realize that the sky is falling? For shame!

ndebord
February 1st, 2006, 03:23 PM
>my brain preferred the numbers I typed rather than the actual ones of these spineless senators <

Nick, LOL on what you typed versus what you preferred! BTW why do you say spineless--the senators who voted for Alito may truly support him and feel he deserved the appointment--you may feel they are wrong but which senators were actually spineless. Regards, Len

Len,

First off, I give no credit for any Senator who would vote for prospective justices as far from the mainstream as Alito (or Roberts for that matter*). So off with their heads: all 58 of them.

*Roberts voted with Scalia and Thomas against Oregon's assisted suicide law. They lost 6-3, but the vote calls into question some of the veiled promises he made at the time about honoring the right to privacy and upholding states' rights over federal. With Alito on the court that vote would have been 5-4.

Writing for the majority, Kennedy said, "Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance.''

Writing for the minority, Scalia said, "...if the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.''

Roberts, Thomas and Scalia all supported the White House which said through White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages.''

lensue
February 1st, 2006, 08:00 PM
>First off, I give no credit for any Senator who would vote for prospective justices as far from the mainstream as Alito (or Roberts for that matter*). So off with their heads: all 58 of them.<

Nick, thanks for the info--I have to admit I haven't given much thought to this issue--my point though is calling the senators spineless. Obviously those senators and you disagree--but could you explain how that makes them spineless as opposed to just voting their convictions. Regards, Len

lensue
February 1st, 2006, 08:02 PM
>Don't you realize that the sky is falling?<

Ray, now you tell me--I got a trip to Costa Rica coming up in late Feb--can the sky wait at least until after the trip! Regards, Len [g]

Lindsey
February 1st, 2006, 11:43 PM
a fully qualified and person of great integrity
I think "great" integrity is going a bit far. He has a clean ethics record. That's commendable, but I don't think that makes him a candidate for sainthood, except, perhaps, in the ethical cesspool that exists within the Washington beltway.

Meanwhile, integrity and legal smarts don't mean that he isn't also an extremist. What part of his record we have been allowed to see has some troubling aspects to it, not the least of which is his devotion to the "unitary executive" theory, which more or less says that in time of war (declared or not), the president is God. And that kind of thinking is extremely dangerous to a democratic republic.

--Lindsey

lensue
February 2nd, 2006, 08:02 AM
>unitary executive<

Lindsey, thanks, I'll have to read more about this theory with which I'm not familiar. Still your use of the terms "candidate for sainthood" and "the president is God" strike me as being kind of extreme statements themselves. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 2nd, 2006, 09:10 AM
Unfortunately, they're not extreme statements. The issue in the unitary executive theory as espoused by this President is whether we have three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, that act as checks and balances on each other, or whether -- in time of war (here, undeclared and against an unseen, amorphous enemy) -- the executive can make decisions that can't be changed or reviewed or affected in any way by the legislative or judicial branches. President Bush has taken the position (for example) that he can make the decision in specific cases not to abide by the anti-torture legislation that passed the Congress and that he signed and that his decision can't be reviewed by the courts.

Judy G. Russell
February 2nd, 2006, 09:12 AM
As you know, I know Sam Alito personally and worked for him. I do regard him as a man of great integrity. I didn't (and don't) want him on the Court; I did (and do) disagree with him substantially on a wide variety of political issues. But he is personally as decent a man and as straight a shooter as you're likely to find.

lensue
February 2nd, 2006, 08:26 PM
>Unfortunately, they're not extreme statements<

Judy, thanks, I'm studying all these things when I can--still I think the statements about Alito's "sainthood" and Bush being "god" were extreme. Doesn't mean we can't all explore your points more carefully. Apparently Lincoln took certain powers when he was President and the Civil War was on. I definitely believe that Nixon went to far when he refused to turn over his tapes. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 2nd, 2006, 08:30 PM
Lincoln did take steps while President that were later held unconstitutional. I understand that in a nation divided by civil war, he may not have felt he had a choice, but his actions nonetheless were ultimately reviewed by the courts, even during the war. Bush is claiming his actions cannot be reviewed.

Lindsey
February 2nd, 2006, 09:47 PM
But he is personally as decent a man and as straight a shooter as you're likely to find.
I don't doubt that a bit. But it does not make him a saint. Some of those who burned people for witchcraft were personally decent people, too. Many who owned slaves were personally decent people. It didn't keep them from being profoundly WRONG.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 2nd, 2006, 10:17 PM
still I think the statements about Alito's "sainthood" and Bush being "god" were extreme.
I'm sorry you don't understand figures of speech, Len.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 2nd, 2006, 10:20 PM
I'll have to read more about this theory with which I'm not familiar.
I doubt there is any such thing as a perfectly neutral exposition of "unitary executive," but this explanation (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html) seems to me to be an honest attempt at a fair analysis.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 2nd, 2006, 10:23 PM
No, it doesn't make him a saint and it doesn't make him (necessarily) a good judge. But it is at least something of a silver lining in an otherwise politically very dark cloud. Think about it: we could have had someone with the same political viewpoint and the ethics and morals of, say, Karl Rove.

Lindsey
February 2nd, 2006, 10:38 PM
Think about it: we could have had someone with the same political viewpoint and the ethics and morals of, say, Karl Rove.
Yeah; in which case, it would indeed be time to start looking at the "Help Wanted" ads in Nova Scotia.

--Lindsey

ndebord
February 2nd, 2006, 10:53 PM
No, it doesn't make him a saint and it doesn't make him (necessarily) a good judge. But it is at least something of a silver lining in an otherwise politically very dark cloud. Think about it: we could have had someone with the same political viewpoint and the ethics and morals of, say, Karl Rove.


Judy,

Ethics and morals in the same sentence with dirty trickster Karl Rowe?

GAG

lensue
February 3rd, 2006, 08:49 AM
>Bush is claiming his actions cannot be reviewed.<

Judy, did he say that--well I have to disagree with him on that--certainly his actions should be reviewed. Talk about presidents who didn't want things reviewed reminds me of Nixon not wanting to release his tapes until impeachment arrived. [g] I was reminded of that just the other day watching one of the segments of a 10 hour series PBS did on the Presidency--it's a superb show and I'm so glad I had the sense to tape it. [g]
"THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, first series to profile all 41 U.S. chief executives, uses exclusive interviews with Presidents Clinton, Bush, Ford, and Carter and the voices of well-known figures for leaders before sound recording: Colin Powell, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Bob Dole, Walter Cronkite, Don Imus, Ben Bradlee, John Glenn, James Carville, Andrew Young, and the Rev. Billy Graham. Narrated by Hugh Sidey, veteran Time Magazine correspondent." Regards, Len

RayB (France)
February 3rd, 2006, 08:50 AM
No, it doesn't make him a saint and it doesn't make him (necessarily) a good judge. But it is at least something of a silver lining in an otherwise politically very dark cloud. Think about it: we could have had someone with the same political viewpoint and the ethics and morals of, say, Karl Rove.

I just KNEW he shouldn't be confirmed . . . . . first thing he did was side with the bad guys! Woe is me!

lensue
February 3rd, 2006, 08:55 AM
>I'm sorry you don't understand figures of speech<

Lindsey, I thought I did--I just thought your remarks went a little overboard. I don't think Bush could nominate a saint for the Supreme Court but he happened to pick a very well qualified and man of great integrity--you're comment implying he's not exactly a saint or words to that effect seems unfair to me. Regards, Len

lensue
February 3rd, 2006, 09:23 AM
>seems to me to be an honest attempt at a fair analysis<

Lindsey, thanks for the article. I'll quote some of it and just because I happen to disagree with your views please don't feel I don't respect your viewpoints but here's how I see it.

"the President does not have unlimited executive authority, not even as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Our government was purposely created with power split between three branches, not concentrated in one...Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power - with real power concentrated solely in the "unitary executive" - is exactly what President Bush seeks. His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point: In Bush's view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive...In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other....Americans need to decide whether we are still a country of laws - and if we are, we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government."

My feeling is that the author has overstepped with some of his conclusions--I don't think the case is made for Bush wanting "real power concentrated solely in the "unitary executive." It's the use of the term "solely" that gets me. In certain areas he is jousting for power against Congress but not all areas.

This statement too seems an over reach: "overt refusal to follow the laws." There's a debate about certain laws but to say Bush refuses to follow the laws I take that to mean any laws which is certainly not the case--in general Bush is following the laws. There are a few very serious matters which the country is debating and we'll have to see how the surveillance of phone call issue plays out.

And this too seems a large exaggeration to me: "In Bush's view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive...In America, the law is king." I don't think Bush believes that--there is a dispute as I've said in certain areas which will have to be played out by Congress, the President and the Court but I don't think either the author of this article or you have made a case that Bush believes there is no limitation of power--he went before Congress just the other night and gave what I thought was a good speech from his side--the Democrats were then given ample time to make their case which I think they presented well . I think Bush realizes that the voters will make their decisions at the polls and Congress and the Court will continue to function. It's the extreme nature of your statements that I find hard to accept--the exaggerations that I disagree with you on. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 3rd, 2006, 03:29 PM
I keep telling you: if I leave the country it's going to be to someplace WARM.

Judy G. Russell
February 3rd, 2006, 03:30 PM
Ethics and morals in the same sentence with dirty trickster Karl Rowe? GAGHe has them. They approximate those of a snake, but he does have them.

Judy G. Russell
February 3rd, 2006, 03:32 PM
I'm not surprised by that first vote: it was a question of whether or not to maintain the status quo, and traditionally that is what you do as a judge if you're not ready to consider the merits. He hasn't been presented with any substantive issues yet. Let's see what he does. I have some hopes that he is the kind of judge who can grow into the position; he is certainly the kind of man who can, if he can set the politics of 20-25 years ago aside.

Lindsey
February 3rd, 2006, 05:21 PM
Well, it is of course impossible to know what Bush really believes, because nobody can know what (if anything) is inside his head. The author of the article was taking the president's actions and his statements to their logical conclusion. If you think her logic is faulty, then you need to make a logical case for that; you can't argue on the basis of your belief about what Bush believes. Not if you with to make a convincing refutation of the other person's case.

I will only add that I don't see that the phrase "overt refusal to follow the laws" has to mean refusal to follow any law at all. Overt refusal to follow FISA and the laws prohibiting torture certainly seem to me to justify the use of that phrase, especially when the implication of the reasoning employed is that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to obey.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 3rd, 2006, 05:24 PM
[QUOTE=Judy G. Russell]I'm not surprised by that first vote: it was a question of whether or not to maintain the status quo, and traditionally that is what you do as a judge if you're not ready to consider the merits./QUOTE]
Not that that stopped the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts trio. So I give him good marks on his first vote, and am encouraged to see that even though he was nominated to be a justice in the Scalie-Thomas mould, he is not necessarily taking marching orders from them.

--Lindsey

lensue
February 3rd, 2006, 08:30 PM
> The author of the article was taking the president's actions and his statements to their logical conclusion.<

Lindsey, I'm not sure the author succeeded but I'll have to wait to see on this.

> I will only add that I don't see that the phrase "overt refusal to follow the laws" has to mean refusal to follow any law at all. <

Funny I think they're pretty close--I do think Bush will follow most laws--if not he'll wind up like Nixon--impeachable [g] Regards, Len

Lindsey
February 3rd, 2006, 11:42 PM
>I do think Bush will follow most laws
"Most laws" is not good enough, Len. Even the worst criminals follow most laws. The president does not get to pick which laws he will follow and which he will not any more than any other citizen does. And it's precisely his claim that he can do that that is at issue.

The president, in fact, is under an even greater obligation than most citizens, because he has sworn a solemn oath to "faithfully execute the laws". The oath doesn't say "faithfully execute the laws except when I don't like them."

--Lindsey

lensue
February 4th, 2006, 08:18 AM
>And it's precisely his claim that he can do that that is at issue<

Lindsey, IMO he's not saying he can break the law--he feels the law is on his side and that's what will have to be thrashed out. I presume that if either Congress or the Court rules against his interpretations he will abide by their decisions--I don't think he'll try to arrest those who rule differently from his interpretation. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 4th, 2006, 09:12 AM
Len, his position is that this CAN'T be thrashed out -- that neither the Congress nor the courts have the authority to rule against him, so if they do he can ignore them.

lensue
February 4th, 2006, 11:03 AM
>Len, his position is that this CAN'T be thrashed out -- that neither the Congress nor the courts have the authority to rule against him, so if they do he can ignore them.<

Judy, I must have missed that in the news--isn't there going to be Congressional hearings on this?
A NY Times article on Feb 2 states:

"While the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public hearing next week to explore legal issues surrounding the N.S.A. program, the entire Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet been briefed on it. Mr. Roberts tried to head off the Democratic attack by announcing that the panel would be briefed in closed session on the program on Feb. 9 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence. In addition, he said, the committee would hold a closed business session on Feb. 16 to discuss whether to hold further hearings or open an inquiry into the program, as Mr. Rockefeller has urged." Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 4th, 2006, 06:19 PM
The point is not whether Congress will speak on the issue. The point is whether Bush believes he is not obliged to listen, even if Congress (or a court) does speak. His view is that when it comes to anything that he (and he alone) says is within the war power of the executive, neither the legislative (Congress) nor judicial (courts) branches have any right to say anything at all. That's what all the brouhaha was when he signed the anti-torture bill that passed Congress and did so with a statement that it was with an eye on his powers and the limits of judicial review. In other words, "I'll sign this into law, but if I don't want to abide by it, I don't have to."

lensue
February 4th, 2006, 10:55 PM
>The point is not whether Congress will speak on the issue. The point is whether Bush believes he is not obliged to listen, even if Congress (or a court) does speak.<

Judy, well let's watch this one and see if Congress or the court speaks and Bush doesn't heed--we can wager a glass of sangria! Regards, Len [g]

Lindsey
February 5th, 2006, 09:38 PM
Judy, well let's watch this one and see if Congress or the court speaks and Bush doesn't heed--we can wager a glass of sangria! Regards, Len [g]
Congress has already spoken on the issue of domestic surveillance, and Bush has not only not heeded them, he has openly defied them. That's the whole source of the current dispute.

--Lindsey

lensue
February 5th, 2006, 10:21 PM
>Congress has already spoken on the issue of domestic surveillance, and Bush has not only not heeded them, he has openly defied them<

Lindsey, well apparently more is to come next week--I'll wait to see if anything new is added or done. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 5th, 2006, 10:34 PM
Hey I'll even wager a full pitcher!

lensue
February 6th, 2006, 08:15 AM
>Hey I'll even wager a full pitcher!<

Judy, red or white sangria! Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 6th, 2006, 11:08 AM
>Hey I'll even wager a full pitcher!<

Judy, red or white sangria! Regards, Len [g]Yes. (Either, both!)