Bush to nominate Alito for Supreme Court

[Chopper Dave]

Don't you worry Larry there will always be sluts that get knocked up and don't want to become a responsible mom as well as dirtbag guys who dont step up and become a responsible dad.

Why are you sniveling?

Even if Roe v Wade is overturned as it should be it only means that it goes back to the states instead of having 5 judges tell the nation that its ok to commit infanticide it will be the people in the states to make that decision.

Or do you think I should invest in companies that make coat hangers as other doom and gloomers want us to believe.

ND, are you pro-death penalty?

[Thiebear]

Pro-choice is no more infanticide then pro-republican is pro-dictatorship.

Pro-choice means abortion first. Anything esle is scoffed at.

Pro-republican mean smaller government.

So you would be wrong in theory on both. (as you point out all the time with smaller gov't and Bush)

Still a good off the cuff shot though.

[visionary]

Here is what McCain said about Alito so far.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9877442/

McCain discusses Alito, possible filibuster

Arizona Senator tells Imus he wants to avoid 'blowing up the Senate'

Updated: 12:49 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2005

Just minutes after word leaked that President Bush would nominate Judge Samuel Alito as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court in place of Harriet Miers, Monday, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) appeared on the 'Imus in the Morning' program and discussed the nomination and the man.

"He has a very good temperament. I think the nickname 'Scalito' came more from the fact that he's very smart," McCain said, noting Alito's nickname is known as a take on conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's name and philosophy. "(He) has impressed a lot of people. I know the president said he was going to pick somebody conservative. That's the way he campaigned and that's what we have here."

McCain said he expected that Alito's conservative credentials will incite talk in the Senate of a possible filibuster among Democrats, and necessitate a meeting among the 14 moderate Senators he helped organize last Spring to prevent the blocking of judicial nominees.

"It's going to mean that the Gang of 14 will meet sometime in the next couple of days and we'll try and see what everybody's temperature is. I would certainly like to avoid filibustering and blowing up the Senate."

McCain declined to offer his support to Alito in full before hearings occur.

"I've always been favorably disposed toward a president's nominee. I voted for (Clinton nominees) Justice (Stephen) Breyer and Justice (Ruth Bader) Ginsberg because I think elections have consequences," he said. "I didn't share their political philosophy or judicial philosophy, so I'm certainly favorably disposed. But again, that's why we have hearings in the Judiciary. That's why we go through all the examination of people's record. I hope that we could get this thing done and get it behind us."

"I believe Harriet Miers should have had a hearing," he added. "I thought she should have had a hearing, and I believe Judge Alito will perform well. From everything I've heard about him, he's quite an intellect."

Click here to read the full transcript of Don Imus' interview Monday with Sen. John McCain.

Watch 'Imus in the Morning' each weekday on MSNBC at 6 a.m.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9877442/

[visionary]

Also check out some of his rulings, via the link in the middle of this article...(The link is labeled, notable decisions, see below)

""Since he's been on the court, he has been a very outspoken conservative voice, and that's where you're going start to see objections," Toobin said. (Notable decisions)"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

I think some may be suprised by a few of his rulings.

[Chopper Dave]

Pro-choice means abortion first. Anything esle is scoffed at.

Pro-republican mean smaller government.

So you would be wrong in theory on both. (as you point out all the time with smaller gov't and Bush)

Still a good off the cuff shot though.

First of all, you're wrong about pro-choice. It's not called pro-abortion, it's called pro-choice, and that's for a reason. It's about giving women a choice.

And by your definition, if you're pro-republican, then how can you support the current administration?

[Ignatius J.]

Well, I know I don't agree with his thinking, but no big suprise there. I think a law requiring women to tell thier spouses before an abortion is pretty dumb. That doesn't mean that I think women shouldn't tell thier spouses, just that we don't really NEED a law for that. Smaller government and all...

[Thiebear]

Well, I know I don't agree with his thinking, but no big suprise there. I think a law requiring women to tell thier spouses before an abortion is pretty dumb. That doesn't mean that I think women shouldn't tell thier spouses, just that we don't really NEED a law for that. Smaller government and all...

I believe what he said though was: The people of Pennsylvania?? voted for this so they can have it... No need to legislate from the bench.

[Thiebear]

First of all, you're wrong about pro-choice. It's not called pro-abortion, it's called pro-choice, and that's for a reason. It's about giving women a choice.

And by your definition, if you're pro-republican, then how can you support the current administration?

Um, you can't! That was my point...

If its about choice? Why is that never brought up?

Spousal notification: Should be shot down: In Penns

Parental Notification: Cant have that.

Telling the patient about adoption and other means... why bother... it may disuade them..

It's Pro-Abortion and the other side is Anti-Abortion. The pretty names are used to try and fool the 15% they need.

Both of his statements were wrong in their current context.

[Ghost of]

Wow, to read this thread the ONLY issue in the history of United States Constitutional law and interpretation is abortion.

tell you what, I'm the first to say abortion is not my 'litmus test' for a variety of reasons. But even if Alito had been fanatically pro-abort BUT was a Janice Rogers Brown on every other issue---the left would be up in arms.

Basically, they want someone who will turn into a O'Connor or someone who will be a Ginsburg. I understand why, I'm not hating them for their 'desire' it's just that their principles are actually counter to those the country was founded on, by and large (not 100 percent, of course.)

That's OK, but why not just admit it and move on with it rather than act like someone stole your lunch money because the ideological base of the party in power wanted someone who would actually help restore original intent.

That all said, not sure if Alito fills that bill entirely. Don't know if he'll take a slightly more libertarian stance, as Thomas has done in some cases, if he makes it to the USSC. If he's Scalia, that actually HELPS liberals as Scalia hews to that absurd stare decisis, which would actually keep some laws standing, provided there was a deep enough precedent for them.

[Ignatius J.]

Actually thiebear, I am very interested to know what his thinking was, I'm sure we'll find some opinions posted over the next few weeks to get an idea of how he came to this decision. I have not passed judgement yet, just saying that I probably don't agree with him.

I can't imagine he's a populist though.

Ghost,

It will be interesting to see if this guy is a libertarian at all. I get the feeling that he's going to be a died in the wool conservative who could care less about personal freedom. (just going on what this administration is about) If he's a "real" conservative or liberatrian, you would see my opinion of him improve.

Also, the problem with calling someone a libertarian is that it is largely meaningless. No one really believes in them because the real libertarian platform is crazy. So the interesting question is, where do you start to make the compromises. That is what separates guys like cho and I from you ghost. We all like the idea of smaller government, but believe the government needs to do different things. We differ greatly in how we are not libertarian. Who doesn't like smaller government?

[Chopper Dave]

Um, you can't! That was my point...

If its about choice? Why is that never brought up?

Spousal notification: Should be shot down: In Penns

Parental Notification: Cant have that.

Telling the patient about adoption and other means... why bother... it may disuade them..

It's Pro-Abortion and the other side is Anti-Abortion. The pretty names are used to try and fool the 15% they need.

Both of his statements were wrong in their current context.

TB, first, you're confusing me. Use a few less pronouns.

Secondly, I'm not necessarily against parental notification or suggesting alternatives. I'm just against getting rid of the option of abortion. While overturning R v. W wouldn't do that, it would in many states.

[@DCGoldPants]

whatever your stance on the guy...... it smacks of just trying to get somebody through.

Miers was thought to be an easy "yes-woman" who would face little trouble. But in the end, his own party wasn't going to support it, and the President showed that he's also scared of an up or down vote when its not a lock in his favor.

Now with this nomination, its basically saying "You didn't like my pick, so tell me who you want. Because, I have no idea what's going on here".

This isn't the President's pick, we saw the President's pick either quit or be forced to quit last week. This is the pick that smacks of weakness by taking the fight out of the President's hands, and into the Senate's.

and Pro-Choice doesn't mean Pro-Abortion.

I'm Pro-Choice, but would never want my Queen to get an Abortion unless there were serious health risks to the Mother or Child. But, that doesn't mean I should be making the choice for anybody else. Its just my belief.

[DjTj]

Wow, to read this thread the ONLY issue in the history of United States Constitutional law and interpretation is abortion.

tell you what, I'm the first to say abortion is not my 'litmus test' for a variety of reasons. But even if Alito had been fanatically pro-abort BUT was a Janice Rogers Brown on every other issue---the left would be up in arms.

Basically, they want someone who will turn into a O'Connor or someone who will be a Ginsburg. I understand why, I'm not hating them for their 'desire' it's just that their principles are actually counter to those the country was founded on, by and large (not 100 percent, of course.)

That's OK, but why not just admit it and move on with it rather than act like someone stole your lunch money because the ideological base of the party wanted someone who would actually help restore originalism.

That all said, not sure if Alito fills that bill entirely. Don't know if he'll take a slightly more libertarian stance, as Thomas has done in some cases, if he makes it to the USSC.

I would actually disagree with this. Maybe the intellectual left would be up in arms about a federalist, strict constructionist pro-choice judge, but the kind of people that are pouring money into this and are staging protests care most importantly about one issue: abortion.

There is no more powerful lobby in the judicial confirmation process than the abortion lobby ... no other political issue is so highly dependent upon the composition of our judiciary. If you look at the three judges that were in contention during the "Gang of 14" compromise, they were all being held up because of their abortion record: Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown for upholding a parent notification law, and William Pryor for calling Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

Everything else that you hear is more or less a smokescreen ... the one issue that the Democrats will not let go of here is abortion. The reason Roberts got through without filibuster was because of a lack of a black mark on his record regarding abortion. Although obviously conservative and probably more pro-business than any other Justice, he got more or less a free pass because he wasn't on the blacklist of EMILY's List, NOW, or the Alliance for Justice. If you ever attend a judicial confirmation hearing, you will see that the abortion lobbyists on both sides (but especially on the pro-choice side) are more prominent than any other groups. Abortion is what it's all about.

Alito's dissent in Casey will be a huge problem for the abortion lobby, and I expect this fight to be very contentious for that reason. The Democrats will go down with guns blazing, screaming "Scalito!"

[Ghost of]

Ghost,

It will be interesting to see if this guy is a libertarian at all. I get the feeling that he's going to be a died in the wool conservative who could care less about personal freedom. (just going on what this administration is about) If he's a "real" conservative or liberatrian, you would see my opinion of him improve.

Also, the problem with calling someone a libertarian is that it is largely meaningless. No one really believes in them because the real libertarian platform is crazy. So the interesting question is, where do you start to make the compromises. That is what separates guys like cho and I from you ghost. We all like the idea of smaller government, but believe the government needs to do different things. We differ greatly in how we are not libertarian. Who doesn't like smaller government?

I'd argue that you might be neglecting the difference between small "l" and the Party itself. I'm registered Libertarian, but I do not hold rigidly to their beliefs, because just like conservatism and liberalism and the farther extremes, there are a variety of ways to BE a libertarian.

I am, for instance, a domestic libertarian. My stance on foreign policy and war is different than lucky's.

I really can't believe that you put yourself in the same category as cho. Sure, there are areas where he claims to believe in personal freedom, but largely the issues that are CRITICAL to libertarians (capitalism, freedom of association and contract, self-defense) don't seem high on his list.

From what I've seen, I'd judge you a bit closer to genuine libertarian ideas. The other thing I'd say is that it depends on what kind of conservative he is. He doesn't have to be "libertarian" as JRB is, but he could be a Burkean conservative, which wouldn't be bad at all.

I've found it ironic that those who proclaim they are for "choice" do not seem to embrace the rhetoric of freedom and individual sovereignty on a HOST of other issues.

As for Alito? Well, I'll have to continue to monitor it. What I'd say though, is that while many admire Scalia(as much for his attitude as his politics) more of the 'aware' conservatives I see favor JRB. If the movement were only interested in more statist conservatives like Scalia, I don't think there'd be such passion for her.

I would caution that it depends who you talk to. I'm not comfortable at all with the idea that abortion will be the primary issue, be it a liberal, libert or conservative sitting there during confirmation hearings.

[Air Force Cane]

Could not agree more with my brother Swabbie Navy Dave...

even the guys in the USN are occassionally correct :cool:

CONFIRM ALITO

[Ghost of]

I would actually disagree with this. Maybe the intellectual left would be up in arms about a federalist, strict constructionist pro-choice judge, but the kind of people that are pouring money into this and are staging protests care most importantly about one issue: abortion.

There is no more powerful lobby in the judicial confirmation process than the abortion lobby ... no other political issue is so highly dependent upon the composition of our judiciary. If you look at the three judges that were in contention during the "Gang of 14" compromise, they were all being held up because of their abortion record: Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown for upholding a parent notification law, and William Pryor for calling Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

Everything else that you hear is more or less a smokescreen ... the one issue that the Democrats will not let go of here is abortion. The reason Roberts got through without filibuster was because of a lack of a black mark on his record regarding abortion. Although obviously conservative and probably more pro-business than any other Justice, he got more or less a free pass because he wasn't on the blacklist of EMILY's List, NOW, or the Alliance for Justice. If you ever attend a judicial confirmation hearing, you will see that the abortion lobbyists on both sides (but especially on the pro-choice side) are more prominent than any other groups. Abortion is what it's all about.

Alito's dissent in Casey will be a huge problem for the abortion lobby, and I expect this fight to be very contentious for that reason. The Democrats will go down with guns blazing, screaming "Scalito!"

DjTj, I really like how you laid out the evidence and supported your case. Perhaps you are correct or mostly correct

I'm actually surprised you called it the abortion lobby. When one considers the idea of parental notification or other laws, you get the feeling that abortion is the end game, not choice, at least for many. Otherwise, why fight so much against including all the options as part of advice from the doctor and why be against a law requiring notification when ANY OTHER surgical procedure would be forbidden except in an emergency when a minor is involved.

Anyways, I guess it will be a fight. Just wish it could focus on something else because even if Roe IS overturned, it will just be turned back to the States, with different results. I'm not so sure there shouldn't be some standard of "viability" that applies everywhere, but this is one subject where I don't think the LEGAL arguments made by either side actually have that much merit. "Privacy" may not be mentioned specifically, but the document clearly states that the BoR is not intended to limit the rights and privileges the people maintain. The central question? Is there a point at which the fetus deserves some legal protection?

[Predicto]

I If you look at the three judges that were in contention during the "Gang of 14" compromise, they were all being held up because of their abortion record: Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown for upholding a parent notification law, and William Pryor for calling Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

I can't speak for Owen and Pryor, but the issues with Justice Brown were much more widespread than just abortion.

[Ghost of]

I can't speak for Owen and Pryor, but the issues with Justice Brown were much more widespread than just abortion.

And that's my point.

An originalist is a frightening thing to not only left-of-center but many on the right. I can imagine JRB authoring pretty strong opinions against Scalia on a frequent basis.

To put it this way, you guys would be tearing your hair out if somehow 9 JRBs were on the bench. Or going to Canada, I don't know.

[visionary]

Now lets get something straight here, this guy probably would have been the choice before now, if Bush had not wanted to try to stealth Miers in there. Bush was already high on him and I think he sees a lot of both Scalia and Roberts in him, for different reasons. If Right Wing Conservatives were the ones calling the shots here, I think we would more likely see Luttig, or JRB, or one of the more well known right wingers who the Democrats would be sure to filibuster.

This guy may not be a Miers or a Clement, but he is not what the far right would have picked if they had been the ones making thsi choice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Parental Notification, as he mentioned in his ruling there seem to be ample caveats to prove saftey for the woman in question, if she has good reason not to tell the father (who in most cases, in my opinion, should at least be allowed to know about his offsprings upcoming death, even if he does not have the right to make her choice for the mother)

On other issues as I said, I think we may be surprised by how he might rule...again look at the rulings they list on CNN, not jsut the oen about abortion.

[@DCGoldPants]

lets even be more straight here.

He WASN"T the choice before. He's the fallback choice. No matter how you slice it, he's a backup for some reason.

I wish the White House would just allow an Up or Down vote on their original choice.

[Kilmer17]

lets even be more straight here.

He WASN"T the choice before. He's the fallback choice. No matter how you slice it, he's a backup for some reason.

I wish the White House would just allow an Up or Down vote on their original choice.

You'd have a point if Bush had withdrawn her name. But she did it herself.

(snicker)

[visionary]

He's the backup because he is a white man, and because he has a long judicial record, both things that Bush counted against him, but which he later decided to just not worry about.

(I am surmising from all that we know about this issue so far)

[@DCGoldPants]

yeah, I'm sure that was all her idea.

touche!

Not really knowing Alito, thus not hating on him...... I can still manage to think of one thing the guys who do oppose him should do.

Make sure you mention Miers' name every day during the hearing. As much as possible. Keep her connected to the situation in name. Remind everybody all the time that this guy is the 2nd choice after the nominating party rejected the 1st one. Keep questioning why he wasn't the 1st choice.

all the stupid politics stuff that seems to work.

[visionary]

Anyway why waste time on a candidate who will not get pass...as was clear at that point to Miears and Bush. She took the easy way out, but probably the best one for this country.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and on CNN has just said that Alito ruled against a New Jersey law banning abortions at one point.

[@DCGoldPants]

He's the backup because he is a white man, and because he has a long judicial record, both things that Bush counted against him, but which he later decided to just not worry about.

(I am surmising from all that we know about thsi issue so far)

You say that's why he's the backup.

Regardless, he's wasn't the 1st choice. Bush didn't make the choice the 2nd time around (I believe). I think the choice was made for him by the folks who he made big promises to during both campaigns. It was more like "Folks, who do you want me to nominate"

Anyway why waste time on a candidate who will not get pass...as was clear at that point to Miears and Bush. She took the easy way out, but probably the best one for this country.

That's quitter talk!