Bush to nominate Alito for Supreme Court

[visionary]

There is no shame in knowing when to retreat and regroup...instead of putting this country through a damaging waste of time and hurting the Supreme Court...and forcing O'Conner to stay longer than she wants.

And again the right wing would not have picked this guy if they had the choice and we all know it. No conservative even mentioned him when talking of who they wanted to see on there, and no Democrats mentioned him as one of the ones they would filibuster...until his name came out in front...if you say otherwise you are not being honest, I think.

This guy is known for being conservative but also for being impartial and not letting his own beliefs get in the way of his rulings.

[DjTj]

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?

I call it the "abortion lobby" because like many liberal causes, it has become completely reactionary. Conservatives have declared war on abortion, and the liberal groups have no choice other than to defend their ground with everything they've got. Both sides of the abortion issue have become incredibly irrational, and that has a lot to do with the odd Constitutional situation we find ourselves in after Roe.

I personally am not a big fan of the decision in Roe. It is the result of a strange confluence of liberal Justices sympathetic to the women's liberation movement and conservative Justices eager to make bright-line rules. Of course, the Burger Court was marked by many such decisions. I've been recently thinking that our recent conflicts over judicial philosophy are very similar to what happenned before the New Deal during the Lochner era. Perhaps if this whole thing ends with filibusters and nuclear options, we will put Roe to rest just like FDR put Lochner to rest with his court-packing plan. Of course, Alito isn't the fifth vote, so maybe we are still one step away from that.

I guess my point about the Justices that faced filibusters wasn't that there weren't other things wrong with them, but that abortion is the litmus test. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, I just see it as a clear dividing line between judges that Democrats opposed and eventually confirmed and judges that Democrats threatened to take to filibuster. Janice Rogers Brown may have had many things wrong with her, but abortion is what put her on the back shelf with Owens and Pryor.

Michael McConnell was initially opposed vehemently but he was confirmed after saying in his hearing that Roe was settled law and that he would enforce it as such. Deborah Cook was very pro-business and anti-Establishment Clause, but she had no red flag on abortion so she was confirmed. Jeffrey Sutton was confirmed despite being very pro-federalism and anti-environment, but had no anti-abortion record. Thomas Griffith had a poor record on anti-discrimination issues and Title IX, but no abortion issues, so he too was confirmed. Dennis Shedd was opposed by many civil rights and minority groups, but the abortion groups didn't jump on him, so he didn't face a filibuster and he was confirmed.

It will be interesting to see how big a fight this turns out to be, but I will be very interested in how Alito answers the abortion questions. I just can't see him escaping that easy with his Casey dissent hanging around his neck though...

[gstahl]

I wondered about why would wives have an abortion and not notify hubby and the most obvious answer is duh they committed adultery and became pregnant

Damn dude, this was one of the most uncalled for posts I have read on this board. Tell us what you really do think of women's rights? You need to stop thinking about Ward, June and the Beav and understand there are abusive relationships where a woman's constitutional protections are not limited because she got married. BTW, the Supreme Court disagreed with his opinion on this and struck down the PA law.

This nomination was just as expected. A well qualified judge who has strong conservative views. Democrats should not fight this, they will lose. This is what happens when you are not in the White House and do not control the congress. BTW, the strange thing is WTF on Miers, very strange, this would seem to be the correct and appropriate choice for Bush, given his campaign his promises and his control by the christian right.

BTW, the sad thing is that the court is more of a men's club than before. It would be nice to see continued diversity.

[chomerics]

I'm not sure the left won't fillibuster the nomination, considering a few things. First, Schumer's speech today and second, the right wings removal of the word confirmation and replacement with "an up or down vote" again.

I think the dems have become united and embolden, and they are going to put up a stand. Just conjecture in the first day on my part, but my initial gut feeling is that they'll fight this tooth and nail. It's not over Roe, as I think a number of democrats would LOVE to see it overturned because the MAJORITY of the population is pro-choice, but instead because of his civil rights rulings.

I still need to read a lot more on his rulings, but that is just my initial reaction.

[visionary]

From what I am hearing on CNN an MSNBC, it sounds like this guy may be more liberal than both sides want us to think.

He voted to overturn a ban on partial birth abortions in New Jersey recently, which makes him more liberal (or at least ruling that way) than more than half the Senate on that issue. Also the notification vote was a long while ago and near the beggining of his judgeship. it will be real interesting to see what else comes out about this.

I think he may not be the solid conservative that a lot of people think he is, and that may nto be such a bad thing to have a guy with a good independent mind on him. Though I personally would like to see him be tough on abortion, (even if not on Roe), but not if it means going away from his judicial philosophy and impartiality.

In any case he seems supremely qualified. And Specter also had a lot of interesting and complimentary things to say about him.

[visionary]

I see the Democrats are putting out a hitsheet on him about his failure to convict a Mafia family, and not mentioning according to Chris Matthews a really good conviction of a lot of other ones soon after that.

(I hope they aren't trying to make some sort of subtle subconcious hit at his Italian heritage.)

[chomerics]

From what I am hearing on CNN an MSNBC, it sounds like this guy may be more liberal than both sides want us to think.

He voted to overturn a ban on partial birth abortions in New Jersey recently, which makes him more liberal (or at least ruling that way) than more than half the Senate on that issue. Also the notification vote was a long while ago and near the beggining of his judgeship. it will be real interesting to see what else comes out about this.

I haven't seen that one yet. I'd like to read the ruling. I have heard on Fox about his opinion on wives not telling their husbands about an abortion, but not for the late term one you mentioned.

I think he may not be the solid conservative that a lot of people think he is, and that may nto be such a bad thing to have a guy with a good independent mind on him. Though I personally would like to see him be tough on abortion, (even if not on Roe), but not if it means going away from his judicial philosophy and impartiality.

In any case he seems supremely qualified. And Specter also had a lot of interesting and complimentary things to say about him.

I think this guy is absolutely qualified, and he is an example of why Miers was such a strange pick. I am not sure as to where I stand yet, but it is not all about Roe. If he is FOR peoples rights, then I will most likely be for him, if he is against peoples rights, then I will most likely be against him.

[visionary]

He also apparently stood up for the rights of this guy who was had problems getting a job becasue of some sort of disability (I don't think they mentioned what, on MSNBC) but he said that the guy was entitled to some sort of benefits I think and was overulled like 9-0 by the supreme court, because they said that he could have gotten a job as an elevator conductor...or something like that.

They also have his former clerk on Hardball right now...

[Ignatius J.]

The case you mentioned about overuling the ban was talked about on CNN. Apparently it was right after the supreme court blocked legislation or something like that, so that he pretty much had to vote to overturn it.

[Duncan]

The one thing I DON'T want is another ideolog on the bench.

So I guess you were opposed to Ginsburg?

I'm sure I can dig up an old post of yours attacking the liberal general council for the ACLU being appointed to the highest court in the land because you didn't want an ideologue? :laugh:

This courts need a huge libertarian enema and I guess this guy will have to suffice. I was praying for Janice Rogers Brown.

[visionary]

Specter goes to bat for high court nominee

Judiciary Committee chairman sends strong signals that he'll help Alito

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

MSNBC

Updated: 8:02 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2005

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., sent strong signals Monday that he would use all his clout to help federal appeals court judge Samuel Alito win confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Time and again Specter used his Monday afternoon press conference to defend President Bush’s nominee to the high court and to justify some of his controversial rulings.

“I think he’ll be an excellent witness,” Specter predicted. Drawing an implicit contrast with ex-nominee Harriet Miers, who withdrew last week after getting a tepid reception from the Senate, Specter said “he’s a real legal scholar beyond any question.”

Specter did not say he'd vote for Alito, but all his other comments were positive.

The Judiciary Committee chairman brushed off Democratic charges that Bush’s nomination of Alito was a sop by a weakened president to appease his social conservative base.

“I do not think that the charge by the Democrats that this is a nomination out of weakness has any validity at all. That spin game is par for the course in this city,” he told reporters.

Assurances to abortion rights supporters

Specter seemed to go out of his way to try to persuade abortion rights supporters, of whom he is one, that Alito is not beyond the pale.

He said Alito’s dissent in a 1991 abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "does not signify disagreement with Roe v Wade” the 1972 ruling which legalized abortion nationwide. Specter said that nothing in what Alito had written in that case “suggests disagreement with the underlying decision in Roe v. Wade."

Specter called Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey “a very narrow ruling, very carefully crafted on the basis of Justice O’Connor’s decisions in previous cases about what would constitute an undue burden for the woman.”

He also seemed to aim to re-assure gun control activists, calling a 1996 dissent by Alito which said Congress didn’t have the power to ban sales of machine guns within states "very, very narrowly tailored.”

He said Alito’s dissent had followed the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in U.S. v. Lopez which said the federal government had no power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to ban the carrying of guns near schools.

The chairman said he had met with Alito for an hour and 15 minutes Monday and that the veteran appeals court judge assured him “he believes there is a right to privacy under the liberty clause of the United States Constitution” and “he accepts Griswold v. Connecticut as good law.”

Support for privacy rights

Griswold is the landmark 1965 decision in which the court held that married couples had a fundamental right to privacy which included the right to use contraceptives.

Alito also assured Specter that his view of legal precedent was that “the longer a decision was in effect and the more times it had been affirmed by different courts and different justices appointed by different presidents, it had extra precedential value.”

Taking a very different line than Specter was another Northeastern Republican with a liberal-to-centrist voting record, Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee. “Judge Alito has taken many positions that appear to place him at odds with the protection of key fundamental rights,” Chafee said in a written statement Monday. Chafee stands for re-election next year in a heavily Democratic state.

Specter is a sometimes liberal-to-centrist Republican who favors upholding Roe v. Wade; some conservatives revile him for voting against conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987.

Specter’s voting record has moved unmistakably rightward over the past several years – in 1998, based on his roll-call votes on key issues, the American Conservative Union gave him a rating of 38 out of 100, but last year the ACU rated him a 75.

Specter indicated to reporters that he might not have chosen Alito if he were sitting in the Oval Office. “This may shock you, but if I were president, I would handle things a little differently,” he said wryly. “But I’m not the president and the job I have to do is make a decision on whether he’s qualified.”

If Specter follows through on his initial signs of strong support for Alito, he’d be doing Bush a large favor. Last year Bush helped Specter fend off a primary challenge from conservative Republican Pat Toomey.

Battle with conservatives

Specter’s initial signals of support for a conservative judicial nominee calls to mind the worries that those on the Right had last November after Specter won re-election to a fifth term.

GOP conservatives tried to block Specter from getting the Judiciary Committee chairmanship, which was due him by seniority rules.

“There is nothing Arlen Specter could say that we would trust,” griped Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, a conservative advocacy group, last November.

“Sen. Specter needs to satisfy not just us, but all the people who voted for the president on Nov. 2, that he is going to facilitate, and not thwart the president’s judicial nominees,” Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, warned last November. “This is not just about me, and not just about Sen. Specter. This is about 59 million people who voted to support the president and the people who unseated Tom Daschle.”

Specter had alarmed conservatives by saying right after Bush’s re-election that “when you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely. The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster.”

But Specter on Monday said he did not think a filibuster would be warranted in Alito’s case. And as in the cases of Bush's conservative appeals court nominees such as Janice Rogers Brown, whom Specter helped shepherd to Senate approval last May, the senior senator from Pennsylvania appears to be giving the Right no cause for complaint.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9875669/

[chomerics]

So I guess you were opposed to Ginsburg?

Actually, I was not as interested in politics then, I was too busy drinking beer and trying to get laid. . . but the Senate voted 93-3 to confirm her, do you want to bet money even if Alito is confirmed he will get nowhere near the same amount of votes?

[Sarge]

Don't know a thing about this guy, but if Shoemerer and Reid and the rest of the Dem peanut gallery are screaming this loud, it must be the right pick

[chomerics]

Don't know a thing about this guy, but if Shoemerer and Reid and the rest of the Dem peanut gallery are screaming this loud, it must be the right pick

Which is why you can tell Rove is back pulling the strings.

[Johnny Punani2]

I like the choice.

Granted, I've only read a little about the guy but I like what I've read so far. He's a constitutionalist with libertarian leanings over certain issues which might bode well for decisions on personal freedoms. Just as intelligent as Scalia and that says a lot. There are a lot of people who don't like Scalia's opinions but they have respect for him because how he frames his opinions.

Let's face it the Dems would only be happy with a status quo/more liberal nomination. Sorry, but one of the perks of being the party in power is appointing people to the judiciary who hold the same views on constitutional law as you do. Trying to change that process only because you disagree with those views is wrong.

[Duncan]

Actually, I was not as interested in politics then, I was too busy drinking beer and trying to get laid. . . but the Senate voted 93-3 to confirm her, do you want to bet money even if Alito is confirmed he will get nowhere near the same amount of votes?

Fair enough, I too was drinking beer and trying to get laid (well actually was getting laid), but my point stands. Regardless of the votes she received do you think she is an ideologue?

BTW Mike, I think you would be a much happier dude if you spent a little more time drinking beer and getting laid. Obsessing over politics can be maddening.

[portisizzle]

Which is why you can tell Rove is back pulling the strings.

English translation from liberal whining language...

The last bastion of liberalism is nearing its unceremonial ending, thanks to Rove. :laugh:

C'mon Chrome, how can you really "tell" Rove is pulling strings? And when are we going to have that beer??

[Thiebear]

Which is why you can tell Rove is back pulling the strings.

I like how its convienent who you give credit for which decision.. Must be nice to so easily assign these thoughts.. Can you give me the numbers for the mega millions or do you do that on the back of fortune cookies already.

Just a rediculous post meant to be condescending and only expected from those that have no real opinion. Your better than crazyhorse...

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm alittle shocked that people are acting like this nomination IS the President's choice.

Even though he's a world more qualified than Miers, he's not Bush's choice. He was given to Bush to nominate. That simple.

[portisizzle]

I'm alittle shocked that people are acting like this nomination IS the President's choice.

Even though he's a world more qualified than Miers, he's not Bush's choice. He was given to Bush to nominate. That simple.

You are just sour because Meirs did not make it to the confirmation hearings...

[Larry]

Don't know a thing about this guy, but if Shoemerer and Reid and the rest of the Dem peanut gallery are screaming this loud, it must be the right pick

Actually, I would say that that doesn't say so much about Rove as it says about you.

You like this nomination for the same reason the GOP didn't like Miers: They're looking for a fight.

The party that won 51% of the vote in 55% of the country wants to change more rules so they can be 100% in charge of the world. After five rules changes to make themselves more powerfull, the minority have started using a rule that the voters approve of. Therefore, what's needed is a political campaign to convince the voters that this rule is somehow treasonous, or something. (Y'know, the same way the GOP deals with every other issue: "Treason! Look over there!")

And a fight, with lots of inflamatory sound bites and dramatic last-minute votes, and press releases from various sub-groups, will help divert attention away from the dirty laundry that they're continuing to produce. (Sudden, unrelated thought: How appropriate the term "dirty laundry" was, when referring to the last administration.)

Bush picked Miers because he thought avoiding a fight was good. The GOP said "try again" because they want to cause one.

[@DCGoldPants]

You are just sour because Meirs did not make it to the confirmation hearings...

well, that would have been entertaining.

But, like I've been saying the whole time. It seems when a person gets on the bench of the High Court. All bets are off. A lifetime appointment for a person who's views usually evolve through time, is not something this or really any President wants.

I think they believed that even without the experience, that Miers was going to be the yes-woman they dreamed of. Basically calling the White House for instructions on how to vote.

Who knows what Alito will do for the long run? Certainly not the White House, or they would have nominated him in the 1st place.

[twa]

From what I understand Alito was one of the frontrunners before miers but Bush wanted a woman.

The far-right wanted a fight and it looks like they will get thier wish.

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't think that makes things any better.

What would the response be if you asked "Mr. President, why wasn't Judge Alito worthy of being your 1st choice? What qualifications did Ms. Miers hold over him?" etc, etc.

Only one chance to make a 1st impression

[Art Monk Fan]

The party that won 51% of the vote in 55% of the country wants to change more rules so they can be 100% in charge of the world. After five rules changes to make themselves more powerfull, the minority have started using a rule that the voters approve of. Therefore, what's needed is a political campaign to convince the voters that this rule is somehow treasonous, or something.

The Congress is an institution not only of rules, but of strong traditions. In fact, you can make a strong arguement that the rules of the Congress, which differ between the House and the Senate and which have been changed numerous times over the history of the institution are LESS important than the traditions that have governed the actions of Congress members.

You make your arguement as if the Repyblicans are changing a rule in order to deny the Democraats the same rights the minority has always exercised, framing it as an injustice. The truth of the matter is that the long-standing tradition in the Senate has been that you do NOT filibuster judicial nominations. It is the Democrats who are acting contrary to the history of the institution.

The Executive branch is afforded the right to select the nations federal judiciary. The stakes of any Presidential election have always included this. To manipulate the rules of the Senate in order to manufacture a new "right" for the minority is both wrong and a dangerous precendent. The proper way for the Democratic party to effect the judiciary is to win the next Presidential election. They have lost the last two and are attempting to overturn the results by other means. If successful they will regret this precendent if they regain the majority.