Bush nominates Samuel Alito

For the Supreme Court.

I don't know much about him yet, but I heard a caller on talk radio call him "Scalito", so to me, that's a good sign.

 

Apparently the nickname is commonly applied to the good Judge.

Let us hope that he does not replicate Justice Scalia's somewhat flexible notions of Judicial propriety. No duck hunting trips with parties, please.

As I said elsewhere, the nomination looks like a sop to the President's largest remaining group of supporters; the Religious Right. They make up the bulk of the President's dismal 37% approval rating, IIUC.

After EXCELLENT choices for Chief Justice and Fed Chairman, I am disappointed. This man has a reputation as an ideologue. This choice will be seriously devisive

It's early days yet; we shall see. If he's as bad as they (NPR interviewees) say, he MIGHT fail of confirmation. There are enough moderate Republican Senators to join with the Democrats to defeat the nominee and 2006 is just around the corner.

 

A diversion...

According to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, the timing of this nomination is also a diversion to take the public eye (i.e., the attention of the press) off Scooter Libby, and onto a new less dangerous topic as far as the survival of the Bush administration is concerned.

Did any of you see the shifty-eyed (clearly the body language of a LIAR) acceptance of Libby's resignation delivered by GW?

What's it gonna take for the public to finally realize that this Presidency is in the same league as the Grant Administration - seems good on the surface, but rotten to the core inside......?

 

Re: A diversion...

Welllll ... the Daily Show is a parody and Jon Stewart is a comedian. An excellent parody by an excellent comedian, but still. It's not intended to be a hard news show.

It would take an awful lot of shuffling around, as well as relying on things turning out just right, for Alito's nomination to have been meant as a diversion from the the Libby thing. Doubtful Bush counted on being lambasted, including by his own base, over the Miers nomination and all that would have to have been planned in the Daily Show scenario.

As far as the Alito nomination (Scalito, Scalia-lite?), I am less than pleased. Prefer a moderate and fair nominee who would be unlikely to be an activist from either extreme. This could be a tougher confirmation than Miers might have been. Expect (hope?) moderate Republicans will object.

Kit

 

I think I'd vote to confirm

I am not so sure. NPR was interviewing several lawyers and Judges this morning who know Judge Alito and appear before him. He does not BEHAVE like Scalia; he is said to be polite and reserved and very, very smart.

There is a difference between being a SOCIAL conservative like Justice Scalia who allows his social convictions to color his judicial opinions then erects a bogus theory of constitutional jurisprudence to cover his judicial activism, and a LEGAL conservative, who carefully applies the ancient principals of the common law to decide cases before the Court. The latter is not only acceptale to me personally, I believe that it is the only PROPER way for a Judge to act.

The impression I am forming from what I'm hearing on the news and reading about Judge Alito is that he is a LEGAL conservative. His social views don't seem to affect his judicial opinions.

If I were a Democratic Senator, I think I'd be planning on voting to confirm Judge Alito unless something pretty shocking comes up in the hearings.

 

Re: I think I'd vote to confirm

From what I understand, the Democrats had high praise for Judge Alito when he was confirmed for the Court of Appeals, albeit many years ago.

 

Yes, he was confirmed without dissent. I suppose that the only additional record will be his decisions on the Court of Appeals; the summaries I have seen (I haven't analyzed the decisions themselves) seem to confirm my impression that Judge Alito is a LEGAL conservative and will uphold precedent unless there are STRONG reasons for overruling it.

 

Re: A diversion...

Are you in left field or what? Appoint Meir's and string her out until the CIA leak GJ ends then have her resign and appoint another person in her place? On one hand you call him an idiot and on the other you credit him with this plan?

Here is the real deal, after 2 years of investigating the CIA leak we don't have a single charge invoving the leak itself. What we do have is a "he said - she-said" about who told who what. The charges sound grand but really could come down to lack of when you said something and to who. Libby said he told a reporter about Plame just not her and neither one of the reporters in question are the one who printed Plame's name in the first place!! Libby is being charged based on the word of a reporter that the NYT has severed their ties with and that leaves some doubt about her to say the least.

The FBI has been left with interviewing Plame's neighbors to see if they knew she worked for the CIA!?! What the heck? My neighbors don't know who I work for. I say I work for the state and leave it at that and my friends come over and have wine and dinner with me so I would bet they are much better friends than the Wilson-Plame neighbors who really don't seem to have more than over the fence conversations with them.

The whole thing is becoming another case of judicial overreach. Libby should have admitted to anything and everything whether he did it or not because quite frankly they never had a charge in the first place. You cannot charge someone with "outing" an operative when that person openly works out of Langley and they can't even prove Libby ever knew she had been undercover. Admitting anything would have protected him against the lying to a grand jury and obstruction they are coming up with. What says the reporter is telling the truth? They are saying her notes giver her more credibility but apparently the NYT doesn't have that much faith in her credibility.

Ask yourself what was the motition for Libby here? Saying Wilson was married to a CIA agent working in the WMD department does not reduce his credibility. It, actually, adds to it since people will think he has access to better information. Outing her wouldn't hurt her because she was already outed. Sounds to me what he was responding to was why did they send such a known Democrat on a sensitive trip when it gave him the power to embarrass the administration (which he did try to do). Then it makes sense that they say they did at the encouragement of his wife in the CIA. I don't know either way but it makes far more sense than the other crap being thrown out by the press.

As for Miers, she wasn't the strongest candidate ever put forward but neither was she a judicial lghtweight or the weakest candidate ever nominated. The right killed her candidacy and I am still kind of wondering why. Do they think they'll have any further confidence in Alito? Heck no, once someone is set for life on the bench they can do what they want. Up to now he has self admittedly been grooming himself for the Supreme Court. That means acting like a strong conservative. Once confirmed, he don't have to act like anything but what he wants to be.....

 

Re: A diversion...

You might wish to consider sending a letter to the Grant family apologizing for the potentially libelous statement.

 

Yabbut I really think that Judge Alito is yet another example of the President reverting to type: the East Coast elite establishment (read: Yale). He's a fake Westerner.

As endlessly antagonistic as I am toward the present kleptocracy, I am gradually beginning to think that this is a good choice.

I KNOW DTechBA thinks that I am an unregenerate Liberal, a charge I deny, but even as I supported Chief Justice Roberts, I think that I support Judge Alito as well.

I'm not at all sure WHY I support these folks; I am not and could never be a member of their "society", but I am comforted by the realization that, whatever their faults may be, they are NOT moneygrubbers. Judge Alito made a significant sacrifice by entering public service. And I think, I REALLY think, that he and I see eye-to-eye on judicial philosophy.

 

Please note:
Genl. Grant knew how to win a war.
Genl. Grant was a master prose stylist (read his memoirs).

No comparison.

 

The more I read about Judge Alito, the more I think he's John Roberts with a more obvious judicial record.

I really think the Democrats will commit political suicide, should they vote against Judge Alito. He falls into the John Roberts category....impeccable credentials and supremely qualified.

I'm looking forward to Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer trying to match wits with Judge Alito.

It should be a short-count.

 

Not fair, Bruce, not fair. Schumer vs. Alito? Reminds me of something the late great Oscar Levant once said: "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent." I hope Judge Alito will be a gentleman and not knock Senator Schumer around too badly.

 

Uncle,

I think that I agree with Bruce; Judge Alito is another Chief Justice Roberts only with a longer and more public record.

Whether the Dems will fight hard will depend on what kind of feedback they get from the rank-and-file. I consider myself a pretty average Democrat; I usually develop attitudes and opinions that are mainstream in the party. Since I am far from horrified, I'd guess that most Dems probably aren't very upset by this nomination either.

 

Re: A diversion...

OK, this is off topic, but I love the Daily Show! I watch all of the news programs on the major news networks (FOX, CNN, MSNBC) and whenever I see something stupid, and wonder why they are reporting it, I can always count on the Daily Show to say it!

Did anyone see the montage on the Daily Show where they showed all of the "news" on CNN which included duck shows, talking cats, and other nonsensical things. Also they had a montage of all the news stations with breaking news reporting that there was nothing happening at the Scooter Libby indictment. It was the best!

Any way.....

 

Re: I think I'd vote to confirm

I didn't know very much about Alito, but the "Scalito" nick didn't sound good. But after hearing several radio interviews and reading news stories, it sounds like you're right. Although a few questions have been raised, generally he's getting rave reviews. I do wish some of the reporting would stop harping on the fact that Alito is not a woman or a minority. (Could they please focus on something less obvious?) But it has been mentioned more than once that Alito definitely does NOT have the manner of that ornery grump Scalia. Several claimed that throughout Scalia's career it hasn't been difficult to guess how he would rule, one only had to pay attention to which side's lawyers were on the receiving end of the most badgering. By contrast Alito is said to be exceptionally polite even in dissent, a comment from an unidentified law clerk even claimed the "Scalito" nick is not new and that Alito resents it due to Scalia's well known poor behavior in court. But the clerk said Alito would never and will never state that resentment publicly out of respect for Scalia and the Supreme Court.

The concern that's being repeatedly being raised is that Alito might be instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade, his dissent in Pennsylvania v. Casey keeps being mentioned as supporting evidence. That was a struck-down Pennsylvania state law that required married women seeking abortions to consult with their husbands first. But in this case the news is not reporting the whole story. Alito did think the law should be upheld, but the reasoning and exceptions in his dissent are being left out. Two excerpt from Alito's dissent in that case:


"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

"These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her."


Sounds reasonable to me and I am in favor of legalized abortion due to a belief that making it illegal or too restricted is NOT an area where government belongs despite anyone's personal or religious objections on the issue, including my own personal and religious objections. (But then I'm also in favor of legalized assisted suicide if directly requested by suffers in terminal illness cases, again as a personal liberty issue.) In another Pennsylvania case, Alito voted to strike down a law that required women seeking Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to first name the offender to police. If they did not name the offender in a police report then then Medicaid funding would be automatically denied. Also not being reported was that Alito joined majority opinion in striking down a New Jersey state ban on mid-term and late-term abortions because the ban did not include any exceptions for health or life. (Gotta wonder if that NJ legislation included a rider providing state funding for women to plan their own funerals while being forced by the state to continue life-endangering pregnancies.) Alito has also stated that he supports privacy rights stated in U.S. Constitution liberty clause as it was cited in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case concerning contraception availability.

For anyone else who hears or reads news stories on Alito and suspects they may not be hearing the whole story, try these links:

http://news.findlaw.com//newsmakers/samuel.alito.html

http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/alito/alitoindex.htm


Kit

 

Kit,

Thank you for that post. It illustrates exactly the impression I am forming about the man. In other words, he disagreed with the LEGAL reasoning in his dissent. That, to me, bespeaks intellectual honesty and adherence to the principals of the common law.

 

So much for being a "pretty average Democrat".

Gallup www.gallup.com says something like 18% of Democrats and 35% of independants think that Judge Alito is a good or excellent choice.

Wow.

That suggests that there WILL be a fight in the Senate.

Interestingly, 24% of REPUBLICANS did not rate Judge Alito as a good or excellent choice.

 

Re: So much for being a "pretty average Democrat".

But the Minority whip wasn't so hostile.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0511030338nov03,1,6311886.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Sorry, requires registration....

 

Would you be for the legalized killing of say, a 2-year-old child by its mother, or is this freedom only granted prior to the child emerging from the womb?

BLD