Bush takes mulligan and shoots a hole-in-one! Names [Sc]Alito to replace O'Conner [Archive]

Area 51

10-31-2005, 06:33 AM

Gonna be a dogfight for this one. He's Scalia-lite, apparently, so the Democrats will no doubt go to the wall, as will the arch-conservatives.

Too bad, but hardly surprising.

The fact that the democraps are going to the wall against the pick was to be expected. Typical stance, just the same as the other side when a democrap president named nominees.

The chasm that exists between the parties hasn't narrowed in the slightest, for that matter probably never will.

Area 51

10-31-2005, 06:33 AM

a fight is what Bush wants....anything to distract from the indictments...

Typical........................

alnorth

10-31-2005, 06:37 AM

A 55 yr old Scalia clone.

Cool

alnorth

10-31-2005, 06:40 AM

Typical stance, just the same as the other side when a democrap president named nominees.

Little revisionist history, anyone?

Clinton nominated perhaps one of the most far-left ACLU-card-carrying whacko liberal members in the Supreme Court's entire history, and the Republican-controlled Senate approved her overwhelmingly. I dont remember the vote count, but I'm pretty sure it was 80+ approval. The GOP hated her ideology, but Clinton won the presidency, and they felt he had the right to name picks. Back then, the GOP felt you could only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on their experience and qualifications, not ideology.

Mr. Kotter

10-31-2005, 06:48 AM

Gonna be a dogfight for this one. He's Scalia-lite, apparently, so the Democrats will no doubt go to the wall, as will the arch-conservatives.

Too bad, but hardly surprising.

Bush has absolutely nothing to lose with this nomination. Nothing. In his mind, I'm sure he's just said: "WTF, why not?"

Mr. Kotter

10-31-2005, 06:49 AM

That's a good pick. The "Scalito" nickname is unfair, regardless of what conservatives would like to believe. Even though he's extremely qualified, the Democrats are on a roll, I wouldn't expect Alito to get confirmed without the use of the nuclear option.

If they seriously consider that over this guy, it is "them" that would become the focus. Which, from the Republican's point of view, would be just fine.

alnorth

10-31-2005, 06:53 AM

The Democrats are going to regret with bitterness and anger the opportunity they threw away with Miers. At least with her, you had a CHANCE that she would not be blatantly obvious as a conservative. Yes, the GOP killed her in committee, but only because the Democrats LET it happen. If the Democrats would have said "oh hell no, Miers is the best we can get, we will not let the GOP derail her", she'd be confirmed. Instead they stood back and chuckled as her nomination slowly died.

The left has been insisting all along that they could kill a nominee, well now we'll find out. I'm betting at least 2 of the 7 GOP members of the gang of 14 goes nuclear. Even if you did win this fight, hypothetically speaking, theres no way in hell Bush nominates a well-known moderate or liberal. Youll be right back to the best you can hope for: a big fat "I dont know" like Miers.

The left will have to fight hard for their very slim chance to regain the opportunity they threw away only days ago.

patteeu

10-31-2005, 06:54 AM

The fact that the democraps are going to the wall against the pick was to be expected. Typical stance, just the same as the other side when a democrap president named nominees.

The chasm that exists between the parties hasn't narrowed in the slightest, for that matter probably never will.

Not quite. In fact, you couldn't be much further from the truth. There were only 3 votes against Ruth Bader Ginsberg when her nomination was put to a vote in the Senate.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 07:03 AM

The fact that the democraps are going to the wall against the pick was to be expected. Typical stance, just the same as the other side when a democrap president named nominees.

The chasm that exists between the parties hasn't narrowed in the slightest, for that matter probably never will.

This is an intelligent and balanced post (other than the "democraps idiocy). Are you feeling unwell today? :p

patteeu

10-31-2005, 07:06 AM

This is an intelligent and balanced post (other than the "democraps idiocy). Are you feeling unwell today? :p

Except for the innaccurate notion that the suggested democrat reaction will be nothing different than what we've seen from Republicans in the past, of course.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 07:14 AM

Little revisionist history, anyone?

Clinton nominated perhaps one of the most far-left ACLU-card-carrying whacko liberal members in the Supreme Court's entire history, and the Republican-controlled Senate approved her overwhelmingly. I dont remember the vote count, but I'm pretty sure it was 80+ approval. The GOP hated her ideology, but Clinton won the presidency, and they felt he had the right to name picks. Back then, the GOP felt you could only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on their experience and qualifications, not ideology.

Talk about your revisionist history. Ginsburg was elevated to the SC in 1993 and

1. Clinton had just crushed Bush in the general election, and was riding high in popularity ratings.

2. She had a 12 year record on the DC circuit, and was NOT a liberal whack job. Not even close. In fact, it's to the left of moderate, but not HARD left. She is nowhere near a Thurgood Marshall or Brennan.

3. Oh yeah, this is what Orrin Hatch said in his autobiography, in RECOMMENDING Ginsburg TO Clinton:

"Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg [sic]."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002

3. Orrin Hatch

Boozer

10-31-2005, 07:19 AM

Talk about your revisionist history. Ginsburg was elevated to the SC in 1993 and

1. Clinton had just crushed Bush in the general election, and was riding high in popularity ratings.

2. She had a 12 year record on the DC circuit, and was NOT a liberal whack job. Not even close. In fact, it's to the left of moderate, but not HARD left. She is nowhere near a Thurgood Marshall or Brennan.

3. Oh yeah, this is what Orrin Hatch said in his autobiography, in RECOMMENDING Ginsburg TO Clinton:

"Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg [sic]."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002

3. Orrin Hatch

You forgot to mention that the Senate was not Republican-controlled at the time.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 07:21 AM

Bush has absolutely nothing to lose with this nomination. Nothing. In his mind, I'm sure he's just said: "WTF, why not?"

This is true, and he gets to shore up his base.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 07:23 AM

You forgot to mention that the Senate was not Republican-controlled at the time.

Thought of it, but I don't think it's a valid point. Ginsburg got like a 90 confirmation votes, so pretty much all Republicans voted for her also.

I also think (but could be mistaken) that the Democrats did NOT have a filibuster-proof majority at that point in time.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 07:24 AM

Except for the innaccurate notion that the suggested democrat reaction will be nothing different than what we've seen from Republicans in the past, of course.

Oh right -- Republicans prefer to keep the nominees from ever getting a vote in the first place. Essentially, "pocket rejection" of Clinton's nominees over the last couple years he was in office...

Boozer

10-31-2005, 07:29 AM

Thought of it, but I don't think it's a valid point. Ginsburg got like a 90 confirmation votes, so pretty much all Republicans voted for her also.

I also think (but could be mistaken) that the Democrats did NOT have a filibuster-proof majority at that point in time.

You're right, there were more than 40 Republicans.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/congress/sen93.txt

I should warn you, though, that you're going to run afoul of another prong of the conservative narrative of oppression. Namely, people are going to say that irrelevant because no one ever thought of filibustering a judicial appointment until Bush's presidency.

Area 51

10-31-2005, 07:36 AM

Not quite. In fact, you couldn't be much further from the truth. There were only 3 votes against Ruth Bader Ginsberg when her nomination was put to a vote in the Senate.

I wasn't trying to make any predictions, I was just trying to get Amnorix's blood pressure up this morning, he seemed to be a little off his game.

Mr. Kotter

10-31-2005, 07:49 AM

Oh right -- Republicans prefer to keep the nominees from ever getting a vote in the first place. Essentially, "pocket rejection" of Clinton's nominees over the last couple years he was in office...

If the Democrats filibuster this nominee to the SC, would it be the first time in our nation's history that has happened or not?

:)

patteeu

10-31-2005, 08:02 AM

Talk about your revisionist history. Ginsburg was elevated to the SC in 1993 and

1. Clinton had just crushed Bush in the general election, and was riding high in popularity ratings.

Like that has anything to do with Area 51's false statement that both sides treat nominees like Alito the same way.

2. She had a 12 year record on the DC circuit, and was NOT a liberal whack job. Not even close. In fact, it's to the left of moderate, but not HARD left. She is nowhere near a Thurgood Marshall or Brennan.

She's as hard left as Alito is hard right.

3. Oh yeah, this is what Orrin Hatch said in his autobiography, in RECOMMENDING Ginsburg TO Clinton:

"Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg [sic]."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002

3. Orrin Hatch

Which just adds more evidence that the Republican's haven't opposed nominees of the other party in the same way that democrats are expected to oppose this one.

patteeu

10-31-2005, 08:04 AM

Thought of it, but I don't think it's a valid point. Ginsburg got like a 90 confirmation votes, so pretty much all Republicans voted for her also.

I also think (but could be mistaken) that the Democrats did NOT have a filibuster-proof majority at that point in time.

Only 3 votes against Ginsberg, 96 in favor. And you are correct that the democrats did not have a veto-proof majority. Obviously, with the Republican's deferrence to the President's choices, they didn't need one either.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 08:08 AM

You're right, there were more than 40 Republicans.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/congress/sen93.txt

I should warn you, though, that you're going to run afoul of another prong of the conservative narrative of oppression. Namely, people are going to say that irrelevant because no one ever thought of filibustering a judicial appointment until Bush's presidency.

I'm aware of it, but it's specifically untrue. We've had that debate before, and the Republicans had considered filibustering one of LBJ's nominations or somesuch.

Boozer

10-31-2005, 08:09 AM

I'm aware of it, but it's specifically untrue. We've had that debate before, and the Republicans had considered filibustering one of LBJ's nominations or somesuch.

Since when has "truth" or "historical accuracy" gotten in the way of a good conservative oppression narrative?

patteeu

10-31-2005, 08:09 AM

Oh right -- Republicans prefer to keep the nominees from ever getting a vote in the first place. Essentially, "pocket rejection" of Clinton's nominees over the last couple years he was in office...

When it came to SCOTUS nominees, there were no "pocket rejections." The Republicans deferred to Clinton's SCOTUS choices despite their opposition to those nominees' ideologies. If the democrats controlled the Senate, they would have the ability to match the Republican behavior, but having failed that, they take things a step further. Again, Area 51 was wrong when he claimed that the democrats are taking a "typical stance." Their stance is quite atypical.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 08:10 AM

If the Democrats filibuster this nominee to the SC, would it be the first time in our nation's history that has happened or not?

:)

No. Republicans used it to block Abe Fortas from being elevated to CJ.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 08:11 AM

When it came to SCOTUS nominees, there were no "pocket rejections." The Republicans deferred to Clinton's SCOTUS choices despite their opposition to those nominees' ideologies. If the democrats controlled the Senate, they would have the ability to match the Republican behavior, but having failed that, they take things a step further. Again, Area 51 was wrong when he claimed that the democrats are taking a "typical stance." Their stance is quite atypical.

They were also both early in his term of Presidency, and were not liberal whack jobs.

I further note that Roberts' quick confirmation only goes to show that the RIGHT kind of candidate isn't going to have much trouble being confirmed, even if he is clearly right of center.

patteeu

10-31-2005, 08:21 AM

They were also both early in his term of Presidency, and were not liberal whack jobs.

Early or late, I don't see how that matters in terms of principle. The only thing you can be saying, as far as I can see, is that you think the Republicans would behave like the democrats if they were put in the same political situation. But I'd say that until we actually see that that's what would happen, it can't be considered a "typical stance."

I don't know exactly what earns one the title of "liberal whack job," but I don't think it's unfair to say that Ginsberg and Breyer are as liberal as Alito is conservative.

Sully

10-31-2005, 08:37 AM

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 08:39 AM

Early or late, I don't see how that matters in terms of principle. The only thing you can be saying, as far as I can see, is that you think the Republicans would behave like the democrats if they were put in the same political situation. But I'd say that until we actually see that that's what would happen, it can't be considered a "typical stance."

I don't know exactly what earns one the title of "liberal whack job," but I don't think it's unfair to say that Ginsberg and Breyer are as liberal as Alito is conservative.

If Clinton had put somebody that was pretty far left of center, when his popularity was at 40%, then I don't have a helluva lot of doubt about their reaction.

Scalia and Thomas are as conservative as you can possibly be, pretty much. Ginsberg and Breyer, meanwhile, are not quite as conservative as, say, Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were.

patteeu

10-31-2005, 08:47 AM

"Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says."

Can we at least admit that the term "activist" is ridiculous, since through two pages, no one has even mentioned this. Either every judge is activist (ie: he/she rules against what you believe) or none are... right?

Wrong. The word has meaning, but that doesn't mean that every time it's used it is used correctly. I read that statement, but since there are no specifics provided, it's hard to evaluate what Lustberg means. Having said that, the law and the Constitution aren't always black and white so there are times when activism is clear and there are times when reasonable people could differ. Furthermore, there are differences of opinion on whether reversing a longstanding precedent is activism in and of itself because of stability goals of the doctrine of stare decisis or whether it is not activism if such a reversal returns the law to that which is defined by the relevant legislation or constitutional provision.

patteeu

10-31-2005, 08:52 AM

If Clinton had put somebody that was pretty far left of center, when his popularity was at 40%, then I don't have a helluva lot of doubt about their reaction.

I can't argue with your opinion when we are talking about a hypothetical, but that doesn't really have any bearing on how "typical" the democrat stance on Alito is.

Scalia and Thomas are as conservative as you can possibly be, pretty much. Ginsberg and Breyer, meanwhile, are not quite as conservative as, say, Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were.

Scalia and Thomas could advocate outrageous conservative activist interpretations which I suppose would make them more conservative than they actually are. Imagine the decisions we might get from the likes of a Pat Robertson or a James Dobson.

I don't see Ginsberg and Breyer as any more moderate than Thomas or Scalia. The two pairs are solidly on opposite sides of a judicial philosophy divide.

Uatu

10-31-2005, 09:03 AM

Scalia and Thomas are no more right than Ginsberg and Breyer are to the left.

As for Alito, just reading the AP story, this sounds like the nominee we wanted. I'll tenatively upgrade Bush a notch on my 'what have you done for me lately' scale.

The hell with fillibusters. Holding the WH and a majority in the Senate gives you the right to get nominees through. I hope they bring it. Whether they try to go the obstructionist route and lose, or win and leave the court in session with only 8 justices, let them answer to the people in the voting booth for it.

This is a rules issue that seems to me used to be unspoken, but now - in the less gentlemany new age of politics - needs to be closed up. Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?

The defeat of Miers and nomination of what appears on the surface to be a real constructionist is a home run for conservatives.

Mr. Kotter

10-31-2005, 09:30 AM

No. Republicans used it to block Abe Fortas from being elevated to CJ.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html

Elevated does not equal selected. If the Dems do filibuster, Reps will get a lot of mileage out of it....down the road. A lot. :)

Chief Henry

10-31-2005, 09:48 AM

Scalia and Thomas are no more right than Ginsberg and Breyer are to the left.

The hell with fillibusters. Holding the WH and a majority in the Senate gives you the right to get nominees through. I hope they bring it. Whether they try to go the obstructionist route and lose, or win and leave the court in session with only 8 justices, let them answer to the people in the voting booth for it.

REP

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 09:51 AM

Elevated does not equal selected. If the Dems do filibuster, Reps will get a lot of mileage out of it....down the road. A lot. :)

Splitting very, very thin hairs. The underlying principle remains -- the republicans have used the filibuster to block a nominee from an appointment to the Supreme Court. Whether it was a new appointment or an elevation is pretty irrelevant.

Nobody will get mileage out of this. Only hard-core political wonks give a crap about this. Unless there is something pretty earth-shaking, like reversing Roe v. Wade, most of America does not care about debates about the Supreme Court, does not vote based upon what the President will do with SC nominees, and hardly understands the issues involved anyway.

None of this stuff resonates on Main Street America.

Uatu

10-31-2005, 09:53 AM

Elevated does not equal selected. If the Dems do filibuster, Reps will get a lot of mileage out of it....down the road. A lot. :)

In many ways the Supreme Court is the most powerful entity in America. This is what all the dogfighting in senate and presidential elections is about. If you're going to bulldog them on anything it should be this.

Uatu

10-31-2005, 10:00 AM

... the republicans have used the filibuster to block a nominee from an appointment to the Supreme Court.

...None of this stuff resonates on Main Street America.

And I don't think the average person is going to see much right about a minority contingent blocking a nominee when the intent is for a simple majority to be required and not a supermajority.

For most people it's not an us vs. them issue. If it were wrong back then (and it was) they will see it as wrong today too.

The public didn't hear about Miguel Estrada being shot in the back, but they will hear about this one. I don't think "well, they did it too" as a method of excusing a distasteful act is going to resonate on Main Street either.

go bowe

10-31-2005, 10:49 AM

i don't really remember this guy, but i had a pretty small social group during law school...

he graduated the same year i did, but i just don't recall him...

he is one of those rare conservatives who went to the bastion of liberalisim that is yale law school...

he and thomas might be the only conservatives who have gone to yale law in the last 100 years (ok, i'm kidding about that, sorta)...

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 01:13 PM

In many ways the Supreme Court is the most powerful entity in America. This is what all the dogfighting in senate and presidential elections is about. If you're going to bulldog them on anything it should be this.

The Supreme Court:

1. can only spend as much as the Congress and President give to it.

2. has no army.

3. can only respond to the lawsuits that are brought by others. It cannot proactively decide matters unrelated to the lawsuits that are brought.

4. Is limited by the words of the Constitution and the laws that it interprets.

5. Cannot enforce its own decisions, but rather relies on the executive branch to do that.

Is it powerful in some ways? Yes. Is it "the most powerful entity in America"?? Not even remotely close.

Amnorix

10-31-2005, 01:17 PM

And I don't think the average person is going to see much right about a minority contingent blocking a nominee when the intent is for a simple majority to be required and not a supermajority.

That sentence alone would be understood by less than 50% of the eligible voters of this country, and maybe 50% of likely voters.

For most people it's not an us vs. them issue. If it were wrong back then (and it was) they will see it as wrong today too.

The public didn't hear about Miguel Estrada being shot in the back, but they will hear about this one. I don't think "well, they did it too" as a method of excusing a distasteful act is going to resonate on Main Street either.

You don't get what I'm saying -- NOBODY cares except those whose positions are hardened on this stuff.

What voters care about:

1. their wallets
2. religion
3. guns
4. wars, safety, security and crime
5. see above, repeat ad nauseum

Individual rights and liberties? Strict constructionism? That stuff just doesn't play well. You can't sound-bite it, and it's too abstract for many.

Uatu

10-31-2005, 01:24 PM

Well, I can't argue with that.

The average person is going to have some awareness of the story. I dont think they take in details, but it's all about who overall looks worse to them. Who looks worse on each story adds up to a general, subconcious positive or negative feeling on each side. And that's what most people vote from, I think. general impressions based on a few sound bytes that they probably don't even remember hearing.

What I was saying is that I think in a fillibuster situation the Dems will come out looking worse to the armchair observer. If the SC is trying to conduct business with 8 justices it will be made into an election issue. Maybe it would hurt the Dems, maybe not, but it's hard to see any way it could help them.

go bowe

10-31-2005, 01:32 PM

* * *
If the SC is trying to conduct business with 8 justices it will be made into an election issue. . .uh, actually, unless somebody dies, the court will contine to have 9 justices...

o'connor is staying on until a replacement takes over, iirc...

Uatu

10-31-2005, 03:18 PM

uh, actually, unless somebody dies, the court will contine to have 9 justices...

o'connor is staying on until a replacement takes over, iirc...

I thought it was for a finite period. I could be wrong. My bad :(

I wonder what would happen if there were only 8 though? :hmmm:

Area 51

10-31-2005, 04:03 PM

I thought it was for a finite period. I could be wrong. My bad :(

I wonder what would happen if there were only 8 though? :hmmm:

If that's the case have your power cell phone ready, you have to be the tie breaker.

Uatu

10-31-2005, 04:13 PM

If that's the case have your power cell phone ready, you have to be the tie breaker.

Alright, I'll be ready. And I'm at least as qualified as Miers ROFL

Ah, I digress.

Boozer

10-31-2005, 04:17 PM

I thought it was for a finite period. I could be wrong. My bad :(

I wonder what would happen if there were only 8 though? :hmmm:

The sky does not fall. Everything goes as usual, except you get more tie votes. When there's a tie vote on whether to affirm or reverse, the ruling in the lower court stands. It doesn't count as the Supreme Court affirming the decision or the reasoning in it, but it's not overruled. This actually happens sometimes when a justice has to recuse himself from a case.

Logical

11-01-2005, 07:42 PM

patteeu

11-01-2005, 08:37 PM

Wow this maybe the most warped partisan view of Mier's withdrawal I have ever heard.

What was wrong with it? It seemed pretty spot on to me. What's your view of the points he made?

go bowe

11-01-2005, 08:58 PM

yo, patteeu... here's my take on his post...
The Democrats are going to regret with bitterness and anger the opportunity they threw away with Miers. At least with her, you had a CHANCE that she would not be blatantly obvious as a conservative. Yes, the GOP killed her in committee, but only because the Democrats LET it happen. If the Democrats would have said "oh hell no, Miers is the best we can get, we will not let the GOP derail her", she'd be confirmed. Instead they stood back and chuckled as her nomination slowly died.

The left has been insisting all along that they could kill a nominee, well now we'll find out. I'm betting at least 2 of the 7 GOP members of the gang of 14 goes nuclear. Even if you did win this fight, hypothetically speaking, theres no way in hell Bush nominates a well-known moderate or liberal. Youll be right back to the best you can hope for: a big fat "I dont know" like Miers.

The left will have to fight hard for their very slim chance to regain the opportunity they threw away only days ago.i'm certainly not speaking for whatever the democrats did or didn't do, but i think most democrat senators felt the same way that many republican senators felt about harriet miers...

she just isn't smart or skilled enough to set her apart from any of thousands of other lawyers...

she just doesn't have what it takes for high office..

she's more of a michael brown kind of appointee, if you know what i mean... :p :p :p

while i would prefer a moderate to replace o'connor, i don't see alito as the second coming of lucifer either...

and the dems won't filibuster unless the polls go wild with opposition to alito after the hearings have been held...

my bet: no filibuster and alito confirmed...

and ginsberg and stevens have put out a call for skilled taxidermists...

it seems they don't want to give up their seats until bush is out of office...

Logical

11-01-2005, 09:03 PM

What was wrong with it? It seemed pretty spot on to me. What's your view of the points he made? Originally Posted by alnorth
...Yes, the GOP killed her in committee
.... How the heck did they Kill it in commitee? That is BS
... If the Democrats would have said "oh hell no, Miers is the best we can get, we will not let the GOP derail her", she'd be confirmed. ...They could not have forced her nomination to the floor for an up down vote the Republican party is in control.

patteeu

11-01-2005, 09:08 PM

How the heck did they Kill it in commitee? That is BS
They could not have forced her nomination to the floor for an up down vote the Republican party is in control.

Thanks for the response. I agree that the "in committee" part was superfluous, but it was definitely members of the GOP who killed her nomination before it got past (or even really into) the committee.

I disagree with your second objection though. If the democrats had been solidly behind Miers, I think there would have been enough Republicans to get her out of the committee and confirm her.

go bowe

11-01-2005, 09:11 PM

How the heck did they Kill it in commitee? That is BS
They could not have forced her nomination to the floor for an up down vote the Republican party is in control.eh, typical scientist...

you keep letting facts get in the way of a perfectly good (but totally inaccurate) rant... :p :p :p

btw, i heard that the lady withdrew her nomination, but not anything about her nomination being killed in committee...

the committee had not yet begun their hearings and no vote had been taken...

nobody killed "it" in committee...

(that would be an "i agree, that's bs" comment, for those of you with scorecards...)

patteeu

11-01-2005, 09:13 PM

yo, patteeu... here's my take on his post...
i'm certainly not speaking for whatever the democrats did or didn't do, but i think most democrat senators felt the same way that many republican senators felt about harriet miers...

she just isn't smart or skilled enough to set her apart from any of thousands of other lawyers...

she just doesn't have what it takes for high office..

she's more of a michael brown kind of appointee, if you know what i mean... :p :p :p

while i would prefer a moderate to replace o'connor, i don't see alito as the second coming of lucifer either...

and the dems won't filibuster unless the polls go wild with opposition to alito after the hearings have been held...

my bet: no filibuster and alito confirmed...

and ginsberg and stevens have put out a call for skilled taxidermists...

it seems they don't want to give up their seats until bush is out of office...

You could be right about many of the democrats. I think alnorth is right about the subset of democrats who are more concerned with ideology though (e.g. the Chuck Schumers). Miers was their best bet to get someone who would "grow" (read that as "become more progressive") after reaching the court. She might have disappointed them, but I don't think a guy like Alito is likely to change his stripes to a very great degree.

I agree with the rest of your analysis: no filibuster, alito confirmed, ginsberg and stevens hanging on for the next president if they can.

go bowe

11-01-2005, 09:22 PM

Thanks for the response. I agree that the "in committee" part was superfluous, but it was definitely members of the GOP who killed her nomination before it got past (or even really into) the committee.

I disagree with your second objection though. If the democrats had been solidly behind Miers, I think there would have been enough Republicans to get her out of the committee and confirm her.but saying the democrats might have gotten solidly behind her is a lot like saying if i was just 100 pounds lighter or 30 years younger...

never gonna happen...

the woman was, by many accounts, positiviely vapid in her personal interviews with individual senators...

she was overwhelmed and she just wasn't up to the task...

no majority of senators of either party or in combination would have confirmed that nominee, imo...

but in some fantasy world of politics, yes, there would have been enough committee votes to force a floor vote if all the democrats voted with even a few republicans, but that's all it would be, fantasy...

nobody wanted her except the president and his texas cronies...

well, almost nobody...

go bowe

11-01-2005, 09:38 PM

You could be right about many of the democrats. I think alnorth is right about the subset of democrats who are more concerned with ideology though (e.g. the Chuck Schumers). Miers was their best bet to get someone who would "grow" (read that as "become more progressive") after reaching the court. She might have disappointed them, but I don't think a guy like Alito is likely to change his stripes to a very great degree.

I agree with the rest of your analysis: no filibuster, alito confirmed, ginsberg and stevens hanging on for the next president if they can.if anybody thought harriet miers would grow into a capable jurist on the level of a roberts or a scalia, they were either high or brain dead, or both...

and no, alito isn't going to change his stripes, but i'm hoping that the principles of stare decisis will guide his decisions regarding abortion, primarily on the basis of reliance...

it's been legal for what, thirty years or so?

a whole generation of women has grown up never knowing the horrors of illegal abortions, never dreaming that it could be illegal to terminate a unwanted pregnancy, never imagining that it could be illegal to use birth control...

if alito has the same sort of respect for stare decisis that roberts described, i don't see roe being overturned...

at least i hope not...

alnorth

11-01-2005, 09:42 PM

but saying the democrats might have gotten solidly behind her is a lot like saying if i was just 100 pounds lighter or 30 years younger...

never gonna happen...

the woman was, by many accounts, positiviely vapid in her personal interviews with individual senators...

she was overwhelmed and she just wasn't up to the task...

no majority of senators of either party or in combination would have confirmed that nominee, imo...

but in some fantasy world of politics, yes, there would have been enough committee votes to force a floor vote if all the democrats voted with even a few republicans, but that's all it would be, fantasy...

nobody wanted her except the president and his texas cronies...

She wasnt formally rejected in committee, but for all intents and purposes she was. The night before the nomination was pulled, Frist officially phoned Bush to inform him that Miers would not have the votes unless she was absolutely spectacular in hearings. That tells me the nose-counters ruled out significant Democratic support, which was foolish on their part.

From a Liberal's point of view, wouldnt a trained chimp be better than Alito? The left could have carried the nomination and then hope that the left-wingers on the court could steer her along their way over time.

Taco John

11-01-2005, 09:45 PM

I personally would have rather seen Janice Rogers Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown), but have full confidence that Alito is more than qualified for the job.

Logical

11-01-2005, 10:07 PM

if anybody thought harriet miers would grow into a capable jurist on the level of a roberts or a scalia, they were either high or brain dead, or both...

and no, alito isn't going to change his stripes, but i'm hoping that the principles of stare decisis will guide his decisions regarding abortion, primarily on the basis of reliance...

it's been legal for what, thirty years or so?

a whole generation of women has grown up never knowing the horrors of illegal abortions, never dreaming that it could be illegal to terminate a unwanted pregnancy, never imagining that it could be illegal to use birth control...

if alito has the same sort of respect for stare decisis that roberts described, i don't see roe being overturned...

at least i hope not...Wow, whoa, that was a true Gem. Seriously :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Taco John

11-01-2005, 10:11 PM

if alito has the same sort of respect for stare decisis...

I don't know about any of that, but I bet he kicks ass at stareing contests!

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/alito_samuel.jpg

:)

go bowe

11-01-2005, 10:43 PM

She wasnt formally rejected in committee, but for all intents and purposes she was. The night before the nomination was pulled, Frist officially phoned Bush to inform him that Miers would not have the votes unless she was absolutely spectacular in hearings. That tells me the nose-counters ruled out significant Democratic support, which was foolish on their part.

From a Liberal's point of view, wouldnt a trained chimp be better than Alito? The left could have carried the nomination and then hope that the left-wingers on the court could steer her along their way over time.i can't speak for the liberal's point of view, but i don't see how anybody could think a trained chimp like ms. miers would be better than alito...

(as an aside, somehow the trained chimp description seems so apt for ms. miers, and i have even heard it used to describe the president on occasion...)

judge alito is a man of great intelligence and integrity and he will make a fine justice of the supreme court, even if i don't agree with all of his conservative judicial views...

patteeu

11-02-2005, 05:56 AM

if anybody thought harriet miers would grow into a capable jurist on the level of a roberts or a scalia, they were either high or brain dead, or both...

By "grow" I meant change from presumed conservative to wishy-washy unprincipled (i.e. moderate) or even full blown liberal/progressive. While I don't think she would have ever become the intellectual equal of roberts or scalia, I don't share the elitist view that she wasn't qualified to sit on the court. Maybe it's because I didn't graduate from Yale... :p ;)

and no, alito isn't going to change his stripes, but i'm hoping that the principles of stare decisis will guide his decisions regarding abortion, primarily on the basis of reliance...

it's been legal for what, thirty years or so?

a whole generation of women has grown up never knowing the horrors of illegal abortions, never dreaming that it could be illegal to terminate a unwanted pregnancy, never imagining that it could be illegal to use birth control...

if alito has the same sort of respect for stare decisis that roberts described, i don't see roe being overturned...

at least i hope not...

I don't see Roe being overturned either. They would need at least 1 more justice for that IMO, and even then, I suspect that the court would honor the doctrine of stare decisis to the extent that they'd just chip away at the edges by allowing restrictions rather than directly overturn it. Personally, I'd like to see it overturned and left to the state legislatures for philosophical reasons (as opposed to personal moral reasons), but I don't think it will happen just because Alito is confirmed.

Roe v Wade has been the law for a little over 30 years. How long was Plessy v. Ferguson the law of the land? ;)

patteeu

11-02-2005, 06:01 AM

While I don't think she would have ever become the intellectual equal of roberts or scalia, I don't share the elitist view that she wasn't qualified to sit on the court. Maybe it's because I didn't graduate from Yale... :p ;)

Having said that, I'm very happy that she didn't make it because I'm much happier having an exceptionally smart, solid conservative as Alito is described to be.

go bowe

11-02-2005, 09:35 AM

Having said that, I'm very happy that she didn't make it because I'm much happier having an exceptionally smart, solid conservative as Alito is described to be.me too...

go bowe

11-02-2005, 09:46 AM

By "grow" I meant change from presumed conservative to wishy-washy unprincipled (i.e. moderate) or even full blown liberal/progressive. While I don't think she would have ever become the intellectual equal of roberts or scalia, I don't share the elitist view that she wasn't qualified to sit on the court. Maybe it's because I didn't graduate from Yale... :p ;)

I don't see Roe being overturned either. They would need at least 1 more justice for that IMO, and even then, I suspect that the court would honor the doctrine of stare decisis to the extent that they'd just chip away at the edges by allowing restrictions rather than directly overturn it. Personally, I'd like to see it overturned and left to the state legislatures for philosophical reasons (as opposed to personal moral reasons), but I don't think it will happen just because Alito is confirmed.

Roe v Wade has been the law for a little over 30 years. How long was Plessy v. Ferguson the law of the land? ;)fwiw, alito was in my graduating class (although i don't remember him)...

and you are probably right about the chipping away at the edges thing...

hopefully, there are enough differences that roe will not be overturned like plessy (which was long overdue for overruling)...

Uatu

11-02-2005, 09:48 AM

Roe v Wade has been the law for a little over 30 years. How long was Plessy v. Ferguson the law of the land? ;)

In reality, much like the coming-along of Brown v. Board, reversing Roe v. Wade it would be a decision that would have a wide range of political and social implications and the country has to become ready for it.

I think the tide of public opinion is gradually shifting back, and eventually I don't think a Roe reversal is going to be possible, but probable. For example in the last election National Right to Life won in 78% of the races it was involved in; Emily's List (pro-abortion) lost about the same percentage.

We're seeing it in other areas as well, where public attitudes have embraces such concepts as welfare reform, where social security reform is becoming acceptable to the voting public, and down the road abortion reform. For how many years, a Republican congress was extinct, then in the last 15 years or so they've been on the rise in the legislative and executive branch.

Public policy is a lagging indicator of the cultural norms of the time; Roe is one of the last active vestiges of prevailing cultural attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s, and eventually I think that it will go the way of the flower generation and leisure suit as well.

mlyonsd

11-02-2005, 09:50 AM

fwiw, alito was in my graduating class (although i don't remember him)...

He becomes a justice to the SC and you are stuck being a Chief fan.

God can be cruel sometimes.

go bowe

11-02-2005, 09:56 AM

He becomes a justice to the SC and you are stuck being a Chief fan.

God can be cruel sometimes.you just had to remind me of that, didn't you? ROFL ROFL ROFL

Logical

11-02-2005, 08:57 PM

Having said that, I'm very happy that she didn't make it because I'm much happier having an exceptionally smart, solid conservative as Alito is described to be.I don't care as much about the solid conservative as the exceptionally smart Constitutional Scholar, IMO stare decisis should serve me on the issues I am liberal on like abortion rights.

Pitt Gorilla

11-03-2005, 02:37 PM

Elevated does not equal selected. If the Dems do filibuster, Reps will get a lot of mileage out of it....down the road. A lot. :)
That makes you happy as a Democrat?

Pitt Gorilla

11-03-2005, 02:42 PM

I think Alito is a fine candidate. I also don't see the court overturning Roe, at least for quite a while.

Personally, I'm a bit torn on the Roe issue. I think abortion is morally "wrong" and don't understand how anyone would even consider a partial-birth procedure. At the same time, I'm sickened by the current direction of our country concerning personal rights. I also don't want to think about where the RWNJs would turn next, after Roe was overturned.