|
|
|
|
#1
10-31-2005, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
Bush to Nominate Alito
Nicknamed 'Sc-Alito' because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Justice Scalia. Let the battle begin! Everyone loves a good ole' DC mud fight (at least I do). I'm wagering Democrats come out on the losing end. I'm starting to think Cyrus was right all along. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Honestly, I'm not quite as Machiavellian as Cyrus is - but I'm betting the conservative base will be all riled up for this battle; never a winning proposition for the Democrats, I'm sad to say. One too many Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans in this party. But you never know...we could all be talking about the nuclea...err, I mean 'constitutional' option soon enough. 
|
|
#2
10-31-2005, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
Republicans voted for legally qualified liberal Ginsburg, so Democrats should vote for legally qualified conservative Alito. Simple as that.
|
|
#3
10-31-2005, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
[ QUOTE ]
Republicans voted for legally qualified liberal Ginsburg, so Democrats should vote for legally qualified conservative Alito. Simple as that. [/ QUOTE ] While that's a standard I have no problem adhering to, it should patently obvious why such an option isn't practical for Democrats - that is, even if Bush succeeds in getting him confirmed, there's altogether too much pressure on the Democrats to let the vote be as lopsided as the Ginsburg vote was. Think $$. Think any Democrat voting to confirm Alito saying bye-bye to all the NOW and EMILY's List money they know and love. Think of that money heading to their opponents in their next primary. And it's not just the women's groups that have a dog in this fight. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. Expect a war.
|
|
#4
10-31-2005, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
[ QUOTE ]
Republicans voted for legally qualified liberal Ginsburg, so Democrats should vote for legally qualified conservative Alito. Simple as that. [/ QUOTE ] If Republicans rubber stamped Ginsburg simply because she was qualified (the only qualification in the Constitution being that the person be learned in the law) then they were derelict in their duties, in my opinion.
|
|
#5
10-31-2005, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Republicans voted for legally qualified liberal Ginsburg, so Democrats should vote for legally qualified conservative Alito. Simple as that. [/ QUOTE ] If Republicans rubber stamped Ginsburg simply because she was qualified (the only qualification in the Constitution being that the person be learned in the law) then they were derelict in their duties, in my opinion. [/ QUOTE ] 100% agree... -Gryph
|
|
#6
10-31-2005, 10:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
[ QUOTE ]
legally qualified . . . Alito [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Alito is firmly in the realm of this country's best legal minds. [/ QUOTE ] My question to the studied constitutional scholars who made these opinions is, exactly what was your methodology for coming to these conclusions? Or, are you just repeating something you heard on the radio? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#7
10-31-2005, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] legally qualified . . . Alito [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Alito is firmly in the realm of this country's best legal minds. [/ QUOTE ] My question to the studied constitutional scholars who made these opinions is, exactly what was your methodology for coming to these conclusions? Or, are you just repeating something you heard on the radio? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I support Alito because those commentators, writers and politicians whose opinions I value and who study such things have spoken favorably of him. I suspect many people support his nomination for the same reasons but for whatever reason this is not something people like to say. Whether or not that is sufficient reason for someone to grant the approval of my support is of no concern to me. Also its worth noting, 90% of the courts decisions will not effect me. However I still strongly support his nomination almost entirely because those people who I tend not to like and who vote incorrectly are oppossed to his nomination. Again in a word spite. I suspect this is pretty common as well.
|
|
#8
10-31-2005, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Born on April Fools day, nominated on Halloween
Born on April Fools day, nominated on Halloween
So which is he? A Joke or a Horror? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Samuel Alito’s America
|
|
#9
10-31-2005, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Born on April Fools day, nominated on Halloween
Only Bush would have to make 4 nominations to fill 2 seats. Lets make him make 5. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
1) Roberts for O'Connor seat 2) Roberts for Rehnquist seat 3) Miers for O'Connor seat 4) Alito for O'Connor seat
|
|
#10
10-31-2005, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to nominate Alito to replace O\'Connor
The "Scalito" nickname makes for a fun caricature, but is a bit unfair. Alito is a good judge. His dissent in Casey (an abortion case that eventually went up to the Supremes) made him a darling of the anti-abortion religious right, but just because the right-wing wingnuts like him doesn't mean he's not a worthy nominee.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
