While we were worried about SJC and abortion.... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-30-2005, 05:05 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:31 PM
While we were worried about SJC and abortion....

Bush picked Alito.....

[Q]Last week, memos surfaced that Alito wrote as an attorney in the Reagan Justice Department, supporting broad executive branch powers to spy on Americans suspected of being criminals or terrorists. Alito argued that, in a case dating back to the Nixon administration, then-Attorney General John Mitchell should be immune from civil lawsuits for ordering wiretaps without a warrant.[/Q]


Anyone here believe that they picked him for this reason?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ustice_tipped/
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 05:07 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:31 PM
[Q]Posted on Sat, Dec. 24, 2005

Alito backed wiretap immunity in ’80s

By Jo Becker and Christopher LeeWashington Post

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito once argued that the nation’s top law enforcement official deserves blanket protection from lawsuits when acting in the name of national security, even when those actions involve the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, documents released Friday show.
[/Q]

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...n/13480218.htm
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 05:13 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:31 PM
I am now thinking Harriet was NOT nominated because of anything other than a concern that there may be an impeachment.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 05:14 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:31 PM
I wonder if the President's definition of "enemy" is as broad as his definition of his own powers.

According to some on the right, speaking out against the President and the war and other dissents are tantamount to treason. What would stop this or any future President (Democrat for instance) from using that justification? At what point does an opponent become an enemy?

Part of the point is, with bypass of the courts, we don't have any way of determining whether the President is using the information as he says he is using it. We have to trust him? Why? Why would someone trust ANYONE with that much power?
Or is the point from the right that we should trust THIS President blindly? Has he given us any reason to?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:30 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:31 PM
Re: While we were worried about SJC and abortion....

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Anyone here believe that they picked him for this reason?
I've believed this from the start. If Bush has a "litmus test," it has nothing to do with the usual hot-button issues. It has everything to do with picking judges that are lax on executive oversight. I tend to think that every last one of his judicial appointees were appointed with the hope that all of them will allow expanded executive power. That's certainly why Roberts was appointed to Chief Justice.

And everyone was worried about "abortion."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 10:29 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Interesting, there are statements by Alito regarding abortion in the same vein.

It really is a matter of context.

Lawyers frequently engage in persuasive writings that may press positions with which they don't personally agree.

Think of this in the context of criminal defense work. You don't have to believe your client is innocent to provide a proper defense.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:40 AM   #7
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 11:31 PM
I'm so glad to see you saying this, Dread! I said this several times on various SCOTUS threads and it didn't seem to gain much traction. I have always been much more concerned about the civil and worker's rights implications of Bush's picks than Roe v. Wade.

I think the past couple of weeks have shown that we cannot take our eyes off of these people for a second. You all have heard about the Justice Dept's investigation into the leak of the wiretapping story? As if THAT'S the crime here???
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:41 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:31 AM
I think he was chosen because he wants to give the president more power, to heck with abortion.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:53 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
I'm so glad to see you saying this, Dread! I said this several times on various SCOTUS threads and it didn't seem to gain much traction. I have always been much more concerned about the civil and worker's rights implications of Bush's picks than Roe v. Wade.
Did you have access to the paper trail? It was my understanding that they had no proof of this until Dec. 24. Convenient time to release those papers, when people are not watching the news.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 12:05 PM   #10
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 11:31 PM
I'm not sure which documents you're referring to specifically. I remember reading about both Alito and Roberts decisions and papers on rights in the work place or what rights people suspected of a crime should reasonably have, and wishing that people would focus more on the issue. There was a case of a worker being injured and not being able to sue, or the kid on who had a Coke on the metro and was taken away in handcuffs. Roberts felt this was appropriate. I also recall their positions on, for example, Jose Padilla or Gitmo. It was clear they were comfortable with very limited oversight. I had a hunch it was connected to wanting greater executive power to be unquestioned in a time of war. I have to say, I didn't imagine it would turn out to be so specific.

I've read every article you've posted on this! Thanks!
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:09 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:31 PM
I have mentioned something in this direction, also.

The same goes for Roberts

the pro-life crap is just a carrot
to the dim-witted supporters who are missing the big picture

ever wonder why Harriet Miers was such a great pick for the Admin.
They look to this issue, before pro-life

these appointments are more about
covering this Administration's completely corrupt and immoral actions

there are real possibilities that people could and should be going to jail


new watch word

are you patriot?
do you love your country?
do you respect and honor the 'Founding Fathers"?


impeach, convict, and jail??
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 05:22 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Alito Gets High Marks From Bar Association

Not that qualifications matter anymore....


Quote:
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received an unanimous well- qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

The rating came after a vote of the ABA federal judiciary committee and was delivered in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will launch Alito's confirmation hearings on Monday. Alito will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

"As a result of our investigation, the committee is of the unanimous opinion that Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is well-qualified for appointment as associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," said Stephen L. Tober, chairman of the ABA panel.

The ABA rating _ the highest _ is the same that Alito received back in when President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, nominated him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 05:41 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:31 PM
If you are implying that I do not respect qualifications by starting this thread you are mistaken.

But I do not think he is a wise choice based on what I have cited above.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 07:04 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:31 PM
This candidate should not be confirmed

his judgement is flawed and defective


I would rather see them filibuster

than allow a confirmation.

If the GOP can not muster 60 votes to break it.
send him packing.


If the GOP does some bizarre freak Senate takeover with Cheney presiding

then close them down on procedural moves
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 07:07 PM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:31 PM
posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here:



it appears as if we have a president who believes that he alone can determine any policy even vaguely related to a war that he has defined as a permanent condition for the indefinite future.

i bet we've only begun to find out what powers he has secretly assigned to himself. essentially, Bush has told us that he can and will violate the law whenever he feels like it, thus begging the question, if the president can simply break the law when he feels like it, why bother with the Patriot Act?

once again, the Republicans have pulled another trick over they eyes of their base -- we've been arguing about abortion rights and the right of women not to be treated like cattle by SCOTUS, when, really, what Bush has been most concerned about is stacking the Courts with men and women completely deferent to executive power.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com