While we were worried about SJC and abortion....

[Dreadsox]

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/ed...articles/2005/12/29/scales_of_justice_tipped/

 

[Dreadsox]

[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/journalgazette/news/nation/13480218.htm

 

[Dreadsox]

I am now thinking Harriet was NOT nominated because of anything other than a concern that there may be an impeachment.

 

[BonosSaint]

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?

 

[melon]

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

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[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.

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???

 

[verte76]

I think he was chosen because he wants to give the president more power, to heck with abortion.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[Sherry Darling]

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!

 

[deep]

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??

 

[nbcrusader]

Alito Gets High Marks From Bar Association

Not that qualifications matter anymore....

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[deep]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

This was the most recent Alito thread, so I added the news update here. It was not a personal matter.

 

[nbcrusader]

This candidate should not be confirmed

his judgement is flawed and defective

Do you have any basis for your conclusion? What is proper judgment and how do you measure it consistently? Are you separating pursuasive writing from objective judgment?

 

[deep]

Casey for one

it can begin and end there.

A wife is not property of a husband or even subordinate to a husband.

his rulings on race are wrong

for him to rule that when one wins a judgement of discrimination
the offending party is only liable to the plaintive for that one instance only.

even if there is a proven pattern of discrimination.

with that reasoning each black child would have to had sued to attend an all white school

 

[nbcrusader]

Casey for one

it can begin and end there.

A wife is not property of a husband or even subordinate to a husband.

Again, it is not clear what your reasoning is, so I looked up the Casey decision.

For those unfamiliar, there were four abortion related cases heard by Alito. In three, Alito upheld all forms of abortion related rights. In the Casey decision, he dissented.

However, the description given that "wife is not property of the husband" is disingenuous at best.

Casey involved a spousal notification provision - not a spousal consent provision - HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Now, I reject old sexist notions that a man is not 50% responsible for a child. The responsibility starts at conception. Now, when there is a legal relationship and the husband is 50% responsible for the child upon conception, it does not seem unreasonable for a wife to notify her husband that she intends to end the pregnancy. Again, this is not a consent requirement, so the husband had no legal ability to stop the abortion, just know that it will happen.

How this represents poor legal reasoning ("it can begin and end there") was not articulated, and does not seem to be a very strong case at all.