It seems I struck a nerve (several, actually) with my comments about Alito. Pick apart the words all you like, but the fact remains that Bush has nominated a hardline conservative judge for the SC. And that’s his right. Trying to bulldoze it through by the end of the year so the Bush admin can trumpet a political victory and end the year on a “high” note? Well, heck, why not? (even though the Republicans are squealing like stuck pigs and accusing Democrats of “hijacking” the Senate because they want to complete the investigation into the shady reasons the Bush administration used to take us to war CNN)

So Alito is a “kinder, gentler” Scalia. He probably likes puppies and kittens too. Yes, he is qualified, and he will probably be the next justice.

It doesn’t mean everyone has to like it. It doesn’t mean that all of us have to throw flowers at his feet. It doesn’t mean that some of us must ignore how an anti-abortion stance seems to be the Republican litmus test for qualification to be a Supreme Court Justice (see Harriet Miers), and yet woe to any who mentions his stance on abortion in criticism. Even his mommy has said publicly that he is against abortion. Hopefully the Democrats won’t lie down for this one, and will fight.

Just because it’s obvious Bush would never nominate a liberal, you’d think he might offer someone more moderate. Too much to hope for, I suppose.

Question for you - your profile says "liberal" so I mean no personal offense by this. Putting the shoe on the other foot. Let's say you voted for a liberal presidential candidate in 2008. Bill Bradley, off the top of my head. Maybe you even ponied up $200 to stand in the back row of a fund-raiser out in California. Then, a few years later, Justice Clarence Thomas retires, and President Bradley gets to nominate a new Justice.

Would you be rooting for:

a) a liberal justice, who agrees with most of your views
B) a moderate justice, who would "bring washington together" but might be more conservative than you like on some issues

Just for bonus points, would a or b above have to agree with the your point of view on abortion just to be considered 'liberal' or 'moderate' and if so is this a litmus test?

edited for clarity. honest.

Darnit, Eeyore wrote my post before I did!

(1) Do you think Justice Alito is a good choice for the USSC?
At first glance, yes. I've only been able to read a few of his opinions thus far but I have no real beef with the argumentation he puts forth. I think his analysis in Casey was dead on. While I don't agree with the Pennsylvania law on face, I didn't see a reasonable constitutional challenge on the spousal notification provisions, especially since it protected the woman if she believed herself to be at risk of harm.

I am a little concerned with some of his rulings in the 4th amendment area, but haven't had a good chance to read them fully. The strip search case in particular was troubling.

His discrimination rulings also probably need some additional scrutiny before I could support him fully.

(2) Will he be confirmed?
Probably. The only thing I potentially see as a "gotcha" is his failure to initially recuse himself in the Vanguard Group case. He had a lot of money tied up in their funds and regardless of the lawsuit's potential award amound, there was a clear conflict of interest and he should have recused himself immediately.

(3) Is there a risk that the constitutional option will be triggered?
Right now, no. I think it will depend on how the hearings go. If Alito comes out with information that polarizes the debate, its possible the Democrats will filibuster. But they have to have a clear smoking gun on this public a stage to warrant such an act. Right now, I don't see Alito having that type of issue. It is still very early, however.

Of course it doesn't mean you have to like it. What it does mean is that if you're going to accuse him of voting according to his personal views instead of according to his honest, professional appraisal of the law, you'll have to back that up somehow. So far, you haven't even attempted to do so.

Good point Amlord, as long as you listen to all those who spoke.

The president lost the popular vote in 2000, barely won 2004 and both elections had their “disputes” and could have went either way. Bush clearly didn’t win any mandate and if he were truly the uniter that he advertises than he should have reached out across the aisle and nominated a more moderate candidate. He’s not just ruling over the 51% that barely got him elected, he represents everyone and should consider his position and how he arrived.

Of course that would be real leadership and that’s why we haven’t been holding our collective breaths.

(1) Do you think Justice Alito is a good choice for the USSC?

No surprise here. The one thing that stands out for me is the age of Roberts and Alito, they’ll both be around for a long time. Prudent long term strategy to shove the right wing agenda down 49% of the population. That’s ok though, more ammo for the gun that’s already blown off a few GOP toes. The rest of the foot will soon follow.

(2) Will he be confirmed?

Like nighttimer, when he nominated Miers I thought it was the first move in a judicial chess game: give up the pawn for the King. After much consternation and too much press coverage he’ll get the nod.

Would you mind saying what exactly you mean by that? By and large, the "right wing agenda", when it comes to judges anyway, is characterized mostly by a willingness to not interfere with laws passed by the people, particularly when they're passed at the state and local level, which is closest to the people. So what, specifically, do you think is liable to be imposed on the people by judges like Alito that they wouldn't vote for on their own accord?

So real leadership would be Bill Clinton winning 43% of the vote and nominating a 'moderate' like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg? To clarify Bush is also "ruling over" Americans who did not vote at all, not just the 51% of voters who chose him over Kerry. Heck, he even "rules over" the 1% who voted Reform / Green / Libertarian / Constitution!

Bush's moderate picks in some cases have been disastrous - Democrat Norm Mineta (Mr. no racial profiling ever) is responsible for immigration and border enforcement. Hello? He can't even get his conservative picks right, now we're asking for him to get moderate / liberal picks right too?

I don't know why opposition to confirming Judge Alito to the Supreme Court should be so odd to you, Amlord.

Many federal judges are confirmed with little opposition. Most of them toil in complete anonymity. Their sphere of influence is limited to the region under their jurisdiction.

Supreme Court justices influence all the courthouses beneath them. It's the Super Bowl for any jurist and only the best of the best should be considered. No one seems to doubt seriously that Alito isn't qualified for a seat on the High Court. But his rulings and judicial philosophy are fair game for thoughtful scrutiny before elevating him to a position he could hold for the next 25 years.

My "litmus test" is not whether a nominee supports or opposes Roe vs. Wade. I don't believe America will ever go back to a time when all abortions are illegal. What will continue to happen is a steady erosion of a woman's access to abortion. A outright ban of abortion would spark a backlash that most politicians would hope not to be the target of.

I'm more interested in Supreme Court nominees that have some understanding of the fact that the courts are frequently a last stand for individuals and groups whom are neither wealthy, nor well-connected. The poor and voiceless need more advocates. The rich and powerful already have more than they need.

Hmm, isn't it the conservative side of the aisle that gets all in a tizzy over “activist judges”? Oh, wait, that only applies to "liberal" judges! So, it’s OK to have a conservative activist judge. Gotcha.


So maybe there's actually a glimmer of hope that Scalito may (emphasize may) maintain and, dare we hope, even support, current law. But then there's so much about his views of individual constitutional rights...

I saw Mr. Neas on Hardball, and what little credibility he and PFAW had with me has evaporated into nothing. Since when was Sandra Day O'Connor a conservative? She was a swing vote...Meaning sometimes she was liberal, sometimes she was conservative...And where I come from we call that moderate.


A so-called "conservative activist" is one who overturns Supreme Court cases that were wrongly decided [Roe v. Wade, for instance] in order to conform to the Constitution. If that's a bad thing then I'm a bad person.


Emphasis mine. Alito voted for abortion rights when he felt that they were in line with the law...Again, if that's wrong, I don't want to be right.


How can someone "narrowly interpret the Constitution" and give power to the government? Also, "strengthening business" is just nonsense unless there is evidence to back it up. Also, saying that he ruled in favor of business is not evidence, evidence would be showing how he disregarded the law in order to empower businesses.


So if I find someone from the Heritage Foundation to say that he's a great choice, does that mean he is? This is an opinion, DaffyGrl, an opinion with no concrete facts or information within it. And yet again, replace conservative with liberal in that paragraph, and you've just described Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The question the Senate should be asking Alito and what they should be basing their vote on is "is he qualified" not, "do I agree with him". But Democrats just can't get over their outrage over the President's audacity to appoint a conservative justice, so I doubt that'll happen.

Another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, also panned the president's pick.

On edit:

Chuck Schumer calling for...judicial restraint..Bahahahahahahahaha!

CP

...that it limits the rights of the federal government, and that those rights not specifically enumerated are reserved for the states or the people? If People for the American Way think he's extreme, sign me up.

Judges are not supposed to be "moderating voices." They are supposed to interpret the law.


Rights which have been protected "for decades" - that is, rights which were "discovered" in 200-year-old documents by reading them, er, liberally.

Rather than asking Erwin Chemerinsky, Chuck Schumer and PFAW for their predictable spin, I'd look a little further back.

You're just saying the same thing as before, using different words. You're still accusing him of ruling based on his ideology rather than the law. You still have yet to back that accusation up - and saying that the ACLU, PFAW, and other left-wing organizations don't like him because he won't rule the way they want does not constitute backing up the accusation. All you've done is provide an echo chamber for it.

We already know that left-wing groups don't like Alito. What I was looking for is evidence from his judicial opinions to show that his understanding of the law is flawed. Do you have anything at all to show that?

Okay, I'll bite on this one. If someone narrowly interprets the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment they can allow the government to move more in to people's lives. If there is not a right to privacy (wait, don't reach a conclusion yet) that is implied in the Constitution then where are the limits of where the government's power to enter my collective space?

These are the things the Federalists argued about when the Bill of Rights was agreed to as the price for ratifying the Constitution. They said that if the rights of people were enumerated then it could be inferred that anything not protected by on of the amendments could be violated by the federal government. But the 9th and 10th amendments tried to address this and express a limited government view by reserving the rest of the powers not enumerated to the state or to the people.

Yet if a judge feels that the government does not have the restriction from entering our privacy unless the Constitution expressly prohibited that particular action (i.e. unreasonable search and seizure) then that judge is narrowly interpreting our rights and allowing the government to assume non-enumerated powers.

That IMHO is how someone can narrowly interpret the COnstitution and give power to the government unintended by the framers and the amenders of the Constitution.

That depends, Eeyore. "Violating my privacy" or one's "collective space" are vague terms. If you give me a specific example then I can tell you whether or not I think it's Constitutional, but to say "where are the limits" is to vague. For example, even without a Constitutional right to privacy, the government can't legally tap your phones without a warrant or break into your house...But again, you'd have to be more specific for me to answer that.


I get what you're saying, Eeyore. However, if a judge allows the government to do something not enumerated by the Constitution, then he/she isn't even following the Constitution itself, so I don't think that that could be considered "narrowly interpreting" it.

CP

I was attempting to make the point that is the Bill of Rights Amendments are narrowly interpreted (and these amendments where applied to the people of all of the states by the 14th Amendment if I understand that amendment correctly) then broader powers of the government can be assumed to exist by some.

I see you are saying that this is still broadly interpreting the Constitution.

I am not sure how good of a candidate for the USSC he is but at least he has more experience than Meirs. I also think his values are more dead on with Bush's. I am interesting to see how Congress reacts and what are big issues before confirming or denying his nomination.

The hyperbole is astounding from some on here(CJ). What is too conservative? What does that mean exactly? Aside from being Bush’s(2nd) guy, I just don’t see what the problem is. Alito is qualified, intelligent, and most importantly – takes a humble approach to his rulings. You will rarely see him overstep his authority which is exactly how it should be. Error on the side of caution.

From his noted cases
I see a person that is not a radical against public speech that happens to include holiday themes[ACLU vs Schundler], will enforce the first amendment[Pitt News v. Pappert], does not consider a wife informing her husband that she is going to have an abortion any more “undue burden” than a teenager informing their parents(Supreme Court rulings allowed states to force parental consent on teenagers- how could he presume the authority to say this PA law was somehow worse?)[Planned Parenthood v. Casey], yet 9 years later would still follow the Supreme Court’s rulings by striking down a partial birth abortion law in NJ[Planned Parenthood v. Farmer]. What a right-wing ultra-conservative wacko idealogue Reaganite white guy! Can we check the labels at the door please?

Juxtaposing women and girls is odd. It isn't an undue burden if our legal system operates on a belief that an adult female must notify her husband of her decision to have an abortion because her ability to reason and look after herself are on par with that of a minor female. Is a woman's ability to make personal decisions the same as that of a teenage girl? Hm. Does a wife have a legal right to know her husband will make arrangements to have a vasectomy?





Alito didn't have a choice but to follow SCOTUS' precedent on an identical law it struck down. Why does this keep coming up?

You're seeing something that just isn't there. The Pennsylvania law didn't require women to notify their husbands because women were considered to have immature judgment. They were required to do it because the husband has a joint interest in what happens to the baby. Granted, the woman's interest is greater, because she has to bear the burden. And the law recognized that, by still ensuring that she alone was the one who actually gets to make the decision. But it still isn't unreasonable for him to be notified, just as it isn't unreasonable for one to notify the other when disposing of property common to both of them.


This is a grossly misleading question. The burden is not the same for both, because husbands don't have the same power over wives that parents have over children. Therefore, the effects of notification are not going to be the same in both cases.

In both comments I'm responding to here, I'm seeing a disturbing lack of objective reasoning. What's being substituted is almost a desire to find something to be offended about.

Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act (Spousal notice: Section 3209)



Let’s change that around.

Girls were required to do it because the parent has a joint interest in what happens to the baby.
Granted, the daughter’s interest is greater, because she has to bear the burden.
And the law recognized that, by still ensuring that she alone was the one who actually gets to make a decision.

You’re making the same arguments in favor of parental notification. Where “joint” interest is concerned if you mean adj. Law. Regarded as one legal body; unity in identity of interest or liability the language in Section 3209 is mealy-mouthed, possibly because of SCOTUS finding spousal consent laws (Danforth and Gerstein) unconstitutional, unlike parental consent laws (Bellotti). And yet Alito could not see a similarity between Danforth and Casey.

Interestingly I haven’t come across this observation but I believe 3209 (b) (1) would have violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.




One exception to notifying a husband was adultery. However, the wife must give the abortion provider a signed statement informing the provider her husband is not the father of the child. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adultery is “technically punishable by 2 years of imprisonment or 18 months of treatment for insanity." (Link) Since an unmarried woman’s right to an abortion doesn’t require notifying someone else’s husband and an unfaithful wife doesn’t need to notify the father, married pregnant women were the only group in danger of incriminating themselves with actionable evidence.



How is a parental notification law different from a spousal notification law? The girl and the woman must provide proof that they have notified the parent and the spouse, respectively, before the abortion can take place. Granted, one of the exceptions allowed a wife to write down that she believed she would be physically harmed if she notified her husband and allowed her to avoid seeking judicial bypass like her own daughter would have to, but it doesn’t make providing that proof any less burdensome than it is for a minor. Hell, in some cases girls can notify a blood relative and doctors can bypass notification.



Perhaps Alito’s frail undue burden test with regards to women in Casey is genuinely objectionable. Supporting a viewpoint may offend someone who has arrived at an opposite conclusion in a debate. Such a possibility is obvious and usually doesn’t require prior notification.

Too conservative in this context is the nomination of a conservative after the appointment and elevation of a conservative to Chief Justice. A Republican moderate would have been a better choice.

Though the requirement of spousal consent could be argued to result in a greater burden than the requirement of parental consent, it does not follow that a requirement of spousal notification carries a greater burden than the requirement of parental notification. As I explained, the burden that comes from notification is largely proportional to the power that the person being notified has over the mother of the child. Since husbands have far less power than parents, the burden of notification of husbands would be less than the burden of notification of parents.


(Somehow your b turned into a smiley. I'm not sure how that happened.)

How would this reasoning apply if the law required that a child's biological parents be made known, so that his or her family medical history can be known? If the mother had committed adultery, would that violate the 5th amendment?


It's not the procedure of notification that was argued to be the burden in Casey. It's the fact that the husband was to be notified at all. As Alito pointed out in his dissent (see the fourth page of the PDF link):

"Finally, Justice O'Connor has concluded that regulations that simply increase the cost of abortions, including regulations that may double the cost, do not create an 'undue burden.' See Akron, 462 U.S. at 434-35, 103 S.Ct. at 2494-95 (maj. op.); at 466-67, 103 S.Ct. at 2511-12 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Justice O'Connor reached this conclusion even though it seems clear that such increased costs may well deter some women."

Following this reasoning, it's not the logistical burden of filling out the paperwork and (if necessary) tracking down the husband that's considered the "undue burden". The constitutional objection to the law is all based on the alleged burden that would come from the bare fact that he's being notified, regardless of the logistical pathway that leads to his notification.


The most important consideration for a judge is his ability and willingness to apply the law accurately and honestly. Everything else pretty much pales in consideration.

No it wouldn't have, a strict Constitutionalist would have been a better choice, like Janice Roger Brown. I don't know why the theory that the Supreme Court should be balanced is as pervasive as it is, but that theory goes against the Supreme Court's goal, which is to interpret and uphold the law. Ideology shouldn't matter, but somehow, if you strictly interpret the law, you're labled "conservative"...Someone wanna explain that to me?

CP

You haven't answered the question. What makes someone too conservative? IMO, this can't be answered effectively. Terms like "conservative" and "moderate" are labels that can be interpreted by intelligent people different ways. A "conservative" isn't defined by a certain position. To require idological quotas on the Supreme Court is not only unconscionable (IMO), it is also highly impractical.

Oh that's an easy one. A "conservative" is anyone who wins elections outside a major metropolitan area. Or so it seems. The media loves calling Republicans "right wing extremists", and Teddy Kennedy is a "moderate".
When, in fact, if you look at trends in who is winning elections in the past twenty years or so, it would appear that voters believe that what used to be "conservative" is actually now the more attractive choice. Still to the media however, a "moderate" is HRC or Howard Dean talking in front of the VFW.

I hope I cleared that up

Anyhow, back to the theme. To the victor go the spoils. GWB was elected on a platform, of which the single biggest point I supported was to appoint a strict constructionist for the bench if the opportunity arose.
Alito is a "well qualified" jurist, and he's the Presidents pick. Confirm him, then move along, nothing to see here folks. If the Democrats want to pick Justices, they need to put up candidates who can be elected, end of story. Republicans weren't whining about Ginsberg, they just confirmed her, and she's on the left wing of ACLU...

I am looking forward to the left putting on a big show on C-Span in hopes of reaping campaign contributions though...

There was an article in the Washington Post where Arlen Spectre makes the question of Roe and Alito crystal clear:


There are certainly other issues at stake here but this makes things pretty crystal clear, a vote for Alito is a vote against choice. Spectre is pro choice and I don't expect that he'll vote to confirm Alito.

Now that we are starting to learn more about him things aren't looking so great.

This was 20 years ago... Are you wanting to hold something against somebody they said 20 years ago in judging their character now?

I think he should answer questions just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did when she was before the panel.

This is hardly ancient history Sleeper, it was an example of what Alito worked for during the Reagan administration. And yes, for Supreme Court judges I feel that something which happened 20 years ago is very relevant when it relates directly to their professional lives. We are talking about appointing someone to one of the most respected offices in the land, for life. What they did 20 years ago in the prime of their legal career definitely suggests what they may do with the next 20.

It comes at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing the most significant abortion case to cross their desks in a long time. Were Alito confirmed he would likely be in office before the decision on this case was rendered and therefore his viewpoints on this issue are extremely relevant.

A vote for Alito is probably a vote against Roe, I agree. Everyone knows that Alito won't tip the balance on Roe though. I wish everyone wouldn't get so tied up on that one single issue. Even if Roe were overturned all it would do is leave the decision to each individual State. !

Not trying to say that your feelings on the subject are unimportant CJ because I can understand both sides concern to giving any ground on that issue one way or the other. Is there anything else wrong with Alito though?

Plenty, so lets examine something else. For one thing Alito was a proud member of the extreme right wing group Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).


This organization was about denying admittance of women and minorities to Princeton. That certainly isn't a quality I want in a Supreme Court justice when a good part of the job description is ensuring equality for Americans.

You might think, ok he was young and stupid and was just trying to fit in. Then why did he proudly claim membership when trying to get a job with the Reagan administration?

So when asked to cite his conservative credentials he basically said "well I'm ok with keeping women and minorities in their place, does that work?"

He also lied to the senate about it in his 1990 Confirmation hearing - Page 45 (648) of the PDF:

Guilty by association? The NYTimes article you site even states "although there is no evidence that he(Alito) played an active or prominent role (in the organization)." If my grandfather played for the Mud Hen softball team weekly with David Duke, does he have to be bigot because Duke is? Does the entire Mud Hen softball team then discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion because Duke does? I don't think that it does. You'll have to forgive me but your concerns here on this information alone are unwarranted I feel.

Surely you have more than this?

Did you read the rest of my post? Alito claimed it as part of his "philosophical commitment" when he was trying to get a job with the Reagan administration. "philosophical commitment" is code for "let us know you are one of us" and this is what he supplied. It wouldn't have been any secret to those in the position to hire him what CAP stood for. They said "ok, we copy that loud and clear" and he got the job.

On top of that he lied about it when he was in his 1990 confirmation hearing.

I agree with Cube Jockey that Alito's comments make it more likely than not that he'd vote to overturn Roe. I disagree, however, that this would be a problem. Regardless of what your views are on abortion, that ruling was the epitome of judicial activism. Just the way it artificially divided the law into three trimesters (abortion can't be infringed upon in the first, can be regulated in the second, and can be prohibited in the thrid) is enough to make anyone look at the court dumbfounded and say "How did they get THAT out of the Constitution?" When the court feels the need to get micromanagey like that, it's an almost unmistakable sign that it's trying to devise policy, instead of applying the Constitution. Policy decisions are best left to the people and their representatives.


Give me a break. He didn't lie at all. There's nothing in the excerpt you quoted that shows that CAP ever discriminated on the basis of anything. All you've shown is that they had views on abortion, birth control, and racial quotas that you apparently disagree with.

The fact that you can only raise completely irrelevant objections to him makes him look all the more favorable to me.

Blackstone did you read the NY Time article? Heck just go google this group, it isn't hard to figure out what they stood for. That question got right to the very core of what this group was doing. They were trying to keep women and minorities out of Princeton because they wanted it to remain a male, white and priviledged school - it doesn't get more clear than that.

Yup. Including this part about CAP's magazine, Prospect:

"The magazine's content also grew increasingly provocative under the editorship of conservative rising stars, including Dinesh D'Souza [a dark-skinned Indian-American] and later Laura Ingraham [obviously, a woman]."

Yeah, what ugly discrimination against women and minorities.

I did read it CJ. You're making some serious leaps of faith here IMO. Lets say I worked at a Ford Explorer Plant when the Firestone tires were blowing out on the vehicles. During my interview for my next job I put that I worked there on my resume. Does that mean that I have no regard for other's safety? Does it make me proud of the fact that Explorers had shoddy tires? If someone asks me if I have ever been a part of group that has antisafety policies and I say "no", am I a liar? Again, I don't think so.

Do you have more evidence?

And for the record, it is possible that Alito can separate his personal views from his judicial rulings on abortion. Also from the Washington Post.


Is abortion and guilt by association(heck, he's Bush's guy - he's already guilty by association for many, right?) your only concerns?

That isn't even close to the same thing. We are talking about being a member of an organization which had stated goals to keep women and minorities out of Princeton. That is what they did and they were well known in conservative circles for that at the time.

So when you apply for a policy job with a conservative administration (i.e. Reagan) and you list this organization as part of your "philosophical commitment" that means something. What it is saying about you is that you buy into the principles for which this organization stands and you are citing membership in said organization as part of the "proof" of your beliefs.

Further if you go back and read the question from the senate hearing it pretty directly asks about organizations such as this and he said that he was never a member. That is a lie plain and simple.


Oh sure, I read that article too. So here is how things went down. Yesterday Spectre makes a statement that he has found out some things about Alito's legal position on abortion and he is very concerned and might consider voting against him.

Today he has a closed session meeting with Spectre and "personally assured him" that he wouldn't let his personal views taint his decisions. Right. And what assurance do we have that he is actually going to remember that when he has been appointed? None.

What happened behind the scenes is the Republican leadership paniced when Spectre made his statement yesterday and they went to work on him. Whatever they said worked and today they've released a statement. You can;t seriously be buying that.

And for the record I do believe that a justice's personal views on a subject are very relevant to the position. Are you seriously trying to suggest that a justice can make heavy decisions in a vacuum isolated from their personal beliefs?


There have been plenty of other items presented in this thread. To be honest JLMA I don't have to justify this to you and lay out the full case against Alito. In my opinion his views on abortion disqualify him from holding the office as well as some of the indicators of his personal beliefs and ethics (e.g. the CAP thing and the Vanguard case). If I were a senator that would be enough for me to vote against him and take any other action I could to stop him from becoming a justice. You acknowledged those views in your first post and minimized them. Fine, you don't care about it. I do.

I don't care that he is a Bush pick, if Bush would pick someone I felt cared about the constitution and not ideology I'd support that choice.

So in turn would it be fair for me to say Robert Byrd was once a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan? Because surely people don't change, just like you said earlier, things Alito said 20 years ago apply(and groups he was a part of) so the same should apply for people like Byrd.

Of course you will say this is off topic, but I am making a point that people can change... unless you Believe Robert Byrd is still a racist?

I don't know if he is or not, but it would certainly be a valid thing to consider when voting for him for office and especially if someone were talking about elevating him to the supreme court. I'm sure that has been covered in the races he has run sleeper, apparently the voters in his state don't care. I don't live in his state and I don't care either - if I did then I probably would.

Guys, don't fall for Cube Jockey's dishonest portrayal of CAP. See the bottom of #83, and #85 on this thread. This was not an organization that discriminated against women and minorities, nor did it even advocate doing so. It was simply an organization that was opposed to affirmative action and was in favor of traditional values. So you don't have to find ways to excuse Alito's membership in it.

Little fact check there Blackstone. Here is an article from The Nation on the subject:


I've highlighted some parts of that article to draw your attention. So with that in mind some facts.

Women were not allowed in Princeton until 1969 and before that Princeton was exactly as the article describes a college for white males of priviledge. So they start letting women in but there is a limit. This group doesn't like that women are being let in period and they definitely won't stand for the limit being removed because then the character of the school would change in their minds.

This was the time when Alito was involved with the organization, and this isn't affirmative action Blackstone, this is blatant sexism.

If your "traditional values" mean keeping women out of college then you might care to keep them closer to your vest because that isn't something to be proud of from where I stand.

This was the time Alito was involved? It didn't say that in the article. In fact, according to [url=
"http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20051102-1356-alito-privacy.html"]this AP article[/url], Alito seemed to be a bit left-of-center in his time as a Princeton undergrad:


His application for the Reagan Administration job cited the fact that he was currently (that is, at the time of the application, in 1985) a member of CAP. By that time, it had apparently moved beyond calls for excluding women and minorities, since, as I pointed out to you already, a woman and a minority were both editors of CAP's magazine, Prospect, during the '80s.

So I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that if you want charges of racism and sexism to stick to the wall.

I have seen nothing from CAP that states the goals that you say.


So now Alito and Specter are liars? I'm seeing a pattern here CJ. I do think that one can make decisions based on law and not personal beliefs. Thomas does it all the time. Just because Stevens and Scalia can't, does not make it impossible does it?


Well I appreciate your honesty. You certainly don't have to lay out a full case. I'm just curious to see if there is something that I should be concerned about, and from what I've seen there isn't. I think Alito does care about the Constitution. He has a great record on First Amendment rulings. Which amendment have you seen him disregard in favor of ideology?

Time to reprise this thread I think, or close it an open a new one. Judge Alito's Senate confirmation hearings begin next week and it's being reported today that the ABA has given him it's highest rating. From this article......




Looks like a good start.

Thanks for the update Aquilla.. Seeing as how of late the ABA has been seen as the benchmark for Supreme Court Nominees.

I still believe you will see yet another threat and possible use of the filibuster by the Democrats in Washington on Alito.

I will concede and have conceded that Alito is well qualified as a lawyer and judge. In that way he is a smart nominee. However the ABA rating to not take into account political views (nor should they) but the nomination process is part about qualification and I believe can rightfully be about pinpointing the probability of extremism in action.

Of course the good part about a high ABA rating is that it implies that past behavior as a judge had the application of justice according to the law instead of according to personal political and moral views.

More on the recent ABA ratings and liberal groups posturing.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06005/632822.stm



I find it funny that when Janice Rogers Brown was a potential candidate all these groups did was yell and scream about how important the ABA rating was, because she had only gotten a 'qualified/not qualified' rating. Now that Alito gets a unanimous 14-0(with one member not present) from the ABA as well qualified, all of a sudden the ABA rating is irrelevant..

Edited to remove a question about where the irrelevant reference came from. It is clearly quoted in the post and somehow I missed it before responding.

The ABA rating has merit for Alito's qualifications. Yet many Americans are concerned that Alito may have extreme values that will influence his actions as a judge or make him an ideologue as a judge.

Ideology clearly influences how people rule in cases of law. This much is obvious from the claptrap about liberal activist judges. I believe that concerns about ideology are a separate concern that must be looked at during the nomination process.

I am glad he is well qualified by the ABA. But that ALONE does not make him a suitable candidate for the USSC without any further examination.

You have to read the article Eeyore...



I didn't say anyone here said it was irrelevant... I was referring to the article I linked.

Edit to add: I was also pointing out blatant hypocrisy on the part of those groups(People for the American Way) who were using the ABA against Janice Brown.

I think you will find that what people will find as an ideology will be his insistance of going by the laws as intended when ratified or legislated. To many this will seem radical. Yet I too have questions to ask a judicial apppointee:

1. What is your opinion of the influence of the 14th amendment on the 9th and 10 amendments?
2. What extent should the commerce clause impact intrastate commerce?
3. What is your opinion of the dual sovereignty in the constitution?