|
58-42
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Kenosis |
That was the vote. It shouldn't have been that close. Alito is no more conservative than Ginsburg or Breyer are liberal, and his credentials were every bit as strong (Roberts' were arguably even stronger). Voting against him because "this country is now even more polarized" or would be with him on the court is nonsense: the country has always been polarized on culture war issues, Dianne Feinstein. Doing that also gives the Republicans a justification for blocking well-qualified liberal judges should a future Democratic president get to make appointments. Widening the partisan pissing contest to the judicial branch isn't exactly a great idea. Let's see, what will assuredly happen...
- the 5-4 Stenberg vs. Carhart is absolutely toast & the partial-birth ban will go into effect.
- Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood will most likely be 5-4 in favor of the state if the case goes back before SCOTUS.
- One of the cases involving religious displays in the public square would also go 5-4 in the opposite direction now. I'm not really too concerned about that, but then again I live in New England where none of this really matters.
- I would be worried that the Lawrence vs. Texas case would be overturned except that O'Connor decided to be a conservative in that instance if I remember right (for reasons that are completely unknown to me). That's not going to change.
Everyone with a brain knows that Alito is going to be very conservative, but in some cases there is no obvious 'conservative' position. With that in mind, my hope is that Alito will be more like Scalia than Thomas on civil liberties/detainees issues. Scalia, remember, vociferously sided with the extreme left wing of the court, Stevens & Ginsburg, in arguing that US citizens cannot be held without charges, regardless of whether they are 'terror suspects' or not. To me that position seems to make the rather 'extreme argument' that the Bill of Rights actually means something.
I also hope he's more like Thomas than Scalia on states rights issues (e.g. the medical marijuana case where Thomas argued that the federal gov't had no right to usurp California's power to regulate the distribution of medical marijuana). To me that also makes a likewise 'extreme argument' that states should have some ability to make their own laws, to serve as 'mini laboratories' for ideas: the strongest early proponent of this idea was of course the 'completely ignored, unAmerican, irrelevant-our-discussion' Thomas Jefferson.
(Crosses his fingers) |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| oh, and Scalia also upheld flag burning as constitutionally protected free speech. I forgot about that one. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I predict a lot of booing and hissing at the STOU tonight. Real classy. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| I think I've brought this up before, but can someone please explain to me the logic behind vesting the executive branch with the power to apoint its own candidates to the head of the judiciary branch? What happened to the separation of powers? |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I think I've brought this up before, but can someone please explain to me the logic behind vesting the executive branch with the power to apoint its own candidates to the head of the judiciary branch? What happened to the separation of powers? |
If it were as simple as the president appointing Supreme Court justices then your question would be a very good one. But the Senate still has the 'advise and consent' role. Why? Here was the original justification:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
Basically, Senate confirmation hearings and such are needed so that people like Harriet Miers don't become justices. As long as there is either a presidential appointment and legislative branch confirmation or vice versa I don't see a problem. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I think I've brought this up before, but can someone please explain to me the logic behind vesting the executive branch with the power to apoint its own candidates to the head of the judiciary branch? What happened to the separation of powers? |
As opposed to being appointed and approved by congress? I dunno. Is there a better way? |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
As opposed to being appointed and approved by congress? I dunno. Is there a better way? |
maybe a bake-off?:conf: |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
maybe a bake-off?:conf: |
they should have a lightshow face off :D |
|
|
| tribu |
Another thing about USSC Justices is that they are appointed for life. You could play the politics game just right, but once you are in, you are free to do what you want. No party influence, mo lines to follow, no one to please.
I'm not suggesting alito or roberts is gonna go all liberal on the country, but they may make some "uncharacteristic" decisions. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Kenosis
I'm not really too concerned about that, but then again I live in New England where none of this really matters.
|
really? so where does it matter? |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
really? so where does it matter? |
all the red and purple states |
|
|
| justin |
Well, atleat Alito can't be manipulated by the president like Harriet Miers (tHE cRONY)would have been. Maybe, in the president's hasty decision to replace her right away with Alito, Bush was blindsiding the interests of the public to get the real representative of his choice, to the right (corruption). I'm of the opinion that Sandra Day O' connor would be very hard to replace in balancing the votes of the Supreme Court, Alito nor Miers would be suitable in providing that flexible vote that O' Connor was known for. There is definitely many things about Alito that I don't agree with, for insatnce like you mentioned, I doubt he will be in full support of pro choice, which affects a lot of people. Therefore it's not right that their isn't a more unbiased appraisal method before confirming a new Supreme Court Justice because WE ARE ALL AFFECTED...
"Balance is Justice" -
Ra's Al Ghul |
|
|
|
|
