• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Alito - the Disappointment, the Pleasing, and the Other

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Am listening to the Alito hearings for the second day.

1) The disappointment - Alito maintains that he would respect settled law, meaning that he would let stand Roe v. Wade. My position is that the Federal government should not regulate abortion one way or the other, per the 10th Amendment. On this, I am disappointed.

2) The pleasing - Alito said no president or court is above the law — even in time of war, strongly hinting that he would rule against Bush and the NSA on the issue of spying on Americans.

3) The other - Unlike Judge Roberts, who evaded questions in order to be confirmed, Alito is very outspoken and has testified with candor. I did like Roberts, and was happy he was confirmed, but I like Alito much more. This jjudge is going to support the Consitution of the United States of America. Of that, I have no doubt.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Biden gave the best show of the day. He rambled on for 12 minutes without ever asking a single question. Alito just sat there listening to Biden's stump speech and didn't have to answer anything.
 
H

hipsterdufus

KCConservative said:
Biden gave the best show of the day. He rambled on for 12 minutes without ever asking a single question. Alito just sat there listening to Biden's stump speech and didn't have to answer anything.
Agreed. Biden sucks - and I can't stand his hair transplant!
If you guys want him, you can have him, I'll throw in Lieberman too and trade you straight up for McCain.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
Am listening to the Alito hearings for the second day.

1) The disappointment - Alito maintains that he would respect settled law, meaning that he would let stand Roe v. Wade. My position is that the Federal government should not regulate abortion one way or the other, per the 10th Amendment. On this, I am disappointed.

2) The pleasing - Alito said no president or court is above the law — even in time of war, strongly hinting that he would rule against Bush and the NSA on the issue of spying on Americans.

3) The other - Unlike Judge Roberts, who evaded questions in order to be confirmed, Alito is very outspoken and has testified with candor. I did like Roberts, and was happy he was confirmed, but I like Alito much more. This jjudge is going to support the Consitution of the United States of America. Of that, I have no doubt.
He is good, him and Roberts, what an honor to watch both these men give the speech of their lives. I sometime want to strangle these lazy senators, they have no idea the lengths these men go to remain impartial, these clowns could learn a thing or two!:roll:
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have to admit I have a couple of issues with him that just nag at me. First, his lack of memory regarding the organization he was proudly a member of during the 70's at Princeton. He was proud enough of his membership to include it on a resume in 1985, so where's his pride now? I don't buy that he doesn't remember, and I don't buy that he wasn't an active member, either.

Secondly, his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case until he was called to task on it after the fact. I heard a bunch of paperwork mumbo-jumbo, but it boils down to this: He was briefed on the case, he knew there was a potential conflict of interest, and he opted not to recuse himself. "The clerk didn't give me the paper to sign off to recuse myself" is not an excuse for breaking his word to the Senate that he would not sit on a case involving Vanguard.

I don't suggest that this would be enough to constitute blocking his nomination, but it would be better, IMO, if he'd admit to making some mistakes instead of using selective memory and technicalities to attempt to make himself appear flawless. I'd feel more comfortable with someone who can admit to making mistakes in the past and having learned valuable lessons from them.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
I have to admit I have a couple of issues with him that just nag at me. First, his lack of memory regarding the organization he was proudly a member of during the 70's at Princeton. He was proud enough of his membership to include it on a resume in 1985, so where's his pride now? I don't buy that he doesn't remember, and I don't buy that he wasn't an active member, either.

Secondly, his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case until he was called to task on it after the fact. I heard a bunch of paperwork mumbo-jumbo, but it boils down to this: He was briefed on the case, he knew there was a potential conflict of interest, and he opted not to recuse himself. "The clerk didn't give me the paper to sign off to recuse myself" is not an excuse for breaking his word to the Senate that he would not sit on a case involving Vanguard.

I don't suggest that this would be enough to constitute blocking his nomination, but it would be better, IMO, if he'd admit to making some mistakes instead of using selective memory and technicalities to attempt to make himself appear flawless. I'd feel more comfortable with someone who can admit to making mistakes in the past and having learned valuable lessons from them.
Yes, the Vanguard case may be a problem, but my suggestion would be to look at his decision in that case and see if his position differs with positions he has taken in the past, and also see if it differs from his views of how the Constitution should be interpreted. If you do that, and see that his position is consistent with his ideology, then I dont see how you can see a true conflict of interest in the case.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom