Bush to nominate Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

[aps]

I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.

Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.

Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.

you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more

Dems are the ones trying to balkanize America into warring groups

Of course dems will have problems with Alito-he is brilliant and conservative. Nothing scares dems more

 

[cnredd]

Details...

Bush to Nominate Alito to Supreme Court
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, will nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, selecting a conservative federal judge to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate.

The choice, confirmed by two senior Republican official, was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed by Bush's conservative allies, Alito will face opposition from liberal Democrats.

Bush planned to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. EST.

The White House hopes the choice mends a rift in the Republican Party caused by his failed nomination of Miers, and puts his embattled presidency on a path to political recovery. Democrats already put the White House on notice that a conservative judge such as Alito would create problems.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/31/253585.html

 

[aps]

you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more

Dems are the ones trying to balkanize America into warring groups

Of course dems will have problems with Alito-he is brilliant and conservative. Nothing scares dems more

Hmmmm, turtledude, so the only example you are going to give me of someone who is NOT a uniter is a someone who has NEVER been president. Interesting. I guess it's because you certainly could not say that about Clinton, who talked to both republicans and democrats when he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. It's why they both got through with almost every senator's support (96 for Ginsburg and 87 for Breyer).

I hope that this nomination causes further controversy. If the republicans attempt to remove the nuclear option of a filibuster, they are making a huge mistake. As stated by Alan Simpson (former republican senator of Wyoming and good friend of Cheney's) on Hardball last Thursday:

"I heard Pat say, you know, drive for the vote, get the vote, take the filibuster. Well, let me tell you, pal. When you play that game and go into the minority you‘ll wish you hadn‘t set the automatic fanny-kicker in option because it‘ll get you, it‘ll get you."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9849832/

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.

Maybe he's not as bad as those guys think. There's been a lot of under-handed propoganda lately, so I don't think it's possible for Bush to nominate someone who at least one democrat won't speak out against, just on principle.

 

[cnredd]

Alito's résumé reads like a recipe for high court consideration -- beginning with undergrad studies at Princeton, perhaps the Ivy League's most welcoming home for conservatives seeking elite educations, and a law degree from Yale, the Bush family's sentimental favorite.

After a clerkship with a 3rd Circuit judge, Alito worked as a front-line federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years.

But soon after President Ronald Reagan was elected, Alito joined the Office of the Solicitor General, staying for four years and helping to decide what position the administration would take in cases up for review by the Supreme Court.

That was followed by a three-year stint at Main Justice as a deputy assistant attorney general.

In 1987, at the age of 37, Alito was appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, a post he held until he was tapped in 1990 by the first President Bush to join the 3rd Circuit.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052

While switching through the channels, I heard someone say that Alito has more judicial experience than any nominiee in the last 70 years...

It seems that the only issue will be political...unlike Miers, it doesn't appear that anyone will be able to claim "non-qualified"...

 

[hipsterdufus]

you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more

Dems are the ones trying to balkanize America into warring groups

Of course dems will have problems with Alito-he is brilliant and conservative. Nothing scares dems more

Let's look at the facts here. Dems are almost totally shut out of all high level meetings. The wedge issues the republicans have put out there are god, guns, abortion and most important gays. They put gay marriage on the ballot in 12 states where it was already illegal. What - to make it double super illegal? Look for immigration to be the next wedge issue.

At a time when the country was uniqulydivided, Lincoln put people in his cabinet who disagreed with him, dems too. He wanted to hear dissenting opinion then make his decisions. Some of his initial opponents ended up becoming his most ardent supporters.

What we have now was referred to as a "cabal" by Lawrence Wilkerson, who wa Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005.

''…the case that I saw for four-plus years,'' he said, ''was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardisations, and perturbations in the national-security (policy-making) process'', he added.

''What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.''

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1020-01.htm

A few people making key decisions. Loyalty is valued over everything, so consequently there are a lot of yes men that have the ear of the prez.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hmmmm, turtledude, so the only example you are going to give me of someone who is NOT a uniter is a someone who has NEVER been president. Interesting. I guess it's because you certainly could not say that about Clinton, who talked to both republicans and democrats when he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. It's why they both got through with almost every senator's support (96 for Ginsburg and 87 for Breyer).

I hope that this nomination causes further controversy. If the republicans attempt to remove the nuclear option of a filibuster, they are making a huge mistake. As stated by Alan Simpson (former republican senator of Wyoming and good friend of Cheney's) on Hardball last Thursday:

"I heard Pat say, you know, drive for the vote, get the vote, take the filibuster. Well, let me tell you, pal. When you play that game and go into the minority you‘ll wish you hadn‘t set the automatic fanny-kicker in option because it‘ll get you, it‘ll get you."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9849832/

the fact is that the GOP, in all those years it was in the minority, never ever filibustered any judge (Fortas was a bipartisan filibuster that lasted just long enough for the guy to RESIGN his associate's seat).

The fact that HALF the obstructionist party voted against a near perfect candidate Justice Roberts shows that the Dems have violated the traditions of this process. GInsburg only had a handful of GOP'ers vote against her and no filibuster was even mentioned. SHE WAS FAR MORE LEFTWING than any Person Bush has mentioned was conservative

 

[cnredd]

I just thought of something weird, but maybe not out of the realm of possibility...Maybe this should go into the "Conspiracy Theories" thread...

Is it POSSIBLE that Bush's plan all along was to make Miers be the "fall guy" on purpose(maybe even with Mier's consent?) so Alito would look that much more "stellar" and show the Left a consolidated front?...

Throughout the Miers nomination, the media was saying how the Republican Party was fractured...Now that accusation can no longer be an issue...

I'm thinking that Bush MIGHT have thrown out Miers to show cronyism & non-qualifications, then when that blew over, he can come back and say, "Here's the REAL DEAL."...

Miers was also given a greenlight by Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid...Knowing that Miers wouldn't have a chance to get by the Conservative base, he nominated her to show an attempt to cross the aisle...

Cronyism? - out the door
Non-qualified? - out the door
Bush didn't try to reach out to the Left? - out the door
Bush didn't try to support a woman for SCotUS? - out the door

Not saying it DID happen...But it's a "crazy like a fox" scenario...

 

[Hobbes3259]

I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.

Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.

Maybe the Problem isn't Bush. Maybe its the poisonous atmosphere of today's political left.





You Said....

I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support

I guess these guys are just too right wing for you ?

SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA): “You Have Obviously Had A Very Distinguished Record, And I Certainly Commend You For Long Service In The Public Interest. I Think It Is A Very Commendable Career And I Am Sure You Will Have A Successful One As A Judge.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/5/90)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “I Believe Mr. Alito Has The Experience And The Skills To Be The Kind Of Judge The Public Deserves – One Who Is Impartial, Thoughtful, And Fair. I Urge The Senate To Confirm His Nomination.” (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Congressional Record, 4/27/90, p. S5281)

FORMER SEN. BILL BRADLEY (D-NJ): “[T]he Confirmation Of Sam Alito As U.S. Attorney For New Jersey Is Testimony To The Commitment He Has Shown And The Success Of His Efforts As A Law Enforcement Official. I Am Confident That He Will Continue To Do All He Can To Uphold The Laws Of This Nation With The Kind Of Determination And Vigor That Has Been His Trademark In The Past.” (Sen. Bill Bradley, Congressional Record, 12/8/87, p. S17427)

 

[Hobbes3259]

Hmmmm, turtledude, so the only example you are going to give me of someone who is NOT a uniter is a someone who has NEVER been president. Interesting. I guess it's because you certainly could not say that about Clinton, who talked to both republicans and democrats when he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. It's why they both got through with almost every senator's support (96 for Ginsburg and 87 for Breyer).

I hope that this nomination causes further controversy. If the republicans attempt to remove the nuclear option of a filibuster, they are making a huge mistake. As stated by Alan Simpson (former republican senator of Wyoming and good friend of Cheney's) on Hardball last Thursday:

"I heard Pat say, you know, drive for the vote, get the vote, take the filibuster. Well, let me tell you, pal. When you play that game and go into the minority you‘ll wish you hadn‘t set the automatic fanny-kicker in option because it‘ll get you, it‘ll get you."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9849832/

The Ginsburg and Breyer examples of the former Senate giving the President his constitutional due, before the democrats were locked out of power. Now the only way they can achieve their aims, having been shut out of legislation isn by Adjudication, and that option si being slowly choked off.


And Alan Simpson is FoS. It is not a question if, it is a question of When, and By Who. If the Republicans dont uncork the Nuke option, the Democrats may when they get power back in two generations.


Just the Way they engineered the unprecedented use of the Judicial FIlibuster.

 

[TurtleDude]

Let's look at the facts here. Dems are almost totally shut out of all high level meetings. The wedge issues the republicans have put out there are god, guns, abortion and most important gays. They put gay marriage on the ballot in 12 states where it was already illegal. What - to make it double super illegal? Look for immigration to be the next wedge issue.

At a time when the country was uniqulydivided, Lincoln put people in his cabinet who disagreed with him, dems too. He wanted to hear dissenting opinion then make his decisions. Some of his initial opponents ended up becoming his most ardent supporters.

What we have now was referred to as a "cabal" by Lawrence Wilkerson, who wa Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1020-01.htm

A few people making key decisions. Loyalty is valued over everything, so consequently there are a lot of yes men that have the ear of the prez.

months before Bush was elected, dems were spewing hatred at this guy that was unparallelled in modern history. Dems sat on a 25 year old DUI for 6 weeks then dropped the bomb a couple days before the election to try to win for Gore Dems tried to steal the election with nefarious legal shenanigans and then started insulting BUsh before he was even sworn in. Millions of foreign dollars were used by disinformation specialists trying to discredit Bush with all sorts of lies. CBS tried to smear him with forged documents and outright perjury.

Dems obstructed and filibustered highly qualified judicial nominees like MIguel Estrada for purely political and RACIST reasons as proven by the Rockefeller memo obtained by GOP operatives.

the fact is the dems never ever intended to work with BUsh and you libs need to stop whining about a situation your overlords created

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe the Problem isn't Bush. Maybe its the poisonous atmosphere of today's political left.





You Said....



I guess these guys are just too right wing for you ?

good quotes

Son of two school teachers (none of the typical dem hypocrisy like watching millionaires like Kennedy whine about rich GOP'er selections)

Graduated with top honors from Princeton and Yale Law (where he was editor of the Law Journal)-goodbye claims of intellectual gaps

CAPTAIN IN THE ARMY RESERVE-no claims of "draft dodging"

No hint of scandal
no hint of being arrogant or a bully

How OConnor votes is not RELEVANT BTW

 

[ShullsM]

I'll have to read more about him in order to draw an opinion. I saw him speak this morning after he accepted the nomination. He seems like a good guy, but I just don't know his record. The conservatives seem to be fairly pleased with the nomination so that must tell us something.

 

[aps]

the fact is that the GOP, in all those years it was in the minority, never ever filibustered any judge (Fortas was a bipartisan filibuster that lasted just long enough for the guy to RESIGN his associate's seat).

The fact that HALF the obstructionist party voted against a near perfect candidate Justice Roberts shows that the Dems have violated the traditions of this process. GInsburg only had a handful of GOP'ers vote against her and no filibuster was even mentioned. SHE WAS FAR MORE LEFTWING than any Person Bush has mentioned was conservative

LET ME REPEAT since you clearly are not reading my response to you. Clinton sought out the advice and counsel of senators before he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. Thus, the GOP senators had a say in who Clinton nominated. Bush does not do that with the democrats. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[aps]

The Ginsburg and Breyer examples of the former Senate giving the President his constitutional due, before the democrats were locked out of power. Now the only way they can achieve their aims, having been shut out of legislation isn by Adjudication, and that option si being slowly choked off.

AGAIN, Clinton sought out the advice and counsel of both parties when he was selecting his nominee. Bush doesn't do that.

And Alan Simpson is FoS. It is not a question if, it is a question of When, and By Who. If the Republicans dont uncork the Nuke option, the Democrats may when they get power back in two generations.

So typical--criticize someone from your own party when they say something with which you do not agree. Blah blah blah blah

 

[aps]

Maybe the Problem isn't Bush. Maybe its the poisonous atmosphere of today's political left.

You Said....

I guess these guys are just too right wing for you ?

Wow, Hobbes, those are interesting quotes. Thank you for posting them. But let's not pretend that being nominated for a district court is equivalent to being nominated to the highest court of the land. Also, at that time, they had no record to base their opinions.

 

[shuamort]

you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more

Bush. May 6, 1999

Second, I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.

Bush has done exactly the opposite of what he's claiming in his long reign.

 

[cnredd]

LET ME REPEAT since you clearly are not reading my response to you. Clinton sought out the advice and counsel of senators before he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. Thus, the GOP senators had a say in who Clinton nominated. Bush does not do that with the democrats. You're comparing apples and oranges.

AGAIN, Clinton sought out the advice and counsel of both parties when he was selecting his nominee. Bush doesn't do that.

While you CONTINUALLY LIE to the members of this forum, may I remind you of what actually happens?

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.

Other Democrats sounded anything but conciliatory. "The president has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land,"said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/03/233742.html

Well howz about that!...He DOES consult with them!

From now on, I think I'll call you "The Bat"...:notlook:

 

[aps]

While you CONTINUALLY LIE to the members of this forum, may I remind you of what actually happens?

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.

Other Democrats sounded anything but conciliatory. "The president has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land,"said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/03/233742.html

Well howz about that!...He DOES consult with them!

From now on, I think I'll call you "The Bat"...:notlook:

Continually lie? Okaaaaaaaaaaaay. :roll:

Well well well well, and look what happened to the candidate that was recommended by Reid? She was totally ambushed and humilated by the republicans. I am sure you are just so proud.

I'm not sure whether Bush consulted with more than just Reid on that nomination.

Call me whatever you want, cnredd. Why you have to be so obnoxious is beyond me.

 

[aps]

Bush. May 6, 1999


Bush has done exactly the opposite of what he's claiming in his long reign.

Ahhhh, thank you, shuamort. On Meet the Press yesterday, one of the chiefs of staff of either Regan or Carter said that they had never seen the country as divided as it is today.

Not only did Bush lie about being a uniter, he said he would restore integrity to the White House. Oh really, Mr. Bush? Yeah, that's why one of your own has been indicated and another one is still being investigated. :rofl

 

[cnredd]

Continually lie? Okaaaaaaaaaaaay. :roll:

Well well well well, and look what happened to the candidate that was recommended by Reid? She was totally ambushed and humilated by the republicans. I am sure you are just so proud.

I will take that as an admission that the accusation of lying would be correct...

I'm not sure whether Bush consulted with more than just Reid on that nomination.

Then, like you, I will have to REPEAT...

According to the article...

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators.

That sounds like "more than just Reid on that nomination."...

Call me whatever you want, cnredd. Why you have to be so obnoxious is beyond me.

What's more obnoxious?...Someone lying to the forum members or someone calling them on it?...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.

Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.

Get real. Bush will never be a "uniter" becase liberal democrats will never ever support anything he does.

Bush won the election, and so he gets to nominate and likely appoint whoever he wants. Dont like it? Stop losing elections.

 

[cnredd]

Ahhhh, thank you, shuamort. On Meet the Press yesterday, one of the chiefs of staff of either Regan or Carter said that they had never seen the country as divided as it is today.

Not only did Bush lie about being a uniter, he said he would restore integrity to the White House. Oh really, Mr. Bush? Yeah, that's why one of your own has been indicated and another one is still being investigated. :rofl

According to unite people, the first thing needed would be to have two parties that would be interested in uniting...you can't drag them into "being united" kicking and screaming...

Please show where either party has shown this interest....

 

[aps]

I will take that as an admission that the accusation of lying would be correct...

Then, like you, I will have to REPEAT...

According to the article...

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators.

That sounds like "more than just Reid on that nomination."...

What's more obnoxious?...Someone lying to the forum members or someone calling them on it?...

First of all, I would never intentionally lie. Second, if Bush consulted with the dems, Miers was the first one. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. I knew that Reid had recommended her, but I had not heard or read that it was the result of Bush seeking his recommendation. I never heard or read that he talked to other senators. So while I was misinformed, I would not lie. If you can prove other times where you have perceived that I lied, I am interested in seeing your evidence. If this is the only instance in which you think I lied, then saying that I "continually lie" is obnoxious and kinda pathetic.