• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Bush to nominate Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

cnredd said:
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....

Ummm, the group of 14 senators regarding the filibuster issue.
 
cnredd said:
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....

Bush has often offered the Dems a chance to get on the bus.
Instead, they stand determined in front of it.
As such, its not Bush's fault they get run over.

"Uniting", to them, means "go along with us".
 
M14 Shooter said:
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.

Wow, Shooter, that is really profound. It leaves me almost speechless.

BTW, the Constitution states that the president will select someone with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The advice is supposed to come first and then the consent after the nomination.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Bush has often offered the Dems a chance to get on the bus.
Instead, they stand determined in front of it.
As such, its not Bush's fault they get run over.

"Uniting", to them, means "go along with us".

Please provide me examples of Bush offering the dems a chance to get on the bus.

I do agree that the dems have been somewhat unreasonable at times, but Bush has been an arrogant a$$ for much of his own agenda. There's very little compromise with Bush, which is pathetic.

Bush said he had a mandate and had all this political capital when he won in 2004. Where's all that politcal capital Mr. Bush? What happened to your Social Security agenda? :lol: :lol:
 
aps said:
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.
If you don't lie, then you are one heck of a misinformer...

Bush nominates Roberts to Supreme Court

President Bush said he and his staff consulted with 70 senators on the nomination process.

"I received good advice from both Republicans and Democrats," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/

aps said:
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.
Then that is the ultimate problem...If you don't HEAR or READ something that states otherwise, then the ASSUMPTION is made that he didn't?!?!?...:confused:

aps said:
So while I was misinformed, I would not lie.
You weren't misinformed...You neglected to look for the truth...I found it in less than a minute...

Search Bush consulted Senators Roberts and hit "enter"...I didn't even have to get past the first source...

aps said:
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.
I didn't say you told more than one lie...I have shown that you have stated the same lie on more than one occasion...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=129517&postcount=19

I am, by no means, an expert on debate, but I would think that a good debate would start with finding out the facts and then stating your case instead of throwing things out and having others have to prove or disprove what you've written...

Your accusations...Bush doesn't consult with Senators...And then Miers was the first time he did so...could have been cleared up with a simple search...Instead you bypassed that to make assumptions that have been proven wrong...
 
aps said:
BTW, the Constitution states that the president will select someone with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The advice is supposed to come first and then the consent after the nomination.

Yes.
But the fact of the matter is, unless the nominee isnt qualified, there really isnt any reason to not grant consent.

Please note the overwhelming margin by which Ginsburg was confrimed - someone at least as far left and Alito is far right. Repubicans held their nose and confirmed her -- why wont Dems do the same?
 
Here's an interesting summation about some Alito's stances:
(WARNING, THIS IS A SLANTED ARTICLE AND SHOULD BE INJESTED WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN BEFORE STARTING AN EXERCISE PROGRAM)

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
 
shuamort said:
Here's an interesting summation about some Alito's stances:
(WARNING, THIS IS A SLANTED ARTICLE AND SHOULD BE INJESTED WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN BEFORE STARTING AN EXERCISE PROGRAM)

Well - add all that to being pro-gun, and he sounds perfect.
 
The only concern I have here is the possibility, albeit small, that this makeup of the Supreme Court might have an agenda in mind of undermining the Constitution. However, I have looked at his qualifications, and they are good. I am willing to take a chance on him. I do NOT want judicial activists, but a court that is going to interpret the Constitution and only that. This may appear about to happen, and if it does, I am happy with the choice.

The whole issue of Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, IMHO, but whether the Federal courts should be involved in the decisionmaking at all. Yes, I think this court will overturn Roe v. Wade, and that will be good. Leave it to the states to decide this issue. If the Supreme court, however, decides to be judicial activists and uphold any kind of unconstitutional laws barring the states to decide for themselves whether abortion should be legal or not, then I will be against them. However, I do not believe that this is going to be the case.

I give Bush a B+ on this nomination. Good job.
 
aps said:
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.

aps why is it when a Clinton is president he can nominate a liberal like Ginsburg for the SCOTUS and then when Bush is president he is a divider when he nominates a conservative to the court........

Maybe you can explain that to me my friend........:confused:
 
Navy Pride said:
aps why is it when a Clinton is president he can nominate a liberal like Ginsburg for the SCOTUS and then when Bush is president he is a divider when he nominates a conservative to the court........

Maybe you can explain that to me my friend........:confused:

Ginsburg (left) replaced White (left-middle). Alito(right) will replace O'Connor(left). So infact Alitos confirmation will change the stance of the court and bring some controversial issues into the power of the right.

IMHO replacing a judge with someone with the same stance is completely different then replacing a judge with someone of an opposite stance.


On a side note, Navy Pride, your signature is patently untrue. I can support the troops for doing a job they are forced to do even if they and/or I do not agree with the reasons they are forced to do the job.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Ginsburg (left) replaced White (left-middle). Alito(right) will replace O'Connor(left). So infact Alitos confirmation will change the stance of the court and bring some controversial issues into the power of the right.

IMHO replacing a judge with someone with the same stance is completely different then replacing a judge with someone of an opposite stance.


You have their philosphy wrong..."Whizzer" White was a Conservative and O'Connor is a moderate to Conservative.........
 
I just don't care about these judicial nominations.
Everyone out there is being a dick about this. Bush is being a dick because his base is acting uniformly like a dick, and the left is acting like a dick because the other side is being dicks to them.
I dunno, I just hate everyone, they're all worthless to me.
 
Gibberish said:
Ginsburg (left) replaced White (left-middle). Alito(right) will replace O'Connor(left). So infact Alitos confirmation will change the stance of the court and bring some controversial issues into the power of the right.

IMHO replacing a judge with someone with the same stance is completely different then replacing a judge with someone of an opposite stance.

Which boils down to the Dems not liking Alito's ideology.

Is that a decision up to the Senate?
Shouldnt the Senate be more concerend with qualifications than ideology?
Are litmus tests for potential justices now OK?
 
This is a freaking farce. I will admit that he is highly qualified, but some of his decisions are rather " Tooooo Christian" for my butt, a lot of dems approve of him. I would love to see how they backtrack on this one. Good choice, but damn it, we don't need TWO SCALIA'S on the friggin court.
 
galenrox said:
I just don't care about these judicial nominations.
Everyone out there is being a dick about this. Bush is being a dick because his base is acting uniformly like a dick, and the left is acting like a dick because the other side is being dicks to them.
I dunno, I just hate everyone, they're all worthless to me.

Wow. That's constructive.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
This is a freaking farce. I will admit that he is highly qualified, but some of his decisions are rather " Tooooo Christian" for my butt, a lot of dems approve of him. I would love to see how they backtrack on this one. Good choice, but damn it, we don't need TWO SCALIA'S on the friggin court.

Your right we don't need to Scalias on the SCOTUS....We need 9 of them.......

Lets face the fact that there is no one that the president could nominate that the far left dems in the Senate like Kennedy and Kerry would approve of.......

Let the fun begin.........
 
Last edited:
Bush Finally Does Something Right For America!

Hoooooraaaaay!
 
M14 Shooter said:
Wow. That's constructive.
Dude, what else am I supposed to do?
I mean, Bush is obviously trying to add to the already extreme amount of division between the two sides, being egged on by people who also want the country more divided, and the people on my side aren't helping at all.

And so I just give up, this whole government is ****ed. Scrap it, start over, it's all we can do.

You just don't understand how much it sickens me that it's completely ok in our society for someone to support ignoring what half of America thinks about this country. And this goes for both sides. It's become acceptable societally to want what you want, and completely ignore what everyone else wants, and I can't accept that. I have certain ideas, you have different ones, but instead of looking for a compramise, whoever has more power takes the "**** you, I have more power" stance, and it just makes me want to puke.
 
Bush has finally done something for America and the Constitution.

IT IS ABOUT TIME!

Hopefully these "Constitution" oriented Judges will help restore America and our Liberties.
 
galenrox said:
Dude, what else am I supposed to do?
I mean, Bush is obviously trying to add to the already extreme amount of division between the two sides, being egged on by people who also want the country more divided, and the people on my side aren't helping at all.

Note that this "extreme division" exists because the Dems define "unite" as "agree with us". Bush has done plenty to reach across the aisle to them, and they bite his hand off.

And so I just give up, this whole government is ****ed. Scrap it, start over, it's all we can do.
Well, I agree, but not for your reasons.
 
Navy Pride said:
You have their philosphy wrong..."Whizzer" White was a Conservative and O'Connor is a moderate to Conservative.........

Right you are. White did agree with conservatives with many issues but was a strong supporter of democrats, and asked that a democrat replace him.

It seems most judges go back and forth, depending on the topic. White was liberal on race topics, but conservative on all else. O'Connor is liberal on womans rights but conservative on pretty much everything else. Though when she was appointed it was thought that she was anti-abortion.

I guess it comes down that you just don't know till the person gets in and starts working. We can assume how they will lean all we want but it we don't know for sure till they are in.

wxcrazytwo said:
...but some of his decisions are rather " Tooooo Christian" for my butt...

If it was how it is supposed to be their religon would have nothing to do with their ability to read the constitution.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Bush has done plenty to reach across the aisle to them, and they bite his hand off.

Enlighten me please. What has he done?
 
M14 Shooter said:
Note that this "extreme division" exists because the Dems define "unite" as "agree with us". Bush has done plenty to reach across the aisle to them, and they bite his hand off.
No, it's both of their faults, and it's a sign that you're a part of it that you say "We're divided cause they're being jerks"
You're right, they have been acting like whining bratty little kids this whole time, but so has the right. The entire government is completely useless, it's like trying to get a frickin preschool that skipped their naptime to run a country.
Well, I agree, but not for your reasons.
Whatever, what are your reasons?
 
Whatever, what are your reasons?

What really needs to happen isnt so much the complete dismantling of the government, but the people in it, and the attitudes that they bring with them.

People go to DC these days with a sense of entitlement rather than the objcetive of serving the people. This is why thnigs are as they are today.
 
Back
Top Bottom