• 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

Hobbes3259 said:
And taking that point a step further, they also had a lock on the House of Reps for most of the latter half of the last century. Then they came up with Redistricting at the State level, and before they could perfect got swept out of power.


Now that they've handed the (R)'s the redistricting knife to cut their political throats, absent the kind of Earthshaking political movement that is all but extinct in this day and age, the Democrats are looking at a generation, or maybe Two of being forced to wander in the wilderness of the Minority.

That is where the last semblence of civility has gone....

Really? You're that sure you all will stay the majority in the next election? The republicans are looking so good right now, aren't they? DeLay had been indicted. Frist is being investigated. The Bush adminstration is not in good standing. I think the Senate could change hands in 2006, which would be wonderful!
 
aps said:
Yes, I will wait to hear from him before I make my judgment. I thought Miers was at least entitled to a hearing. I was interested to hear how she would answer the questions.

Deegan, the democrats were not demanding that she tell them how her religious beliefs would affect how she ruled. The republicans, however, after having criticized the democrats for asking Roberts that kind of question, HOUNDED her to find out the answer. You want ot talk about pathetic--let's talk about the hypocrisy that the Miers nomination involved by the republicans. Trent Lott sings, "Happy days are here again" when asked about Miers's withdrawal of her nomination? That is the epitome of an a$$. He can say, "Well, I think that was the best thing for her to do since it looked like she didn't have the votes." But why would I expect anything more from a man who clearly is a racist? Damn, I should know better.

Pat Buchanan was no better in his reaction to Miers's withdrawal, although look what adminstration he was associated with. LOL

I think we can all agree it was not a good pick, and that all politicians are hypocritcal, as well as the left and right. Bush is a moron, and the more I hear him, the more I want to crawl under a rock and hide. I thought the Dem's were correct when they talked about cronyism, and this smacked of it, what happened to that? I want a qualified conservative, who is a strict constitutionalist, when you Dems get a shot, you'll get your pick, let us have ours.
 
Deegan said:
I think we can all agree it was not a good pick, and that all politicians are hypocritcal, as well as the left and right. Bush is a moron, and the more I hear him, the more I want to crawl under a rock and hide. I thought the Dem's were correct when they talked about cronyism, and this smacked of it, what happened to that? I want a qualified conservative, who is a strict constitutionalist, when you Dems get a shot, you'll get your pick, let us have ours.

But...but....but, I don't want you to get what you want! It's not fair! *jumping up and down with a frown* ;)

You are right. Clinton got two very liberal justices. It's Bush's time to get two conservative ones.
 
aps said:
Really? You're that sure you all will stay the majority in the next election? The republicans are looking so good right now, aren't they? DeLay had been indicted. Frist is being investigated. The Bush adminstration is not in good standing. I think the Senate could change hands in 2006, which would be wonderful!

Dont bet on it.
The Dems arnt losing elections because of the GOPs dashing good looks or whatever bit of Black Magic karl Rove cooked up in the basement of the White House, but because the Dems dont have a clear, credible, appealing message for people to get behind.

For the last 5 years their message has been "I hate Bush", "Bush sucks" and "Republicans suck"; there's no evidence that this will change in any sort of near future.

I've asled numerous times: there are things I dont like about GWB -- why should I think a Democrat will do better? I'm not the ONLY person asking this question, and unless the Dems can asnwer it on a national level, they will contuniue to lose elections.
 
aps said:
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.


Bush did with Roberts and yet half of those whiners voted against the guy. They obstructed Miguel Estrada-a guy who met the classic dem test by having the ABA's top endorsement and he was supported by all four living former Dem SOLICITOR GENERALS. For racist reasons they opposed him

This rant of yours is pathetic.
 
aps said:
But...but....but, I don't want you to get what you want! It's not fair! *jumping up and down with a frown* ;)

You are right. Clinton got two very liberal justices. It's Bush's time to get two conservative ones.

Well that sounds reasonable, thank you.;)
 
TurtleDude said:
Bush did with Roberts and yet half of those whiners voted against the guy. They obstructed Miguel Estrada-a guy who met the classic dem test by having the ABA's top endorsement and he was supported by all four living former Dem SOLICITOR GENERALS. For racist reasons they opposed him
You have some proof for that claim?
 
TurtleDude said:
Bush did with Roberts and yet half of those whiners voted against the guy. They obstructed Miguel Estrada-a guy who met the classic dem test by having the ABA's top endorsement and he was supported by all four living former Dem SOLICITOR GENERALS. For racist reasons they opposed him

This rant of yours is pathetic.

OMG, it is? OMG! :shock: ...... :roll:
 
M14 Shooter said:
Dont bet on it.
The Dems arnt losing elections because of the GOPs dashing good looks or whatever bit of Black Magic karl Rove cooked up in the basement of the White House, but because the Dems dont have a clear, credible, appealing message for people to get behind.

For the last 5 years their message has been "I hate Bush", "Bush sucks" and "Republicans suck"; there's no evidence that this will change in any sort of near future.

I've asled numerous times: there are things I dont like about GWB -- why should I think a Democrat will do better? I'm not the ONLY person asking this question, and unless the Dems can asnwer it on a national level, they will contuniue to lose elections.

*sigh* You are right. What the he|| is the matter with the dems? They can't get a message to save their lives. However, their message about hating Bush is one I can agree with. ;)
 
aps said:
*sigh* You are right. What the he|| is the matter with the dems? They can't get a message to save their lives. However, their message about hating Bush is one I can agree with. ;)

Maybe so.
But if thats all you have, then you're doomed.

Which is OK by me, BTW.
 
I just want Judges who srtrictly apply the constitution.

(Even when it means ignoring earlier court decisions)
 
(Even when it means ignoring earlier court decisions)

STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

...

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm

As pointed out by Spector, Roe has been addressed and affirmed in tons of cases. Thus, it would be truly out of the ordinary for them to overrule a precedent that has been affirmed multiple times. If they overrule Roe, all he|| will break loose, and our Supreme Court will be perceived as a joke.
 
aps said:
As pointed out by Spector, Roe has been addressed and affirmed in tons of cases.

So was Plessy and Dredd Scott.
You're arguing that because of Stare Decicis, they should not have been oveturned.
 
Judges should be permitted to have only one Judicial philosophy which is, strict, unwavering application of the Constitution.

So far the Republicans (grassroots level) are much better at picking Judges who do this, which leads me to believe that the Democrats hate many of the Laws in the Constitution but are unable to change them legitimately as prescribed in the constitution via the Congress.
 
Gibberish said:
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.



If it was how it is supposed to be their religon would have nothing to do with their ability to read the constitution.

When it comes to racial issues I think almost everyone is Liberal......White favored affirmative action as I use to, but I believe in this day he would be against it...........

O'Connor was the swing vote on the court, at best a moderate.......
 
M14 Shooter said:
So was Plessy and Dredd Scott.
You're arguing that because of Stare Decicis, they should not have been oveturned.

Oh brother. Those involved slavery and racial disparity. Of course they should have been overturned.
 
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.

Nor will the Dems ever be a uniter. I sense a stalemate.

But I think that Judge Sam "Scalito" is a great choice. Though, I'd rather of had Judge Brown (the black, female judge) be nominated. But, as a citizen of the great US of A, I have no say as to which judges are picked for the US Supreme Court. But "Scalito" will be awesome. Except the Dems will fillibuster, which is retarded. Fillibustering just shows that the Dems are scared of Alito, which is funny.
 
aps said:
Yes, you are right. Ginsburg is so far left--I am surprised she got as many votes as she did. However, I don't believe that Clinton picked her because he thought she would uphold Roe v. Wade. He picked her because she is very qualified. However, based upon what I have seen and read, Bush is picking this guy hoping he will overrule Roe v. Wade. That is not a reason to nominate someone.

And the guy Bush just appointed is very qualified too.........I thought the dems did not have a litmus test.......The Republicans didn't when Ginsburg and Bryer were nominated and they are far left......
 
Donkey1499 said:
Nor will the Dems ever be a uniter. I sense a stalemate.

But I think that Judge Sam "Scalito" is a great choice. Though, I'd rather of had Judge Brown (the black, female judge) be nominated. But, as a citizen of the great US of A, I have no say as to which judges are picked for the US Supreme Court. But "Scalito" will be awesome. Except the Dems will fillibuster, which is retarded. Fillibustering just shows that the Dems are scared of Alito, which is funny.

I dare the dems filibuster this guy...
 
The Socialist Judges gave us 50 years of racism.

Its time to go back to the Constitition.
 
Lucidthots said:
The Socialist Judges gave us 50 years of racism.

Its time to go back to the Constitition.

The Constitution should be scrapped and re-written by..... MEEEEEEE!!!!!

LOL.... just joking......
 
shuamort said:
You have some proof for that claim?


You would think people who are political junkies to the extent they post on boards like this would be informed of this sort of stuff

1) even without the leaked Rockefeller Memorandum its obvious

A) estrada is hispanic
B) Estrada worked for the Clinton DOJ so the excuse that the GOP administration wouldn't turn over sensitive documents is not relevant (as it was with Miers)
C) all four formed Dem solicitor generals supported him as did the ABA so there were no legit grounds to oppose the guy
It was obvious to anyone who pays attention that the Hispanic vote was a key in what everyone knew was going to be a very close 04 election. These facts alone suggest racism

However, as Hannity and some others reported, a memo from Senator Rockefeller to other dems noted that the confirmation of Estrada could gain Bush crucial hispanic votes-hence the obstruction

They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous because he had a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment," the aide wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050517-103348-3095r.htm
 
aps said:
Oh brother. Those involved slavery and racial disparity. Of course they should have been overturned.

Ok... so, if there is a good reason to overturn a long-held decision, it should be overturned.

What does that do to your stare decisis/Roe v Wade argument?
 
Donkey1499 said:
I hate to break it to ya pal, but the Dems are already talking about a fillibuster. And the nomination was only just made TODAY!!!

Huge mistake.

The Dems are on the wrong side of American values when it comes to the Court.

Americans simply want the Constitution applied....nothing "fancy."
 
Back
Top Bottom