• 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.

Do you think Judge Alito should be confirmed to the SCOTUS?

Do you think Judge Alito should be confirmed to the SCOTUS?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 63.8%
  • No

    Votes: 17 36.2%

  • Total voters
    47
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
In front of my computer.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Dunno.

Wait for the Confirmation hearings on C-Span, I suppose. I don't see anything obviously wrong with him from what I know, but I'm not fully informed.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course he should. Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg got confirmed, didn't it? And that Souter character, and that Kennedy slob. No, not that Kennedy slob, the other one.

Clearly the Senate has a very low standard to apply, unless the judge or other candidate is black. Then the Democrats seem to lose what little reasoning ability they might posess.
 
T

The Real McCoy

What bugs me is that pro-choice nuts are trying to vilify and condemn Alito in any way possible. I'm pro-choice myself but abortion is far from the most important issue in our country and quite frankly, I could care less whether it's legal or not although I highly doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned if he is, in fact, confirmed. We'll just have to wait and see what the confirmation hearings show.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I support his confirmation, unless something comes to light that changes my opinion of his integrity or his qualification. I don't think that the simple fact that he's a conservative is sufficient reason for the more liberal senators to oppose him. He may not be who *I* would nominate, but this is one of the few issues where the president deserves some leeway.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The same knee jerk liberal outfits that opposed Justice Roberts. Are out opposing Judge Alito. Trying to scare their bases,so they will donate to these organisations.
The American people know B S when they hear it. These outfits are making the same noises as the last time,no one believes them.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I voted a tentative "yes". I demand to retract that if something nasty comes up in the hearings though. Otherwise, he seems to be a well qualified judge. I may not agree with some of the stands he may take (assumptive, of course), but he was picked by the President fair and square.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There usual suspects in the senate would oppose anyone that President Bush nominated.......
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course, this nomination makes the entire failed Bush presidency worth it. All the angry rhetoric, all the smearing of conservatives, all the slanted media coverage, this new court makes it all worth while.

I could not be more pleased, God bless America after all.;)
 
T

The Real McCoy

I see the results are currently a straight 2:1 in favor of yes, the exact same result of the previous poll asking the exact same question.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wow. I have not read any responses, but I was surprised to see that 5 people have said no. I think he deserves to be confirmed, although it bothers me that he has said he put something on a job application (I believe to show he didn't like Roe v. Wade) to help himself get the job. This bothers me for 2 reasons:

(1) If it's true, then he lied on job application and that doesn't sound like someone who should sit on the highest court

(2) If he meant it and is trying to be dismissive of it now because of the negative reaction it is causing, it shows he is willing to lie--again, not someone I think deserves to sit on the highest court.

Just my thoughts.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think he deserves to be confirmed IF during the hearings it is shown that he can put his personal biases on the issue of abortion aside in favor of the law. I don't think abortion is the most important issue in the nomination, but there are already some dark clouds hanging over him with it. I adored Roberts when he was nominated...I just have some mild misgivings about Alito but I suppose that will all be settled during the hearings.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
I think he deserves to be confirmed IF during the hearings it is shown that he can put his personal biases on the issue of abortion aside in favor of the law. I don't think abortion is the most important issue in the nomination, but there are already some dark clouds hanging over him with it. I adored Roberts when he was nominated...I just have some mild misgivings about Alito but I suppose that will all be settled during the hearings.
You just adored those dimples of his, didn't ya, didn't ya?:lol:
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Deegan said:
You just adored those dimples of his, didn't ya, didn't ya?:lol:
Well damn, you caught me. All jokes aside, and this had nothing to do with it, he is a very attractive guy. I was more interested in the pro bono work he did earlier in his career and how, in light of his conservative loyalties, he still obviously put justice above his own biases.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
Well damn, you caught me. All jokes aside, and this had nothing to do with it, he is a very attractive guy. I was more interested in the pro bono work he did earlier in his career and how, in light of his conservative loyalties, he still obviously put justice above his own biases.
I kidd, but it was his brilliance that won me over, not his politics, the way he handled those Senate hacks, man I should have taped that hearing. Not to mention, if I was gay, I'd do him.:rofl
 
H

hipsterdufus

Here's why I would vote a resounding NO on Alito.

First let me say that I would have no problem with a mainstream conservative nominee. Alito is not that. He has a 15 year track record that shows he is nowhere near the middle of US politics. Alitos's record shows that he is against the privacy of citizens, against civil rights, and for more corporate control of America.

Alito's basis for nomination became evident once the NSA scandal was revealed. Alito has repeatedly supported unwarranted wiretaps of suspects and would grant Bush impunity when/if this case makes it to SCOTUS. He made the same arguments FOR warantless wiretaps during the Nixon administration.

Alito would do even more to end government regulation - we can see even less accountability from corporations and more gutting of the rights of citizens to breath fresh air, drink clean water and eat safe food.

Alito would allow discrimination based on disabilities - see his ruling on Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania

Alito is on record for being against The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which grants workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for loved ones.

Of course he would overturn Roe v. Wade - to me, that was a given once the election of 2004 happened. This would also mean the downfall of the Republican party when it happens since most Americans support Roe and there would be no more carrot to hold out to the religious right after it's overturned.

Alito supported the stripsearching of a 10 year old girl who was not charged with a crime. Doe v. Groody

Alito argued that the federal ban on possessing machine guns was unconstitutional.

Remember that the "gang of 14" Senators agreed that they would only filibuster SCOTUS nominees in extreme cases. They were also assured they they would be consulted on judicial appointments. The only people that Bush consulted with on this pick was the far right, so he wouldn't end up with another Harriet Miers debacle.

Alito is out of step with he vast majority of American's that are in the middle. He is a conservative judicial activist who wants to change the court's past to suit the neo-con agenda.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hipsterdufus said:
First let me say that I would have no problem with a mainstream conservative nominee. Alito is not that. He has a 15 year track record that shows he is nowhere near the middle of US politics.
Well, why don't you make up your mind what the hell it is that you want? A "mainstream conservative nominee" is likely a person that thinks the words in the Constitution have no hidden meanings. The middle of American politics has raped every article and every amendment in the Constitution.

You can't have it both ways. Pick one.

hipsterdufus said:
Alitos's record shows that he is against the privacy of citizens, against civil rights, and for more corporate control of America.
You'll have to be specific on the first two, then explain why you think the private citizens owning stock in companies deserve less than equal treatment from the government.

hipsterdufus said:
Alito's basis for nomination became evident once the NSA scandal was revealed. Alito has repeatedly supported unwarranted wiretaps of suspects and would grant Bush impunity when/if this case makes it to SCOTUS. He made the same arguments FOR warantless wiretaps during the Nixon administration.
Oh, I thought Alito's basis for nomination was revealed when the name "Meyers" popped onto the national stage.

hipsterdufus said:
Alito would do even more to end government regulation
Damn, what are you, a one-man promotion team? Nothing we need more than fewer regulations, all across the board.

hipsterdufus said:
- we can see even less accountability from corporations and more gutting of the rights of citizens to breath fresh air, drink clean water and eat safe food.
Ah, the standard insane rant about how conservatives want to kill the planet. :roll:

hipsterdufus said:
Alito would allow discrimination based on disabilities - see his ruling on Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania.
Why not? We need to end public intrusion into private business some time. I refused to hire cripples for my bakery. They don't belong, they'd cost me money. Just meeting that stupid ADA code was a waste of my money. If I don't plan on hiring cripples, there's no reason to build the site to meet the code, is there?

hipsterdufus said:
Alito is on record for being against The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which grants workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for loved ones.
Excellent. Another unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government into the private sector. All honest judges should be against it.

hipsterdufus said:
Of course he would overturn Roe v. Wade - to me, that was a given once the election of 2004 happened. This would also mean the downfall of the Republican party when it happens since most Americans support Roe and there would be no more carrot to hold out to the religious right after it's overturned.

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html]Nobody Would Think of Accusing ABC of Being Pro-Life[/url]

However, 57 percent oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — "if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby." And opposition soars to about seven in 10 or more for so-called "partial-birth abortions" or abortions conducted in the sixth month of pregnancy or later.

These views, however, do not constitute a call for broad anti-abortion activism. Forty-one percent say the government and the courts should not alter the current availability of abortions, and an additional 15 percent say they should be easier to get; that leaves the 42 percent, cited above, who want abortions made harder to obtain.


American Views on Abortion Should Be Legal
All or Most Cases 57%
To Save Woman's Life 88
To Save Woman's Health 82
In Cases of Rape/Incest 81
Physically Impaired Baby 54
To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11


American Views on Abortion Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases 42
To Save Woman's Life 10
To Save Woman's Health 14
In Cases of Rape/Incest 17
Physically Impaired Baby 40
To End Unwanted Pregnancy 57
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 69
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 86
Hmmm...57% think women shouldn't murder their unborn babies as a form of birth prevention.

You sure the majority of Americans support Roe v Wade and the culture of unlimited death it's brought upon us?

But don't let that turn this thread into yet another abortion discussion.

hipsterdufus said:
Alito argued that the federal ban on possessing machine guns was unconstitutional.
Damn, this guy is a treasure. I hope they clone him and two or three other fossils on the bench croak between now and 2008. What a wonderful opinion.

hipsterdufus said:
Remember that the "gang of 14" Senators agreed that they would only filibuster SCOTUS nominees in extreme cases. They were also assured they they would be consulted on judicial appointments. The only people that Bush consulted with on this pick was the far right, so he wouldn't end up with another Harriet Miers debacle.
Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't require the president to consult with anyone to name a nominee. The Senate has the job of confirming or rejecting a nominee, they're not allowed to pre-chose the guy.

The Senate's disdain for the Constitution is legendary, (I saw the impeach farce), and the threat of a bunch of them filibustering a nomination would be amusing in this senate election year. The Red Queen Hillary wouldn't have the guts to stay in line with her party, that's for sure.

The Meiers debacle happened because Bush is gutless and a lousy leader.

hipsterdufus said:
Alito is out of step with he vast majority of American's that are in the middle. He is a conservative judicial activist who wants to change the court's past to suit the neo-con agenda.
So. How does one go about restoring the courts and the rest of the United States government to it's constitutional basis unless one reverses so many of the court's past bad decisions? And from what I've seen, he's not an "activist" at all, but someone simply applying the Constitution as it's supposed to be applied.
 
Last edited:

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Here's why I would vote a resounding NO on Alito.

First let me say that I would have no problem with a mainstream conservative nominee. Alito is not that. He has a 15 year track record that shows he is nowhere near the middle of US politics. Alitos's record shows that he is against the privacy of citizens, against civil rights, and for more corporate control of America.

Alito's basis for nomination became evident once the NSA scandal was revealed. Alito has repeatedly supported unwarranted wiretaps of suspects and would grant Bush impunity when/if this case makes it to SCOTUS. He made the same arguments FOR warantless wiretaps during the Nixon administration.

Alito would do even more to end government regulation - we can see even less accountability from corporations and more gutting of the rights of citizens to breath fresh air, drink clean water and eat safe food.

Alito would allow discrimination based on disabilities - see his ruling on Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania

Alito is on record for being against The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which grants workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for loved ones.

Of course he would overturn Roe v. Wade - to me, that was a given once the election of 2004 happened. This would also mean the downfall of the Republican party when it happens since most Americans support Roe and there would be no more carrot to hold out to the religious right after it's overturned.

Alito supported the stripsearching of a 10 year old girl who was not charged with a crime. Doe v. Groody

Alito argued that the federal ban on possessing machine guns was unconstitutional.

Remember that the "gang of 14" Senators agreed that they would only filibuster SCOTUS nominees in extreme cases. They were also assured they they would be consulted on judicial appointments. The only people that Bush consulted with on this pick was the far right, so he wouldn't end up with another Harriet Miers debacle.

Alito is out of step with he vast majority of American's that are in the middle. He is a conservative judicial activist who wants to change the court's past to suit the neo-con agenda.
Isn't it ironic that Clinton can nominate far let people like Soutar and Ginsberg because that is his right as the president and when president Bush wants to nominate Conservatives all hell breaks loose...........Again can you say double standard?

Well go ahead try and filbuster Alito.........I dare you to try and Frist will invoke the Constitutional option in a heartbeat............

Go for it!!!!!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I say that Presidents, regardless if they're left- or right-wing, should not choose judges on the basis of their own bias. Gonna find issue with that too, Navy?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Isn't it ironic that Clinton can nominate far let people like Soutar and Ginsberg because that is his right as the president
Just FYI, Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vergiss said:
I say that Presidents, regardless if they're left- or right-wing, should not choose judges on the basis of their own bias. Gonna find issue with that too, Navy?

yeah, try reading the Constitution some time.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
yeah, try reading the Constitution some time.
:roll: Being Australian, I've had better things to do with my time. Care to elaborate on which part of the US Consitution says that Presidents should appoint judges based on their own bias?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
vergiss said:
:roll: Being Australian, I've had better things to do with my time. Care to elaborate on which part of the US Consitution says that Presidents should appoint judges based on their own bias?
It doesn't, because judges aren't supposed to have "biases" at all. The system worked quite well for about a hundred years, then judges started getting more creative in their interpretations. With the election of FDR, the floodgates of constitutional ignorance were thrown wide open and have yet to be closed.

It never occurred to the Founding Fathers that following the Constitution would be seen as having a "bias" toward one ideology or another. It's just applying the law.
 
Top Bottom