Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Your comments please
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.
Deegan said:You just adored those dimples of his, didn't ya, didn't ya?:lol:
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.
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.
hipsterdufus said:Alitos's record shows that he is against the privacy of citizens, against civil rights, and for more corporate control of America.
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.
hipsterdufus said:Alito would do even more to end government regulation
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.
hipsterdufus said:Alito would allow discrimination based on disabilities - see his ruling on Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Kandahar said:Just FYI, Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:yeah, try reading the Constitution some time.
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?