Should the Senate Confirm Judge Alito for the SCOTUS?

[Navy Pride]

Your Comments please:

 

[The Mark]

I am sure there are valid reasons for both answers to be correct.

However, IMO, after taking everything I know into account, I think that he should be confirmed.

 

[aps]

I support the nomination. He has the qualifications. I don't think he is totally out of the mainstream as some dems have been saying.

 

[Navy Pride]

I support the nomination. He has the qualifications. I don't think he is totally out of the mainstream as some dems have been saying.

The president could nominate God for the SCOTUS and the usual suspects, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, etc would say he is out of the mainstream.....

 

[aps]

The president could nominate God for the SCOTUS and the usual suspects, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, etc would say he is out of the mainstream.....

LOL Their voting against Roberts was just plain stupid.

 

[Navy Pride]

LOL Their voting against Roberts was just plain stupid.

Like I said the people I mentioned would vote against anyone the President nominated.......

 

[tecoyah]

There is no reason I can see to hold this nomination back....he is well qualified, has a record of constitutional law behind him, and shows the ethics needed to be on the Highest court.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The president could nominate God for the SCOTUS and the usual suspects, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, etc would say he is out of the mainstream.....

Would God be for or against separation of chuch and state?
I wonder...

Of course there's no privacy if he/she knows all and sees all.
:mrgreen:

 

[26 X World Champs]

The president could nominate God for the SCOTUS and the usual suspects, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, etc would say he is out of the mainstream.....

And they would be right! God has no place on the Supreme Court.

As far as Alito goes, how can anyone make up their minds BEFORE the Senate hearings? Isn't that what they're for?

 

[Navy Pride]

Would God be for or against separation of chuch and state?
I wonder...

Of course there's no privacy if he/she knows all and sees all.
:mrgreen:

hips, it was just and expression, point being no matter who President Bush nominates the usual suspects, Kennedy, Kerry, and Boxer would vote nay.......

 

[TurtleDude]

hips, it was just and expression, point being no matter who President Bush nominates the usual suspects, Kennedy, Kerry, and Boxer would vote nay.......

the barking loon flock that voted against Roberts actually helped Bush. It shows the public that the obstructionist party has no sense of propriety or fairness given far more radical and far less talented Ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed with only three votes against,

It also showed that the cries of wolf by Scummer and Fat Ted can't be taken seriously.

Finally, it sets a bad stage for the obstructionist party. If the OP wins the wh in 08 but the GOP keeps the senate, the ground is tilled for the GOP to vote down or prevent a vote on any liberal nominee merely for the Scummer reasoning that they don't like the political bent of the candidate. In other words, Scummer and Fat Ted and FeinSwine can't complain with any credibility if a Pam Karlan (brilliant but far far left stanford Professor) or a Laurence Tribe clone are rejected PURELY on arguments that the nominee is a pro abortion extremist.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I would have to say we should wait till we know what and how he stands on the constitution. I cant make a decision if I dont know what/how he stands.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would have to say we should wait till we know what and how he stands on the constitution. I cant make a decision if I dont know what/how he stands.

when he stated that the commerce clause doesn't empower the Congress to ban machine guns I knew he was worth confirming

 

[Navy Pride]

I would have to say we should wait till we know what and how he stands on the constitution. I cant make a decision if I dont know what/how he stands.

Skil, I don't have to wait.......Anyone who has been a member of the Federalist Society is good enough for me......

 

[SKILMATIC]

when he stated that the commerce clause doesn't empower the Congress to ban machine guns I knew he was worth confirming

What? You mean I can now own a M4A1 in cali? Damn! I just bought a Colt 45 1911. O well theres always next paycheck :lol:

Skil, I don't have to wait.......Anyone who has been a member of the Federalist Society is good enough for me......

Yeah well Federalists were always strict constitutionalists. So I guess thsts a good thing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Skil, I don't have to wait.......Anyone who has been a member of the Federalist Society is good enough for me......

stupidest thing I ever did was turn down a chance to be a founder. My roommate in college was Peter Keisler and three other founders (Calabresi, McIntosh, and Lieberman [Otis]) were good good friends. Steve Calabresi called me when I was at cornell asking if I wanted to help get this thing going-I was too busy serving as a squash coach and in all honesty, didn't think it would fly given how leftwing so many law students were (the conservatives seemed interested in only getting call backs and summer jobs at Sullivan and Cromwell or Hughes Hubbard and Reed) but I agree with you-I have been a member for years

 

[TurtleDude]

What? You mean I can now own a M4A1 in cali? Damn! I just bought a Colt 45 1911. O well theres always next paycheck :lol:



Yeah well Federalists were always strict constitutionalists. So I guess thsts a good thing.

Its too bad that FDR was able to "p+ssy whip" the courts into allowing his idiotic commerce clause expansion to be used as a general regulatory provision for everything from socialist engineering to gun control

 

[SKILMATIC]

stupidest thing I ever did was turn down a chance to be a founder. My roommate in college was Peter Keisler and three other founders (Calabresi, McIntosh, and Lieberman [Otis]) were good good friends. Steve Calabresi called me when I was at cornell asking if I wanted to help get this thing going-I was too busy serving as a squash coach and in all honesty, didn't think it would fly given how leftwing so many law students were (the conservatives seemed interested in only getting call backs and summer jobs at Sullivan and Cromwell or Hughes Hubbard and Reed) but I agree with you-I have been a member for years

I ma sure you have done much more stupider things than that. :2wave:

 

[TurtleDude]

I ma sure you have done much more stupider things than that. :2wave:

Probably but not scoring one night or two as a college boy didn't have any lasting regrets :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[SKILMATIC]

Probably but not scoring one night or two as a college boy didn't have any lasting regrets :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

:lol: Well scoring as a college boy is harmony at its best.

 

[TurtleDude]

:lol: Well scoring as a college boy is harmony at its best.

depends what you take away from it and if the doctor at the clinic could deal with it:mrgreen:

 

[SKILMATIC]

depends what you take away from it and if the doctor at the clinic could deal with it:mrgreen:

Well thats why you wrap your harmony before you tap the harmony.

 

[gwynn]

While it can be fun to watch threads degenerate..

Back to the original question, I think it would be premature to state anything until the senate hearings are done. He is qualified, but there are still questions about where he sits on some constitutional points. To say anything either way at this point is blatant partisanship.

 

[debate_junkie]

While it can be fun to watch threads degenerate..

Back to the original question, I think it would be premature to state anything until the senate hearings are done. He is qualified, but there are still questions about where he sits on some constitutional points. To say anything either way at this point is blatant partisanship.

And the end all, abortion is not and should not be the ONLY stance to qualify or disqualify a candidate. That just makes me crazy. I could care less if someone is pro life or pro choice, as long as they are going to follow the law of the constitution.

 

[gwynn]

And the end all, abortion is not and should not be the ONLY stance to qualify or disqualify a candidate. That just makes me crazy. I could care less if someone is pro life or pro choice, as long as they are going to follow the law of the constitution.

I completely agree.