Turley: “There Will Be No One to the Right of Sam Alito on This Court”
Turley: “There Will Be No One to the Right of Sam Alito on This Court”
When Harriet Miers’ nomination was first announced, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley called her an “amazingly bad choice.” This morning, he weighed in Samuel Alito:
JONATHAN TURLEY: He’s the top choice for particularly pro-life people. Sam Alito is viewed as someone who is likely to join the hard right in likely narrowing Roe and possibly voting to overturn Roe.
KATIE COURIC: So he is a strict constructionist in every since of the word? I know President Bush is looking for a conservative jurist, so he fits the bill in terms of someone who will interpret the Constitution literally and may disagree with the right to privacy, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade?
TURLEY: Oh absolutely. There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues.
COURIC: Not even Antonin Scalia?
TURLEY: They’ll have to make a race to the right, but I think it will be by a nose, if at all. …
COURIC: And ideology trumped gender in this case, right?
TURLEY: I think so. I think the president wanted, first of all, to show he could pick someone who was clearly qualified and has the resume, but he also wanted to rally his base. He’s done both with Sam Alito. No one on the conservative base can be unhappy with Sam Alito. The question is whether they can weather this storm that will be coming, I think, and whether there will be a filibuster.
UPDATE: Crooks & Liars has the video.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
102 Responses to “Turley: “There Will Be No One to the Right of Sam Alito on This Court””
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I am assuming that Scalito is a Roman Catholic.
How many Catholics will be on the court should he be confirmed, and how does this affect the future decisions of the court, if at all?
October 31st, 2005 at 8:25 amAll hail the American Taliban. Bear witness to the death of every good thing this country stands for. Say goodbye to freedom. Ayatolla Bush will lead us to paradise. All hail the American Taliban.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:34 amdoes KATIE COURIC even know what “a strict constructionist” is?
October 31st, 2005 at 8:36 am#3
Well, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt apparently were not and they were three of the five greatest Presidents in US History.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:38 amIt would be interesting to see just how many people that cover these items in the MSM have actually read the US Constitution, The Federalist Papers, or any of the key Constitutional cases brought before the court.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:44 amWell, apparently he is not the most qualified. Harriet Miers filled that bill.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:47 amA question for Judge Alito - how would you rule if the following case came before you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ dna/ mb606/ F2241577?thread=1247780
Apologies for going off-topic, but this, sent to me by colleagues from Britain, is too funny not to share.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:57 amFreep a poll at cnn http://www.cnn.com/ Bottom of page:
Is Judge Samuel Alito the best choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:05 amAlito was the lone disenter in a case that ruled women DIDN’T need to inform their husbands of an abortion. The left must use the filibuster on this nominee.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:08 amAndrew, I’m happy to see that you think that Jefferson was one of our greatest presidents, but I dare say that, was he alive today, he would doubtlessly take some umbrage at the fact that you lumped him with those other two former presidents. Indeed, Jefferson’s “whig” principles are wholly inconsistent with the beliefs propounded by FDR. Jefferson and FDR represent to contrasting visions of America. As for Lincoln, he — almost single-handedly — destroyed the Union that Jefferson helped to create.
Allen, speaking of the constitution and the federalist papers, have you read either? If so, I must assume you either (i) don’t care what they say because they were written by a bunch of old white men or (ii) are visiting this page to see what the statists are up to.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:11 am#11
Jefferson purchased Louisiana with no consultation with congress, not exactly what what many of Jefferson’s own supporters thought that congress’ power of the purse and power to make treaties entailed.
Jefferson’s allies tried to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Chase, because they disagreed with him.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:17 amCnn, msnbc, headline crap, etc. are almost comedy at this point. Their failure to report the real news, and spin what they do cover is so obvious now.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:18 amI shall expound on Jefferson’s reaction to Salmon Chase.
It seems strikingly similar to FDR’s plan to alter the court, don’t you think?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:20 amIt’s easy to believe there’s no Constitutional right to privacy when
A) you can’t get pregnant
B) you can afford a lawyer to protect your interests.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:21 amThe liberals thought it was Fitzmas morning - but Santa brought them Scalito! Thank you, Mr. President, for righting an earlier wrong - it’s going to be bright, beautiful day.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:23 am“Alito was the lone disenter in a case that ruled women DIDN’T need to inform their husbands of an abortion. The left must use the filibuster on this nominee. ”
Please, oh please, oh PLEASE filibuster…..I for one cannot WAIT to see the blood drain from liberals’ faces as the republicans invoke the nuclear option.
Face it, liberal weenies - you don’t have the majority of America on your side. If you did, you’d have won a majority of the seats in congress.
Alito is an imminently qualified jurist who, by the way, was UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED by the senate when nominated the first time by Bush 41. Have fun, Ted Kennedy, explaining to the American people NOW why you are going to vote against him.
God, I love the smell of liberals’ heads exploding in the morning. Smells like….victory.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:28 am[…] Meanwhile, the freakout starts at Think Progress with these two posts. […]
October 31st, 2005 at 9:32 amBush just hanged himself. He’s not powerful enough to go nuclear. America supports Roe(even though I don’t).
October 31st, 2005 at 9:33 am#11
The federalist papers were not statist?
They argued FOR the establishment of a central government, claiming that states would more likley impinge on federal power than the other way around (Federalist #17 “examples to show the tendency of federal governments rather to anarchy among the members than tyranny in the head”), and delt effectively with other anti-federal bogeymen that reich-wingers point to today.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:37 amBrutus: Yes I have read up on these documents. Here is a taste;
James Madison: Federalist #10. In this part of The Federalist Papers, Madison (1787) argued strongly and convincingly that the size and diversity of the new American republic would not allow any narrow faction to come into being and dominate its politics in a way that would trample on the rights of the minority.
“There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”
October 31st, 2005 at 9:40 am#l9
He expects the fellow to be appointed by the end of the year, while he plans two foreign trips and the congress wants to recess and explain themselves to the voters.
That doesn’t happen often and the current Justice O’ is still willing to serve.
It probably will happen, but no one will be happy about it.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:40 amAnd the final promise is fulfilled. With the election of Bush we promised you would see cronyism, economic failure, diplomatic weakness, unnecessary conflict… and a fascist-leaning Supreme Court.
Not that hard to predict from a guy who couldn’t find Pakistan on a world map, thought a budget was a stack of paper with a lot of numbers on it, and is a religious fruitcake with substance abuse issues.
It’s time to stop punishing just Bush, and widen the punishment to all of his apologists. All Republicans must be removed from office.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:43 am#1…. this appointment would place five (5) catholics on the Supreme Court….
http://sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/ n/ a/ 2005/ 10/ 31/ national/ w044545S61.DTL
October 31st, 2005 at 9:53 amFinally Bush hits a home run and nominates someone who cares deeply about the constitution
October 31st, 2005 at 9:53 amNot a chance in hell they pull the nuclear option. They have both leaders under investigation/indictment, the public poll numbers in the tank, and Rove still not cleared. Nuclear will not happen
October 31st, 2005 at 9:55 am#25
Yeah, the constitution back when women didn’t vote, the 14th amendment didn’t apply to anything and there were no product liability laws.
Some advice, read Cardozo, read Scalia, then vomit.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:58 amGosh, let’s see they have such a brilliant track record. Vietnam II…uh I mean Iraq and all of the lies that got us in to that quagmire. Jack Abramoff?! Tom Delay’s stellar moral leadership, Brownie and FEMA. Scooters indictment and restoring honor to the White House. The economy, MASSIVE domestic and foreign trdae deficits. Abyssmal job growth…..The list goes on and I just love to see the wingnut, American Taliban try to explain it all away. Bill Clinton got a blow job from an intern and lied about it to congress. The Bush administration has destroyed America’s reputation both here and abroad. Let’s not hold our breaths for a turnaround.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:59 amHarry Reid’s Response:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/press/05/2005A31334.html
October 31st, 2005 at 9:59 amNot the end of the world.
1. There is birth control.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:00 am2. There is Canada.
3. There is not drinking so much vino with this guy from Jersey on the first date and you barely know him ’cause your gf set you up, but he’s like, hot.
Punchy
is correct.
This was a collosal mistake in an attempt to overshadow the criminals in the GODDAMN WHITEHOUSE!
The Great 28!
October 31st, 2005 at 10:01 amMr. SS,
Heads exploding? Like the Ameri-Taliban “Conservatives” over Miers? Get it straight SS. This nominee is to rally the GOP hacks back to BushCo’s ass-kissing spot in order to bolster support to his failing presidency. Get some tissue, because you got brown stuff all over your face.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:02 amThere is no Canada. There are 2 Americas. The Reds will be cast out!!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 10:03 am#12
The Louisiana Purchase reflected a complex political situation. The Senate ratified the treaty by an overwhelming margin and, although the LP may have represented a somewhat expansive reading of the constitution, the same principles — the House’s power over the “purse” v. potus’ power to make treaties — would be similarly implicated in any treaty that would eventually necessitate payment by the US treasury.
Chase & courtpacking: No, not the same, even Chase himself noted that his conduct — acting as an ideological partisan and giving political speeches from the bench — was inappropriate. In his defense, he stated only that his conduct did not amount to a crime (sound familiar?).
In any event, you miss the point. The point was not whether Jefferson once or twice strayed from his political convictions, which is an oft discussed and highly debatable subject, but what exactly he believed those convictions to be. Those beliefs, which were also professed by Madison and others, stand in striking contrast to the belief system advocated by FDR and crew.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:05 amIf possible, Mario Cuomo should get involved in the opposition to Alito. The right, shameless as they are, will claim that the Dems are being anti-Italian, especially with the “Scalito” reference. As ridiculous as it is, they will do it. Remember how Dems “lynched” Thomas (as Thomas himself claimed). They have no shame, so get ready for the anti-Italian line of attack.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:07 amOkay, let’s GO nuke. Then when the ‘Pubs get booted in ‘08 we’ll see how they like it when the shoe’s on the other foot.
Of course, they wouldn’t do it. It’s the political equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction.
If Libs had any stones they’d bluff the threat right back. But…it is true; they are weenies.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:14 am“Face it, liberal weenies - you don’t have the majority of America on your side. If you did, you’d have won a majority of the seats in congress.”
October 31st, 2005 at 10:15 amCheck out the total votes for the House in the last election, and for the Senate in the last three cycles, and then, Sceptimus, tell us which party got the most votes.
If the Dems don’t fight it will be their end.
Remember: People who consider the lack of indictment on the primary charge a success are people who would kill you if they could get away with it.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:17 amNUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
NUCLEAR!!!
Grow some balls you liberal weenies! Now or never!
OVERTURN ROE!!!!!!!!!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 10:19 amLadies, be sure to buy your blue burkas now.
When Alito gets confirmed, every lady, whether Republican or Democrat will need to start wearing them.
Let’s keep track of the girl children of all the legislature to see if their parents take them to the abortion doctors. Of course they would take them to the doctor in the dark of night, including the president.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:20 am#34
I think, going back to your original post, that jefferson would not mind being lumped in with Roosevelt and Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents.
Jefferson was a pragmatic and practical practicioner of realpolitik. When push came to shove, he was willing to take advantage of the tides in the fortunes of men to his, and our enduring, great fortune.
His underlying foundation was indeed quite different than those of Lincoln or Roosevelt, but his tactics were in at least two or three of the most memorable facets of his presidency, strikingly similar.
I think that the underlying greatness of the most successful presidents was not purely their ideology, but their pragmatism.
Jefferson’s pragmatism, after all, laid the foundation for the struggle over southern domination and led to the rise of the confederacy and of Lincoln.
Therefore, the liberalism of Lincoln and Roosevelt and the principles of Jefferson (i.e., borderline athieism (sp?) for one) were not what made them great, it is how they remade the country.
I think they all shared this in common.
How would Jefferson react to the presence of five Roman Catholics on the court, by the way?
October 31st, 2005 at 10:32 amI think Dubya just made a grave mistake. He’s already fighting on too many fronts, this will only embolden the opposition. The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose and this seems to be the key to what the GOP “base” is after changing (no activism there right?) The other problem for the GOP and the evangelical base is that aside from gay marriage, abortion is clearly (as Duberstein stated on Deafeat the Press yesterday) their most effective political tool. If they overturn Roe, they lose that as an issue. The leaders of the Christian zealot base know this, so I’m not too concerned about it. Either way, they lose.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:36 am#30
Not the end of the world.
1. There is birth control.
Maybe, but what about the growing number of pharmacists that are refusing to fill certain prescriptions on “moral” grounds? I’ve already read some info on the ‘Net that indicates Walgreen’s supports a policy that indicates their pharmacists can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions unless state law intervenes. Suppose this one day goes to the Supreme Court, and is upheld? I smell a legal battle brewing. And why should they stop at birth control? What’s next?
October 31st, 2005 at 10:45 amThis guy has to be stopped. I had Turley for torts, and he’s a pretty straight shooter. Nobody to the right of this guy … awful.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:51 am#43 Or immoral grounds, depending on your morals.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:54 amGood Morning Surfs, how are ya!???Here we are another day another .10 cent’s after Bush taxes. It appears to me, a long time rights activest. we are getting screwed again. The latest nominee is just another woman hating man who ascribes to total male domination of the female species. Just another little dictator with the little man sindrome. They all fit in this catagory when they don’t think woman have the same rights they do, guess what ladies, we have been fighting this fight for 50 years or more and still we must do more. Only strong men with out fears and flaws are capable of running our country, or a woman of course.And I don’t mean someone like traitor Rice. We have let them ruin our country by allowing then to comit wars against other countries and our own people. It’s time to stand up, unite again, and fight back. After all we do out number them, there are enough of us who hold the purse strings and I would bet every one of us could end these war’s and madness. I am not a man hater, nor do I have the “penus envy”, I do believe in partnerships and shared rights for all. So now lets get busy and work for Impeaching all these old, bloated white men and put in some common sence people that are not in bed with the clergy and big business…..Blessings
October 31st, 2005 at 11:04 am#43 Yeah there is birth control but due to W’s “abstinence education” programs in the schools, kids now a days aren’t getting an open and honest discussion of the best ways to prevent pregnancy. 80% if kids who take the abstinence pledge don’t hold to it, of those how many know what effective birth controll methods are and how to get access to them? Jeesh…this is so stupid I can hardly believe we’re talking about the U.S. in the 21’st century. I thought the Taliban was defeated.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:09 am#43
Good points. But they cascade into a series of pessimistic what-ifs.
My partly fatuous post belies a gut feeling that Roe will never be overturned.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:13 amIt is bedrock law by now and one which has a nerve in a libertarian strain endemic to Americans. The pendulum will swing back; that is natural law. Four or five years from now we will view these times as an abberation. And IMO Roe will still be intact.
Brutus: It was Pres. Buchanan who nearly destroyed the union, not Lincoln. The union was already politically disintegrating *before* Lincoln came on the scene.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:15 amWhat? No kiss from Georgie for Alito this morning? How disappointing. I wonder how Alito feels coming in second to Harriet?
October 31st, 2005 at 11:20 amready to go nucular?
If Republicans can successfully derail a nomination solely for the reasons that the candidate’s conservative credentials are not air-tight, can the Democrats derail a nominee for being so far to the right that he represents the views of only a handfu…
October 31st, 2005 at 11:20 amwake up people!!! while everyone is bickering about supreme court nominees and nuclear options, YOUR PLANET IS DYING which means everything you liberals and conservatives care about will be the least of your worries when clean water and air (cornerstones for life) are non-exisient. Time for a real leader in this country….is there anybody out there?? Somebody get W a stiff drink and a couple of lines, he’ll still be ineffective, but at least he will be more fun and then we can all say “man that guy is such a tool, but he sure can party.” Don’t worry about the housing bubble bursting….deals galore in the sunni-triangle.
Billy W.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:30 amre Couric’s quote: “…so he fits the bill in terms of someone who will interpret the Constitution literally.”
October 31st, 2005 at 11:35 amWhat kind of idiot thinks a literal interpretation of a horse-drawn document is even possible in a string-theory age? Such thinking is conclusive evidence against both evolution with intent and intelligent design.
This all about DISTRACTION. The Supreme Court make up isn’t going to damage bush’s “legacy.” The CIA leak investigation will!! This is pure rove / cheney at their best. They realize Americans can’t focus on more than one thing at a time, so distraction is the key to continued survival, at least in their minds. This will fire up the far right religious folks who will be all over TV, in the press and on street corners proclaiming how bush is returning America to it’s Christian roots. Quite a nice strategy.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:43 am“Heads exploding? Like the Ameri-Taliban “Conservatives†over Miers? Get it straight SS. This nominee is to rally the GOP hacks back to BushCo’s ass-kissing spot in order to bolster support to his failing presidency.”
LOL - On the first day of Fitzmas, my true love gave to me - SCALITO! Try not to cry about it, punk.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:50 am#1,#25
October 31st, 2005 at 11:51 amSo are you saying that we should not allow another Catholic? Are you in favor of discriminating against a jurist due to his/her religious beliefs? Do you have an “approved” quota system for the Federal Court system? What about in Congress and the Senate? Set a quota for how many Jews we can have, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims? You libs have quite an inclusive philosophy….
Sceptimus- It IS good to be king! Now let’s watch the lefties gnash at the philosophical chains they claim don’t need. Roe is moot, abortion is in decline because the people have changed their opinions and VOTED with their feet! I know, Lefties hate voting….
October 31st, 2005 at 11:55 amPardon my naivete, but didn’t Bush promise to (1) restore dignity to the White House; (2) be a uniter, not a divider; and (3) be the President to all the people?
October 31st, 2005 at 12:02 pmLETS STAY ON MESSAGE: “NO ACTIVIST JUDGES, WHO WILL CHANGE EXISTING LAW.”
October 31st, 2005 at 12:11 pm#58, dumbya is a “unificator”… got all the world to hate him. That is the only accomplishment worthy of note from him.
And this latest pick for SC is just another neo-nazi-zealot. Do a wikipedia search on him. He is a FREAK OF NATURE.
I’m guessing his twisted views and lack of ethics is what makes him a shoe-in for this pResident.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:11 pmI guess dumbya and his cronies are worried shi***$less because losing meirs just cost them their
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card.
Merry Fitzmas! It won’t take long to undo the damage dumbya and co. have created.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:13 pmGeeze, the trolls are all over the net today…. must be orders from on high….control and defeat the enemy!!! This is pure rove…. you don’t just defeat your enemy, you destroy their will to fight. Bushco must think this nomination distration will help them pull their supporters back so Iraq, FEMA, tax cuts for rich, CIA Leak, cuts in social progrrams and the other screws ups of this mis-administration will be overlooked. This is the start of the battle for 2006 control of congress. Create clear, emotional divisions so the GOP can attack anyone not supporting them as “liberal” and thus, “Un-American.”
October 31st, 2005 at 12:26 pm#56
“So are you saying that we should not allow another Catholic?”
No, I am not. In fact, I live quite near the homesite of the first Catholic Justice ED White, who wrote the opinion breaking up the Standard Oil Trust and a number of other progressive opinions and I have no problem with his, or any ethnic or religious type being on the court or being excluded from the court for that reason alone.
The supreme court, is however, a very small instution in numbers, and there will presumeably be an effect on the body were the majority were athiests, or hindu or islamists or bhuddists or jewish or catholic.
I just hope that there is a discussion of the implications inherent in their beliefs.
Presumabely these belifs include supernatural authority for the laws and morality that govern their personal lives and potentially the lives of their fellow americans.
Scalia stated from the bench that the US was founded on godly principles, Roberts stated that he would recuse himself rather than rule on matters relating to the church, implicit is the acknowledgement that there may be a conflict between his religiouos beliefs and his calling as a justice.
Will Justice Alito make an appeal to the authority of the supernatural diety or the institution of a foreign government (Vatican City) in making his decisions?
Will he, as Scalia did, make an appeal to the religious beliefs of americans as authority for his arguments, when the appeal to belief is an obvious logical fallacy (only something like 30% of americans believe in the validity of the theory of evolution, for instance, while science is nearly unanimous on the subject).
I thought that the US was established by “we the people” and that Jefferson wrote that “history furnishes no example of a priest ridden people maintaining a free civil government.”
Professor Turley, whose comments this forum is about, stated that judge Alito is as far to the right as possible on this court.
What does that mean? What are the actual implications of his decisions? What is the logical validity of stricut constructionism (its own proponents often forsake it, as Scalia did in recognizing the validity of the dormant commerce clause, something found nowhere in the text of the constitution)?
The question is not a litmus test on Catholicism. The question is, how will Alito contribute to all this as a thinker? How does his Catholicism contribute to his thinking?
Is his thinking what we think of when we hear the term JUDICIAL RESTRAINT?
October 31st, 2005 at 12:27 pm[…] George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley says Alito is a hard right choice. […]
October 31st, 2005 at 12:27 pmYikes! The Karl and the Rovettes pulled another trick, humiliating and embarrassing Meiers, who was only a stalking horse. They sucker-punched her but good. She was only put forth to be rejected, so that Bush can now say: You rejected my female nominee, here’s a man, and a right wing wacko at that.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:31 pm#65
Absolutely, Miers was designed to make the real nominee appear acceptable by comparison.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:36 pm# 30
1. Birth control has been known to fail. Right to pivacy was established in Griswold vs. Conneticut, finding that married couples are entitled to purchase contraception. No right to privacy, no contraeptives.
2. Your best alternative would appear to be Saudi Arabia, where women don’t leave the house without male relatives.
3. Since you are obviously a product of W’s abstinence education, I must tell you that pregnancy requires actions by 2 people. Both are responsible for sexual activity
on the first or any date. Drunkeness is not a prerequisite. In fact, many first trimester abortions are sought by married women who cannot support the children they have.
You will continue “striking out” on the first or any date untill you learn that no self respecting woman wants a Neanderthal as part of her life. Grow up.
Gramma
October 31st, 2005 at 12:40 pm….he disagrees with the right to privacy”……DOES ANYONE ON THE RIGHT GET THAT?? THAT INCLUDES THIER PRIVACY. That’s what this country is supposed to be about. What the hell is going on? To what degree will people have enough????
October 31st, 2005 at 12:51 pmI’d be happy to support filibustering this guy.
The SCOTUS nominee shouldn’t represent 1 section of amricans. The SCOTUS nominee should represent ALL americans.
Doesn’t have to be any harder than that to get john q public on board.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:53 pm“Geeze, the trolls are all over the net today…. must be orders from on high….control and defeat the enemy!!! This is pure rove…. you don’t just defeat your enemy, you destroy their will to fight.”
The only way I see this working though is if you take their idiocy seriously. As far as I can tell, everyone is just laughing at them. Keep it coming trolls, it’s entertaining.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:02 pm#65 - That’s what I’ve been saying all along . . .
October 31st, 2005 at 1:07 pmGramma, you are a wise woman.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:13 pmTo No. 39.
The Libs are the ones WITH the balls… Doncha remember the lesson from last week?
Liberals love sex, Conservatives prefer Sedition.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:13 pmA strict constructionist would
October 31st, 2005 at 1:35 pmcall the war in Iraq unconstitional because it was not declared by Congress. A strict constructionist would not have voted to stop the recount in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election, because that was strictly a state matter. An activist judge is one who votes to overrule the laws passed by Congress, as Thomas has more than any other sitting justice. (Breyer has so voted
the least of any sitting justice.)
We all should be very, very worried if this nominee doesn’t believe in a fundamental right to privacy.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:49 pmI love the libs who say the American People support Roe and wont stand for it being over turned - If thats the case then what are you worried about? Why even leave it up to the courts? Why aren’t you working to pass it as real law instead of a loosely based interpretation? How can there even be an issue with so much broad based support?
October 31st, 2005 at 2:12 pmBecause Jim R of the situation we have faced over the last 3 election cycles. A small group of far right wing radicals lie, scheme and cheat to win elections by razor thin margins and then decide by fiat what they want to become the law of the land. That’s not democracy.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:18 pmThe key question with Scalito is is views on executive privelege and power. Does he believe treason is a crime or only a republican campaign tactic. Wonder how he will vote in the case of U.S. vs Richard Cheney?
October 31st, 2005 at 2:39 pmThat Alito is an arch-conservative, and a politically partisan judge few have any doubt.
G. W. Bush got exactly what he and the hard right wing and the religious, militant fundamentalists have been craving for — a political fight that will focus on the nuclear option legislative process that allows the opposition (or what remains of it)to filibuster judges like Alito who are right wing, partisan ideologues.
But the filibuster is now the LAST remaining power that allows Democrats any say in the “advice and consent” process for federal court nominations and the final obstacle that the Religious Right will soon eliminate.
After all, they called in their markers on the Miers nomination, making it transparently clear that they, not the majority of Americans, own and control our government, and particularly, G. W. Bush whom they now own outright.
Employing the nuclear option will remove the two-thirds concurrence for the approval of federal judges and will require only a simple majority of 51 votes in the U.S. Senate. The system of checks and balances that at one time served our country well for almost 230 years will become a thing of the past.
Republicans now own, operate and rule every branch of government and the addition of one more rubber stamp with Alito’s installation on the nation’s highest court will complete their quest to use judicial fiats to eviscerate the U.S. Constitution and specifically, the Bill of Rights which protected (up until now) individual liberties and freedoms.
Is there a single saving grace that Democrats can salvage from the right wing extremist tilt of the U.S. Supreme Court? Maybe, if the hard Religious Right begins pushing more than they have been to impose their literalist biblical fundamentalism and their brutal, anti-U.S. Constitutional dogma on the rest of the country. There is no doubt in my mind and in the opinions of others that is exactly their goal — to “Christianize” America.
The only use the U.S. Constituion has for these religious fanatics and zealots is as a tool to manipulate it in order to advance their punitive, pernicious tenets and to legislate and compel morality laws onto the entire nation.
But legislating the Religious Right’s “moral values” and putting them into law by the ever-increasing, myopic Republican-controlled U.S. Congress may still be difficult.
Even with seven Republican justices in a nine-member U.S. Supreme Court, repealing the First Amendment establishment clause which states that “Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” may not come as easily and quickly as the Religious Right are demanding.
The corrupt, lying, deceitful, accountable-to-nobody Bush administration welcomes this fight if for no other reason than to take the heat off of their illegal and traitorous acts against America and the disastrous failure of the Iraq War which has cost over 2,015 U.S. military lives and almost $6 billion per month to perpetuate.
With Bush sinking in the polls almost daily, the divisive, in-your-face nomination underscores the weakness and cowardly Bush expedience in selecting second-place finisher, Sam Alito, for the nation’s highest court.
In the news today, the Libby indictment is barely a blip on the radar and by tomorrow it will have disappeared completely — at least that’s the hope of the corrupt Bush mob of liars, thieves and traitors to our country.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:43 pm#79 Richard, Thank You! Very well written and I agree 100%. You only missed one point I may add, please. This administration has been hell bent on getting big business in control to the point we may not have water to drink or quality air to breath not to mention wild life to see. We have now a cut it, drill it or kill it mind set with this bunch.. Their march on our earth is already devastating. Again Thank You………Blessings
October 31st, 2005 at 3:05 pm#62 Bob- I resent being called a “troll”! I’m more of a leprechaun with a love for watching stumbling lefties wet themselves with anger….it’s not anymore helpful but I thought the clarification was necessary…
October 31st, 2005 at 3:08 pm#77 Paul- “a small group of far right wing radicals”???Did you even see the last election map? The dems had 10% of the land mass of the entire country…I was embarrassed for them…they looked like an SNL characature of the snobby elitist class pimps we’ve come to know and love.
I just have a question. If Mr. Alito was unanamimously confirmed to the 3rd Circuit by the Senate, then how can Democrats now say that this man is unqualified and too much of an ideologue to be on the Supreme Court? I have a comment on the issues in general. For all of those sayin that Roe v. Wade will be overtuned, I’d would like you to show me where in the Constitution it says there is a right to an abortion (have fun with that). Now, before you say that if Alito is confirmed then back-alley operations will come back, first, the power would go back to the states and people to decide what they really want. I’d be very suprised if ALL 50 states banned abortions let alone one state. Second, no matter whether a position is morally “right” or “wrong” does not matter in terms of the Constitution, the position is either supported by the Constitution or not. And don’t get me started on the liberal Supreme Court justices citing foreign laws and regulations in official opinions.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:09 pmJim R - “Why even leave it up to the courts? Why aren’t you working to pass it as real law instead of a loosely based interpretation? How can there even be an issue with so much broad based support?”
And why doesn’t the Right gear up for a constitutional amendment banning abortions instead of weaseling around in the media? You could seat Mao Zedong and V.I. Lenin on SCOTUS and they couldn’t overturn it. “Strict Constructionist” and “Legislating From The Bench” are buzz phrases, chimerae masking the conservative agenda. Try plain speaking and put your money where your mouths are. (A conservative specialty, after all.) Let the people decide, and we’ll see where we really stand. “51% mandate” is oxymoronic.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:07 pmRe: Katie Couric’s question to Jonathan Turley:
I know President Bush is looking for a conservative jurist, so he fits the bill in terms of someone who will interpret the Constitution literally and may disagree with the right to privacy, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade?
This is something you all better pay close attention to. The most qualified person in America for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, told Arlen Specter that she supported Griswold vs. Connecticut, but when the White House got wind of her comments, she suddenly withdrew her comments and said that she hadn’t taken a position on Griswold or the right to privacy. Details at http://www.cnn.com/ 2005/ POLITICS/ 10/ 18/ miers.specter/ index.html
It is very telling that the last 2 nominees have issues with a person’s right to privacy.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:53 pm#41,
How would Jefferson react to a couple of Jews on the Court?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:02 pm#82
I just have a question. If Mr. Alito was unanamimously confirmed to the 3rd Circuit by the Senate, then how can Democrats now say that this man is unqualified and too much of an ideologue to be on the Supreme Court?
Good question. Another one: why didn’t Harriet Miers, the most qualified person in America for the S.C., get the support of an up-or-down vote from the Republican Senators? Didn’t they fight for this when considering previous nominations?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:18 pmA civics lesson to No. 76 Jim R.,
Liberals ARE very worried about overturning Roe and the fundamental right to privacy because the Judiciary always has the last say.
No matter what hypothetical law(s) that might be passed to protect women’s reproductive rights or privacy rights in general, that law may be overturned at any time (on ‘interpreted’ constitutional grounds) by a nutty right-wing supreme court… much like the court we might be getting.
That’s the fear.
bok bok, Chicken Hawk
October 31st, 2005 at 5:19 pm“The dems had 10% of the land mass of the entire country…”
Turk Fowler,
I don’t know if it was 10% of the land mass, or 20%, or 5%… but you’ll notice that we got all the educated, wealthy and cool/fun areas… and you got the corn fields, swamps, and glaciers…
The corn fields are being plowed for housing, the swamps are being drained, and the glaciers are melting due to climate change. Where are you going with your hillybilly friends next? Claim the ‘land mass’ of Greenland, perhaps.
Bok Bok, Chicken Hawk
October 31st, 2005 at 5:30 pmBWAAHAHAHAHA!!! BUSH WINS AGAIN!!! There’s absolutely NOTHING the liberals and the left-wing loons can do about it… Go ahead, please filibuster, and we’ll invoke the nuke option, and our Supreme Court will have a Conservative edge for decades!!!
Don’t like it Libs? Move to FRANCE!!!!!
Get ready for liberal crying and whining like you’ve never heard before!!! *LOL*
:O)
God bless AMERICA!!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 5:32 pmWC, you nailed it on the privacy interpretation and one of the biggest reasons why Bork was rejected by the largest margin ever for a Supreme Court nominee.
However, the landscape today is ripe for the Religious Right’s attempt to hijack our rights as they have set out to do over and over. They want to roll their juggernaut over the Constitution while the iron is hot now that they have Bush on the ropes after the Miers debacle. The Democrats? They’ve been non-players so long that being down looks like up to them. Don’t count on anything resembling character or principles from them because they lost their cajones long ago.
One of the oft-repeated drones by the Religious Right is that the First Amendment separation between church and state is a myth that has no basis in law. It is as important for these religious extremists to gut the First Amendment wording, and possibly even repeal it, through amendments that will supersede Article I in the Bill of Rights as it is for those who loathe the Fourth Amendment which, up until now, has always respected the right of individual privacy.
Their methods are used much in the same manner that the NRA has, de facto, superseded the Second Amendment gun regulation which by their interpretation adheres only to the latter part of the first sentence “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” –in other words, forget that “A well-regulated militia…” are the very first words of the Second Amendment.
Bork, of course, was denied a seat on the Supreme Court because he, like so many of the hard right wing of the Republican Party, have no use for the Fourth Amendment right to privacy which, by the way, has been expanded, not contracted in several individual states.
Instead, the Religious Right are demanding that the moment a woman becomes pregnant, her body and her soul belong to the state — by law. No longer will the wife and mother of her children (no matter how life-threatening her condition), her husband and family members or the family doctors, have any say in the matter of her survival because of the religious moralists’ insistence that she must die to save the life of a brain-dead baby who also may be dead on delivery.
In other words, these pro-lifers will get a Twofer, not just the death of the baby, but the mother’s death as well, leaving her husband a widower and her several children motherless.
But that’s exactly what these Religious Right moralists are demanding — a complete capitulation of democracy to be replaced by their dogmatic, pernicious theocracy — all enforced by law by a phalanx of like-minded partisan, activist, Republican lackeys who will legislate law from the highest bench in the land.
The Star Chamber of King Henry VII which continued through Charles I has reemerged in America, but only this time with the self-anointed End of Days, Armageddon-driven religious despots whose biggest obstacle is the United States Constitution.
But, the biggest danger to democracy and freedom for Americans will come from the same phalanx of judges for the next several decades, long after the Bush totalitarian government has left office.
The renewal of the USA Patriot Act at the end of this year will test the strength of democracy once the eyes of the people are opened and when they see the punitive provisions which will restrict and curtail the rights of all Americans. Those added provisions have already been leaking out, little by little, as we have all read in our papers or Internet online news sources.
By then, of course, it will be far too late. The Bush Star Chamber, ensconced with the likes of rubber stamp judges like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy will see to it that the corrupt corporate elite which bought and paid for their government will not have to be accountable to anyone nor relinquish a single branch of their investment to anyone.
I’ll add a quote which I’ve used before to make absolutely clear why I believe our Constitution is in grave danger and under such attack by the tolerance-for-none invidious Religious Right and why it may not survive the next 3 ½ years under G. W. Bush.
Remember Randall Terry during the Terri Schiavo uproar when (Doctor) Bill Frist looked at grainy video recordings and diagnosed from that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state? Remember when the sanctimonious, self-serving Tom DeLay crafted a bill just for Terri Schiavo to keep the feeding tube in and then actually threatened judges who disagreed with his cohorts of the Religious Right? And remember G. W. Bush interrupting his vacation when he left his Crawford Ranch (something he didn’t do until three days after Katrina devastated New Orleans) and strode into the Oval Office to sign that bilious piece of garbage produced by the corrupt Republican-controlled U.S. Congress?
Well, here’s a quote that should give us reason for concern when we see where we are headed now that the Religious Right are cashing in their chips. Randall Terry, former Operation Rescue had this to say: “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good … if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It’s that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country…”
Know them by their words.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:35 pmAll you conservative neocon repugs are an ignorant and dilusional bunch. If you don’t think for a moment about what a right wingnut radical judge who doesn’t believe in the fundamenatal right to privacy will affect more than a woman’s right to choose, you need to put down your crack pipe right this instant! Bunch of dumb asses. I’d think that kool-aid you’re slurping would taste a little bitter by now.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:57 pm[…] His recommendations speak for themselves: He was on the right side in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The National Organization of Women hates him. He has a long history of Constitutional involvement and accomplishment. His legal peers respect him and think he’s well to the right. The result? Key members of the Gang of 14 are willing to go to the wall for him. (Which rather nicely confirms my own view of their infamous deal some months back.) […]
October 31st, 2005 at 7:23 pmScalia is a member of Opus Dei
Hopefully Scalito is too
We need more self ass-whipping men on the scotus
October 31st, 2005 at 8:22 pmIt’s going to be very interesting how long this whole thing is going to play out. A minority (28%, tops) of this country can dictate to the majority, huh? Tell my radical gay sister that. It’s pretty obvious to me her response to “patriots” like “Ruling killer elite” (check that punctuation, dude) would be armed and dangerous. I mean, you should see this bitch with a .45 — give old “Ruling killer elite” an emergency battlefield colostomy.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:54 pmTell your lesbo sister to come on
I got chunks of gals like her in my stool
October 31st, 2005 at 9:37 pm(Re #11) E tu Brute?
November 1st, 2005 at 10:04 am#96 - Is that a question or a comment?
November 1st, 2005 at 11:18 amThis will effect the women on the Conservatied side. I guess their husband make all the decision. These women have no say on what goes on in the family. Like that idiot Santorum. He is a piece of work. I feel sorry for his children.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:05 pmI can’t help but find fault with those who think the Constitution is inviolable and perfect (as the same folks often argue about the Bible). It took nearly 150 years to sufficiently correct the Constitution to allow half the population of America to vote…doesn’t sound like the perfect guideline to government and law-making.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:14 pmMaybe, but what about the growing number of pharmacists that are refusing to fill certain prescriptions on “moral†grounds?”
What is WRONG with that?!?!
Isn’t it far worse as a country to tell people: “You opinions and moral views dont matter. We’ll shove this down your throat wether you like it or not.”
That may be the way to run USSR or China, but not America. We shouldnt have laws that force people to go against their moral beliefs. We need to allow for ‘conscientious objectors’.
If we dont have the freedom to act on our moral beliefs we dont have any freedom at all.
And dont tell me there wont be someone else around to fill the need; the existence of corner drug-dealers proves that there will be a maker for any market.
November 13th, 2005 at 5:07 pmacey deucy back gammon
Pythagoras spotless?limit scouts educators?back gammon games http://www.postagepaid.net/back-gammon-games.html
December 28th, 2005 at 6:45 pm[…] While Alito’s resume is nothing to scoff at, his rulings on a number of cases in race and sex discimination are alarming to say the least. People for the American Way have an extensive fact sheet on Alito, which is where ThinkProgress highlighted his rulings from. Jonathan Turley, professor at George Washington University’s law school, weighed in on Alito’s nomination, on NBC’s Today in an interview with Katie Couric: “He’s the top choice for particularly pro-life people. Sam Alito is viewed as someone is likely to join the hard right in likely narrowing and possibly voting to overturn Roe … There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues.” […]
October 30th, 2006 at 2:15 amSocial worker license, social worker income, social worker interview
November 20th, 2006 at 5:51 am