Totenberg: Alito Will Move The Court “Dramatically To The Right”
By on Oct 31st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Totenberg: Alito Will Move The Court “Dramatically To The Right”
Today on NPR’s Morning Edition, Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg discussed the impact of the Alito nomination:
Steve Inskeep:
How high are the stakes now for this nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court?
Nina Totenberg:
Well, if Judge Alito is confirmed, the court will move dramatically, dramatically to the right. There are conservatives who are less conservative than he, and I guess one could’ve said that with Harriet Miers you didn’t know, so liberals could hope that she would be a little more to the left. There’s no question where he is.
(You can listen to the segment here.)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
yeah, and remember, this is for O’Connor not Rhenquist. so it’s a big deal.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:31 pmHappy Days are here again!!! If Chuck Schumer and the rest of the “extreme left” are starting to get their panties in a dangling twist over Judge Alito – I know he will be the type of justice conservatives can be proud of.(I don’t know if Chuck is “extreme” but since he never says the phrase “right wing” without punctuating it with the adjective extreme – I thought I would do him the same coutesy.) I can’t wait to hear how all the “extreme left wing” Senators who voted unanimously for this guy will try to rip him to shreds – maybe Chris Dodd and Teddy “the Swimmer” will plead drunken “black out”.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:34 pmRoberts is nothing compared to this guy.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:34 pmWow…Mighty has already supplied her ‘informed’ opinion…I wish I could troll blogs all day long…
I hope that folks now realize that Harriet Miers was only a ‘placeholder’…she was never a serious candidate for the court and carried W’s political water well…
If you look at the timeline, her ‘resignation’ coincided with the end of the grand jury’s term and the announcement of indictments against (for now) Libby. Before any Fitzmas ‘traction’ could take hold on this week’s news cycle, the WH announces at ‘oh-dark thirty’ that Bush will announce his NEW nominee. Now they all scramble to cover this ‘news’ while the more important issues of ‘Official A’ and the others grow a little colder…
This reeks of Rove…wait for the bottom to drop out, stop the bleeding and then circle the wingnut wagons for the looming ‘nuclear’ war for the SCOTUS…heaven help us all…
October 31st, 2005 at 1:45 pmDayton, you just now figured this out???
October 31st, 2005 at 2:06 pmExcellent. The court needs to be moved dramatically back to the right, i.e. in the direction of the constitution as written. Now, when is Ginsberg going to retire? Let’s roll.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:07 pmWhen this monster gets confirmed, I’m buying stock in every company that makes coat hangers. Something tells me they’ll be in demand….
October 31st, 2005 at 2:13 pm#7 – be sure to poke your eyes with them because you won’t like what you see…
October 31st, 2005 at 2:19 pm#6 wwallace
October 31st, 2005 at 2:22 pmSerious question: what judgements have been made by the Supreme Court that were not “in the direction of the Constitution as written” (and, I assume, also how the author’s intended – or is that not inclusive?)? Just a couple to make your example. I have never seen examples, just the rhetoric.
Class acts, these leftist loosers. I hope this nomination gets drug throught the Left Wing muck just a little bit. The seething and whining is just too much fun to watch.
CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds†during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that — or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?â€
Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.â€
Sloppy seconds†is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:
Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’â€
Developing…
October 31st, 2005 at 2:22 pmDamn trolls. What morons.
Bring on the filibuster.
Let’s see how much you wingnuts like eatin’ crow.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:24 pmmystic, #9: Roe v. Wade would be exhibit number one of course. The constitution says nothing about abortion.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:29 pmlawrence vs. Texas was another example of blatant judicial activism.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:30 pmwwallace – I went through my pocket copy of the Constitution and nowhere did I find the oft referred to “Right of Privacy”, hmmmmm… You could be on to something there!! Moonbats always refer to “precedents” and “settled law” – completely ignoring the fact that Plessy v. Fergusen was “settled law” for almost 60 years. Details seem to elude many!
October 31st, 2005 at 2:34 pm#12
October 31st, 2005 at 2:35 pmWell, I assumed that one (though I am not agreeing with you, but I am willing to hear your points and allow you to make your case before responding). What others to support your argument? You cannot claim that ONE decision (made when?…) means the SC is carreening out of control in a “leftist spin”. I’m all for balance. Convince me that the SC is misinterpreting the Constitution beyond your one example.
#12–yeah, because in the writings of a government document like the Constitution, ABORTION is a MUST DISCUSS (sarcasm thick…).
Yeah, and gay rights was ALSO something that should have been in the Constitution. Yep, they REALLY needed to have The Article of Assfucking, just to clarify their views…
And where in the constitution is the part about slavery, disabilities, or, say…product liablity? It’s NOT in there??? Well, I guess I’m gunna go buy me some slaves, fire my deaf worker, and forget about the quality of my product. See, the constitution doens’t say any of that’s illegal, so the Courts surely cant, either. See, its logical!
October 31st, 2005 at 2:39 pmHow likely is the right to respond to a filibuster with the nuclear option? Given that 2006 isnt looking so good for them right now, it wouldnt make sense for them to cripple the powers of the opposition party when they might become the opposition party in little under a year. It seems like the dems might have a perfectly safe time filibustering this nomination until a more sane nominee can be found.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:39 pmNow, now, people. Let’s remember that this wonderful nation belongs to all of us. Lincoln said that he had complete confidence in the people to make good decisions if they were first given the truth; he believed they could right the ship of state in any and all situations. So say I.
If this federal judge — “monster” is a little harsh, I think, as well as wishes that someone poke his own eyes out with a hanger — is the last piece of the puzzle that knocks Roe v Wade out of the law, well, isn’t this what we all wanted when “we” elected W? A conservative who would steer the high court dramatically to the right? Then isn’t this okay?
See, the fact is, most Americans support abortion rights and Roe v Wade, and most Republican politicians know this and want to please their conservative base while not actually repealing RvW, lest the people become displeased and start voting the issues again, rather than broad mirages of morality.
If abortion is illegalized in the US the entire political landscape will shift back to the center again, as it would were a draft to be enacted, another non-starter for the Right. It’s no accident that Charles Rangel called for a draft; it was to heat up the sterno beneath the Republicans, not because he actually wanted a draft.
Someday maybe we’ll stop sniping at one another and actually start administering the functions of government efficiently. Or, as Norquist says, starve the Federal government until it’s weak enough to kill it with our bare hands.
Ooof! Anyway, here’s to you all, liberal and conservative alike. My heart brims with gladness for your good fortune to have the first amendment on your sides. Come see me at http://www.guntotingliberal.blogspot.com if you want to read my thoughts.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:43 pm#17–wow, just thinking the exact same thing. That’s why I’m convinced they’ll talk it up, but won’t do it.
Corruption, deceit, changing the rules…it’s got many people pissed off…they’d be committing political suicide to go that route…
October 31st, 2005 at 2:47 pmDW, overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:49 pmLiberals should stop whining and just give him and up or down vote before Christmas. The President gets to nominate who he likes, and the Senate should abide by his nominations.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:54 pmWhy do lefties fear the legislative branch? Maybe it has something to do with their distrust of the simple masses governing themselves….which, living in California, is very scary but very necessary. Where’s Ryan? I need a laugh!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 2:56 pmExcellent point, WWallace, and thanks for reminding me. I’ve often said that, as much as I support women’s rights, the reasoning on Roe seemed kind of thin, and have often pointed out among friends that Roe has very little in fact to do with abortion. (Then again, Federalizing the home growing of marijuana for personal use under the commerce clause seems exceptionally thin, too, but that doesn’t stop it from taking place.)
It’s more about whether or not states v the feds have the right to reguklate abortion. If RvW were overturned, it would fall to the states to deal with the issue themselves, which would not necessarily be bad. It bears mentioning, BTW, that abortion rates under Bush II have skyrocketed well beyond the Clinton era’s numbers, and that so-called red states have higher rates of abortion than blue. Ah the ironies abound.
I’m no scholar but I do try to pay attention. RvW, if I’m correct, deals with the constitutional right to privacy (Griswold is the case, I think). If there is no right to privacy, then Roe devolves to a strict states rights question, and, as we all know, the tenth amendment is quite clear on the matter of federal v states rights.
Of course, those on the Right proved themselves pretty unprincipled regarding the states’ rights issue during the Schiavo affair, wherein no one on the Right seemed to mind upending the apple cart if there was a drop of Liberal blood to be shed. Family values, indeed. Defense of marriage, indeed.
Now that I think of it, the whole Gore V Bush case at the supreme court level was a herculean example of judicial activism in direct mockery of amendment X – from the right, not the left. I don’t believe the federal government was ever intended to intervene in a state’s vote-tabulating process.
But then I digress.
Anyway, I rarely do this comment thing. What fun! Tnaks for a zesty discourse.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:03 pmHardly anything but multiple-personality trolls on this thread. Mighty?I-Right?Ned – why is that when we see one of you we see all of you present? Do you get paid more if you pretend to be more people?
October 31st, 2005 at 3:05 pm#21 – Lefties fear legislators because they know they could never force their social agenda on America unless they do it through the Courts.
Take gay marriage for example – they know they would be thrown out of office the second they said they were for it – so use the Court to hide behind.
Liberals are liars and focus on the one issue they have a majority on – the core of Roe. AND the right takes the bait every time. This is about so much more than abortion.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:07 pmPardon my typos, people. I meant to say “regulate abortion” and “thanks for a zesty discourse.”
I also meant to refer to the thin logic of justifying the federal criminalization of marijuana growing for personal use by invoking the commerce clause. Those poor, anxious, glaucomatic California hippies!
Love to all your wives and children from the Gun Toting Liberal!
October 31st, 2005 at 3:09 pmAmendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(In other words, just because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution does NOT mean that you DON’T have a ‘right’).
Amendment XIII
(1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
(It can be argued that to threaten a woman who becomes pregnant yet does not wish to have the child (for any of many reasons, to include rape, threat to health, or financial or even self-recognized-mental inability to rear a child) IS being forced into an involuntary servitude (either to the father or to the Government). It is a nine-month sentence with lifelong repercussions, and even if the birth is uncomplicated, there is a high probability for permanent physical complications to the mother).
Amendment XIV
(1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Lawrence vs Texas was decided based on this amandment. The police cannot simply come into one’s house and remove a couple who are engaging in intercourse. To do so because the two are of the same gender is NOT equal protection of the laws. Show me the clause in the Constitution claiming that homosexuality is illegal. Or even abortion, for that matter – although I have no issue with the states deciding. The CORE issue of Roe is not abortion, it is the right to privacy, and THAT should be protected at the federal level).
Article VI
….
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
(This one I am bringing up, for THIS one is one I agree that the SC has ignored, and yet should be enforcing. That is, and it clearly states, that if we sign a treaty, it is LAW. Gitmo and secret detention centers are unconstitutional in their self-proclaimed immunity from jurisdiction and international treaty).
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,…
(This original article was included because our forefathers understood that they could not imagine nor encompass all possible necessary parts of the Constitution: that it is not a “dead†document. Just because something is not in the Constitution does not mean that it should not be, and thus we have an amendment clause. If the “strict interpretation†concept disallows for any additional views (i.e. issues that may need to be amended) then it is an unconstitutional ideology.)
October 31st, 2005 at 3:21 pm#21…you mentioned ‘up or down’ vote…what happened to Miers’ opportunity for such a vote? And who took away her opportunity? The wingers, that’s who!
BTW, my copy of the US Constitution doesn’t mention ‘advice and consent of Krauthammer, Kristol & Limbaugh’…
October 31st, 2005 at 3:22 pm#24
October 31st, 2005 at 3:25 pmJeff Gannon. How many times has he visited the WH? And “forcing a social agenda”? How about Schavio? There was respect for the division of the powers of the branches, as well as respect for the decision of (how many?) courts. Certainly that was not a motivated attempt to “force a religious ‘moral’ (and I use the term loosely) agenda… or was it?….
Liberals are liars? Broad brush much?
How about: some on every side have integrity and some do not, some are self-deluded and some are not, some are open-minded and some are not, some do their reading and others don’t, etc… in my family there are liberals, conservatives, radicals of various stripes, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Greens… I suspect many of your families are the same way.
Ad hominem attacks on people for what they believe, or purport to believe, is a very un-democratic (small d) and not a particularly bright or insightful thing to do.
We’re all Americans, people, and it is NOT an act of treason to question the machinations of one’s own party, the “other side,” or, in fact, the whole corrupt, corporate-driven process by which our leaders are chosen. I for one don’t fear the truth.
If my favorite politicians were in the position of, say, Scooter Libby or Karl Rove right now I would say, “give us the truth… did they do what the special prosecutor claims they did?” rather than set out to smear his motives. If my guy is a crook then to Hell with him and I’ll get another one. I’ll never be so ideological that I try to explain away a crime. Hell, if my mother perjured herself I’d say let justice be done.
Is anyone out there sane?
Breathe, people, breathe. We’re all in this together.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:30 pm#28 – some people were appalled that the same Court that grants vicious murderers a reprieve because of their age couldn’t give Terri’s parents a second look instead of referring back to the same Republican judge.
Congress may have overstepped it’s bounds, but they will be less necessary once we have the Court back.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:35 pmLiberals whining… let’s set the record straight: everybody whines. Everybody. Stop putting yourself above others. And liberals are no more “elites” than conservatives. There is none more elite than GWB himself, a scion of unimaginable privilege.
Lots of stereotypes abound about Liberals. Just remember it was liberals who are responsible for such radical ideas as weekends, forty-hour work weeks, child labor laws…
Let’s have some dignity, folks.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:37 pmSeriously, the trolls are running mad today.
I know it’s a point of pride with judd not to be a dailykos manager and boot the naysayers…..but maybe some middle ground should be in order? How about they boot only the purposefully ignorant who yell and scream at the others here on the board without actually talking/debating points in the threads? Now, that would take out a couple of liberals but so what? I’d much prefer not to have to read the trolls crap. In honesty, I don’t read most of their crap, I scroll through it & wonder what pitiful lives they have.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:38 pm#32,
So you would rather not hear from another point of view? This site would become really boring without any outside comments. Ever hear of groupthink? Also, your point about our pitiful live, I often wonder the same thing about you and others here.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:45 pm#30
October 31st, 2005 at 3:46 pmWe (that is “We the People”) do not have the Court? Or is this another “us versus them, you’re with us (the GOP/PNAC) or against us” type thought? Do you want a court that is fair and open minded, or do you want a court that panders to one limited viewpoint? I asked about evidence of a “leftist focused” court, and have not seen that yet. Two cases, both of which are GOP talking points (homosexuality and abortion), are all I have been given. I myself would prefer a balance (not just in the courts, but in ALL THREE branches – where no one ideology holds a majority), but none of you has presented any argument that reaches beyond uninformed talking points. If shown that the court is unbalanced then I would accept a nominee who would bring balance. As it stands, I don’t see a serious imbalance in the court as it is right now, but I try to have an open mind, and will accept verifiable facts that show the Court is otherwise. If you have conviction, you must have proof. Share it with us.
This is priceless!!!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/lfiles/27609/
October 31st, 2005 at 3:49 pmRandy: I have posted before on the same topic, in that a variety of thoughts are necessary for a healthy and meaningful debate (were you ‘trolls’ not to visit, someone would have to take up devil’s advocate). I have also noted though that there is a flood of personal insult and ivective, and it is almost universal in ‘troll’ posts. Often troll postings are merely personal insults with no connection to any discussion. And you ended your post with an insult. Those who are (or claim to be) Christian ought to consider the advice of Jesus a little better – like “turn the other cheek”.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:54 pm#15 – “I’m all for balance. Convince me that the SC is misinterpreting the Constitution beyond your one example.
Comment by mysticagent — October 31, 2005 @ 2:35 pm”
The Supreme Court has OFTEN misinterpreted the Constitution. In addition to Plessy v. Ferguson, additional cases easy for the layperson to look up include the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, Mapp v. Ohio, New Jersey v. TLO, etc.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:01 pmMightyHermaphrodite cites PlessyVFerguson as being ‘wrong’, but ironically it’s one of the keystone cases cited by ’states rights republican bigots’ to overturn abortion. Hypocrisy is such a natural trait for republicans that it’s shot out like projectile vomit.
The same ignorance used to restrict black people under PlessyVFerguson is IDENTICAL to the same bigotry cited to restrict womens rights through abortion controls. While MightyLyingHermaphrodite cites the very cases that are in fact ‘wrong’, she undermines the case for abortion restrictions. For once I agree with one thing the hill bitch says – PvF was wrong, and so is the anti-abortion rhetoric and nonsense of the entire lunatic right wing religious fascist idiot movement.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:07 pmWhat did Alito’s father do that paid him enough to send his son to Princeton?
October 31st, 2005 at 4:07 pmRandy I’ve been booted off of more than 1 rightwing site for just naming historical facts. If you right leaning people want to say something viable, that’s great. But I find that reading the drivel of ned, wwallance irighti and sometimes you isn’t what I want to experience i the blogsphere. I don’t find taunts and insults intellectually stimulating or wothy of discussion. Now if you want to say, comment upon the thread at hand, as how this supreme court doesn’t properly represent america, please do so.
Me, I’m stickein with what i feel was a moderate statement. But you can disagree till your blue, I don’t care.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:09 pmDred Scott??? Are we revisiting the 2004 presidential debate?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Presidential_Debate_-_October_8
AUDIENCE QUESTION: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court, and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose, and why?
BUSH: I’m not telling. (Laughter.) I really don’t have — I haven’t picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me. (Laughter.) I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn’t pick. I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words, “under God,” in it. I think that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That’s personal opinion; that’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — it doesn’t say that, it doesn’t speak to the equality of America.
And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We’ve got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year — next four years. And that’s the kind of judge I’m going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
That debate also provided this ‘rememberable’ line:
BUSH: I own a timber company? That’s news to me. Need some wood?
October 31st, 2005 at 4:15 pm#37
October 31st, 2005 at 4:17 pmFirst of all, your evidence is not applicable. Only one of the listed instances occurred with ANY of the current SC in office. Cases over 100 years old do NOT show how THIS SC is imbalanced. The one recent citing (along with Mapp) concern illegal search and siezure, and unless you support a fascist regime you should be against them as well. I think it is clear (if you read the Constitution and utilize the semantics that the authors used when they penned it) that these cases were rightly decided. Still, only one modern example of this court, and I don’t see how that is even remotely unconstitutional.
“dramatically to the right”… oh my god the sky is falling. moving to right is like going back in time, i.e., going backwards. stop bush cause he’s like, like Hitler and Hitler was bad.
nina totenberg is stuck on stupid. the court with alito on it will still be a 5-4 court. AND she has forgotten that roberts and alito aren’t exactly “social conservatives”, and although constitutional constructionists are probably more socially liberal than o’connor and rehnquist because they simply are younger.
totenberg is about as intellectual as radio media gets, and what she has to says is about this is just bunk. thank god somebody taught me to think otherwise I might just pose and think totenberg knows what the hell she’s talking about.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:18 pmRyan – ouch. Guess you’re down today.
AND don’t even think of filibustering. Limp Frist just told Tony Snow we have the votes to change the rules, if necessary. AND we certainly will. This is it, liberals. The moment you all feared. Now, you have to compete in the legislature if you want to advance liberal causes. Conservatives can teach you alot about that considering we win when these issues are tested at the polls.
Go luck Neat – you’re going to need it Mr. Brownshirt!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 4:25 pm“we have the votes to change the rules, if necessary”
There are no “votes” that will stand against a majority of really pissed off people.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:35 pm#45–”we have the votes to change the rules”….
yeah, THATS the democratic way….dont like it? Change the rules…Not enough support? Change the rules. Don’t want to attempt a consensus with the other 50–FIFTY–% of the country? Change the rules and thus ignore them.
You guys kill me. You’re dreaming of an oligarchy when all you’ll get (and already have) is a kakistocracy. One day the intelligentsia will run this fine country, and all the angry religious nuts’ heads will explode…
October 31st, 2005 at 4:38 pmdrew,
what majority of people is “pissed off”? only a minority of people will think Alito an inappropriate candidate.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:39 pmIt can be argued that to threaten a woman who becomes pregnant yet does not wish to have the child (for any of many reasons, to include rape, threat to health, or financial or even self-recognized-mental inability to rear a child) IS being forced into an involuntary servitude (either to the father or to the Government)
Comment by MisticalMajical
That’s a good. Motherhood is slavery and abortion is simply a mercy killing. It’s hard to believe you’re female. It’s thinking like this that earns you the title of “The Filthy Left”. Hey…here’s a novel idea ladies…..keep your legs together and don’t get pregnant! Just Say No!
October 31st, 2005 at 4:46 pmLyle–
that’s not right. a minority of the SENATE may find him inappropriate. You haven’t seen the national polls. From what I’ve seen, it’s running 60-40 dislike/like…
October 31st, 2005 at 4:47 pmpunchy,
and exactly how is a poll of Americans going to foil the nomination of Judge Alito? how exactly is a poll relevant at all?
… and whatever poll you’re referring to has nothing to do with how Americans view Judge Alito.
come up with something better than… “the poll tells me so” bunk.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pmWe need a strict constititonalist on the Supreme Court.
We need someone who will strictly adhere to the spirit of America as written in the Declaration
of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We need someone who will strictly follow America’s charter which was written to safeguard our rights, the Constition: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We need a strict constitionalist who will recognize that the US Constitution was not intended to describe our rights but to safeguard our inherent rights, as stipulated in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And, finally, we need a strict constitionalist who will safeguard our Constitutionally-protected human rights and not legislate them away under political pressure from religious fundamentalists who have concocted new myths about when life begins.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:15 pmName calling. That’s all you’ve got out there? When are you do back at Harvard? Some of you remind me of those hockey fathers who beat referees near to death in parking lots… let’s remember each others’ humanity, people. No one ever won a debate by shouting the other guy down.
Breathe, people, breathe. We’ll all be dead in a 100 years. Does all this matter so much?
Besides, if abortion were outlawed it would hurt the Republicans far worse, as the states that support their candidates have far more abortions anyway. Same is true for out-of-wedlock pregnancies and all manner of social ills.
So… give the right their fighting points. Who ends up the loser? You think New Yorkers or Oregonians will ever have a tough time getting good ob/gyn care? No, but in Mississippi it’s an entirely different manner.
If you call yourself a Christian you are required to love your enemies.
Where’s the love, gang?
(I do love you, warts and all, America)
XXXOOO
October 31st, 2005 at 5:22 pmDW
#52 yes! yes! and YES!
October 31st, 2005 at 5:22 pmRe #32: “How about they boot only the purposefully ignorant who yell and scream at the others here on the board without actually talking/debating points in the threads?”
But that would remove just about all of ThinkProgress’s moonbat left audience, as well as most of their own progaganda-pimping staff. :()
October 31st, 2005 at 5:40 pmRight after Ryan the Chimp proves that Republicans regularly cite Plessy in arguing to overturn Roe, I’ll post evidence Ryan is a member of al Qaeda. Deal? You first, Ryan bin Ladin. :()
October 31st, 2005 at 5:44 pm#42 – “First of all, your evidence is not applicable. Only one of the listed instances occurred with ANY of the current SC in office. Cases over 100 years old do NOT show how THIS SC is imbalanced.”
Says who??? You have shifted your argument twice since this started – PATHETIC!! (Where did you say you went to law school??) It DOES not matter how old a case is if it has not been overturned or the original applicable law has not been rescinded by statute. If you are a true “progressive” you’ll still find love in your heart for McCullogh v. Maryland (1815. Where do you want to shift the goal posts now?????
October 31st, 2005 at 6:00 pmfolks, gear up. time to put up the best fight we can.
but intelligent people i know blame one man:
john kerry
October 31st, 2005 at 6:12 pmThat is funny mcd. I’ve been in on a running debate about Kerry vs Alioto today over at Tacitus .
October 31st, 2005 at 6:27 pmJohn ‘The Real Deal’ Kerry was “misled” by The Chimp on Iraq? when everyone and his brother knew, or should have known, what Bush was up to?
October 31st, 2005 at 7:00 pmReminds me of presidential hopeful George Romney 35 years ago, who said he had been “brainwashed” on a visit to Vietnam, after which someone (Gore Vidal?) then said: In his case, a light rinse would do.
Kerry and Bush are blood brothers in Skull & Bones. There was never any question who would win, this time. Everything in its time. Kerry will get his chance. Maybe even Hilary, now that Bill has come around to Daddy B’s way of thinking.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:06 pmFirst: The majority of you are making assumptions about Judge Alito’s opinions without ever bothering to read them. In most cases, they are quiet, well-reasoned pieces like that of John Roberts, whom I might add did not spark this kind of anger or outrage from you. i’ll also add that when Alito was confirmed as a circuit court judge, that confirmation was unanimous — with a Democratically controlled Senate, if I remember correctly, and he presented the same opinions then as he does today in terms of judicial restraint. He is *not* an originalist or textualist in the stripe that you should be afraid of or even concerned with based on the dozen opinons I have read.
Second: As pointed out by #378, justices tend to move towards the left over time, not the right. If you’ll read his opinions, I believe you’ll find that this has happened.
Thirdly: This man is at least as qualified as John Roberts. Say what you will about his beliefs, he has the resume for the job, at least with experience and intellectual capital and firepower. I will point out again that the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate voted several months ago to confirm John Roberts as CJ of the USSC without much opposition, precisely because his resume was so impressive. Also, Bush denied a great deal of papers that Democrats argued for. They still sent him to the CJ spot without a fight. You simply cannot argue that Borking this nominee is appropriate.
The Senate approved Roberts, who had less of a paper trial, but whom was suspected of this sort of thing. This nominee has the resume of Roberts (or at least massive amounts of judicial experience).
In conclusion: save the firepower. Alito will *not* overturn Roe. Roberts most certainly will not — again, read the previous discussions of how he views stare decisis. Abortion should not be the flash point anyway.
As a previous poster noted, corporate rights are the real problem here (and executive privelege) — Hamdi v. Rumsfeld anyone? The gov’t has no right to hold American citizens in they have. (Now, I for one would love to open a debate on the circumstances wherein citizenship can be forfeited and/or revoked. I’m not one for the grant of automatic citizenship upon birth — at least, not if the parents are not US citizens or residents.) You want to get angry, get angry over THOSE issues.
This arguably created a “Roberts standard†whereby a nominee would need to be at least as qualified as he. Miers was not, and the Republicans destroyed her for at least that reason. Again, Alito has the resume for the job.
As a side note, I would agree with some posters that this particular tactic (throw a sop (e.g. a woman) to the centrist elements, then have it fail, and put up the real nominee) is probably what happened (after all, Miers had FORTAS written all over her from the moment she was nominated). That being said, we should all be thankful that we didn’t get Luttig, who would be worse.
Also, be thankful we didn’t get McConnell either.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:16 pmHey longwinded Engineer –
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
October 31st, 2005 at 8:20 pmgiven alito’s nomination to scotus, it’s worth taking another look at this article by nixon white house counsel john dean.
it’s expanding executive priviledge, stupid.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:37 pm“Right after Ryan the Chimp proves that Republicans regularly cite Plessy in arguing to overturn Roe, I’ll post evidence Ryan is a member of al Qaeda. Deal? You first, Ryan bin Ladin. :()
Comment by wwallace”
Hehe, very funny coming from a religious terrorist. Bin Laden was trained by the republicans, he’s one of your boys, not ours. Since you’re a member of the christian taliban, and clearly evolutionarily a mental chimp, then the only deal you should be getting is on Prozac. Not to mention that your ‘interpretation’ of what you think I say, is always as insane as your rather loose intrepretation of everything everyone says. You’re a stupid whacko – and that’s the reality that always shines when you put your fat stupid fingers on the keyboard.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:44 pm“But that would remove just about all of ThinkProgress’s moonbat left audience, as well as most of their own progaganda-pimping staff. :()
Comment by wwallace”
Bats can see in the dark, you’re so stupid and blind you can’t see in the daylight. Funny how your insults always point back to YOUR limitations freeptard!
October 31st, 2005 at 8:45 pm#63. What I was trying to say is there, at the end of third item. Opposing Alito is wasting your breath, since he was confirmed unanimously by a (Democratic) Senate before, and the Dems in the Senate now signed off on Roberts without much opposition (and no, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer do not qualify as opposition, which propely defined would require people that do not have reflexive positions to make up their minds).
My second point is what #64 said – get angry over expanding executive privelege and corporate rights, *NOT* abortion. You’re just wasting your breath, and in any case you’re getting the right to privacy and the right to an abortion conflated (they are separate items). How many women would, for example, get abortions if their names would be published in a newspaper thereafter?
October 31st, 2005 at 8:51 pmEngineer
Huh? Still not coming through?
Something about unanimously confirmed before, now signed off, Boxer does not qualify, relexive positions
ANd your second point?
Wasting breath – now there’s something i can agree with
but conflated rights to privacy and abortion – sounds sick
And as to how many women would get their names published for having an abortion?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:13 pmDepends on how much money you are offering?
#67. First point, easy to understand version: We shouldn’t bother trying to stop Alito, he’s not filibuster-able and as noted before, Democrats confirmed him — unanimously, no less — once, and I don’t think the Gang of 14 will go for it. Let Alito go through.
The Senate Dems approved Roberts, and this one falls perhaps two hairs breadths to the right of Roberts. Also, as noted above. He’s not the disaster this blog thinks he is.
Second point: I was placing out for discussion a hypothetical situation. Let’s say that abortion was legal (as it was in colonial times), but that the right to privacy did not exist (e.g. no Griswold), with the primace being that whomever received a medical procedure was a matter of public record, with all of a particular procedure (e.g. abortion) published in a newspaper that was publicly available. I’m saying tha the rights could be decoupled.
Alito has not, to my knowledge, made any noises about stopping the availability of a particular medical procedure, in fact going so far as to strike down a ban on partial birth abortion. Now, he *has* opined that there are limits to the right to *privacy*, e.g. that a woman could be forced to notify her husband of such a decision, in a case where Supreme Court precedent and stare decisis bound him to do so. What I am saying is that they are in fact two separate rights, and people here are arguing them as if they were one and the same.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:30 pmRyan bin Ladin, calling me names and once again exhibiting your Nazi-like hatred of religious people will never change the fact you lied.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:08 pmNo one knows how any judge is going to vote on a case. Every case is different.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:27 pmExactly, and it is the nature of jurisprudence that every case is unique, but usually similar enough that some precedents will apply. Jurists face the tasks of ascertaining which pieces of competing jurisprudence are applicable, and how they so should be applied.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:47 pm“Ryan bin Ladin, calling me names and once again exhibiting your Nazi-like hatred of religious people will never change the fact you lied.
Comment by wwallace”
Bahaha, how stupid you are. First of all, religious bigots hardly qualify as ‘religious people’, you’re all stupid freaks – just like your co-conspirator Osama. As for who lied, that’s already been clearly established to be you. You’re delusional LIE about that fact just shows you’re insane – but nothing more. As for Nazis – those are republicans (eg. you) – Nazis are rightwing idiots (once again you). Your ignorance of history and your lies about it are just as irrational, stupid, and lying as everything else you post.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:17 amWe always hear rhetoric about ‘activist judges’, so lets look at the ‘facts’ instead of the republican lies and see what happens.
So what are activist judges? Wouldn’t the obvious definition be judges who strike down congressional laws? I mean, telling Congress they can’t do something is a pretty balsy move.
So which judges are the most activist?
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.
Thomas 65.63 %
November 1st, 2005 at 1:18 amKennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
Fillibust this neocon. You know he’s a mommies boy when he sends mommie to the podium to tell his secrets.
No matter who Bushie appoints we must fillibust. At the same time, start impeachment hearings.
See, stupid neocons, real Americans can do more than one thing at a time.
IMPEACH
November 1st, 2005 at 2:02 amINDICT
FILLIBUST
CONVICT
INCARCERATE
DIVIDE
CONQUER
DISMANTLE
I see the Left Wing Freak Show is playing right into Bush’s hands once again. We want you to raise a stink. We want the people to see what it is you really stand for. We want you to come out fighting so we can send you back to Kanaduh with you with your peckers in our pocket. Keep it up losers.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:25 amHey longwinded Engineer –
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Comment by Ruling killer elite
What’s the matter boy, is more than one paragraph too much to digest?
November 1st, 2005 at 9:28 amThere are no “votes†that will stand against a majority of really pissed off people.
Comment by Drew Mackenzie
Now all you need is a majority, loser.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:29 amIf anyone thought that dumbya would recomment anything less than a
Total NAZI
to the SC, they are a bigger fool than these reich-wingnuts in here.
It is just another thing dumbya is trying to do to screw up the entire world before he is
tried for war crimes.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:22 pmYou’re doing a ‘heckuva’ Alito-stoneage.
I just hope no one in the WH cleaning crew sprays raid around the place,
or we will wake up one morning and find all the WH cockroaches tits up in their $2500 suits.
But it would save all the time and expense of impeachment.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:24 pmMind games
the mind is a tool,
witta mind of its own.
if you don’t control it,
it controls you.
if you is not consciously choos’n tha thoughts you entertain n dwell on, you is a slave ta yo thoughts.
if you become offended, upset, angry n hateful, it is coz you’ve allowed yo thoughts ta takes you there.
if you dwizzell on n entertain negative thoughts, tha negative energies they create affect yo mizzind, emotions, spirit n body through illnesses . I started yo shit and i’ll end yo’ shit. these negative energies also radiate fizzy you affect’n blingin’ in yo life.
yo thoughts create negative or positive energy, n if you is not in charge of T-H-to-tha-izzem, who is?
the most positive n reward’n energies
in all creation
are love n gratitude.
and bizzoth is yos
November 1st, 2005 at 1:12 pmwhen you receive all ridin’ wit thankfulness.
#57 My original question asked what rulings has the SC made that have been misinterpretations of the Constituion that show the SC has gone far to the ‘left’, which is the argument of such as yourself. I did NOT say that past judgements are generally irrelevant (when you made that point, YOU were trying to shift the focus). I said that of the 4 cases you listed, half are irrelevant as proof of the point because they were made by a different SC than this one ( Dred Scott? I am PRETTY SURE that no one from THAT SC is still even alive, much less on the bench and making decisions… correct me if I am wrong….)- or do you contend that the SC throughout history has NEVER properly interpreted the Constitution? The other two, as I read them, dealt with invasion of privacy and proper procedures involving searches and warrants, and if I read them correctly I don’t see where those two judgements went outside of the intent and purpose of the Constitution, and therefore are not cases for misinterpretation. Are these 5 cases all you have as “proof” that the SC is in NEED of an extreme right judge in order to bring it back into balance?
November 1st, 2005 at 3:03 pmThe point of whether or not an extreme right nominee (and after reading the dissentions I can only conclude that that is where he stands) is necessary to bring a balance back to the SC is based on the assumption that the CURRENT SC is to the left.
My argument has not changed (though I am not really making a big argument – I have several times asked for the proof upon which you all base your convictions that THIS SC is too far to the left. And none of the dozen or so ‘righties’ on this post have presented any such proof. I am still open to new information, if it is applicable. I don’t generally take anyone’s word for anything, so it will be looked into). I asked you all to “convince me” (and, at least on this point, I could be convinced with logic, reason, and evidence), yet no one is capable. I am left to wonder upon what reasons you DO base your oninion. Are you merely a sheeple “team player” in the “big game” of politics (which is how most of you seem to view all this – it’s all about “win” and “lose” between two sides to you all)? Do you just follow in line like good little robots and do and say whatever your masters tell you? If you have good and sound reasons, let’s see them.
# 48 IRI
“Motherhood is slavery and abortion is simply a mercy killing.”
Well, to piss off everyone here (you see, I am not a lefty, righty, or anything else but an American, with my own opinions) – yeah, in a nutshell. Though if you read what I said you will see how your simplification altered my meaning to mean what you want (no surprise from you). My original post:
“(It can be argued that to threaten a woman who becomes pregnant yet does not wish to have the child (for any of many reasons, to include rape, threat to health, or financial or even self-recognized-mental inability to rear a child) IS being forced into an involuntary servitude (either to the father or to the Government). It is a nine-month sentence with lifelong repercussions, and even if the birth is uncomplicated, there is a high probability for permanent physical complications to the mother)”.
Being forced to carry a pregnancy through (note, my original post did NOT say “motherhood”) because one man or the government says you must, even if you have sound reasons for not doing so and do not wish to do so, IS a measure of slavery. Then if this unwanted child MUST then be reared – it is, basically, 18 years of involuntary servitude. You simplified what I said and altered the meaning in typical McClellan style. Well learned. I also began with “it can be argued” because the argument that I have to prove my point is far too long to fit on any blog’s post.
But abortion a mercy killing? Sure. But you have no problem with military “mercy killings” You have repeatedly argued that “collateral damage” in war is, well, just too bad. If you support random killing (there is NO SUCH THING as a “smart bomb” – shrapnel and collapsing buildings are indiscriminate), OR if you have no problem with the concept of “collateral damage” then you should have no problem with abortion, even if viewing it as killing.
“It’s hard to believe you’re female.”
Not that you have any need to know, but I find it hard to believe, too, since I am not. That is why I DO believe that not a man – not any one – should have ANYTHING to say about abortion. Why don’t you have a baby implanted and carry it around for nine months? Sound fun? Read up on what happens to a woman’s body while pregnant. The moral basis underlying this is the Christian dislike of fornication – that’s “sex”. Funny, though, you seem to not have a problem with indiscriminate fornication. You have many times requested sexual favors from posters here you beieve to be female.
“It’s thinking like this that earns you the title of “The Filthy Leftâ€. Hey…here’s a novel idea ladies…..keep your legs together and don’t get pregnant! Just Say No!”
And you just HAVE to end on an insult, don’t you? Insulta are easy. Kindergardeners can bandy about insults. And that is a funny statement coming from a poster who hits on every new poster that he thinks might be female (to include me, and you tagged on a racist remark when you did that, to boot). It must suck to be you: confused, hard up, and unable to maintain a sustained argument or rationally defend the opinions that others feed to you. See, insults are easy (and that was being nice).
November 1st, 2005 at 3:37 pm#81 – Mistakeagent – Your typing appears to be fairly legible but your comprehension is poor. I don’t have the patience to explain AGAIN my argument. Let’s just say: you needed more proof, I provided additional cases and you didn’t get it. Remedial reading might be called for.
November 1st, 2005 at 6:52 pm#83
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:04 amYou are delusional. You made no argument. Look it up, and understand what the word means. You cited 4 cases (which is NOT an argument, even IF they were relevant, which they were not), and I have already explained how they are not applicable to MY original question, which, as I have stated, I did not change. I asked for clear evidence that THIS SCOTUS – the one we have now, making decisions now – is far to the left. You provide no evidence, and cite cases over 100 years old to demonstrate that THIS supreme court is way out there on the left. You ARE a complete idiot, and like the rest of the trolls, incapable of actually defending the position that you hold – a position that someone else spoon fed to you and you just gobbled up like a good little sheeple. Someone else told you that those cases were relevant, and you probably have no clue what they are about. Your lords and masters in the GOP say it is so, then it is so for you. I have tried for some time to be reasonable, but I can see the mindless idiocity rampant in the likes of sychophants like yourself. I (seriously) asked for evidence that THIS court (I emphasize it each time, because YOUR reading comprehension is non-existant… and you are questioning typos? how petty are you, mental midget?) is too far to the left. No such evidence has been presented, even though there were more trolls posting here than I have ever seen at one time. Upwards of a dozen trolls and not one can defend the opinion they have been fed. Mindless wastes of human flesh. It is not that you don’t have the patience – you simply cannot because you have no explanation beyond, “Well, that’s what my masters told me”.
#83 Oh… but thanks for pointing out that you have no argument and con only repeat yourself over and over. A sustained argument requires new and continuing points of discussion, not merely repeating yourself over and over. That is a mental disorder, and you should have your meds checked. They need to increase your doseage.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:17 am#86 mysticajax- what part didn’t you get? Even us trailer folk understand…and that’s saying something….
November 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pm