Rep. Samuel Alito (R-Bench)
Alito has faced intense criticism for his sole dissent in the 1996 case U.S. v. Rybar, where he argued that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to ban fully automatic machine guns. He also added that for any regulation of machine guns, “Congress [should] be required to make findings showing a link between the regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, or that Congress or the president document such a link with empirical evidence.”
In today’s hearings, Alito attmepted to justify his ruling to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) by reiterating those standards:
I pointed out in my opinion that I would have viewed the Rybar case very differently if there had been a congressional finding or if the justice department, in presenting its argument to us, had been able to point to anything that showed that there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce, which was what the Supreme Court says is required.
But what Alito leaves out is that his justification goes against the conservative claim that he practices “judicial restraint.”
The majority in the case wrote of Alito’s proposed solution, “We know of no authority to support such a demand on Congress,” which would require the federal government to “play Show and Tell with the federal courts.”
Even Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has acknowledged that Alito “was legislating” from the bench in Rybar.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
yer outta here. Dumbya, give us your next Bozo.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#1 - you wish buddy. If the left digs up anything to unbearable on Sam, we have Janice Rogers Brown and Michael Lutting waiting.
kindness - you’re finished. We are grabbing your last gasp of air by taking this seat. I have to admit I am enjoying watching liberals freak out. You deserve this. The Court is not eternally yours. In a democracy, the President appoints who he wants and the senate votes.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:34 pmIt has been my belief for as many as six decades that the Supreme Court was just that: Supreme, the highest, the last resort, the final word. Also that it was the sole job of the Supreme Court to decide whether any particular law was in fact constitutional. A process of weighing any particular law against the unchanging and unchanged intent of the the drafters of that Constitution. Notwithstanding the Amendment process which is the means by which those same drafters chose to make the Constitutional a “living” document adaptable to the times. Having said all that my problem is this: over the years the Supreme Court has made many decisions. Those decisions have been considered, again, the final word. Those decisions were, are, and will be binding on all citizens of this Country until the Constitution is changed. It is not the place of a nominee to that Court to publicly state that any or all of the previous decisions are wrong. They cannot be wrong because they are the final word by definition.
Now to get to the point of my diatribe. Alito is not suitable for the Supreme Court because he does not accept the most basic principle of Constitutional law. One does not change a Supreme Court ruling because one does not agree with the previous decision. One approaches Congress and the people of this Country to change the Constitution by amendment to suit the present concept of what the LAW should be. It is my opinion that any one, particularly anyone seeking a seat on that august body, that proposes a change to any Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court without the presence of a change to the Constitution is guilty of treason. Also anyone that would vote to confirm said individual to the court on the basis only of party affiliation is a fool as well as a traitor.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pmSessions on the other hand,just went back over that ground and supported Alito. Sessions referred to his own time as a prosecutor to reinforce Alito’s statement and call for just such a Congressional action.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:36 pm15 all.
So much for judicial restraint. You think if they repeat it 200 times it would at least be true. Or kind of true.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:36 pmAnother talking head for the bush administration. This judge is not of the mainstram and they want to stick his ass in there for life. This country needs progressives badly and I am hoping that ‘06 brings a change. We as a country cannot afford another three years of the bush “administration”. The smell of impeachment is in the air, although it will never happen with a Repug congress.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#5 - judicial restraint? Are you serious? Do liberals even understand what that means - no way. Liberals have used the Court whenever they lose at the polls. (Which as of late, is almost always).
Liberals are the biggest liars when it comes to the Courts. You distort people like Alito’s record because he is well within the mainstream. You ram through your social experiments and then claim that overturning them in unconstitutional. The only thing better than seating Sam Alito would be if a liberal justice stepped down.
America is through with the left-wing Courts. If you have a problem with that, try legislating.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#6 - keep hoping.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#6
It just very well may happen if enough of those Repug congressmen get the message that if Bush is in office in November 2006 they will not be in office in January 2007.
We need to let them know!
January 10th, 2006 at 4:45 pmYo dickhead masquerading as Sam Alioto.
what an asshole you are. you come here to blow smole? to make fun of liberals? You aren’t just full of shit, you are full of shit AND stupid to boot.
Even the right doesn’t want unfettered presidential powers, especially when King Dumbya is trying for another revolution.
Go blow yourself looser.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pmI don’t even think we’re gonna need the filibuster for this guy.
But if it came to that, we’d still win.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#7 And Republicans may win at the polls (by fraud and cheating) but they can’t govern.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:48 pmAlito’s daughter now looks familiar with that black bar over her eyes.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pmRe: #3
“It is my opinion that any one, particularly anyone seeking a seat on that august body, that proposes a change to any Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court without the presence of a change to the Constitution is guilty of treason.”
So, once the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, that’s it, and the Supreme Court cannot later come back to that same issue and reverse itself?
Very interesting. I assume you will now call for the impeachment of the 6 justiced that rules in the U.S. vs Lawrence decision. After all, that decision reversed the previous decision of the court in Bowers vs. Hardwick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
I guess you would also support Plessy vs. Ferguson too, right?
Just wondering…
Later,
January 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#11 - Alito will be seated. AND he will protect the American people and the executive powers.
kindness - how do you intend to stop Alito? Filibuster? 51 votes? You don’t have them? There are too many vulnerable red-state Dems for a filibuster. At this point, I would just pray Stevens doesn’t kick off before the mid-terms if I were you.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:52 pm#14 - don’t talk sense to these people. In a period change, it is very common for those opposed to change to go off the deep end like much of the folks here. I am enjoying it.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pmIf Sam has the ability to answer in the hearings at the same time as he is blogging here, he should be confirmed. Heckava job Sammy!
January 10th, 2006 at 4:55 pm#17 - considering the senators won’t shut their yaps and actually ask questions, I have alot of time on my hands.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pmIt’s all good, it’s just a court, as we have been shown, any court can be bypassed and ignored.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pmClyde: Yes we can win the fight. The bushies have put up the best they have and look what happened. There is a “culture of corruption” and it permeates the whole country. This is what Newt wanted in the 80’s and he had to leave Wasington in disgrace. They were all over Clinton, while they were out skirt-chasing and Newt and the gang were doing their secretaries. (That’s how he got wife number 2)
January 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pmHe lied to get a job once before, and he will lie to get a job now.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:00 pmThat’s all these “conservatives” seem to do. Lie and when they get caught lie again to try to get out of it. I don’t consider bush to be a true “conservative”. They care about the deficit and environment. Bush doesn’t give a rats ass about them. As long as he can line the pockets of the corporte pigs. A pox on all the people like Feith, Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the other chickenhawk bastards who send sons and daughters to war, but couldn’t find the time themselves.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#19 - good one.
I don’t think Alito will be as radical as some are hoping for, but he will certainly be to the right of O’Connor.
One question, since Democrats have practically made a hero out of Sandra Day O’Connor to attack Alito as a conservative, do you now admit that you were just throwing a temper tantrum during Bush v. Gore?
January 10th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#20 - there was a culture of corruption in the 1990’s too. Remember Vince Foster? Travelgate? Whitewater? We survived those scandals and we will survive Bushies.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:08 pmUnlimited presidential powers with bush as president? What a scary thought. I have figured bush has been praying for another 9/11 so he can declare martial law. That would be the start of the New World Order, would it not? Guns consficated, military in charge, immunizations mandatory. We certainly are in a race to the bottom. Borders not guarded and the Department of Homeland security a sad joke. People, we are losing our rights and civil liberties on a daily basis. Secret spying on Americans. What more needs to be said of this “administration”?
January 10th, 2006 at 5:17 pm#25 - you seem just a little paranoid. There is medication for that.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:18 pmSammy; i admit there was a “softer” culture back then, but it certainly did not impact the American people as this “president” has done. I do remember all those “scandals”, but they never really did amount to much did they? Plus, they were not “in your face” as this arrogant bastard is.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#26 Yes. I need meds and am currently taking them. I was good until bush became president
January 10th, 2006 at 5:22 pm#27 - that is a matter of opinion. I will say this - I remember just waiting to “get Clinton” like you guys want to get Bush, but in the end it didn’t get me anything. It wasn’t until I had a positive agenda focused on America and not Billary, that I started winning elections.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#13 - Ouch.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:33 pm[…] Judge Sam Alito: just another conservative judicial activist. […]
January 10th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#29: Yes it is not enough to just bash bush. Progressives need a solid plan, but it must first start with the removal of cronies that this “administration” has installed. I saw the same shit in Vietnam, and it is there that my views changed. Civil rights, Medicare, social secerity, all started by Democrats. What the hell has any Republican done for us.? Give tax breaks to the wealthy?
January 10th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#25 - you seem just a little paranoid. There is medication for that.
Comment by Samuel Alito — January 10, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Yeah you and Rush Limburger would know all about medication.
I see you attacking people here, but you have yet to address the questions raised by the article. But I understand, that would take thought, which is hard to come by when taking oxys, isn’t it?
January 10th, 2006 at 6:01 pmKeep writing the Senators on the Jud. Comm.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:05 pmKeep telling them Alito is not right for America.
http://www.senate.gov/
That’s all we can do. I fear, however, that this liar is gettin’ on.
BTW: Anyone notice how the wife kept looking away from the Sen’s when the questions were tough on her man? She looked to her left almost the entire time Kennedy spoke. (He was seated to the right of Alito’s gaze.)She was “huffy!”
Re: #17
I believe, Sir, that you misread my comment. My objection was not to the fact that a Supreme Court Ruling could or should not be reversed. (As an aside it is interesting to note that you found only two cases in over 200 years.) My point is that no contender to a Supreme Court seat should make up his or her mind about a particular ruling before being confirmed and without due consideration of the facts. Case in point: Alito has publicly stated that IN HIS OPINION Roe vs Wade should be overturned. He is entitled to that opinion as long as he is not seated on the Supreme Court. If he is seated, that opinion becomes a conflict of interest and he must recuse himself from voting on any similiar case. If he is confident with his decision his place is not on the court but in the House or Senate working on an amendment to the Constitution that would onerturn Roe vs. Wade. The fact is that the government CANNOT legislate morality. It was tried with Prohibition the correct way, amending the constitution, and it didn’t work. Alito may use his childhood and/or religious background to attempt to rewrite the Constitution from the Bench but it will not work.
I will submit that rather than negating my point with your minimal examples you actually have added to the proof. thank you!
January 10th, 2006 at 6:06 pmIt would not hurt to remind Senator Brownback that he publicly denounced the Bush spy program and that Alito sees no harm/no foul with the program. I have e-mailed him and respectfully asked him to put his vote where his mouth is. Have at him!
http://congress.org/congressorg/home
January 10th, 2006 at 6:13 pmThe right wing does legislate through its lobbyists and Repug shills, does it not? He did not recuse himself from the Vanguard issue, did he? I just don’t trust them because what they say and what they do are different. I do agree that he is entitled to his opinion now, but not as a judge. He will act steathily and not overtly. The make-up of this court should scare each and every American.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#36- Thanks for the link
January 10th, 2006 at 6:21 pm#29
“I remember just waiting to “get Clinton†like you guys want to get Bush, but in the end it didn’t get me anything.”
Because there wasn’t anything to “get” Clinton on.
“It wasn’t until I had a positive agenda focused on America and not Billary, that I started winning elections.”
A little help from Diebold goes a long way.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:55 pm#39 It does appear that Diebold and its Republican owners do hold the key. Remember numbnuts saying he would “deliver Ohio for Bush”? He sure did. How many votes got thrown out as “overvote”. I thought it was supposed to be one man one vote? Bullshit.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:09 pmAs I understand this matter, a lower court found that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate machine guns, and Alito noted (correctly) that there was no evidence of any effect on Interstate Commerce. It seems to me that the lower court erred, and Alito compounded the error because Congress has the power to regulate machine guns, not as a commerce matter, but under its Constitutional power to provide for the general welfare, since machine guns are designed to kill people.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:35 pm“Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Dems need to find their cajones. Now is time they must stand up. The Repugs are going down the tubes because of their arrogance and greed. We need to vote in more progressives and liberal-minded Independents. I really am worried about the turn this country has made. Outsourcing jobs, open borders, Iraq, spying, Ambamoff, Delay, the list goes on and on. I was less afraid when I was in Vietnam.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:55 pmSorry to be off topic. I just posted this on 2 other threads. Again, I don’t want to be like “no freedom”, but thought this needed a look. “Threat made, anyone?”
Bush to Democrats: Don’t Slam Iraq Policy
By JENNIFER LOVEN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
January 10, 2006 8:47 PM EST
WASHINGTON - President Bush warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving “comfort to our adversaries” and suffering at the ballot box in November. Democrats said Bush should take his own advice.
There are still 10 months left before congressional elections in which the president’s Republican Party could lose its dominance of Capitol Hill; a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found Americans prefer Democratic control over a continued GOP majority by 49 percent to 36 percent. But Bush is wasting no time engaging the battle. In his first speech of 2006 on the road, last week in Chicago, he aggressively challenged Democrats on the economy.
Tuesday’s equally sharp message represented an attempt by the president to neutralize Democrats’ ability to use Iraq - where violence is surging in the wake of December parliamentary elections and messy negotiations to form a new coalition government - as an election-year cudgel against Republicans.
Bush acknowledged deep differences over Iraq among casualty-weary Americans, just 39 percent of whom approve of his handling of the war, according to AP-Ipsos. Without specifically mentioning Democrats, the president urged campaigning politicians to “conduct this debate responsibly.”
He said he welcomed “honest critics” who question the way the war is being conducted and the “loyal opposition” that points out what is wrong with his administration’s approach.
But he termed irresponsible the “partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people,” as well as “defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.” With that description, Bush lumped the many Democrats who have accused him of twisting prewar intelligence with the few people, mostly outside the mainstream, who have raised the issues of oil and Israel.
Bush argued that irresponsible discussion harms the morale of troops overseas, emboldens the insurgents they are fighting and sets a bad example for Iraqis trying to establish a democratic government.
“In a free society, there’s only one check on political speech and that’s the judgment of the American people,” the president said to sustained applause from a friendly audience, a gathering of Veterans of Foreign Wars. “So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.”
White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not say who Bush believes has been irresponsible, other than Democratic Party chief Howard Dean, who said last month that “the idea that we’re going to win this war … is just plain wrong.” In the past, the White House has also singled out, among others, Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who became a leading advocate for a quick troop pullout, and other Democrats who say Bush has no strategy.
Democrats said Bush has no business trying to define what sort of talk is acceptable.
“Patriotic Americans will continue to ask the tough questions because our brave men and women in Iraq, their families and the American people deserve to know that their leaders are being held accountable,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said loyalty demands that Democrats differ with Bush on the lack of sufficient body armor for troops and other issues. “From its inception and continuing to this moment, the absence of open and honest debate has been one of the hallmarks of this war,” the California Democrat said.
And Democratic National Committee communications director Karen Finney said: “The Bush administration’s attack, distract and distort tactics reflect a Nixonian paranoia that is un-American. It’s shameful that once again the Bush administration resorted to attacking the patriotism of fellow Americans rather than answering legitimate questions surrounding the president’s failures in Iraq.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who met with Bush recently at the White House, praised the president’s recent efforts to gather differing viewpoints and welcomed the call for a more civil dialogue. But Schiff said the process must begin at the White House, which he said “brought the debate down a significant notch” when it attacked Murtha, a respected veteran and longtime hawk.
“Some of the worst culprits in worsening the dialogue on Iraq have come from the White House,” said Schiff, who attended Bush’s speech. “It’s got to be a two-way street.”
It was the latest in a series of speeches by Bush aimed at giving Americans more detail and more candor. He predicted more sacrifice and more progress in 2006 in Iraq.
The still-unannounced results of Iraq’s Dec. 15 elections are expected to show the religious Shiite United Iraqi Alliance with a strong lead. The Shiites will, however, will need to form a coalition government with support from Kurdish and Sunni Arab political groups.
Bush said Iraqis must put aside political, religious and sectarian differences to be successful.
Sunnis, he said, “need to learn how to use their influence constructively in a democratic system,” while Shiites and Kurds must “protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.”
—
On the Net:
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:11 pm“You distort people like Alito’s record because he is well within the mainstream.”
Comment by Samuel Alito #7
Sam,
It’s great to read your victory speeches and know that your spirits are puffed up like a hot air ballon. You may be right, this American ‘mainstream’ you speak of is totally dependent upon two factors:
1) The combination of older, racist, right wing so-called conservatives and their younger WASP male counterparts.
2) the racist white females, and self-loathing, Al-cracka wannabe minorities of the Clarence Thomas, Elaine Chao, and Mel Martinez molds…
But know this Sammy boy, your “majority” here inside America is slowly being eroded away (and this is exactly what you fear, becoming a minority), and it’s going to happen. The Mexicans and other hispanics from the south are reclaiming parts of the southwest as we type…
Outside the country in places like South America and Canada your “majority” is becoming more and more despised and isolated with each passing year. The Chinese are making huge economic inroads and coalitions down south in Venezuela and Bolivia. The Europeans are strengthening their ties with each other and the Chinese, Iranians (don’t let that nuclear sh*t fool ya), and Russians…
The world is now engaged in a process whereby they are attempting to form economic alliances and leave your sick, twisted “majority” out in the cold…
Here at home, your “slave masters” (the corporate elite) are selling your country right out from under you. They realize that you have nothing to offer in terms of natural resources, see an opportunity to bring your life styles down to the level of third world workers (and increase their profits “in case of emergency escape”) by exporting manufacturing jobs to those third world countries and maintaining a seriously flawed trade imbalance. He*l boy do you really think a Chinese worker earning $3 an hour can afford to buy vehicles (or any other high priced goods) manufactured in the US and shipped there, while you’re still buying their goods at Walmart?
You’re happy that you’re going have control of the SC that’s great, but it’s all going to disintegrate right before your beady little eyes. You aren’t going to UNITE the country against all enemies foreign and domestic by FORCING your ‘conservative’ morals and ideals down our collective throats, or bringing back a milder form of de jure segregation/Jim Crow America…
No sir, you’re going to DESTROY this once possibly (remember this democratic republic is a shortlived experiment in terms of geologic time, and historical context) great nation…
Sooner or later your karma is going to catch up with you sammy boy, and when it does I hope we’re still in touch!
January 11th, 2006 at 8:39 amOne does not change a Supreme Court ruling because one does not agree with the previous decision. One approaches Congress and the people of this Country to change the Constitution by amendment to suit the present concept of what the LAW should be. It is my opinion that any one, particularly anyone seeking a seat on that august body, that proposes a change to any Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court without the presence of a change to the Constitution is guilty of treason.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:05 amOne does not change a Supreme Court ruling because one does not agree with the previous decision. One approaches Congress and the people of this Country to change the Constitution by amendment to suit the present concept of what the LAW should be. It is my opinion that any one, particularly anyone seeking a seat on that august body, that proposes a change to any Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court without the presence of a change to the Constitution is guilty of treason.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:06 am