|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 31, 2005 14:24:19 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 31, 2005 16:22:06 GMT -5
Outstanding nominee.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 31, 2005 22:07:55 GMT -5
We'll see what comes out in the vetting process, but early indications are that this nomination is causing a fistfight. Senators will have to ascertain to what degree he would like to legislate from the bench and overturn settled law on abortion issues, among others. At first glance, I'm willing to take more of a look at this nominee than conservatives were willing to do with Miers, and I appreciate that Alito brings some approach, coherent or not, to interpreting the Constitution.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 31, 2005 22:23:15 GMT -5
Well, there's nothing to attack as far as qualifications or experience. It's going to come down to his stance on issues, esp. abortion.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Nov 1, 2005 10:37:32 GMT -5
Sad to see us move backward in the representation of women on the court. But at least this guy has mad qualifications, even if he follows Scalia (whom I disagree with but I still enjoy reading). I'd like the guy a lot more if he went to Georgetown, too!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 1, 2005 12:59:46 GMT -5
Jersey, You may not know this but laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. You referred to "...settled law on abortion issues.." Roe v. Wade and other cases were decided by nine justices, not by Congress and the President. Would you say that segregation earlier was a settled law? What about slavery? They were also decided by nine justices. The fact of the matter is that nine justices found a "right to privacy" in the Constitution and then based their Roe v. Wade decisions mostly on that "right". Many of us do not agree that the taking of an innocent human life is a right articulated in the Constitution.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 1, 2005 13:09:54 GMT -5
"The Nine Justices".....
Man, that would be such a cool comic book title.
Oops. Sorry. I got lost again. This is the serious board.
Resume your conversation....
;D ;D
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 1, 2005 13:34:54 GMT -5
Senators will have to ascertain to what degree he would like to legislate from the bench and overturn settled law on abortion issues, among others. Would you argue that nominated judges who believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should, under the right circumstances, be overturned not be confirmed for the Supreme Court?
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 1, 2005 16:22:34 GMT -5
When Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue will rightly be returned to the state legislatures. What does the pro-abortion crowd have to fear from this? Everything. For they know that their radical views are not shared by the American people. For 40 years, the left has used the courts to impose its agenda. They will say and do anything to keep originalists like Bork and now Alito off of the Supreme Court
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 1, 2005 16:23:55 GMT -5
Jersey, You may not know this but laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. You referred to "...settled law on abortion issues.." Roe v. Wade and other cases were decided by nine justices, not by Congress and the President. Would you say that segregation earlier was a settled law? What about slavery? They were also decided by nine justices. The fact of the matter is that nine justices found a "right to privacy" in the Constitution and then based their Roe v. Wade decisions mostly on that "right". Many of us do not agree that the taking of an innocent human life is a right articulated in the Constitution. First, I do not appreciate the patronizing tone in the first sentence of your post. I am well aware of it, and it is mildly offensive for you to suggest that an educated person does not know this. I've enjoyed my discussions with you and find them interesting, although I disagree with many of your arguments. The key is to have such disagreement without patronizing others needlessly. I'd be less upset if your statement was completely accurate and represented a full treatment of the sources of law. Sure, laws can be made by Congress and signed by the President. However, that is not the only source of the law. The President, in some circumstances, reverts to executive orders that have legal bearing. More importantly to our discussion, judicial opinions and precedents have bearing on legal outcomes if the system is working properly. Roe v. Wade is considered settled law, in spite of your protestations. Since Roe, there has been extensive legislation regarding the protection of women, parental rights, etc. that is related to Roe issues, and all of it seems to imply the legality of abortion, although it, in some cases, qualifies the legality. The following is a selection from statements of several jurists: ""Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It is not – it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." "My position is that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for many, many years, now as modified by Casey. And none of my personal beliefs would get in the way of me applying that law or any other law." The authors of these statements: John Roberts and Priscilla Owen. ----------- I don't exactly know how slavery or segregation buttress your case. Sadly, segregation and slavery were part of the settled law of the land, and the secondary status of slaves/African-Americans was clearly set forth in the Constitution, again unfortunately. Courts for more than a century permitted this despicable system to exist and upheld hundreds of laws that perpetuated it. What I don't really understand is why you'd compare this to Roe because nine justices overturned Plessy. I can appreciate arguments about how Roe may have been wrongly decided, and that is where the right wing should be arguing, rather than through the corporate churches of the "Christian" right. That said, most agree that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. Again, quoting CJ Roberts from his confirmation hearing, "Well, Senator [Feinstein], first of all, I don't necessarily regard it as an implied right. It is the part of the liberty that is protected under the due process clause. That liberty is enumerated." This is an important statement and just demonstrates how jurists on both sides of the spectrum accept that there are inherent rights that are not denoted specifically and exactly in the Constitution through language, such as "right to an abortion," "right to travel overseas," etc. Furthermore, your discussion of taking innocent life does nothing to advance a serious legal argument for overturning Roe. It aligns more closely with religious teachings, which are beneficial to society at large but have limited weight when deciding questions of Constitutional law. Indeed, a so-called right to life of unborn children could create serious legal problems and suffers from the same problem for which you criticize Roe, namely that, nowhere in the Constitution does it imply or state specifically that unborn humans, in whatever form, have rights.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 1, 2005 16:28:21 GMT -5
Senators will have to ascertain to what degree he would like to legislate from the bench and overturn settled law on abortion issues, among others. Would you argue that nominated judges who believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should, under the right circumstances, be overturned not be confirmed for the Supreme Court? I do not have a litmus test based on Roe or any other issue. First and foremost, I examine the personal and academic qualifications of a particular nominee. If a nominee would like to overturn Roe, I'd want to know his/her rationale and whether it has a legal basis. I'd also like to know whether a similar rationale affects the nominee's disposition toward other precedents.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 1, 2005 18:01:16 GMT -5
I do not have a litmus test based on Roe or any other issue. First and foremost, I examine the personal and academic qualifications of a particular nominee. If a nominee would like to overturn Roe, I'd want to know his/her rationale and whether it has a legal basis. I'd also like to know whether a similar rationale affects the nominee's disposition toward other precedents. Well, I'd hope you'd agree that Alito has the personal and academic qualifications to be a SC justice. Second, do you think that Alito would ever testify that he would like to overturn Roe? I don't think any nominee could ever testify that he or she thought a particular decision should be overturned. All a nomniee can do is speak generally about the weight that should be given to precedent. And I don't think that his Casey dissent signals some radical thesis on abortion. I read it as a careful application of the prior Supreme Court cases and a reasoned argument for why each of the specific regulations was not an undue burden on the "right" to an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 1, 2005 18:08:16 GMT -5
He has the academic qualifications to be a SC justice, but it is not clear yet whether he has the personal qualifications because there has not been vetted fully. Bush's previous nominee for this seat speaks to the need to vet someone fully before making a judgment one way or the other because Bush's decision-making appears to be flawed and insufficient for SCOTUS nominations.
I don't believe Alito or any other intelligent nominee would testify specifically on Roe, although they may be called upon to do so by certain Senators.
I have not read his opinion in Casey, but it has generated some early controversy in this process.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Nov 1, 2005 18:44:13 GMT -5
Joe - there is no indication Judge Alito is an originalist of any sort. As to your comment on abortion, have you ever looked at a national opinion poll? There is a broad consensus in this country for abortion rights. USAToday ran a pool immediately after Justice O'Connor retired and found that even half of all Republicans supported Roe. If Casey were overturned, the result would be that some southern and mid-western states would outlaw abortion. Thus, women would have to travel farther to get abortions (or mail-order RU486). (Of course there is also a good chance of Congress exercising its Commerce Clause power and legalizing abortion nation-wide.) That said, there is very little chance Casey will ever be overturned. I would be shocked if either Alito or Roberts would be willing to cast a deciding vote to do so, just like fellow Republican appointees O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter couldn't pull the trigger. That stare decisis thing means something.
|
|
One
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 192
|
Post by One on Nov 1, 2005 18:59:12 GMT -5
Easyed Bush v. Gore was also decided by 9 justices rather than the state of Florida, as it should have been. Strict constructionists conveniently overlook that bit of "judicial activism" when railing against all the liberal judges who "legislate from the bench." Tellingly, those same strict constructionists seem to stand by their strict constructionist principles only when they advance their cause.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 1, 2005 19:04:12 GMT -5
Joe - there is no indication Judge Alito is an originalist of any sort. As to your comment on abortion, have you ever looked at a national opinion poll? There is a broad consensus in this country for abortion rights. USAToday ran a pool immediately after Justice O'Connor retired and found that even half of all Republicans supported Roe. If Casey were overturned, the result would be that some southern and mid-western states would outlaw abortion. Thus, women would have to travel farther to get abortions (or mail-order RU486). (Of course there is also a good chance of Congress exercising its Commerce Clause power and legalizing abortion nation-wide.) That said, there is very little chance Casey will ever be overturned. I would be shocked if either Alito or Roberts would be willing to cast a deciding vote to do so, just like fellow Republican appointees O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter couldn't pull the trigger. That stare decisis thing means something. I don't know about a broad consensus: from March: "A new Harris Poll finds that Roe vs. Wade now enjoys the support of only a 52 to 47 percent majority of all U.S. adults compared to a larger 57 to 41 percent majority in 1998. And the 47 percent who now oppose it is the highest number to do so since 1985."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 1, 2005 19:12:06 GMT -5
Easyed Bush v. Gore was also decided by 9 justices rather than the state of Florida, as it should have been. Strict constructionists conveniently overlook that bit of "judicial activism" when railing against all the liberal judges who "legislate from the bench." Tellingly, those same strict constructionists seem to stand by their strict constructionist principles only when they advance their cause. There seems to be two different views of judicial activism. Democrats/liberals think that conservative judges are activists when they apply precedent which leads to an outcome which they disagree with. Even Breyer, in Bush V. Gore, agreed that the recount was unconstitutional but argued that the recount should go forward because it was a "highly politicized matter." On the other hand, conservatives think that liberal judges are activist when they say the law is whatever the judge says it is and the judges tries to improve or build upon the statute or Constitution.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Nov 1, 2005 20:50:59 GMT -5
Actually, nine justices did not decide Roe v. Wade. If memory serves, there was only seven on the bench at the time.
I'm just waiting for Schumer or someone to whine about replacing a middle of the road, pro-abortion rights justice like O'Connor with a right wing, anti-abortion justice like Altio. I don't remember him saying that when Clinton replaced a middle of the road, anti-abortion justice (White) with a very liberal, pro-abortion rights justice (Ginsberg).
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Nov 1, 2005 21:00:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 1, 2005 21:29:20 GMT -5
Actually, nine justices did not decide Roe v. Wade. If memory serves, there was only seven on the bench at the time. I'm just waiting for Schumer or someone to whine about replacing a middle of the road, pro-abortion rights justice like O'Connor with a right wing, anti-abortion justice like Altio. I don't remember him saying that when Clinton replaced a middle of the road, anti-abortion justice (White) with a very liberal, pro-abortion rights justice (Ginsberg). Schumer was not in the Senate when Ginsburg was nominated in 1993.
|
|