President nominates Alito to Supreme Court

[KSigkid]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/...co/bush_scotus

He's known as polite and even-tempered, but also compared by some lawyers to Justice Scalia. This should be an interesting nomination fight.

[AznSAE]

who cares about the nominee. lets talk about his daughter. did you see her when the camera was focused on the kids while thanking them? she is a hottie!

on a side note, i was watching some news channel early this morning and a girl calls in to ask if he was in the same fraternity as bush and his father was at yale. she went on about how she is a tri-delt and that the views of the fraternity and sorority was different. the host of the show turned the phone off right after and did not make a comment.

looks to be a long hard fight.

[DeltAlum]

This will be interesting.

It's my understanding that Alito feels that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

The politics here could get real ugly.

If the polls that say a majority of Americans believe in Pro-Choice, and if this really is a country where majority rules, what will it say if Judge Alito is confirmed by the Senate which is supposed to act as the "people" who elected them dictate.

I know that's way to simplistic, but this is an interesting test of democracy -- namely, what's more important, the people's will or politics?

[LightBulb]

I saw this in the gym this morning, but I don't know much about him... I suppose we shall see what happens.

[Kevin]

DA, I haven't heard that assessment of his views on Roe until now. It seems like he's in favor of restricting the rule rather than expanding it, but the same could be said about any judge of Alito's philosophy looking at any other decision -- not just Roe.

I was hoping for a John XXIII style nomination and to get Judge Posner in, but I don't think that's going to happen now

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
This will be interesting.

It's my understanding that Alito feels that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

The politics here could get real ugly.

If the polls that say a majority of Americans believe in Pro-Choice, and if this really is a country where majority rules, what will it say if Judge Alito is confirmed by the Senate which is supposed to act as the "people" who elected them dictate.

I know that's way to simplistic, but this is an interesting test of democracy -- namely, what's more important, the people's will or politics?

If you're really worried about abortions disappearing, you should look into an over-the-counter medicine that costs $5 and provides an effective abortion.

And the people elected someone to represent them. If they didn't vote to be represented, they were stupid. Those senators that vote, vote for the people.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ktsnake
DA, I haven't heard that assessment of his views on Roe until now.

That was on NPR this morning.

Rudey, conversly, doesn't that mean that they should vote the will of the people who elected them? I thought that was how democracy is supposed to work.

I don't particularly like abortions, but I support a woman's right to choose.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
That was on NPR this morning.

Rudey, conversly, doesn't that mean that they should vote the will of the people who elected them? I thought that was how democracy is supposed to work.

I don't particularly like abortions, but I support a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps not.

People vote for a candidate knowing they support a group of issues that are bundled together.

You can't ask to buy one twinkie if it comes in a package of two. These voters already purchased both twinkies.

Edited to add this example: Those male love not war hippies that love Howard Dean and vote for him should know that he was endorsed by the NRA 8 times. They know that before they buy into him and if they don't, then they have no right to complain.

Women will always have the right to choose. Science has made it that easy. This judge has opposed late term abortions while acknowledging medical concerns as an exception. This judge also voted so a spouse is notified if a woman gets an abortion. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem like he's killing a woman's right to choose but giving men the rights they deserve.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

I understand your logic, but I would think that with a "hot button" issue abortion and those issues around it, people would weight that heavily in their vote.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
That was on NPR this morning.
.

NPR: another part of the MWODP - probably the worst part since they take our money.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
NPR: another part of the MWODP - probably the worst part since they take our money.

All broadcasters, cablecasters and print media take your money. It's called advertising.

NPR (and PBS for that matter) get very little money from the government.

That's why we have to put up with all of those insipid pledge drives.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I understand your logic, but I would think that with a "hot button" issue abortion and those issues around it, people would weight that heavily in their vote.

Stepping back from this issue a bit... Why in the hell do we consider this single issue a threshold requirement for our approval/disapproval of judicial nominees?

Is it because simple folk need something that they can latch onto when otherwise, most judges have a body of work that resembles a logical clusterfuck? -- I think probably, yes.

Whether a judge is pro-life or pro-choice shouldn't enter into it at all. Most judges have their own personal views on subjects. Most judges also have the sense not to allow personal biases to predicably influence the outcome of their decisions, especially in matters of settled law.

I'd be more interested in his tendancy to overturn existing law, his tendancy to expand the meaning of statutes vs. contracting them, his tendancies (if any) on certain subject matters, his special knowledge and experience that might set him apart from other nominees (like military experience), things of that nature.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Stepping back from this issue a bit... Why in the hell do we consider this single issue a threshold requirement for our approval/disapproval of judicial nominees?

Simply because that's the test that the Senate seems to put on it.

It's generally the lead on everything you see, hear or read on nominations.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Simply because that's the test that the Senate seems to put on it.

It's generally the lead on everything you see, hear or read on nominations.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp.../10/alito.html

As to abortion, here's a hellabiased article about the fella from Planned Parenthood:

[/quote]
Bush Nominates Samuel Alito
Planned Parenthood Opposes Nomination of Samuel Alito to U.S. Supreme Court
Confirmation Would Place Women's Health and Safety in Grave Danger

October 31, 2005 CONTACT:
Erin Kiernon (202) 973-4975
Gustavo Suarez (212) 261-4339


WASHINGTON, DC — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today called for the Senate to reject President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Judge Alito would undermine basic reproductive rights, and Planned Parenthood will oppose his confirmation," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA. "It is outrageous that President Bush would replace a moderate conservative like Justice O'Connor with a conservative hardliner. There is no room on the court for someone with a judicial philosophy that places at risk the rights, freedoms, and liberties that Americans hold dear."

Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey when the case was before the Third Circuit, voting to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of battered women who would be affected by the statute, Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito grudgingly applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute while refusing to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case.

"Samuel Alito's record is deeply troubling to Americans, who overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose," said Pearl. "His confirmation would radically transform the Supreme Court and create a direct threat to the health and safety of American women."

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood at the end of November spotlights the urgency of the threat to reproductive freedom. In this high-stakes case, the justices are expected to rule on whether a woman's health will remain the paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access. The ruling may have an immediate impact on women's health across the nation and will determine whether a fundamental principle established in Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land.

###

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 850 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.
[/quote]

I don't see with this limited record what they're really basing their objection on considering that he has upheld Roe in the past, but whatever, they're entitled.

As to the issue that would most likely make him choose to overturn Roe vs. keep it, would it not be more productive to see how he actually interprets the law? In other words, is he an "activist judge" as they call it? Or does he respect settled law?

[DeltAlum]

Wow -- that was strange...

I started to quote your last post at the same time you posted the edited version -- I didn't know where all of those words came from.

The first link, and one from there to another article on him were interesting.

Thanks for the link.