Oct 31 2005
Samuel Alito in as the Next Supreme Court Nominee and the Radical Right Rejoices
President Bush finally bowed to pressure from the radical right and nominated Judge Sam Alito this morning to replace the failed nomination of crony and not-conservative-enough-for-the-ultra-right-wing Harriet Miers.
While this nomination of an extremely conservative judge is an obvious attempt to pander to the radical right in hopes of returning to their good graces, it’s also a symbolic middle finger to every moderate and progressive in America who don’t, as Amy Poehler of SNL put it this weekend, believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday.
While a certain number of people may think this is a good move, the fact is that the President has choosen to replace a moderate conservative free thinking woman with an ulta-conservative pro establishment man in the Supreme Court, and that’s too bad for the rest of America. More soon..
What else could he have done after the failure of Miers?
Before Meiers is unqualifed, now she’s a free thinker?!
Bottom line: Are you saying Alito is not qualified for this position?
Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday.
You really need to stop reading DailyKos
Actually, I was referring to O’Connor about the free thinker label, and like I said above, the joke was from Amy Poehler of SNL (Saturday Night Live) last Saturday. I have a feeling you read DailyKos more than I do.
O’Connor - gotcha.
Are you saying Alito is not qualified for this position?
What, now qualifications matter all the sudden? Where were you last month with the same concerns about qualifications when Harriet Miers was nominated?
The President said she was the best and most qualified candidate for the job, so if she defines what the standard qualifications are for Pres. Bush, then anyone who’s got a law degree from University of Phoenix is qualified for the position. Or should we not take what the President says at face value?
I don’t expect an answer to any of that btw, just pointing out where this conversation has gone over the past month or so.
As for Alito’s qualifications though, I didn’t say he is or isn’t qualified to server on the Supreme Court. The fact is there are literally hundreds and hundreds of people who are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, so that isn’t the question.
The questions, regardless of what side they’re on, should focus on what their philosophy is, what their stance on past judgements has been, how they’ve ruled in the past, and things relevant to how they’d rule on the court if they were approved, not just on if they’re qualified or not.
Someone may have all the qualifications in the world and may have written opinions - oh, say limiting womens and minority rights - during their time becoming qualified that would exclude them from Supreme Court consideration.
Where was I?! Beating the “she’s not qualified” drum!. Jeepers I hated the nomination - not because she wasn’t conservative enough, but because she was not qualified. I agreed with your arguments presented on your blog, so I didn’t feel compelled to comment.
then anyone who’s got a law degree from University of Phoenix is qualified for the position.
LOL
My position is …
We elected Bush on the platform that he would nominate judges in the likes of Scalia and Thomas - if his nominations are qualified individuals then s/he should be confirmed. I think focusing on philosophy is incorrect - they are not running for office. We know the person is a conservative - we already elected a conservative president. Well - I’d argue that, too, btw - a true conservative wouldn’t spend like he does, but I digress. A SCOTUS judge should not include politics in his/her decision, but should apply the laws as defined in the CONSTITION.
A SCOTUS judge should not include politics in his/her decision, but should apply the laws as defined in the CONSTITION.
As the resident college student on this blog, I am the only one adequately qualified to be ridiculously idealistic.
Philosophy is the basis of judgement. What you believe determines how you view the world and judge the situations that are part of it. I mean, think the process of judgement(not just at the supreme court level either) through to it’s logical roots, and philosophy is at the heart of the matter. Even you saying that a judge should apply the law as a strict interpretation of the Constitution compared to a ‘living document’ view is a difference in judicial philosophy.
That said, philosophy has every thing to do with who gets nominated for positions like this and it’s why George Bush nominated Alito instead of a less conservative judge. That said, having a particular philosophy doesn’t mean you’re politically motivated, and the two aren’t mutally exclusive.
As the resident college student on this blog, I am the only one adequately qualified to be ridiculously idealistic.
LOL.
philosophy is at the heart of the matter
To your point, you are saying that the SCOTUS interprets the constitution in some ways. For example, “right to life, liberty, or property” and whether that means “right to kill unborn fetus” and whether the 14th amendment guarantees an unborn fetus with constitutional rights? In that regard, I supposed I would tend to agree with you that philosophy has some bearing on the judges decision. The point I’m trying to make is that we (the people) elected GW on the basis he would appoint SCOTUS judges with a originalist approach to constitutional analysis and you have to live with the consequences of the presidential election. We lived with Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the tune of a 98-0 vote in the Senate - not because she was a free thinker like O’Connor, but because she was a qualified nominee.
I don’t think anyone is unsure of what the meaning of electing a president is. But, one of the nice things about living in a ‘free’ society is that we don’t have to stay quiet about the consequences. And, sometimes, sometimes, we can even effect change.
(Please refer to my note about being ridiculously idealistic before responding.)
Two things - Ginsberg was approved 97-3 and she replaced another moderate liberal on the court, Byron White, who was nominated by JFK.
As for the point that you & the ultra-right wing elected GWB, and you now feel entiltled to a judge who will rule for your views, you’ll get no argument from me. I’ve been saying for months how the ultra-right (which i don’t know if you’re a part of) thinks they should get to dictate policy because they turned out to vote for Bush becausee of some misplaced sense of entiltement.
Why can’t the moderate faction of the GOP claim they should be the ones who the President listens to? If it weren’t for them turning out to vote after all, Bush wouldn’t have won, so he owes his Presidency to them, no?
The problem with that is that neither this nominee nor the President work just for you or a faction of your party, they work for all Ameicans and should represent all Americans - not just a splinter group on the extreme wing of it’s party.
And thats the whole crux of what I’ve been saying for months. Bush is beholden to the extreme right wing of his party and cares nothing for the views of those who don’t identify with that small percentage of people. The rest of America realizes that I think, and it’s why you continue to see his support among independants and even some Republicans eroding.
Ginsberg == Moderate liberal?! Oh boy. 97-3 .. my bad … I’m hoping you get the point.
Why can’t the moderate faction of the GOP claim they should be the ones who the President listens to?
By that reasoning - he shouldn’t listen to liberals then?!
Please don’t call the Republican party “my party” ever again - I’ve made it clear I don’t belong to either of these friggin’ political parties.
I can’t seem to get my point across for some reason.
the ultra-right (which i don’t know if you’re a part of)
LOL - yep that’s me. (Not really)
My point was he should listen to everyone, or at least base his decisions in the best interest of all the people - liberals, moderates, conservatives - he works for, not just a small extreme group of them.
Sorry about the label, I didn’t mean it in a really negative way.. Above when you said, “We elected GWB..” I assume you meant we as in “me and other republicans” or maybe not.. regardless, sorry about the confusion, but the fact is you (seem) to support many of the policies and leaders of the party, so whether or not you officially identify as one of ‘them’ is a moot point.
My point was he should listen to everyone
Please refer to mwarden’s note about being ridiculously idealistic.
Sorry about the label, I didn’t mean it in a really negative way..
np .. I do see it as a negative to be called a Republican or Democrat - so I guess it’s a sore spot.
“We elected GWB..” I assume you meant we as in “me and other republicans”
It’s really telling that you said this .. By your words, you see “we” as Democrats and “them” as Repubs. Pretty interesting.
I said “we” as in the people. That includes you, non voters, me, repubs, dems, etc. You may not have voted for Bush, but we elected him. I see us all in this together, having to settle for the loser politicians we are forced to vote for. Ah, the illusion of choice.