| Author |
Message |
    
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 189
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 02:39 pm: | 
|
Ten Reasons Samuel Alito Should Have Been Rejected
by Douglas Drenkow
Listen very carefully within the marbled, storied corridors of the Capitol and you're apt to hear one question above all whispered from senatorial lips to senatorial ears: "Give me one good reason I should filibuster Samuel Alito and not simply allow him to be confirmed for the seat being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court? Why risk the majority's wrath, their threat to violate the rules of the Senate and exercise the Nuclear Option"?
Fair enough. I'll give you not just one but ten good reasons for Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans to stand tall and reject this nomination, pandering to those far to the right of the mainstream (Source: SaveTheCourt.org):
10. Alito has supported extremist positions overall.
"There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court." — Jonathan Turley, law professor who supported John Roberts but opposes Sam Alito
Alito's dissents are more conservative than those of even fellow Republican judges 91% of the time.
Alito's dissents argue against individual rights 84% of the time.
Alito has been criticized by many of his fellow judges for "ignoring, abandoning, or overruling precedent" and for "disregard of established principles of stare decisis."
Alito testified that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted strictly in accord with its text and the "meaning someone would have taken 'from the text' at the time of its adoption"; a position that The Oregonian characterized as an "18th century view" that could "roll back many hard-fought federal protections that Americans enjoy today."
9. Alito has opposed "one person, one vote."
Alito wrote that he disagreed with Supreme Court decisions on reapportionment that established the "one person, one vote" principle inherent in equal voting rights.
8. Alito has opposed the First Amendment separation of church and state.
Alito ruled that a child evangelism group was discriminated against by a school district that did not allow it to distribute and post materials in back-to-school nights.
Alito voted to allow group prayer at school-sponsored graduation ceremonies; O'Connor and a majority of the Supreme Court struck down a similar policy.
Alito supported city-sponsored religious displays; in a similar case, the Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor in the majority, ruled otherwise.
7. Alito has opposed a woman’s right to choose.
Alito wrote: "The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
Alito upheld in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey a law requiring a woman to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion; Sandra Day O'Connor and a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed, stating "a State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."
6. Alito has opposed remedies for victims of discrimination.
Alito as an applicant for a job in Edwin Meese's Justice Department proudly cited his membership in an alumni group notorious for opposing admission of women and minorities to his alma mater.
Alito repeated wrote dissenting opinions putting up barriers to victims of discrimination — particularly women and people of color — to bring their cases to trial, let alone to prevail; one court majority went so far as to write that Alito's view would have "eviscerated" federal anti-bias laws.
Alito has sided against 75% of people raising discrimination claims and against immigrants in seven out of eight cases before him.
Alito as a federal judge agreed that American citizens could be kept off juries in some cases simply because they spoke Spanish.
Alito as a federal appeals court judge argued that discrimination cases should not even reach a jury if an employer claimed to have picked the "best candidate," even if the employer exercised conscious racial bias; the other judges in the case rejected his reasoning as having the potential to gut legal protections against racial discrimination.
5. Alito has opposed workers, consumers, and small business hurt by big business.
Alito applied legal doctrines inconsistently in various discrimination cases, consistently siding with powerful corporate interests against such victims as disabled or injured workers.
Alito has "seldom sided" with consumers suing big business.
Alito as judge ruled against a small business hurt by the anti-competitive practices of a large corporation that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act; the other judges in the case overruled him.
4. Alito has opposed environmental protection.
Alito voted to make it more difficult for citizens to sue alleged polluters under the Clean Water Act; his reasoning was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court in another case.
Alito as a government lawyer and as a federal judge tried to limit the power of Congress to apply the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives the federal government the authority to regulate activities within and between states, as to protect the environment with pollution controls or the Endangered Species Act; the Supreme Court will soon hear cases that could well render the Clean Water Act unenforceable.
3. Alito has opposed laws to protect society from violent crime as well as Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the accused.
Alito as a government lawyer and as a federal judge tried to limit the power of Congress to apply the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as to regulate the distribution of machine guns.
Alito rejected claims by an African American that he had been denied a fair trial by an all-white jury from which black jurors had been excluded because of their race; a higher court reversed the ruling and criticized Alito's analysis as absurd.
Alito as Assistant Solicitor General argued that it was acceptable for police officers to shoot in the back an unarmed 15-year-old boy fleeing the scene of a burglary; not only the Supreme Court but also every police group that acted as friends of the court in the case rejected Alito's argument.
2. Alito has opposed Fourth Amendment restraints on abuse of power.
Alito upheld the strip search of a mother and her ten-year-old daughter, unnamed in a search warrant; Michael Chertoff, then judge, now head of the Department of Homeland Security, warned that would turn the Constitution's search warrant requirement into little more than a "rubber stamp."
Alito as judge upheld video surveillance by the FBI without a warrant.
Alito in the Solicitor General's office argued that Cabinet officials are entitled to immunity from legal liability for authorizing illegal wiretaps of Americans in America; the Supreme Court rejected his argument.
And the Number One reason to reject Samuel A. Alito for the Supreme Court:
1. Alito on the Supreme Court would effectively hand George W. Bush — and each of his successors as president, from either or any party — virtually unrestrained power.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4227
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 02:55 pm: |
|
Ntfs_encryption,
Honestly, I could quite easily rebut ALL of the above. And I'm not even a supporter of Alito's. |
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 04:00 pm: |
|
Well, he wasn't rejected.
No use whining about it now.
BUSH shouldn't have been elected...we wouldn't be in this mess.
|
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 73
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 04:26 pm: |
|
he wasn't elected the 1st term, he took the presidency thug-style from gore. |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 195
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 04:40 pm: |
|
ABM wrote: "Honestly, I could quite easily rebut ALL of the above. And I'm not even a supporter of Alito's".
Really? Please do. I would like to hear your rebuttal. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3769
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Alito broke ranks with the Conservatives in the very first case before him when he voted for a stay of execution for some guy. Would't it be funny if he turned out to be a Moderate? Sandra Day O'Conner ended up being more of a moderate than she was expected to be. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4233
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
The following is a REBUTTAL of Ntfs_encryption's initial post in this thread. Please review it to understand the purpose of what follows.
10.) Alito's +90% conservativitism is no more valid reason to exclude him from the Supreme Court than is Ruth Bader Ginsburgs +90% LIBERAL rating she was deemed to have prior to her installation into the Supreme Court.
There's NOTHING in the US Constitution that supports or prohibits any particular political party or idealogy.
The JOB of a judge is to interpret the Constitution and/or statutory law, not to maintain prior judicial precedent. If prior judges screwed up, their decisions should be subject to being overturned. PERIOD.
And if Stare Decisis were always maintained, the dreaded Dred Scott and Plessy decisions would still be in force.
9) I don't know how or to what degree Alito's opposition to "one man, one vote" is true concerning Alito. But the existence of the Electoral College ALSO defies "one man, one vote". Yet it is IN the Constitution.
8) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America "Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Show me where in the above it says that one cannot "distribute and post [religious] materials in back-to-school" programs/activities.
7) Alito's right. There is NOTHING within the original text of the US Constitution and/or subsequent Federal statutes that sanctions/support abortion. Abortion is legal throughout the land SOLELY as a consequence of the Roe decision. Strike down Roe and the States are ALL well within their constitutionally legal right to decide whether and to what degree abortion should exist.
And why shouldn't a husband receive notification that the life of HIS (and, of course, it mother's) child has been terminated? If a husband goes out blows all the family stash on swamp property or files a fallacious income tax return that could land both him and wife in trouble with the IRS, shouldn't his wife have both the legal and moral right to KNOW he's done those things?
6) What EXACTLY did that alumni group oppose? Women and minorities being admitted into Princeton? Or UNQUALIFIED women and minorities admitted into Princeton? Those are 2 very DIFFERENT issues. Perhaps the best response to this would have been whether Alito's Alumni group was also an opponent of unqualified White MEN getting matriculating into Princeton. The answer to THAT question might tell you what that outfit was REALLY all about.
And I'm not sure how fair and helpful to judge the entire merit/character of a man based on something he did +30 years ago. How would most of US past, say, 40 years old holdup against being judge on something we did when we were in our early 20's?
What were the details of the civil rights claims/suits Alito opposed? Every claim of racism is NOT necessarily PROOF of racism.
If the best qualified for a school/gig are almost always White (granted, the deciding factors here are one's definition/interpretation of IF and/or QUALIFIED), does it really matter whether that school/employer admits to preferring to admit/hire Whites?
And, really, how could one be an effective juror if he or she can NOT communicate in ENGLISH?
More to come later... |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 202
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 01:02 pm: |
|
AMB wrote :The following is a REBUTTAL of Ntfs_encryption's initial post in this thread. Please review it to understand the purpose of what follows.<
10.) Alito's +90% conservativitism is no more valid reason to exclude him from the Supreme Court than is...........
Thank you very much for the interesting rebuttal. I have to take my server down for rebuilding so I might not be able to respond for a few days. I like what you wrote but I don't agree with all of it and I will be very specific about why. Standby.... |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4240
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 02:00 pm: |
|
Ntfs_encryption,
Study hard.
I'll be waiting... |
Black_wisdom_
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 96
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:11 pm: |
|
Holy shit, Abm, a black man, is actually defending a member of the Federalist Society, even advancing an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution to do so. WTF? |
Black_wisdom_
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 97
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:27 pm: |
|
Shit, point by point, ABM:
10. The original argument wasn't about stare decisis; it was about jurists who fall way outside of the mainstream of jurisprudence. Alito is such a jurist who falls outside of the mainstream and Congress would have been 100% in its constitutional prerogative to advise and consent that his nomination be rejected, whether via a minority filibuster or otherwise. He is not comparable to Ginsburg, who is considered "liberal" solely because of her association with the ACLU. She's actually not that far left.
9. It's pretty nutty to assert that existence of the electoral college vitiates any notion of fairness with respect to gerrymandering and proportional representation. Apples and oranges.
8. The first amendment is clear and your interpretation is as dishonest as those "conservative" arguments which are attempting to rewrite the legislative history of the constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means that my tax dollars should not be paying for someone else's religious expression. "Faith based initiatives," for example, are actually unconstitutional.
7. You know as well as I that abortion, along with other medical procedures, falls within the purview of the right to privacy. That means that it is not legal for the government to intervene in the private medical decisions of individuals absent an extremely compelling rationale. Roe's trimester analysis satisfies that requirement. States cannot create laws which abridge rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Which is why Roe trumps any state legislative efforts to unduly restrict abortion access.
The remainder of your comment was pretty weird and seems to put you solidly in the anti-affirmative action camp. Don't know what to say to folks like that... |
Zuriburi
Veteran Poster
Username: Zuriburi
Post Number: 59
Registered: 11-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:02 pm: |
|
Black Wisdom are you a lawyer?
If you don't mind me asking.
Your posts are very well constructed like that of a skilled debator (?spelling).
Just curious. |
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:27 pm: |
|
ABM didn't say that he supports Alito.
He was just pointing out the arguments that could be used to disqualify the statment by NTS Encyrption.
I thought it was rather astute.
But then...I'm prejudiced.
|
Black_wisdom_
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 98
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:34 pm: |
|
Alarm bells rang with the "easily rebut" statement, but you're right, Abm clearly stated that he is no supporter of Alito. My bad.
Zuriburi, yeah. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4363
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 09:45 pm: |
|
10) The author Douglas Drenkow mentioned Alito's alleged unwillingness to observe "stare decisis" as a reason to thwart his nominiation. THAT is why I referenced to it within my rebuttal. Senators are constitutionally enabled to use their own criteria for supporting or flouting a Supreme Court candidate. They're NOT charged with promoting some alleged mainstream viewpoint, which HAS often itself been contrary to what's legally and morally right. If President Lincoln observed the mainstream view of 1860's America, there would NOT have been an Emancipation Proclamation.
9) America is a republic, not a democracy. Our government is representational. But it is NOT purely a one-man-one-vote system. For example, as recently as the early 20th Century, US Senators were appointed by their state legislatures, not via the vote of individual citizens. And in 2000 Al Gore garnered over 500K votes (and that DON'T include hanging chads) more than Bush, yet Bush was via the consent of the Electoral College installed as president. Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and 3 electoral college votes. California has a population of 34,000,000 and 55 electoral college votes. Therefore, a vote tendered for president in Wyoming is worth nearly FOUR TIMES that of one in California? Does THAT equate one-man-one-vote?
8) You eschewed including ALL of the relevant part of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". I don't believe the above means that NO religious events/activities can occur at schools. I think it means that the government does not either require or prohibit such. And there are MANY other things that our federal, state and local governments respect/support with my tax money that bother me A LOT more than foks praying in school.
7) There is NO "right to privacy" either in the US constitution and/or it supporting statues. There are assorted judicial precedent that support the notion of such. But it does not EXPLICITLY/SPECIFICALLY exist. And the abortion issue - *YARN* - includes so many fallacies, so much sophistry on BOTH sides of the aisle that you'll please forgive my avoiding engaging in that argument. But I will say Roe vs. Wade is NOT constitutional/statutory law. It is judicial precedent. And judicial precedent can be overturned by subsequent judicial precedent. Kinda like how Brown vs. Topeka Kansas effectively overturned its 50-year predecessor Plessy vs. Ferguson's "seperate but equal".
Notice how I've rebutted your comments WITHOUT making any baseless allegations about what camp you inhabit or how nutty you are.
I don't have to resort that ad hominems to make an argument. Must you? |
Black_wisdom_
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 99
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 06:51 pm: |
|
First off, ad hominems are what I do. Bite me.
10. "Senators are constitutionally enabled to use their own criteria for supporting or flouting a Supreme Court candidate." Say what? Remember Bork? "Advise and consent."
9. The issue is gerrymandering and proportional representation wrt the house of representatives. WTF does this have to do with the electoral college, created for the sole purpose of communicative expediency during a time when there was no such thing as instant access to information?
8. Free exercise means that the government cannot impede the private decisions of its citizenry to worship a god/gods/no god. Since you have advanced such originalist arguments, this amendment was created in the context of the malicious, bloody religious persecution occuring in England. This in no way can be interpreted to represent "well government entities can fund a particular religion if they want." There are other things which bother me as well. And, so? This does not negate the troublesome nature of a jurist who does not respect the separation of church and state.
7. And so a body of caselaw, interpreting a constitution or statute is now deemed less persuasive? Since when? I would love to read one of your appellate briefs! This is an incredibly extreme argument advanced by ideologues such as the Federalist Society. And are you willing to toss out years of precedent and the protections afforded by the privacy doctrine in order to defend a character such as Alito? And the comparison between stripping away privacy in medical procedures to the (official, at least) dismantling of segregration is too offensive to entertain. I'll leave that to conservative wingnuts who imagine that Bush is the reincarnation of Lincoln.
Face it, Alito is an ideologue. And bite me, for good measure. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4371
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 07:49 am: |
|
10) The Bork nomination was defeated first/foremost because the Democrats ruled the Senate. And the loyal opposition wanted bork Bork as a means to smearing Reagan's legacy (which had already been encumbered by Iran-Contra) and weakening the chances of his heir apparent (George Bush Sr.) being elected.
9) To avoid possible error, I'll wait for you to explain how "The issue is gerrymandering and proportional representation wrt the house of representatives" relate to what we're discussing before I respond.
8) You've interpreted the First Amendment to mean one thing. Someone else has interpreted it to mean another. EVERYONE is extrapolating A LOT from a mere 16 words. And are presuming to read the minds and hearts of men who've been dead for 200 years. Btw: There is NO explicited "separation of church and state" within the Constitution & Amendments. That was simply a preference Thomas Jefferson expressed. I'll leave it to you to decide whether and how Jefferson's having been a slaveowner should affect your view of that.
7) Caselaw law SHOULD be less persuasive that the Constitution and Federal law. Because it is Congress, not the Supreme Court, who is charged with MAKING the law. Yes. Caselaw is important. And it should be consulted. But it is only as valid as the current arbiters and interpreters of the law deems it to be. If it were anything more than that, it would be coded into the Constitution/Amendment/statues and - baring subsequent Amendments/statutes - be left alone. But then, doing THAT would be...UNCONSTITUTIONAL. |
Black_wisdom_
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 102
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 01:04 pm: |
|
10. Those political considerations may have come into play with the rejection of Bork, I'm not qualified to give an absolute opinion on that. But it is undeniable that his ideological extremism, expressed honestly unlike Roberts and Alito, killed his nomination.
9. The one person, one vote issue is about construction of legislative districts:
The one-person-one-vote principle traces to the Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr. At the time, legislative districts had wildly unequal numbers of people, and representatives from underpopulated rural districts controlled many state legislatures. In Maryland, 14 percent of the voters could elect a majority of the State Senate, and 25 percent could elect a majority of the State House. In Alabama, the county that includes Birmingham, which had 600,000 people, got the same number of state senators - one - as a county with barely 15,000 people.
In Baker v. Carr, Tennessee voters challenged their state's unequal legislative districts, which had not been redrawn in 60 years. The Supreme Court had rejected a similar claim out of Illinois in 1946, saying it did not want to enter the "political thicket." But in 1962, the Warren court decided it had to enter the thicket to vindicate the rights of Tennesseans whose votes were being unfairly diluted. It ordered Tennessee's lines redrawn.
Two years later, in Reynolds v. Sims, the court struck down Alabama's legislative districts. The Reynolds decision did what Baker had not: it established a clear mathematical standard.
The court held that the equal protection clause required that "as nearly as is practicable one man's vote" must "be worth as much as another's."
Baker v. Carr set off what a leading election law treatise calls "the reapportionment revolution." In nine months, lawsuits challenging district lines were filed in 34 states. They did not solve all the problems with legislative districts - the current court is still wrestling with partisan gerrymandering - but they made American democracy much fairer.
As a Princeton undergraduate, Samuel Alito sided with Tennessee and Alabama in the reapportionment cases. [snip] Baker and Reynolds seem so self-evidently correct today that it is hard to imagine that Judge Alito could still really oppose them.
That was by Adam Cohen, originally published in the Times; here's a link to a free version of this article:
http://www.yuricareport.com/BattleForJudiciary/AlitoOnOneManOneVote.html
8. So are originalist arguments illegitimate or not? In this case, the legislative intent is pretty clear. However, it does not suit the prerogative of Alito apologists and amazingly the degenerate nature of the Constitutional drafters is miraculously made relevant again. Yet these same apologists have no problem making statements like "I don't see an explicit reference to separation of church and state in the Constitution."
7. Oh, please. The task of the judiciary is to (1) interpret the Constitution and (2) interpret statutes with respect to statutes' adherence with the Constitution. It's ridiculous to assert that legislatures, whether federal or state, should be allowed to construct legislation which trumps basic principles of constitutional interpretation.
Also, the judiciary as revolutionized by the Warren Court was the first line of defense for African Americans against a popular will which would have seen us in legalized second-class status into perpetuity. It is therefore very, very strange to hear this sort of argument advanced by a person of color. Would you consider it "unconstitutional" if a court invalidated a law, duly drafted in conformance with majority popular will, that mandated that African Americans couldn't board planes on Sunday? I mean, "duh, it doesn't say explicitly in the Constitution that niggers are allowed to fly." |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4378
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 02:38 pm: |
|
10) If the Democrats controlled the Senate, would both Roberts and Alito have been confirmed to the Supreme Court? Lemme help you out here: Hellfuhkinnaw!!!
9) So lemme understand, we're debating what Alito thought as a student, NOT as a presiding, experienced jurist? Boy have I been wasting my gotdayam time here.
8) I am eschewing using labels "originalist", "apologist", etc. to quantify the merits of one's views and actions. Labels are fun. But often, they too easily distract one from doing something I like to refer to as THINKING. There is NO "explicit reference to separation of church and state in the Constitution". PERIOD. Moreover, it is a TERRIBLE strategic move for foks to focus on other's posting the 10 Commandments in schools when there are myriad other REAL/PRESSING that must be resolved.
7. Yes. The judiciary is charged with "constitutional interpretation". But the judiciary is NOT charged with drafting and asserting what is NOT within the Constitution/statues.
There is MYRIAD Federal, State and Municipal LAWS that EXPLICITLY/EXPRESS prohibit the harebrained "African Americans couldn't board planes on Sunday" scenario you proposed. So that is not even worthy of a response.
I have NOT "advanced" any sort of "originalist" or "reactionary" viewpoint. I've mostly presented what can be very persuasive and valid rebutts to what you and Ntfs_encryption have presented.
I stated at the very beginning that I was NOT a supporter of Alito's. (And I am even LESS a supporter of Robert's being made the Chief Justice.)
But I said initially what Ntfs_encryption originally presented can be easily rebutted.
There's a great line in The Godfather II that I think Black foks would do well to embrace concerning how to prevail against their adversaries: "Keep your friends close...and your enemies CLOSER." |
Black_wisdom_
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 105
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 03:11 pm: |
|
10. Of course they wouldn't have confirmed them. What does that have to with whether Alito's nomination should have been filibustered?
9. True enough. But I would doubt that the Federalist Society characters at my law school have changed a bit, particularly if their entire career ascension has been by virtue of conservative "connections" and ideological purity tests, as Alito's career has.
8. You're conflating political considerations with legal ones. There is a doctrine which is the separation of church and state and one would have to be an originalist to assert otherwise. This is not about boxing people or labels; this is a view of the constitution which many "conservatives" happen to share, as it is expedient right now for them to do so.
7. There is technically nothing barring any state legislature or Congress from drafting any law to suit their popular mandate. That's what they do. That's their job. It is the job of the judiciary to ensure that such laws pass constitutional muster. The fact that it is highly unlikely that a legislative body would pass a law like the one I described doesn't change the functions of these different bodies. Marbury v. Madison is very, very settled law. And it says that the court does in fact get to evaluate laws to ensure that they are constitutional, and yes, that includes of course statutes along with constitutions. Courts are also charged with interpreting statutes in such a manner that they do pass constitutional muster. What you are arguing is a very extreme position.
And I no longer care whether you support Alito or not. You are arguing for him, calling the original points "easily rebuttable," and I am arguing that your rebuttal is not persuasive. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 4380
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 04:04 pm: |
|
10) Congress WISELY voted against filibustering Alito's nomination. And MANY of those who voted against a filibuster were Democrats. Why? Because although a filibuster might appear to be a good tactical move but it would be a cataclysmic strategic move. The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution. It is a courtesy Senators grant each other. The GOP could EASILY vote to disavow the filibuster. Then, when the GOP tries to push something REALLY BAD comes down the congressional pike, the Democrats have NO weapon to wage against it.
9) I know and care little about the Federalist Society and Alito's connections there in. *shrugs*
8) I don't know what you mean by "You're conflating political considerations with legal ones. except to say there is no law without politics. I'm going to depart from debating the Constitution/statues to make a point I feel must be made. There has ALWAYS been some notions of a GOD, a CREATOR or a HIGHER POWER within the existence of this country. Our laws are RIDDLED with religious origins and inferences. The Declaration of Independence itself states Americans "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...". And in the very first sentence of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln says "Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two..."
Again. I think it is a costly mistake to fixate upon thwarting something that's done far more to bring us together, to inspire the best, most generous elements of our nature and character than it has done otherwise. Rather than killing GOD, Democrats would be better served by reclaiming Him-Her from the GOP.
7) There are limits to what the Federal and State legislatures can enact. They are proscribed by the US and state Constitutions and the US and state judiciaries. But there are limits to what the judiciaries can/should do as there are to what legislatures can do. I've focused on the judicial limits here because this thread was inspired by the Alito confirmation.
I accept your denying the persuasiveness of my rebuttals if you'll allow me the same courtesy.
Btw: You previously referenced how the Warren Court helped African Americans. Well guess who appointed Earl Warren: REPUBLICAN President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Maybe that's something you and others should consider amid your fear/dread of Bush's appointments. |
Black_wisdom_
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Black_wisdom_
Post Number: 114
Registered: 02-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 04:21 pm: |
|
10. A filibuster, if countered by the nuclear option (not a guarantee, Frist didn't have the votes before, not sure he'd have them now), Reid would have probably instituted a senatorial slowdown; meaning he would have used procedural maneuvering to ensure that no shit got done. The nuclear option and its fallout is not as clear and simple as you make it out to be.
8. I'm saying that you are conflating what you think is best for the Democratic party with what is considered settled law, etc. And who's killing God? Anyone can worship however they want, on their own time and on their own dime. I don't need the government to teach me how to pray or tell me how best to worship. When you begin to dismantle this central feature of this republic, things go to shit, real fast. Theocrats belong in the church, not the senate.
7. Yes, there are limits to what the federal and state legislatures can enact, as proscribed by the judiciary WHO'S JOB IT IS to set those limits. That means if the judiciary does indeed think that an integral component of constitutional due process is the right to privacy with respect to medical decisions, that's it. Someone who does not respect (1) that there is even a right to privacy; and (2) the settled law which establishes such has no business sitting in the highest court in the country.
And forgive me if I don't trust Bush's judgment?
Don't get offended, please, I ask in all seriousness, are you black, just curious?
As for that persuasiveness thing, I'm not sure that I could persuade someone like you. It's still unclear to me where you stand politically. |
|
Email This Page