I am, but I don't really understand what's going on. To me it seems like he'd be a great justice, and I'm sort of confused about what all the controversy is about.
He thinks there is a right to privacy, he finds precedent to be very compelling, and he feels a judge needs to leave ideology at the door, why don't democrats like him? For that matter, why do republicans like him?
In addition to your opinions, does anyone know of any good liberal or conservative blogs I can check to get further information?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:He thinks there is a right to privacy, he finds precedent to be very compelling, and he feels a judge needs to leave ideology at the door, why don't democrats like him?
Maybe they don't believe him.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Is there a penalty if he's lying? Say, if he gets confirmed and then writes an opinion saying there isn't a right to privacy, is there anything that can be done?
Not that I think he is, especially. It's just something I've been wondering as I watched CSPAN.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
blacwolve,
I seem to recall that Congress, I don't recall if it is the House or the Senate, can impeach a Supreme Court Justice. I don't recall what they can impeach for, I seem to recall something about misconduct on the bench or some such, but maybe one of the lawyers here could elaborate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is there a penalty if he's lying?
Same one there is for the President.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I think privacy isn't the only issue. I know, at least for me, abortion is a big issue. He spoke out against the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1985, but hasn't given any opinion as to what he thinks now. I'm pretty sure that there will be some huge case soon reexamining that ruling, and the democrats don't want another judge opposed to it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Another huge issue is executive power. Alito believes, based on earlier writings the executive power basically should trump the legislative power. A lot of people are wary of that, especially in light of the NSA stuff going on.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, there are a fair number of Democrats who like him, too. He'll be confirmed by a wide margin, absent surprising further developments.
In fact, its probably a misnomer to say Democrats don't like him. He is merely a detail to many Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter), at least as far as their public behavior is concerned. Its his part in the machinima of politics that matters there.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: I think privacy isn't the only issue. I know, at least for me, abortion is a big issue. He spoke out against the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1985, but hasn't given any opinion as to what he thinks now. I'm pretty sure that there will be some huge case soon reexamining that ruling, and the democrats don't want another judge opposed to it.
The Roe v. Wade was based on the right to privacy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Another huge issue is executive power. Alito believes, based on earlier writings the executive power basically should trump the legislative power.
That is a remarkably incomplete summary - incomplete enough to be inaccurate.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There are several groups on both sides of the spectrum that want to make this a major political battle. Political groups get big donations if they are seen as protecting us from the rabid right or the looney left. So to some his conformation is mandatory since he is described as the savior of the unborn and a true conservative. To others he is the devil incarnate going to surrender the courts to right wing wacko's.
The truth is that this is a non-story.
Alito is a conservative, with some base conservative ideas. However, as far as we can tell at this point, he's a pretty good judge, so will get the approval.
The only worrying things I've seen were his extreme views declared when looking for a job with President Reagan (sure, he was just saying that to get a job, but then what is he just saying now to get this job?) and his possible mistake in not recusing himself from some cases involving his sister's company or companies that he owned stock in.
On further reveiw of those cases, he doesn't seem to have done anything wrong, accept avoid keeping a pledge he made to congress not to get involved with such cases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:his possible mistake in not recusing himself from some cases involving his sister's company or companies that he owned stock in.
The Vanguard incident is absolutely not a violation of judicial ethics; had he not made the statement that he wouldn't hear cases involving Vanguard, it would be an entire non-issue. As it is, it's a question of credibility related to his prior hearing testimony.
We actually had an ethics professor explain what happened today. When a judge is sworn in, he turns in a conflict form. The form asks for specific companies in specific categories (list companies you own stock in, list companies that owe you money, etc.). Since Vanguard isn't in any of the prohibited categories for Alito (mutual funds are specifically exempted), it didn't get put on the list. The clerks use these lists in assigning judges.
The problem is Alito said he would go beyond the rules and didn't. His reason is that he forgot. Whether this is an acceptable excuse is certainly arguable.
It was not, however, a violation of judicial ethics.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is this also an opportunity for some Senatorial presidential hopefuls to get some camera-time?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Exactly to both Dag and Pooka.
Dag--it proves that Alito is--human. I'm not sure we can have those on the Supreme Court.
Pook--well, it proves they are only human too.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Thanks! I don't even know where to go to look for blogs, and it's only recently that I saw the advantages to them and wanted to check some out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I listened to about three full days of the Alito hearings and in my opinion, short of them finding something like dead children in his basement, that Alito is going to soar into a supreme court justice seat like it was greased.
Everyone was impressed with him and his answers. Certain things worried certain senators but there seemed to be no real anti-Alito resolve during the hearings. More like they just wanted to feel him out and see if they liked him. Which I believe they did.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
After all, that is the whole point of the hearings. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He'll be confirmed. The democrats could earn some good will by confirming him without all the grandstanding.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He'll be confirmed. The democrats could earn some good will by confirming him without all the grandstanding.
Bulllsh*t.
Grandstanding didn't seem to matter to the R's when they KNEW they couldn't impeach Clinton......
It was seen as a benifit, actually.
He will be confirmed, more than likely, but asking hard questions of ANY nominee is what their job is suppose to be. Most of the US has no idea who Alito is, and this is a chance to get him on record as to what some of his views are, have been, and might possibly be in the future.
Kwea
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I am wary of Alito. Very wary.
-pH
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is there a penalty if he's lying?
Same one there is for the President.
Touche'
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I agree with Kwea wholeheartedly. Whether the candidate is a good guy/gal or not, our representatives are beholding to us to ask the hard questions.
They shouldn't ever take it lightly, but I also don't believe it should always break along party lines. It's not an us vs. them thing, it should be the toughest job interview in the land, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Grandstanding didn't seem to matter to the R's when they KNEW they couldn't impeach Clinton......
It was seen as a benifit, actually.
He will be confirmed, more than likely, but asking hard questions of ANY nominee is what their job is suppose to be. Most of the US has no idea who Alito is, and this is a chance to get him on record as to what some of his views are, have been, and might possibly be in the future.
Asking questions is fine, not that I really think a majority of the US population even knows there's a confirmation process going on, let alone is paying close attention to it, but it's good that they do that.
My point, was that they could gain some goodwill, not with the Republicans, who I don't think would care either way (or take it as a sign of weakness), but with the American people. Both parties could use a mountain of goodwill right now, and the Democrats could start by making themselves look reasonable and offering some alternatives on other things.
The grilling is over, time to come back to reality.
Edit to add: And they DID impeach Clinton, which to many of them was a victory in itself.
[ January 25, 2006, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
My point was that when they tried to impeach Clinton...which they did NOT do, actually, as it failed....even though they had no chance of convicting him of anything, they call it good politics and the "right" thing to do.
When their own party members are charged with actually breaking the law and are convicted, it is "bad partisn politics", and "grandstanding".
I did misunderstand who you meant when you refered to the "goodwill" thing, but I don't understand who would offer it to them....as you said most of America has no idea about the confirmation happening in the first place. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: My point was that when they tried to impeach Clinton...which they did NOT do, actually, as it failed..
ah, Clinton was not kicked out of office, but he was impeached. He was impeached on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
He was then acquitted by the senate.
The same happened to Andrew Johnson, he was impeached, but then acquitted in the senate.
Being impeached is not the same as being removed from office, it is just a major step in the process.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
"Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second."
"Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate."
url posted so we don't have to go back and forth with "no, he wasn't", "yes, he was". Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Aw! Now you ruined my entertainment! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yup. Mildly bipartisan. Just barely, but at least it wasn't totally along party lines.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Alito is a conservative, with some base conservative ideas. However, as far as we can tell at this point, he's a pretty good judge, so will get the approval.
The only worrying things I've seen were his extreme views declared when looking for a job with President Reagan (sure, he was just saying that to get a job, but then what is he just saying now to get this job?) and his possible mistake in not recusing himself from some cases involving his sister's company or companies that he owned stock in.
On further reveiw of those cases, he doesn't seem to have done anything wrong, accept avoid keeping a pledge he made to congress not to get involved with such cases.
That's my take on it exactly, Dan_raven. He's conservative, but he can do the job. I disagree with some of his positions, but then again, I'm not a conservative. This is far different than Harriet Meyers, though.
I'm not surprised that some Democrat Senators from "red states" voted to confirm. They are supposed to be representing their constituencies, after all. Although they must vote within their own consciences, he isn't unqualified or a violator of judicial ethics.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)