Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Anticlimactic
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, January 31, 2006

It's over in the Senate and Samuel Alito is the nation's 110 Justice of the Supreme Court:
The largely party-line vote was 58-42 to replace the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, a federal appeals judge since 1990, came four months after the Senate approved Bush's first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, as U.S. chief justice.
If you think this fight was something, I promise you that if Bush gets a third opportunity to nominate a Justice for the court, you "ain't seen nothin'" in terms of political bloodshed when and if that happens.

UPDATE: [Jon Henke]

This is what I wrote on the day Alito was nominated:
Take this to the bank: the Democrats will try to "bork" Alito by arguing against the legislation he had to rule on, rather than his legal reasoning, his qualifications or his character. Democrats will filibuster and Republicans will be obligated to use the nuclear option. Everything between now and then is merely prelude.
So, I was wrong about the need to use the nuclear option. The rest stands up rather well, though.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Perhaps so, but I’m not so sure. Look what this fight has cost the Democrats... as someone said recently, you dont gain credibility by crying ’wolf’.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Look what this fight has cost the Democrats... as someone said recently, you dont gain credibility by crying ’wolf’.
No - but history will prove that the Dems were right, unless, of course, like Bithead, you see the Bill of Rights as an impediment.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I suppose you can provide us proof that Alito’s confirmation damages the bill of rights, somehow?

More, that you can prove with direct, unqualified quotes what you’ve charged ME with?

Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I suppose you can provide us proof that Alito’s confirmation damages the bill of rights, somehow?
His opinions in Casey and in the strip search case, for starters.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Who would be the next justice to step down? The left talks about how much this changes the court, but it’s not so much as they claim. If you look at decisions like Kelo, then, nothing has changed vote-wise.
Mk, no starters, explain how Casey violated the bill of rights, and how Doe v. Groody was wrongly argued by Alito. If anything he seems to be upholding many rights, such as Police v. City of Newark and The Pitt News v. Pappert.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
His opinions in Casey and in the strip search case, for starters.
Oh, please....

What Chris said....

And you’ve yet to address your nonsense directed at ME.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Predicting Democrats would go ape-sh*t over a Bush nominee to the Court is like predicting that Mel Kiper Jr. will act like a pompous jackass. Let’s raise the bar, shall we?
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
And you’ve yet to address your nonsense directed at ME.
You are an ardent Bush supporter. Bush cares little for the Bill of Rights. He sees it as an impediment and he has shown that he is willing to violate it. (Jose Padilla, anyone?) I assume you share his worldview. It’s that simple.
Who would be the next justice to step down? The left talks about how much this changes the court, but it’s not so much as they claim. If you look at decisions like Kelo, then, nothing has changed vote-wise.
Mk, no starters, explain how Casey violated the bill of rights, and how Doe v. Groody was wrongly argued by Alito. If anything he seems to be upholding many rights, such as Police v. City of Newark and The Pitt News v. Pappert.
As I have said before, conservatives have two pet clauses in the Bill of Rights: the Free Exercise Clause and the second half of the Second. (Although, as I have pointed out repeatedly, they were on the wrong side on the biggest Free Exercise Clause case in the last 25 years - Employment Division v. Smith.) Also, they are generally against limits on commercial speech. (Because, of course, they usually side with big business.) As for the rest of the Bill of Rights, they couldn’t care less. I believe that Newark and Pitt News show Alito is within this camp. It still doesn’t move me to believe that he is not a threat to the Bill of Rights.

In his dissent in Casey Alito said he would have upheld the spousal notification procedure in the Pennsylvania law. That notification infringed on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion because it placed an undue burden on the exercise of the right. Now, one can argue whether the right to an abortion is in the Bill of Rights, or in the Fourteenth Amendment, or both. But the bottom line is that once again, Alito sided with the government over the individual.

In a previous post, I addressed Groody. To summarize, Alito said the warrant application, rather than the warrant itself, was the proper reference point for analyzing the scope of the warrant. That is so much nonsense - if you know anything about analyzing the scope of a warrant, you know you don’t look to the application. It was such a simple case, even current DHS Sec Chertoff disagreed. Stated another way, Alito said the plaintiffs’ consitutional rights were not violated because the warrant application authorized a search of their persons. Once again, he sided with the government in a case that wasn’t even close.

If you really want insight into Alito’s philosophy, look at the Fourth Amendment cases in which he ruled. He takes a very dim view of the Fourth. The same can be said with respect to his Fifth and Sixth Amendment cases. His governing philosophy seems to be that the government can do what it wants.

It’s funny, but libertarians just don’t seem to care about the rights of the criminally accused. I have never understood that.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"But the bottom line is that once again, Alito sided with the government over the individual. "
Bullshit. By siding with spousal notification, he simply recognizes that the rights of the mother do not trump all other rights of all other interested parties, in this case, another individual (not the government). You may think the mother’s rights trump all others but that’s another argument. Of course you, MK, and your liberal ilk, couldn’t give a rat’s ass about any rights of the unborn. Your hypocrisy, however, is expected.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Bullshit. By siding with spousal notification, he simply recognizes that the rights of the mother do not trump all other rights of all other interested parties, in this case, another individual (not the government). You may think the mother’s rights trump all others but that’s another argument. Of course you, MK, and your liberal ilk, couldn’t give a rat’s ass about any rights of the unborn. Your hypocrisy, however, is expected
There is no "right to notification." Tell me, wise one, what court has held that there is a constitutional right on the part of a spouse to be notified that his wife intends to abort?

Same thing when it comes to the unborn. I am sorry to tell you this, but because they are not people, the unborn do not have rights either. That may make you upset. That may make you mad. But that’s the way it is. I find it hilarious that conservatives, who claim to be strict constructionists, claim that the constitution somewhere sets out rights for fetuses. Why don’t you tell me which part of the constitution does that? Worse yet, these are the same conservatives who argue that non-citizens, i.e., living human beings, have no constitutional rights by virture of their non-citizenship. In other words, for conservatives, persons who haven’t been born yet have more rights than persons who have been born. Talk about hypocrisy.

If the government has the authority to prohibit a woman from having an abortion, then it follows that it has the authority to force a woman to have an abortion. This is where conservatives want to take us. Sorry if I don’t want to go along.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
We have no real idea what Alito will really do now that he is in. He can do anything he wants.


We just saw John Roberts claim to be a strict constitutionalist who was not going to be an activist judge who rewrote the constitution. One of HIS first cases was Gonzalas vs Oregon. He voted to overturn two ballot proposals by the people of Oregon and to give the power regulate the medicines a Doctor may prescribes to his patients to Washington bureaucrats in cases where the result of the proscribed use of those medications could be terminal.


How much more activist can a judge get? Where is that in the constitution?


We now know that Judge Roberts has no principals, only his Catholic faith. Those looking for a strict constitutionalists were suckered.


Let us pray Alito is better. Somehow when it comes to the original founders original intent to reign in the natural tendency of power to accumulate in the executive branch, I suspect we will find him to be an activist as well.

 
Written By: cindy
URL: http://
You are an ardent Bush supporter
Wrong as usual.
I support him to the extent that he’s CORRECT.

I’ll let the rest of the wolves rip you up. I’m neither inclined nor required to give you the education in reality you so obviously lack, today.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
That notification infringed on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion because it placed an undue burden on the exercise of the right.
Baloney, mk. This issue has been beaten to death in this very blog. The notification requirement had several exemptions to it, and doctors weren’t even required to verify that notification had taken place. That’s hardly an "undue burden".
That may make you mad. But that’s the way it is. I find it hilarious that conservatives, who claim to be strict constructionists, claim that the constitution somewhere sets out rights for fetuses. Why don’t you tell me which part of the constitution does that?
Pro-life conservatives believe that fetuses are human life. Therefore, fetuses are entitled to all the rights other human beings enjoy. You can disagree with that, but your claim that the constitution must somehow specify that fetuses have rights in order to validate pro-lifers’ claims is ridiculous.
Worse yet, these are the same conservatives who argue that non-citizens, i.e., living human beings, have no constitutional rights by virture of their non-citizenship.
Wrong again, and so typical of you to misrepresent your opponents’ position. Conservatives argue that illegal aliens have no constitutional rights. NOT because they aren’t citizens, but because they have no legal status in the country.


You’re getting more and more desperate with each posting, mk.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
"If the government has the authority to prohibit a woman from having an abortion, then it follows that it has the authority to force a woman to have an abortion."
Everytime I think you’ve said the dumbest thing you could possibly say, you top it.

Does it therefore follow that the government has the authority to make me drive without a seat belt while drinking beer and speeding on the wrong side of the freeway?
"I am sorry to tell you this..."
Yes, your grief is palpable.
"There is no "right to notification." Tell me, wise one, what court has held that there is a constitutional right on the part of a spouse to be notified that his wife intends to abort?"
I never said such a right exists. But I wonder what the court would say if I decided to take my children and move to a foreign country without my wife’s knowledge. Should she have any interest in what I decided to do with my children? I know all this hinges on whether or not you think a fetus is a person, so you can spare me the answer.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Cindy, give me a break. The position against the Oregon law was argued from the perspective of the federal government’s authority to regulate narcotics. Argue against that if you’d like, but spare the claim that Robert’s was somehow activist.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Mkultra,

Just for the record, are you of the belief that abortion is always okay while the dealth penalty is always not (sitting President excluded of course)?

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
It’s funny. When I first hear a critic make a charge against a Bush nominee, I think to myself "That sounds bad." So I make a point to pay attention to further discussions on the issue.

Without fail, I eventually learn that the ruling in question has not been decided as a matter of personal preference by the judge (as foes argue), but on particular merits specific to the case. The result may not be ideal, but the application of the law has worked out that way. If a different result is desired, the law should be changed. Any who argue for results-based rulings show a lack of respect for the checks and balances of our constitutional system.

Opponents leap on such anecdotal situations (ignoring the great bulk of the rest of the cases decided by the judge) and use the unfortunate results to paint the nominee as some kind of monster.

This is pure politics. MK (and Schumer, and Leahy, and Kennedy) lose credibility with such tactics.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
Jon;

Re: Your update;

Yes, it holds up better than you give yourself credit for. Except for what appears to me the feeling on the left that the exremist tactics are starting to catch up with them, the Democrats would have forced the Nuclear opinion... you’d have gotten 100%.

Now, for the $10,000, the car, and the vacation, give us the scenario for the next nominee. Will they go further toward Guano City, or will a turnaround happen, given the guano ain’t workin’?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
No - but history will prove that the Dems were right, unless, of course, like Bithead, you see the Bill of Rights as an impediment.

I understand Alito’s first order of business will be to issue a judicial order sending MK to the re-education camps...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
MK - If the unborn have no rights why was Scott Peterson convicted of murder of his unborn son. You can’t murder a non-person, right?
I guess the thinking is he’s a person if the mother wants him, but he’s not a person if she doesn’t?

Just a point on one of those issues where you obviously want to protect us from a possible Alito ruling.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Just as I enjoyed Kennedy’s rant on the Senate floor yesterday, it is good to read the likes of MK spouting off paranoid delusions as if they were universally irrefutable fact.

I doubt that it has occured to them that the best thing the Bush Admin can do is not only demand that they have all their rights (especially the first), but give them a platform upon which they can claim those rights denied, among other things. They themselves, by their spoken and written words give the best reasons why they should not be in power.

Bithead - think Janice Rogers Brown or Pricilla Owens... Dems will be ranting from the sewers under Guano City. They, like MK are blind - they’ve been swimming in their idealogical shit for so long they think it smells like lilacs or popcorn - and can’t understand why middle america refuses to join them.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Baloney, mk. This issue has been beaten to death in this very blog. The notification requirement had several exemptions to it, and doctors weren’t even required to verify that notification had taken place. That’s hardly an "undue burden".
Sorry - but the Supreme Court said otherwise. And the plurality decision - the lead decision in the case - was signed by three Republican appointees.
Pro-life conservatives believe that fetuses are human life. Therefore, fetuses are entitled to all the rights other human beings enjoy. You can disagree with that, but your claim that the constitution must somehow specify that fetuses have rights in order to validate pro-lifers’ claims is ridiculous
Did you read this before you posted it? Pro-lifers believe something, therefore it must be true. Sorry buddy, but that’s not how things work in a constitutional system.

To have a right to something in our society, a legal right that is, the right must be enshrined in law.

The pro-lifers argument is that a fetus has legal rights in the same way that an adult woman has legal rights. An adult woman’s rights are enshrined in the constitution. In both the federal and state constitutions. Where are a fetus’s rights enshrined?

Do I really have to explain this?
Wrong again, and so typical of you to misrepresent your opponents’ position. Conservatives argue that illegal aliens have no constitutional rights. NOT because they aren’t citizens, but because they have no legal status in the country.
And they have no legal status in this country because .... they aren’t citizens. Your answer merely begs the question. Again, I ask the same question: Where does the constitution recognize the legal status of the fetus? Where? Answer the question.
I never said such a right exists. But I wonder what the court would say if I decided to take my children and move to a foreign country without my wife’s knowledge. Should she have any interest in what I decided to do with my children? I know all this hinges on whether or not you think a fetus is a person, so you can spare me the answer.
Presuming there is no existing court order, you can take your kids anywhere you want. Your wife could then file for an order from the court requiring you to make the children available to her. The order might further specify a parenting plan, i.e., schedule. If you failed to follow the order, you could be held in contempt. Not that it would make a difference. After all, you are in a foreign country. Your wife could then ask the federal government to get involved, or she could go to the country where you are and see if she had any legal remedies there. Depends on the country.

But it has nothing to do with fetuses.
[G]ive me a break. The position against the Oregon law was argued from the perspective of the federal government’s authority to regulate narcotics. Argue against that if you’d like, but spare the claim that Robert’s was somehow activist

Actually, it was quite activist. The majority concluded, quite sensibly, that the CSA was intended by Congress to regulate the illicit trade in controlled substances, but that it was not intended to alter the traditional role that a state has in regulating the practice of medicine and doctors within its borders. The dissent was activist because it was reading an intent into the act for which there was not textual evidence in the act itself, or in its legislative history.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Just for the record, are you of the belief that abortion is always okay while the dealth penalty is always not (sitting President excluded of course)?
Good question. I am always against the death penalty, even for Bush. But I do believe that Roe got it about right.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Opponents leap on such anecdotal situations (ignoring the great bulk of the rest of the cases decided by the judge) and use the unfortunate results to paint the nominee as some kind of monster.

This is pure politics. MK (and Schumer, and Leahy, and Kennedy) lose credibility with such tactics.
Actually, my point was quite the opposite. If you look at Alito’s jurisprudence as a whole, you see someone who almost invariably sides with the government. With a more thoughtful, less ideological jurist, you would expect to see more of a mixed bag.
MK - If the unborn have no rights why was Scott Peterson convicted of murder of his unborn son. You can’t murder a non-person, right?
I guess the thinking is he’s a person if the mother wants him, but he’s not a person if she doesn’t?
Merely invites the question of whether a fetus has constitutional rights. Doesn’t answer it. California could pass a statute that flat out says a fetus is a person. That wouldn’t answer the question either, it would merely invite it.
Bithead - think Janice Rogers Brown or Pricilla Owens... Dems will be ranting from the sewers under Guano City. They, like MK are blind - they’ve been swimming in their idealogical shit for so long they think it smells like lilacs or popcorn - and can’t understand why middle america refuses to join them.
Uh huh. Let’s see, in 1993 the right to an abortion was re-affirmed - and guess who wrote the lead opinion? Three GOP justices. But despite the fact that Kennedy and O’Connor are about as middle of the road as you can get, that wasn’t good enough for the wingers. The zealots wanted more.

Abortion continues to be legal today because of GOP nominees, not Dem nominees.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"Good question. I am always against the death penalty, even for Bush. But I do believe that Roe got it about right."
Completely unsurprising.

In addition, your technical legal answer to my question about taking my children from my wife without her consent unsurprisingly misses the point completely.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
It’s called "misdirection"
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Did you read this before you posted it? Pro-lifers believe something, therefore it must be true. Sorry buddy, but that’s not how things work in a constitutional system.
You really are stupid, you know that? I was explaining the pro-life reasoning, NOT stating that it was true.
And they have no legal status in this country because .... they aren’t citizens. Your answer merely begs the question.
You’ve sunk even further into idiocy with this statement. Illegal aliens have no legal status in this country because they entered the country illegally, NOT because they aren’t citizens. There are plenty of legal aliens in this country that have rights.
Again, I ask the same question: Where does the constitution recognize the legal status of the fetus? Where? Answer the question.
Where does the constitution say that a woman has a right to an abortion?

The answer is that the constitution does not cover all possibilities. A strict constructionist would say, "Because the constitution is silent on this issue, neither approving the issue nor barring the states from approving it, it is therefore proper for the states to decide for themselves whether to approve it."

Using your reasoning, minor children have no right, and it’s permissible to put them to death without due process, force them into slavery, even sell their body parts because the constitution doesn’t recognize their legal status.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
MK - If the unborn have no rights why was Scott Peterson convicted of murder of his unborn son. You can’t murder a non-person, right?
I guess the thinking is he’s a person if the mother wants him, but he’s not a person if she doesn’t?
Merely invites the question of whether a fetus has constitutional rights. Doesn’t answer it. California could pass a statute that flat out says a fetus is a person. That wouldn’t answer the question either, it would merely invite it.
No, MK - doesn’t "invite it" - it indicates it’s treated as a legal convenience depending on who we’re trying to put in jail for murder.
If California passed a law saying a Fetus was a person, then a Fetus would be a person in California, despite your contention that it would still be in question.

Recall
Amendment X -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Since your version of the Consititution still won’t have the words
"A fetus is not a person" plainly written anywhere in the document it will
mean that California law holds sway in California.

As to your convenient approach of deciding that a human fetus is, I don’t know, a puppy maybe, until it’s actually born...I guess you can be greatful that
someone in the past didn’t take that approach while you were waiting to hit the air for the first time.
Ultimately your answer merely indicates you understand your own hypocrisy but can’t deal with it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well Cindy and Mkultra, (not that you’ll see this) I guess you doomsdays predicitions about Alito have been dashed to the rocks in a big hurry:
New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.
How would you like your crow prepared?
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider