Go Sam Alito!


PDA






ArmedBear
January 11, 2006, 03:40 PM
From the New York Times:

"I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution," Judge Alito said in response to questions from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, in the third day of the judge's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I think the Framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of the countries of the world," Judge Alito said. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The Framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans."

If you enjoyed reading about "Go Sam Alito!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DigitalWarrior
January 11, 2006, 04:43 PM
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to show Americans that their rights that were recognized by their government, in spite of the fact that they were recognizedpractically nowhere else in the world at the time.

You cannot give someone a right. It is already theirs.

The Real Hawkeye
January 11, 2006, 05:41 PM
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to show Americans that their rights that were recognized by their government, in spite of the fact that they were recognizedpractically nowhere else in the world at the time.

You cannot give someone a right. It is already theirs.+1 How disappointing that Alito used the language of the Statists on this topic. Stalin and FDR could have done no better.

Alex45ACP
January 11, 2006, 06:12 PM
"The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time.

:what:

:(

Standing Wolf
January 11, 2006, 07:58 PM
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time.

Didn't have then and still don't today, in fact.

xd9fan
January 11, 2006, 09:54 PM
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to show Americans that their rights that were recognized by their government, in spite of the fact that they were recognizedpractically nowhere else in the world at the time.

You cannot give someone a right. It is already theirs.


I agree I saw this exchange and thought the same thing. They cant take away what they did not give!!!

RealGun
January 11, 2006, 10:06 PM
To a great extent "give" is the right word, because many Americans effectively didnt have rights until the 14th Amendment "gave" them rights. Actually the FF didn't get it right the first time.

CAnnoneer
January 11, 2006, 10:55 PM
If anybody rolls back ridiculous gun restrictions and gets rid of unconstitutionalities like affirmative action, it would be good old Sam. Despite the hopes of the religious right, I'd bet he will not roll back abortion rights, not the least reason being he is a strong supporter of legal precedent.

I used to think Sam were a principless careerist, but his confirmation hearing changed my mind completely.

Go, Sam, go!

IndianaDean
January 11, 2006, 11:39 PM
I can over look the technicalities in his statement about the Bill of Rights. I hope he gets appointed.

mcooper
January 11, 2006, 11:50 PM
All of us know he is progun...but what of this unitarian executive mess he believes in?

defjon
January 11, 2006, 11:55 PM
or the fact that he was the only judge that voted to uphold the illegal strip searching of a ten year old girl...

Don Gwinn
January 11, 2006, 11:58 PM
What, precisely, could the man say to catch a break from the L&P forum?

Kurt_M
January 12, 2006, 12:04 AM
What, precisely, could the man say to catch a break from the L&P forum?

+1. You all are argueing semantics here. THE MAN PLAINLY STATED HE BELIEVES THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. What more do you want?

BuddyOne
January 12, 2006, 12:08 AM
He just doesn't sound like one of those penumbra types. He looks normal...

Buddy

beerslurpy
January 12, 2006, 12:09 AM
I didnt have any problem with his testimony. It was a good break from Roberts' "watch how skillfully I can dodge your question, senator kennedy! Isnt this entertaining!"

He clearly isnt afraid of guns, beleives in the bill of rights, recognizes that it guarantees rights not normally recognized elsewhere and is aware of the origins and history of the constitition. I wouldnt be surprised if he knew what natural law is.

I was driving down the road to get lunch when I heard the Kennedy/Specter fight about the subpoenas. Kennedy threatened to obstruct the hearings and was basically told to shut up.

FireBreather01
January 12, 2006, 12:11 AM
or the fact that he was the only judge that voted to uphold the illegal strip searching of a ten year old girl...

Using reasoning that in the context of the case he was deciding (and BTW the girl was searched by a female police officer, lest that assertion gets left out) his reasoning was that to make it illegal to search/strip search a child it would clearly entice drug dealers to use kids as their couriers as the police would be forbidden to ever conduct a proper search of a child if he were to rule otherwise. Thus, the precedent of allowing such searches, while distasteful at first blush, would actually serve to protect hundreds, if not many, many more, children from being victimized and used by drug dealers.

I agree with his decision and reasoning in this case.

Manedwolf
January 12, 2006, 12:17 AM
From the New York Times:

"I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution," Judge Alito said in response to questions from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, in the third day of the judge's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I think the Framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of the countries of the world," Judge Alito said. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The Framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans."

That's be a nice statement if it wasn't totally coached and rehearsed, if Alito didn't have a history of legislating from the bench instead of what he would be expected to do, just interpret the constitution...

Both sides can have "activist judges", and he sure as hell is one. He's dangerously pro-corporate vs. rights of citizens (you just try to stand against a fortune-500 legal team for defective-product wrongful death), and so saying he's "all good" just because of one issue he may or may not legislate on is, to me, like saying that the contents of a dark bottle are safe to drink just because you like the label design.

SIOP
January 12, 2006, 12:19 AM
All of us know he is progun...but what of this unitarian executive mess he believes in?

Exactly what did he say that makes you believe he is pro-gun? Save the machine-gun argument, he said in that decision that the government has the right to regulate machine-guns. He disagreed with the majority only over a technicality regarding the commerce clause in the Constitution. I have seen or read nothing else that indicates he believes in an unrestricted individual right to keep and bear arms.

Manedwolf
January 12, 2006, 12:21 AM
+1. You all are argueing semantics here. THE MAN PLAINLY STATED HE BELIEVES THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. What more do you want?

A bona fide statement that Americans have an implicit right of privacy? Otherwise everyone's fair game for "sneak and peek" taken to extremes we can't even dream of.

Hook686
January 12, 2006, 12:24 AM
From the New York Times:

"I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution," Judge Alito said in response to questions from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma,... "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. ..."

Nor was the statement of these rights to extend to those citizens in other countries ... they were an American statement, promise and pledge. I wonder at one fraction of this great nation setting forth to inflict, by force of arms, one sectors opinion of those rights.

RealGun
January 12, 2006, 08:43 AM
or the fact that he was the only judge that voted to uphold the illegal strip searching of a ten year old girl...

It sounds worse than it was, and that's why many want to focus on it. The 10 year old along with another woman was asked to remove her shirt in a private area by a female officer. Oh, how awful! :rolleyes:

The officers were authorized to search anyone on the premises, since it was known that drugs were likely hidden on innocent looking bystanders. The question was whether the warrant authorized search of everyone present, whether or not direct involvement was apparent or reasonably suspected.

Those who keep bringing up these questions haven't heard or don't want to consider the excellent answers. The Dems are getting desperate to find some excuse to vote against Alito, whose performance, patience, and candor has been to a higher standard than Roberts'.

redneck2
January 12, 2006, 08:54 AM
What, precisely, could the man say to catch a break from the L&P forum?

It's like talking to my ex-wife. No matter what you do, it's wrong. If they don't allow the search, then he's letting drug dealers victimize the kids. If they do the search, then cops instantly turn into government sponsored child molestors.

or the fact that he was the only judge that voted to uphold the illegal strip searching of a ten year old girl...

ok, so all the internet warriors here have the right answer. Wondering what it is???

RealGun
January 12, 2006, 09:02 AM
All of us know he is progun...but what of this unitarian executive mess he believes in?

I heard the whole thing and recall that he only addressed the legal basis of it. At no time did he inject any personal opinion about this concept or any other beyond the scope of jurisprudence. He couldn't be any more careful or humbly confident in the scope of his role.

The Real Hawkeye
January 12, 2006, 11:38 AM
To a great extent "give" is the right word, because many Americans effectively didnt have rights until the 14th Amendment "gave" them rights. Actually the FF didn't get it right the first time.Governments can ignore rights, governments can uphold rights, governments can recognize rights, and governments can violate rights. Governments cannot give rights, nor can they take them away. Any statement to the contrary would be a nonsequitur, since a right is something which one ought legally to be at liberty to do. When one is not legally at liberty to do what it is his right to do, that means only that the right to do it is being violated, not that it has been taken away. While a liberty, i.e., the legal non-hindrance to act upon a right, can be taken away by governments (though this would constitute an injustice, authorizing corrective action by the people), rights never can.

For example, the Nazis violated the rights of their Jewish citizens to continue living. If, by virtue of the fact that their government didn't recognize their right to life, the Jews of Nazi Germany didn't possess said right (as you would apparently have it), then one could not correctly state that their right to life was ever actually violated by the Nazis. A government cannot violate a right which doesn't exist. Are you willing to say that the right to life of the Jews of Nazi Germany was not violated? You must say that, however, in order for you to stand by your above quoted statement, since, according to you, our rights only exist during periods in which our government says they do.

RealGun
January 12, 2006, 11:58 AM
Governments can ignore rights, governments can uphold rights, governments can recognize rights, and governments can violate rights. Governments cannot give rights, nor can they take them away. Any statement to the contrary would be a nonsequitur, since a right is something which one ought legally to be at liberty to do. When one is not legally at liberty to do what it is his right to do, that means only that the right to do it is being violated, not that it has been taken away. While a liberty, i.e., the legal non-hindrance to act upon a right, can be taken away by governments (though this would constitute an injustice, authorizing corrective action by the people), rights never can.

For example, the Nazis violated the rights of their Jewish citizens to continue living. If, by virtue of the fact that their government didn't recognize their right to life, the Jews of Nazi Germany didn't possess said right (as you would apparently have it), then one could not correctly state that their right to life was ever actually violated by the Nazis. A government cannot violate a right which doesn't exist. Are you willing to say that the right to life of the Jews of Nazi Germany was not violated? You must say that, however, in order for you to stand by your above quoted statement, since, according to you, our rights only exist during periods in which our government says they do.

When you dictate the definition of terms, you dictate the answers. There is nothing to discuss here.

The Real Hawkeye
January 12, 2006, 12:00 PM
When you dictate the definition of terms, you dictate the answers. There is nothing to discuss here.You are at liberty to argue, if you like, that black means orange, and that up means sideways.

Since you apparently are asserting that my understanding of the meaning of certain words is incorrect, please explain to us what exactly has occurred when a government violates one's rights. Is that even possible in accordance with your world view?

xd9fan
January 12, 2006, 01:07 PM
+1. You all are argueing semantics here. THE MAN PLAINLY STATED HE BELIEVES THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. What more do you want?


Talk is very cheap in Washington. These nine in black Have WAAAAY to much power because the Congress is chicken ***** to check the SCOTUS' errors in past cases. I think this is why true conservatives (the ones left that finally came out of the closet) where very ticked with Bush and his Miers choice. Its not enough to just say something......actions(ruling in past cases) are what we gun owners and Bill of Rights freaks want to see. If a person has fought the good fight and went through the arrows fighting for pro-gun/pro-BofR cases....and where unafraid doing it......then I will trust them. There have been way too many nominees that say one thing (and years later as members of the SCOTUS) say and rule another way.

Im just a guy tired of these dorks cutting away at our Rights and traditions and doing it in the name of "fairness" and "social justice"

High Standards.....Yes
Semantics.......NO

ArmedBear
January 12, 2006, 01:38 PM
A bona fide statement that Americans have an implicit right of privacy? Otherwise everyone's fair game for "sneak and peek" taken to extremes we can't even dream of.

It's important to remember that he would be only one justice. And I'll take a Bill of Rights Originalist over an "emanations and penumbras" we'll just make it up as we go along judge any day of the week.

Why would someone who states that he believes in the strict application of the Bill of Rights including the 4th Amendment as originally intended, need to make a wishy-washy statement about an "implicit right of privacy"?

See, "privacy" doesn't mean much, or it means whatever you want it to mean. That's the problem with the "living document" doctrine. The 4th Amendment DOES have explicit meaning. Read all about it at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Almost everything we do now happens "in public". Our communications go out over a web of IP routers or over the airwaves. Our purchases often happen via similar pathways, using credit cards that track where we bought something (for our own protection, generally). My property deed and marriage license are recorded publically, too.

That's why we need SPECIFIC protections, not some "implicit right" whose meaning can be conveniently reinterpreted by statist judges.

ArmedBear
January 12, 2006, 01:43 PM
That's be a nice statement if it wasn't totally coached and rehearsed, if Alito didn't have a history of legislating from the bench instead of what he would be expected to do, just interpret the constitution...


Strange... I haven't seen examples of such a history. I have, however, seen a lot of flat-out lies about Alito, and point-by-point corrections of those lies, with citations.

Everything a good judge does is "rehearsed" in that it is carefully and painstakingly considered. And frankly, Alito is a good deal smarter than anyone, in the political arena, who would coach him.

While I am all for questioning everything that goes on in government, and I trust no one in politics, it's important for a thinking person to avoid smoking what Howard Dean is smoking.

longeyes
January 12, 2006, 02:14 PM
Is the trial of Comrade Alito before the Supreme Soviet over yet?

Keep me posted.

El Tejon
January 13, 2006, 02:10 PM
Tovarish longeyes, the Democrats have broken into small groups for self-criticism. They are marching about and waving a book of Hillary Clinton quotations.:D

Boogyman
January 13, 2006, 02:36 PM
I think we all agree that Alito is a conservative judge. Since he would be replacing a moderate judge, this would cause the balance of the Supreme Court to shift to the right.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Just look what's going on in the republican-controlled House and Senate. Right-wingers may get their way on issues such as Roe v. Wade, but at the cost of balance and integrity in the Supreme Court. Checks and balances, my friends, is what makes the system work.

El Tejon
January 13, 2006, 02:40 PM
So, when the Left controls the Supreme Court, it is called "balance" and when the Right will control the Supreme Court it is called some sort of lack of "balance and integrity.":confused:

I'm looking forward to the confirmation of Justice Luttig.:)

Boogyman
January 13, 2006, 02:52 PM
So, when the Left controls the Supreme Court, it is called "balance" and when the Right will control the Supreme Court it is called some sort of lack of "balance and integrity.":confused:

I'm looking forward to the confirmation of Justice Luttig.:)

I knew I should have clarified.
I only mentioned the republican-controlled House and Senate being corrupt because that is the current example. When the Democrats had control in the early 90's the same thing happened.

El Tejon
January 13, 2006, 02:58 PM
Gotcha.

RealGun
January 13, 2006, 03:02 PM
Is the trial of Comrade Alito before the Supreme Soviet over yet?

Keep me posted.

They have asked for a week's delay to give them more time to discredit a good man and make it look like it was a GOP slam dunk.

Father Knows Best
January 13, 2006, 03:04 PM
1. Don't let anything said by Alito in his confirmation hearing sway your opinion one way or another. Everything he said was meticulously planned to accomplish one thing and one thing only -- getting him comfirmed. It revealed nothing about who he is or what kind of justice he will be.

2. Alito is not our friend. He may be a conservative, but he's no libertarian. I am just as scared of statist conservatives as I am of statist liberals.

swampsniper
January 13, 2006, 03:08 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/swampotter/OWNEDANIM.gif

Camp David
January 13, 2006, 03:19 PM
Is the trial of Comrade Alito before the Supreme Soviet over yet?

longeyes... please clarify your reference? I thought Judge Alito distinquished himself in hearings. He answered over 800 questions put to him over three days (18 hours) of testimony. He answered all. Insofar as his politics (you seem to accuse him of socialist/communist tendancies by your comment) why? Just curious?

I was disappointed by Kennedy's absurd comments; reading someone else's words and attributing them to Judge Alito's belief! This was bottom barrel politics and once again Kennedy should be censored for such slurs. Of course, Kennedy should be arrested for murder but that's neither here nor there...

I think Judge Alito will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice; between he and Justice Roberts, they will likely revisit some wrongly decided judicial opinions shortly and reverse them. Thank God.

RealGun
January 13, 2006, 03:23 PM
Checks and balances, my friends, is what makes the system work.

Others would say that strict, nonselective interpretation and not overreaching would make the system work. Very evenly, indeed predictably split decisions should be rare. Those are too much like political positions rather than legal interpretations.

Now, since all that is an imperfect process, when you win elections, you get to nominate judges. When at the same time, your party dominates the Senate, your nominees tend to get confirmed.

longeyes
January 13, 2006, 03:33 PM
I always wanted to see a Soviet trial. Now I have.

I wasn't indicting Alito, I was indicting his questioners. You know the ones I'm talking about. It is good for Americans to get a taste of what tyranny looks like.

longeyes
January 13, 2006, 03:36 PM
I was disappointed by Kennedy's absurd comments; reading someone else's words and attributing them to Judge Alito's belief! This was bottom barrel politics and once again Kennedy should be censored for such slurs. Of course, Kennedy should be arrested for murder but that's neither here nor there...

If Kennedy's smart he will slip away quietly and avoid scrutiny. He's become not only an embarrassment but a cautionary tale worthy of a medieval chapbook.

RealGun
January 13, 2006, 03:40 PM
I think Judge Alito will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice; between he and Justice Roberts, they will likely revisit some wrongly decided judicial opinions shortly and reverse them. Thank God.

There is an implication here that you are biased in favor of "reversing" opinions. I would just like to add that I agree with your assessment of Alito, even though it wouldn't please me to see certain rulings overturned, even if I might accept the correctness of it. I liked him better than Roberts as far as revealing how he thinks and operates. Both are superstars, so I think Bush has made outstanding nominations, overlooking the flap about Harriet Myers.

Coronach
January 13, 2006, 03:49 PM
I have, unfortunately, not been able to watch too much of the confirmation process. The snippets I have seen have been encouraging. For instance, Ted Kennedy looked like he was about to blow a gasket, and Diane Fienstein looked like someone just used an AK-47 to kill a kitten.

Such things are not always good indicators, since the world is more complex than 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but I do view this as a positive sign.

Mike ;)

longeyes
January 13, 2006, 03:54 PM
Ted Kennedy looked like he was about to blow a gasket

Yeah, but when he blows he may take the country with him!

Camp David
January 13, 2006, 04:03 PM
I wasn't indicting Alito, I was indicting his questioners. Ok...fair enough. And I agree with you.

RealGun
January 13, 2006, 04:17 PM
Kennedy was such an embarrassment to the whole country, reasonable substance on its face but horrible form, but at least Kerry wasn't on this committee. He is too contentious, seriously mean. Durbin was uncharacteristically a puppy dog. Biden should quit and start a talk show.

swampsniper
January 13, 2006, 04:47 PM
Doesn't Al Franken have all the bases covered?:)
Seriously, to all you Democrat Brothers, what else can you expect? I'm 63, and can't remember when I was not compelled to fight for my Second Amendment Rights.
I was never interested in abortion, the highest points in my life were brand new kids in the family.
I never was celibate, before, or after, my 26 year marriage, but, had a new life resulted from my activity, oh, well, set another place at the table. Rice is cheap, and squirrels are plentiful, and hugs come easy!
Gay sex? Doesn't interest me, other than to wonder if the folks involved have any idea just how ridiculous they must look, while engaging in it. Just do it, somewhere that I don't see it, and don't tell me it is "normal".
If the defining issues of the Democrat party must be avoiding the responsibilities inherent in the sex act, either through abortion, or support of nonproductive, homosexual sex, and attempting to steal away my inalianable rights, I want no part of it
I was never pulled to the right, I was pushed toward it, by the left.

Boogyman
January 13, 2006, 05:08 PM
Others would say that strict, nonselective interpretation and not overreaching would make the system work. Very evenly, indeed predictably split decisions should be rare. Those are too much like political positions rather than legal interpretations.

And a good balance in the court should check "overreaching".

Now, since all that is an imperfect process, when you win elections, you get to nominate judges. When at the same time, your party dominates the Senate, your nominees tend to get confirmed.

Which can corrupt the senate and unbalance the court.

In my opinion, a 3-party system (Dems, Gops, and Indy's) with as close to 33% for each party would be ideal. I know, dream on, right?

ArmedBear
January 13, 2006, 05:50 PM
There is an implication here that you are biased in favor of "reversing" opinions. I would just like to add that I agree with your assessment of Alito, even though it wouldn't please me to see certain rulings overturned, even if I might accept the correctness of it. I liked him better than Roberts as far as revealing how he thinks and operates. Both are superstars, so I think Bush has made outstanding nominations, overlooking the flap about Harriet Myers.

I'd like to see two major opinions of 2005 reversed, personally. The Commerce Clause must be restored to some semblance of meaning, and Eminent Domain was allowed to provide for needed public facilities, not to steal land for private profit.

And the 10 Commandments decision should be clarified. I don't give a rat's ass what the outcome is, really, but to have random standards perpetuates an expensive and divisive court fight, in my own city and many others.

ArmedBear
January 13, 2006, 05:58 PM
1. Don't let anything said by Alito in his confirmation hearing sway your opinion one way or another. Everything he said was meticulously planned to accomplish one thing and one thing only -- getting him comfirmed. It revealed nothing about who he is or what kind of justice he will be.

2. Alito is not our friend. He may be a conservative, but he's no libertarian. I am just as scared of statist conservatives as I am of statist liberals.

I'm not particularly scared of principled justices who apply the Bill of Rights as intended. If one applies these clear limits on government power as they were intended to be applied, his statist leanings matter far less than the statist convictions of a "liberal" who believes that the Court exists to bend the Constitution to fit the latest statist trends.

I'd prefer a hard-core libertarian, but you know, Ms. Ginsburg, late of the ACLU, is a hard-core statist, despite her believing that she is a civil libertarian.

Conservatism can work in this case because this country was founded on libertarian principles. Sticking to these principles is a "conservative" position in America, but the outcome is generally far better than the outcome when these principles are abandoned, even in the name of "freedom."

For the record, I'm not religious, I'm pro-choice, I'm a member of the Libertarian Party, I do not support gay marriage because, by itself, it defies logic -- I support getting government completely out of the interpersonal relationship business. I believe that there is no social problem that isn't worsened by government "fixing" it.

CAnnoneer
January 13, 2006, 10:21 PM
I always wanted to see a Soviet trial. Now I have.


+1

Instead of State Accuser Vyshinski, we have US Judiciary Committee Senator Kennedy.

"Citizen Alito, since when have you been a German, Italian, British, and Japanese spy?"

"Comrade, respectfully, I am not a spy."

"Citizen Alito, I am not your comrade, you lying scum! I ask again, since when have you been a German, Italian, British, and Japanese spy?"

<iterate ad nauseum>

"It is the finding of this court that you, Citizen Alito, a.k.a. lying scum, are indeed a secret German, Italian, British, and Japanese spy. Execution at 5."

North Texan
January 13, 2006, 11:08 PM
All this boils down to is one giant political dog and pony show with the extremes on one side pointing at the extremes on the other. I have no doubt that any candidate for the SCOTUS is qualified, however, both sides prefer "activist" judges that will be active for their side.

I do agree with the comments posted by the original poster. I prefer SCOTUS look at our laws and defer to our previous decisions. Each country has its own identity and its own standards, and OUR standards should have precedent over the standards of others when interpreting OUR laws.

RealGun
January 14, 2006, 07:41 AM
Which can corrupt the senate and unbalance the court.

In my opinion, a 3-party system (Dems, Gops, and Indy's) with as close to 33% for each party would be ideal. I know, dream on, right?

I am not sure of the point you intend to make, but I can say that the objective of "stacking" the Court for whatever purpose is wrong. The sole exception would be the effort to have the Constitution faithfully interpreted, no more, no less, defer to the States or Congress if the issue is not reasonably associated with the principles already expressed.

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 10:49 AM
John Roberts and Sam Alito -- glad I voted for Bush !

If Kerry had won, two more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs would be nominated.

swampsniper
January 14, 2006, 11:21 AM
John Roberts and Sam Alito -- glad I voted for Bush !

If Kerry had won, two more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs would be nominated.
AMEN!!

CAnnoneer
January 14, 2006, 11:54 AM
John Roberts and Sam Alito -- glad I voted for Bush !
If Kerry had won, two more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs would be nominated.

Methinks under a Republican congress, the nominator is irrelevant. They could have voted down any leftist that Kerry might have put up. Gridlock is important for checks and balances.

RealGun
January 14, 2006, 12:39 PM
Methinks under a Republican congress, the nominator is irrelevant. They could have voted down any leftist that Kerry might have put up. Gridlock is important for checks and balances.

Don't you think that open minded treatment of Bader-Ginsburg by GOP Senators draws a stark contrast with the bitter partisanship of the Democrats? There was one important factor in that they were voting for a woman, but who can say how much difference that made or should have made?

You are correct IMHO, but the GOP did actually pass one of the more liberal nominees, and they generally voted for her confirmation, likely knowing full well what might result. Actually, I doubt that will happen again, everyone jockeying for position on the abortion issue, the status quo in question with O'Connor's retirement. I think it is sad that the world turns on that question. I can say in hindsight that Pandora's Box should never have been opened. Actually I said that in the beginning, older phart that I am.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 12:47 PM
glad I voted for Bush !

I find it incomprehensible that anyone can still say that after all the scandals, lying, corruption, destruction, death and misery. This country is in the worst mess I can remember in 54 years. Oh, right, it's all the Democrats fault. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 01:18 PM
Methinks under a Republican congress, the nominator is irrelevant. They could have voted down any leftist that Kerry might have put up. Gridlock is important for checks and balances.

Or maybe the two Court vacancies would have appeared in 2007 instead of 2005/6, and if the Dems take back control of the Senate in the 2006 elections, more Ginsbergs !

Even if Kerry would have been forced to appoint a centrist, and I don't believe that, I still think we're much better off with Roberts and Alito.

I find it incomprehensible that anyone can still say that after all the scandals, lying, corruption, destruction, death and misery. This country is in the worst mess I can remember in 54 years.

I think you’re confusing the picture painted by the liberal media with reality.

And, this is the first administration in my recollection that gun control laws have been reduced. Bush has been the best president in the last 100 years for RKBA.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 01:27 PM
I think you’re confusing the picture painted by the liberal media with reality.


Here we go with the "liberal media" :barf: again.

Most of the big media corporations are owned by rich REPUBLICANS.

Some people just can't handle the truth, and the truth is this:

We have a REPUBLICAN Whitehouse, a REPUBLICAN Congress, a REPUBLICAN Senate, and a REPUBLICAN media. Yet there are still those who stubbornly try to blame everything on the Democrats. Get REAL.

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 01:31 PM
Most of the big media corporations are owned by rich REPUBLICANS.

Immaterial. The editorial staff is liberal. The way this works is the editors and reporters write the news, not the owners.

RealGun
January 14, 2006, 01:31 PM
I find it incomprehensible that anyone can still say that after all the scandals, lying, corruption, destruction, death and misery. This country is in the worst mess I can remember in 54 years. Oh, right, it's all the Democrats fault. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Perhaps you will feel better by being most concerned about what YOU think.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 01:37 PM
And, this is the first administration in my recollection that gun control laws have been reduced. Bush has been the best president in the last 100 years for RKBA.

Huh? What about the ban on importation of parts kits that just went into effect as of 1/1/06?
The only thing that Bush did was allow the assault weapon clause to expire, which doesn't mean squat anyway, it only restricted flash-hiders and bayonet lugs, which could still be obtained easily from aftermarket sources, along with hi-cap mags.
So he basically did NOTHING to "reduce" gun laws.

So WHY is he the "best" president in 100 years? Even if he was some kind of pro-gun "hero", which he isn't, what about all the other messes he's gotten us into? Well gee, Olly...:what: :eek:

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 01:40 PM
Immaterial. The editorial staff is liberal. The way this works is the editors and reporters write the news, not the owners.

Owners can fire editors and reporters. Oh, that's "immaterial".

Immaterial? Why, just because you say so? I present facts and your counter-point is just to say it's "immaterial"? Come on, is that all you got? :neener:

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 01:42 PM
Perhaps you will feel better by being most concerned about what YOU think.

Of course I'm most concerned about what I think. You are not?

swampsniper
January 14, 2006, 01:45 PM
Imagine waking up some morning to hear that Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer has just been nominated as Attorney General. The Republicans don't even have anyone that scary.

publius
January 14, 2006, 01:46 PM
Wasn't this thread about Machine Gun Sammy?

Over in another Alito thread, I wonder where he stands on Lopez and machine guns (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2161293#post2161293).

gfen
January 14, 2006, 01:47 PM
Immaterial. The editorial staff is liberal. The way this works is the editors and reporters write the news, not the owners.

Not quite...

Reporters tend to lean towards as the left, liberal view point; however, the edtiors of most major news services tend to be more aligned with rightwing, conservative viewpoints.

Reporters write the news, editors allow it out. No matter how biased it may start, the editor has had his go at it too.

I read lots of left and libertarian sources for news, and they do often bring up and report on the many problems of the current USA leadership. The mainstream media does NOT. This liberal bias nonsense hasn't been in effect since hardcore, high volume, extreme right radio and TV personalities started to crawl out of the woodwork through Clinton's presidency and begin with their shrill attacks.

Of course, in return the leftist shills answered in kind.

And, well, here we are.

Anyways, carry on with the arguments and bashing, nothing'll get accomplished, but you'll feel like it did.

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 01:58 PM
Owners can fire editors and reporters. Oh, that's "immaterial".
Do you have any examples where a right-wing owner fired a reporter for having a different viewpoint ?

Immaterial? Why, just because you say so? I present facts and your counter-point is just to say it's "immaterial"? Come on, is that all you got?

Is that all I got ? I just demolished your claim that because the owners might be more right-wing that the news is more right wing. By the way, is Ted Turner right wing ?

So he basically did NOTHING to "reduce" gun laws.

Here's a quote from Bartholomew Roberts in a different thread:


Why The Republicans Have Earned My Vote On Gun Rights
PRO:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

7. Signs bill arming airline pilots. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes. Doesn't repeal any Executive Orders relating to guns instituted by previous Presidents.

And here is the big one:

The Republican party has now gone to bat for us, not once, but THREE times (March, July, and September) to stop any renewal of the ban. This is a ban that polls show having the support of greater than 60% of the public. Admittedly, the public wouldn't support it if they were better informed but that is beside the point... the Republicans bucked the majority to support us.

Anybody catch the horrendous grilling the Republicans took last night? See the horrendous lies being told about the ban and the blame being piled on the Republicans? It would be hard to miss since it was on the nightly news for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN as well as special coverage on Nightline and World News Tonight. That doesn't even count pro-ban editorials in the NYT, USA Today, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun-Herald and San Fransisco Gate as well as dozens of smaller papers.

Not only did the Republicans do this for us, they did it DURING AN ELECTION YEAR when every single House seat, 1/3 of Senate seats and the White House are up for grabs.

Forget for a moment that most of the pro-RKBA candidates running for office are Republican. Forget that two Republican Senate candidates have declared support for repealing the 1934 NFA during their campaigns. Forget that if a Republican candidate replaces all the GOA F rated Senators retiring this year, we will get 5 Senators who are rated B or better by the GOA.

The Republicans could have saved themselves a major beating in the press by simply selling us down the river. They didn't. They stood by us even when the polls showed it wasn't the popular thing to do and that does not happen too damn often in politics. The Republicans have earned my vote on gun rights.

On top of this you can add allowing the AWB to sunset, passing the gun industry protection bill, installing Bolton as our UN representative to slap down the UN on their attempted global gun grabs, and installing two Supreme Court justices who will be more faithful to the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

If you know of a president whose RKBA accomplishments exceed these (or did anything), name him and list his accomplishments.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 02:06 PM
Do you have any examples where a right-wing owner fired a reporter for having a different viewpoint ?

Yep. MSNBC's "Connected Coast to Coast" was just dropped, apparently because Ron Reagan was a bit too "liberal". Look what happened to Dan Rather. A lot of "liberal" heads were ducking after that one.
Besides just the threat of being fired is enough to influence what is reported.



I just demolished your claim that because the owners might be more right-wing that the news is more right wing.

You "demolished" my claim? How? Man, you are a real legend in your own mind. Apparently you believe that just because you say something it becomes irrefutable fact.

Bush has signed EVERY bill that's made it to his desk. Not ONE veto on all the pork that's slid through. All the bills just mentioned in your quote had mountains of pork attached to them.
Besides, who is Bartholomew Roberts? He's a moderator and he has his opinion just like the rest of us, but he's not the Library of Congress. No offense to him, but why should I believe everything he says? If you're going to quote something, try FACTS.
Compare Bush to Teddy Roosevelt... the Shrub isn't fit to shine his boots.

Now let's get back to the subject of this thread, shall we? Alito, remember?

Malone LaVeigh
January 14, 2006, 02:18 PM
No one has responded to the question about the "unitary executive" position. I found a discussion of it here. (http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1203) Apparently, Alito hasn't been so forthcoming about how far he supports the way the Bush admin has extended the power. Given the abuses we've seen in the use of executive power by this president, I think it's a fair question.

Anytime you think another power grab by Bush is a good thing, ask yourself, "How will I feel about this when Hillary is president?"

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 02:38 PM
Apparently, Alito hasn't been so forthcoming about how far he supports the way the Bush admin has extended the power. Given the abuses we've seen in the use of executive power by this president, I think it's a fair question.


Out of 800 questions, Alito answered about 700 of them with "I can't recall"
or "that's not in my recollection".
Apparently he wasn't so forthcoming about a lot of fair questions.
We have enough evasiveness in our government, we don't need it in our Supreme Court too.

RealGun
January 14, 2006, 03:07 PM
Of course I'm most concerned about what I think. You are not?

Suit yourself, but it seems to me that you would contribute more by presenting your own ideas and rationale rather than mocking what others have expressed or what you suppose they might think. Otherwise, everyone's troll antennae will be on full alert. You will either be run off or ignored.

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 06:45 PM
You "demolished" my claim? How?
Go back and read the posts. You were trying to pretend that because most of the media is owned by Republicans (your claim, unsubstantiated) that therefore the news had a right-wing bias. I pointed out that the news is written by left-wing reporters. You can’t see it when you read news articles ? For example, when a a store owner shoots a robber and the news refers to the robber as the “victim” ?

Look what happened to Dan Rather

:confused: Dan Rather was caught trying to pass off forged documents as fact. It wasn’t the mainstream media that pulled the plug on him, it was the independent Internet bloggers. CBS is still giving him awards.

You would bring up Dan Rather in a discussion of liberal bias in the media ? :rolleyes:

Bartholomew Roberts? He's a moderator and he has his opinion just like the rest of us, but he's not the Library of Congress. No offense to him, but why should I believe everything he says? If you're going to quote something, try FACTS.
Mr. Roberts is smarter than the two of us combined. He’s not listing “opinions”, he is listing FACTS.

Now let's get back to the subject of this thread, shall we? Alito, remember?
That’s what I was doing when I commented about Bush nominating Alito and Roberts. You’re one who turned this discussion about Bush. “Remember” ?

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 06:46 PM
Anytime you think another power grab by Bush is a good thing, ask yourself, "How will I feel about this when Hillary is president?"
You’re exactly right, Malone. I don’t think power grabs, by anyone in government, are a good thing. And, as you point out, it sets a really bad precedent because the next president will use it as a stepping stone. A similar example is the “free speech protest zones” established in Clinton’s administration and now continued during the Bush administration.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 06:54 PM
Suit yourself, but it seems to me that you would contribute more by presenting your own ideas and rationale rather than mocking what others have expressed or what you suppose they might think. Otherwise, everyone's troll antennae will be on full alert. You will either be run off or ignored.

These ARE my own ideas. I'm not "mocking" anyone.This is a discussion board, I'm presenting my side of an argument.
And if you wish to ignore me then do so. Please don't try to speak for "everyone". Who do you think you are?

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 08:02 PM
You were trying to pretend that because most of the media is owned by Republicans

Pretend? it's a FACT.

that therefore the news had a right-wing bias.

I never said the media had a bias one way or the other. YOU did.

I pointed out that the news is written by left-wing reporters.

And GFEN pointed the editors were right-wingers.
Besides, are you saying Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson are left-wingers?

Dan Rather was caught trying to pass off forged documents as fact.

ALLEGED forged documents. Recent evidence points to the documents being genuine.

You would bring up Dan Rather in a discussion of liberal bias in the media ?

You asked for one example of a liberal reporter being fired. I gave you two. Actually Dan Rather was "swift-boated" by Karl Rove, that shining example of the High Road.
Besides, this is a discussion about Sam Alito, remember?

Mr. Roberts is smarter than the two of us combined. He’s not listing “opinions”, he is listing FACTS.

That's your OPINION. You may admit he is smarter than you, but you know nothing of my intelligence quotient. Speak for yourself.


Look, if all you can do is accuse me of "pretending", put words in my mouth, and make assumations of my intelligence, then you are not coming up with any facts or anything even remotely convincing so give it up and get back to Alito, OK?

longeyes
January 14, 2006, 08:09 PM
Owners can fire editors and reporters. Oh, that's "immaterial".

Owners will fire leftwing editors and reporters only when those editors and reporters no longer deliver saleable and profitable product. When the consumer is no longer buying, the owners, capitalists to a man, will respond with their customary vigor. Points of view are product, nothing more, nothing less, for Big Media.

Silver Bullet
January 14, 2006, 08:29 PM
Look, if all you can do is accuse me of "pretending", put words in my mouth, and make assumations of my intelligence, then you are not coming up with any facts or anything even remotely convincing so give it up and get back to Alito, OK?
In other words, you don't have an answer to my challenge in post #70, where I asked you to name a president who has done more for RKBA than Bush.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 08:55 PM
In other words, you don't have an answer to my challenge in post #70, where I asked you to name a president who has done more for RKBA than Bush.

I DID. Post #71. TEDDY ROOSEVELT. He did more for gun rights, hunting, national parks and defense than your hero could even imagine. Is this all you have left? Are we going to argue about Teddy Roosevelt now? This is a thread about SAM ALITO, and this is the third time I have asked you to get back to subject.

As I stated before, confirming Alito would be replacing a Moderate judge with a Conservative judge, thus unbalancing the court. And if he "can't recall" anything pertaining to his past decisions, how can anyone say he is competent? Or to be trusted?
I'm sick and tired of all this evasiveness. Why doesn't he just come out and tell the truth, and if he gets the job or not, at least he can say he was up-front and forthright about everything.

Sean Hofhine
January 14, 2006, 09:41 PM
Exactly what did he say that makes you believe he is pro-gun? Save the machine-gun argument, he said in that decision that the government has the right to regulate machine-guns. He disagreed with the majority only over a technicality regarding the commerce clause in the Constitution. I have seen or read nothing else that indicates he believes in an unrestricted individual right to keep and bear arms.

If we just had a few judges in the past that could actually read, we wouldn't have the NFA or GCA '68. Alito calls this one right, and if he can read that the commmerce clause DOESN't apply in this situation, (as no interstate movement was required for the law to tke effect) maybe he could actually interpret
'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'to mean what it says. :banghead:

Art Eatman
January 14, 2006, 11:31 PM
Valium time. Nap time. Relaxation of the mind is a Good Thing. Less contentiousness soothes my nerves, also...

:), Art

yucaipa
January 15, 2006, 12:12 AM
I have been reading threads on several (some left,some right) boards and I have seen Alito characterized from one extreme to the other, but this a 1st,


how can anyone say he is competent

That is way,way out there. Not even Kennedy,Boxer or Schumer question his resume or his credentials.

Boogyman
January 15, 2006, 12:40 AM
Use the whole statement when you quote me, ok? Post #81. What I said was "And if he "can't recall" anything pertaining to his past decisions, how can anyone say that he is competent? Or to be trusted?"

It's misleading to take a few words out of a statement and present them out of context, as you are doing. My statement was meant to call attention to Alito's "selective memory". Would you hire someone who couldn't remember what he said or why he did anything? What is he hiding?

And if he TRULY can't remember all this, that would make his memory pretty darn bad, bordering on Alzhiemers. You wouldn't call someone with a really bad memory incompetent? People have been commited to nursing homes for less.

If he can't tell the truth, doesn't that call into question his ability to be forthright? And if he is unable to be forthcoming in his answers, couldn't this be construed as incompetence, since being open and honest is a core requirement for the job of Supreme Court Justice? Do you want our judges to be evasive about their reasoning?

Alito's competence seems to be unimpeachable, yet because someone chooses to challenge it doesn't make them "way, way out there." Question Authority. Challenge the Status Quo. Think for Yourself.

swampsniper
January 15, 2006, 12:58 AM
Use the whole statement when you quote me, ok? What I said was is "If he "can't recall" anything pertaining to his past decisions, how can anyone say that he is competent? Or to be trusted?"

It's misleading to take a few words out of a statement and present them out of context, as you are doing. My statement was meant to call attention to Alito's "selective memory". Would you hire someone who couldn't remember what he said or why he did anything? What is he hiding?

Alito's competence seems to be unimpeachable, yet because someone chooses to challenge it doesn't make them "way, way out there." Question Authority. Challenge the Status Quo. Think for Yourself.

If it rattles Diane Feinstein's cage, I'm for it!:evil:

publius
January 15, 2006, 07:11 AM
As I stated before, confirming Alito would be replacing a Moderate judge with a Conservative judge, thus unbalancing the court.

Unbalancing? Who said the current "balance" of viewpoints needs to be maintained for all time?

After the Kelo (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html) and Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD.html) decisions, I think the Court could stand some "unbalancing" in a conservative direction. Of course, O'Connor voted with the conservatives in those two cases, so we can only hope that Alito maintains the balance and we don't lose more ground.

On an unrelated note, where is this new evidence that Dan Blather's memos were genuine? It seemed to me that the overwhelming evidence was that proportional font spacing was possible, but extremely difficult and expensive, at the time that memo was supposedly written.

Silver Bullet
January 15, 2006, 08:48 AM
you know nothing of my intelligence quotient.
Sure I do. You gave it away when you with your assertion that the media is right-wing, even after I proved you wrong.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT. He did more for gun rights,
WHAT did Roosevelt do for gun rights ? Even if he did, you had to go back a hundred years to find a president prior to Bush that did anything for gun rights.

yucaipa
January 15, 2006, 09:33 AM
Alito's competence seems to be unimpeachable, yet because someone chooses to challenge it doesn't make them "way, way out there."

:D

I love this thread.

Boogyman
January 15, 2006, 12:34 PM
Sure I do. You gave it away when you with your assertion that the media is right-wing, even after I proved you wrong.

You didn't "prove" anything. Again, you seem to think because you said it, it's proof beyond all reproach. And again, I never said the media was right-wing. You can't even get that right.


WHAT did Roosevelt do for gun rights ? Even if he did, you had to go back a hundred years to find a president prior to Bush that did anything for gun rights.

If you want to argue about Teddy Roosevelt or any other president, start a new thread. This one is about a judge. Why can't you get that through your head?

Look, it's obvious nothing I say is going to get through to you, you are stubbornly locked in to your single-minded "mission" to either prove me wrong about SOMETHING or else you don't have the cajones to admit you are wrong yourself. So have at it, Bullwinkle, knock yourself out, I'm tired of beating a dead horse.

Boogyman
January 15, 2006, 12:42 PM
On an unrelated note, where is this new evidence that Dan Blather's memos were genuine? It seemed to me that the overwhelming evidence was that proportional font spacing was possible, but extremely difficult and expensive, at the time that memo was supposedly written.

I have to admit I don't have the names/dates at hand, but the woman reporter who originally brought the memo to Dan Rather has written a book about the incident. I saw an interview on Hardball where she talked about the document that was questioned was only a copy or facsimile of the original document, therefore the modern font spacing, etc.
Perhaps a search of MSNBC's Hardball past segments will turn something up, if I find anything more I will PM you with it.

RealGun
January 15, 2006, 12:49 PM
Anybody know of a good place to discuss Alito in an intelligent, civil, and mature manner?

Boogyman
January 15, 2006, 01:19 PM
Anybody know of a good place to discuss Alito in an intelligent, civil, and mature manner?

You mean somewhere where nobody will disagree with you?

Art Eatman
January 15, 2006, 01:22 PM
Not at THR, apparently.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Go Sam Alito!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!