Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Go Sam Alito!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ArmedBear, Jan 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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."
     
  2. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    Not bad, could have been better

    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.
     
  3. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    +1 How disappointing that Alito used the language of the Statists on this topic. Stalin and FDR could have done no better.
     
  4. Alex45ACP

    Alex45ACP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    USA
    :what:

    :(
     
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Didn't have then and still don't today, in fact.
     
  6. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest

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

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,916
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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.
     
  8. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    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!
     
  9. IndianaDean

    IndianaDean Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    541
    I can over look the technicalities in his statement about the Bill of Rights. I hope he gets appointed.
     
  10. mcooper

    mcooper Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    194
    All of us know he is progun...but what of this unitarian executive mess he believes in?
     
  11. defjon

    defjon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    or the fact that he was the only judge that voted to uphold the illegal strip searching of a ten year old girl...
     
  12. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    What, precisely, could the man say to catch a break from the L&P forum?
     
  13. Kurt_M

    Kurt_M Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    131
    +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?
     
  14. BuddyOne

    BuddyOne Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Go Sam, Go

    He just doesn't sound like one of those penumbra types. He looks normal...

    Buddy
     
  15. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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.
     
  16. FireBreather01

    FireBreather01 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    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.
     
  17. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    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.
     
  18. SIOP

    SIOP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    464
    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.
     
  19. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    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.
     
  20. Hook686

    Hook686 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    646
    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.
     
  21. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,916
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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'.
     
  22. redneck2

    redneck2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    10,128
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    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.

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

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,916
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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.
     
  24. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    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.
     
  25. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,916
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    When you dictate the definition of terms, you dictate the answers. There is nothing to discuss here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page