Go Sam Alito!

[The Real Hawkeye]

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]

+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]

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]

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]

Is the trial of Comrade Alito before the Supreme Soviet over yet?

Keep me posted.

 

[El Tejon]

Tovarish longeyes, the Democrats have broken into small groups for self-criticism. They are marching about and waving a book of Hillary Clinton quotations.

 

[Boogyman]

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]

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."

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

 

[Boogyman]

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."

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]

Gotcha.

 

[RealGun]

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]

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]

 

[Camp David]

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]

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]

[QUOTElongeyes... 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?][/QUOTE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I wasn't indicting Alito, I was indicting his questioners.

Ok...fair enough. And I agree with you.

 

[RealGun]

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]

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]

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]

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.