Go Sam Alito!

[ArmedBear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

John Roberts and Sam Alito -- glad I voted for Bush !

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

 

[swampsniper]

John Roberts and Sam Alito -- glad I voted for Bush !

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

AMEN!!

 

[CAnnoneer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Here we go with the "liberal media" 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]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Boogyman]

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?

 

[Boogyman]

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]

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]

Wasn't this thread about Machine Gun Sammy?

Over in another Alito thread, I wonder where he stands on Lopez and machine guns.

 

[gfen]

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]

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]

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]

No one has responded to the question about the "unitary executive" position. I found a discussion of it here. 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]

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]

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]

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

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 ?

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” ?