Samuel Alito to Scotus

[Jeeper]

Don't everyone get too excited about the machine gun case. He objected on commerce clause grounds not 2nd amendment. He even stated that:

"This would not preclude adequate regulation of the private
possession of machine guns. Needless to say, the Commerce Clause
does not prevent the states from regulating machine gun
possession, as all of the jurisdictions within our circuit have
done."

He dissented in this case. The majority discussed the 2nd amend. but he did not dispute it in the dissent. I don't know if I am as excited as everyone else. Of course if he believes in limiting the Commerce Clause then there is a good chance he is pro-2nd.

 

[Waitone]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/31/75831.shtml

<snip> "I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. Last Friday, Senator Leahy and I wrote to President Bush urging him to work with us to find a consensus nominee. The President has rejected that approach.

"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.

"Justice O’Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in selecting her replacement are high.

"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.”

Thank you, President Bush. I feel much more comfortable now. I get really concerned when your opposition supports your court decisions. Perhaps you've learned a lesson also.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I'm just saying this guy is very conservative, and very much a contructionist. There will be a huge fight with him, so getting anyone better would have been just about impossible, and if anything, this guy isn't a sure thing to get in either.


Like I said, this is as good as it gets. Janice Rogers Brown was/is better - but she got her current appointment with 56 votes (IIRC) - according to GOA, she "used language from an amicus curiae brief that was submitted by Gun Owners of California to argue against Los Angeles' ban on gun shows". Like Ginsberg who's essentially an ACLU agent on the court, Brown would be the pro-gun equivalent. Too bad the Republicans play ball for rabidly leftist socialists like Ginsberg, but Democrats don't return the favor.

That is no accident - just like Souter was NO accident. Educated elites like these do not make such errors, nor do they forfeit their position and lay down for the other side for no apparent reason. Most Republicans are closet-Liberals. The like big government, they are pro-choice, they are anti-gun. It has nothing to do their label, and more to do with their backgrounds. On social and personal issues, Republican politicians, who are rich elitists who have nothing in common with the average American, and no understanding of what real American life is like, do not see things like the average American that puts them in office.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Well, it looks like the jack-slapping the conservatives put on Bush might have actually taken, for a little while at least.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Republican politicians, who are rich elitists who have nothing in common with the average American, and no understanding of what real American life is like, do not see things like the average American that puts them in office.

And Kennedy and Kerry and the rest of the liberals who would strip you of your 2A rights are NOT rich elitists....

 

[GunGoBoom]

Would much rather have a nominee who was being likened to Thomas than Scalia

+1.

Still, 10 times better than Miers, and 100 times better than what Kerry would have nominated. I said long ago that Shrub should throw up a sacrificial lamb - Miers was the wrong choice for that, and they didn't plan it that way, but it may have some of that effect (taking some of the wind out of Schumer et al's sails, having made hay against the first one).

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

And Kennedy and Kerry and the rest of the liberals who would strip you of your 2A rights are NOT rich elitists....

Watch where that barf goes!


Sure they are. But that isn't the argument is it? I often vote Republican because it does serve our 2nd Amendment movement.


I voted for Martinez here in FL. Turned out to be a GOOD choice. He voted in favor of the gun industry bill
So please, don't mistake me for some extremist who rejects the Republicans has a vehicle for our pro-RKBA movement. Reminds me of the people who reject the NRA because they aren't so absolutist in their methods.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Point taken, barf retracted (yuk!)

 

[TrybalRage]

"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club."

This statement bugs the crap out of me. Since when is sex or ethnic background an important basis on your worthiness to serve on the SC? Bah, who cares what they actually BELIEVE in and just put them in because its the PC thing to do.

 

[boofus]

Sex and ethnic background are important for this SCOTUS pick? Fine. Give us Janice Rogers Brown.

 

[rick_reno]

"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court.

I have to take issue with this - is there DNA evidence that Ginsberg is a woman? More importantly, is there proof she is human?

 

[bjbarron]

I think it's kinda cool that a conservative judge can come out of New Jersey.

Dannyboy - I think that you, me, and him are the only conservatives in south Joisey...and we just lost him to Washington.

In United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito wrote a blistering dissent from the majority opinion which held that, notwithstanding United States v. Lopez, Congress had the power to use the Interstate Commerce power to prohibit the mere possession of machine guns manufactured after May 1986, even though Congress had made no findings about the effect of such machine guns on interstate commerce. Judge Alito's dissent did not address the majority's assertion that Rybar had no Second Amendment rights because Rybar was not a member of the militia.

At this point it only matters what the gang of 14 says.

He had already been vetted to the 3rd circuit. That means there can be no "extrodinary circumstances". Also he is not quite as sharp as Roberts, but has much more constitutional experience. He also is a very consistant conservative without being pedantic.

Stevens is getting long in the tooth, with Ginsberg (colon cancer) making noises about health problems. Another of the liberals has heart problems. Bush could get another choice in the next three years.

 

[WT]

bjb - Alito lives in West Caldwell and works in Newark. That is hardly 'south Jersey.'

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Dems don't quite seem to know where they stand:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he was disappointed with the pick and that the Senate, which must confirm the pick, will now have to determine whether Alito is "too radical for the American people."

"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers," Reid said.

I confess that I have apparently been sorely in error for many years. All this time I was under the impression that it was the Democrats who were trying to pack the courts with judicial activists.

How could I have been so blind?

 

[Molon Labe]

I have to take issue with this - is there DNA evidence that Ginsberg is a woman? More importantly, is there proof she is human?

Yes, but she passed away about 5 years ago. The ACLU has kept her ‘alive’ using a complex robotic mechanism of levers, tubes, and electrical actuators. She will be on the court for another 800 years.

 

[Henry Bowman]

"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers," Reid said.

Trust me, you won't like him. Just go ahead and vote "no" and dispense with the theatrics. We don't need your vote, Harry.

 

[bjbarron]

bjb - Alito lives in West Caldwell and works in Newark. That is hardly 'south Jersey.'

You're right, but his years in Trenton were what was in my head. My Bad.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Yes, but she passed away about 5 years ago. The ACLU has kept her ‘alive’ using a complex robotic mechanism of levers, tubes, and electrical actuators. She will be on the court for another 800 years.

Priceless.

I thought I saw a bolt in her neck once...

 

[longeyes]

a harpoon into the blubber of Teddy K.?

Okay, personally I abhor racial and ethnic politics, but it's a reality, folks: If Teddy Kennedy slams Alito too nastily he can figure that a lot of his support in the Italian-American community in Massachusetts is going to evaporate. He could be on his way out. Finally.

I wanted Janice Rogers Brown but Alito, from what we know right now, looks promising.

 

[RealGun]

It doesn't matter what a nominee thinks about guns, if the Court will not grant cert to a gun case. I see no evidence that anyone who matters cares about what we think...Jeff Sessions, maybe.

John Roberts has the most to say about what cases are accepted and how many. The clerks do most of the filtering using guidelines given to them. Roberts said that their primary cases are where two lower courts have disagreed. In other words, if a District Court upholds a verdict or denies a hearing, end of story. The chances of a gun case making it through the gauntlet are nil, especially when it is no ones favored legal challenge, or if case time is being conserved for favored topics (about 85 cases per year).

 

[tulsamal]

This statement bugs the crap out of me. Since when is sex or ethnic background an important basis on your worthiness to serve on the SC?

This is where the slipperly slope of affirmative action can get you. I think the goals of such policies are admirable. But they turn out to be difficult to defend in practice.

For instance, I think you pick the best person for the job. So you look and look and you come up with ten choices. You come up with some numerical way of scoring them. You discover that you have two candidates who both score 92%. One is a white male. One is a black woman. I have NO problem at all at that point deciding that the black woman should be the nominee. I think it IS desirable to have more woman on the Court. I think it IS desireable to have a minority representation that is at least something like what we have within the country. (So a Hispanic nominee would be good, all other things being equal.)

But that isn't what has been happening. What if you rate your ten candidates and the top eight are all white men, then a white woman, then a Hispanic woman? If they are separated by 2%, then maybe you still pick the "diverse" candidate. But how big are you willing to see that number get? If the first woman on the list is 10% below the top man, do you still pick her? The country has been wrestling with these practical problems of affirmative actions for years now and we still don't have a solution everybody is happy with.

re: Brown herself. I heard some talking head the other day trying to sort through the field of possible women nominees. He said that "insiders" had told him that we got Miers in the first place because several potential woman candidates had turned down the President. Brown's name stopped coming up in the most of the press in the last few days. I wonder if she told the President she didn't want the job, at least not right now?

Gregg

 

[Desertdog]

Sistema1927
Who cares what the liberals think? Let them go on the record as being opposed to a good man, and hopefully America will remember come next election.

The Dems have a problem because there is an election in less than 1 year after the hearings.

Do the Dems really tear him apart showing their true colors, knowing that an election is so near? This could turn the average citizen against them.

Do they just let him slide through, turning their base against them?

Oh, what do the Dems do? Oh, what to do?

 

[BigG]

Yes, but she passed away about 5 years ago. The ACLU has kept her ‘alive’ using a complex robotic mechanism of levers, tubes, and electrical actuators. She will be on the court for another 800 years.

This reminded me of THE SIXTH DAY, where they were cloning important individuals and replacing them when they wore out/were snuffed.

 

[No_Brakes23]

I wanted Janice Rogers Brown but Alito, from what we know right now, looks promising.

+1 More cautious optimism from here.

 

[Bruce H]

The real problem here are the worthless RINO'S like the two from Ohio. Can we pick up enough Dems to counter these clowns.