Admittedly, I don't know much about Alito either, but from what I've been surfing so far this morning, another Antonin Scalia is NOT what we need on the Court.
And yes, I am a little disappointed he didn't choose another woman - even if conservative - because Supreme Court opportunities do not happen often and I feel that we are taking a step backward. I understand that having had two women on the Court isn't any sort of requirement, but I do feel that Bush knocked that issue out of the way with Miers (and did so stupidly, alienating his base) so he could strategically appoint another conservative weenie to the Court.
I think Alito is an excellent choice. Also, I think that the democrats are going to have to confirm him without too much of a problem. Alito is everything that Miers was not, and as such, that is why Miers declined the nomination. And, knock on wood, there is a good chance that Bush might even get another nomination before his reign is over.
I will be shocked if Scalito gets one Democrat vote. Bush rushed to this decision to appease his base and deal with a poltical scandal. No effort was made to reach across the isle to Democrats, who were quite respectful of Miers. We have no reason "to bend over and grab the ankles" (one of my favorite Limbaughisms) just because Bush wants to appease the holy rollers in his base.
I'm also going to be curious to see how McCain, Olympia-Snow, Collins, Specter, Chaffee, and Dewine play this vote. Moderate Senators are our only hope.
Please don't think that this nominee must be a women or a minority. I want the best person for the job, and Bush thinks that Alito is it. We'll look at him in the confirmation process and go from there.
The picture you put on there tells me that there should be another women added to the court, just to add another women. Thats BS, affirmative action is something great to talk about, but when your the person who gets past up for the women, or the black person, it's not so fun.
Bush won in 2004, and with that win, as painful as it was, he won the right to appoint juctices to his liking, no matter how far right they are. We knew in 2004 that whomever won would have a huge impact on the Supreme court and we lost.
Bush declared that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years."
So that statement alone proves looked America in the eyes when he appointed Miers and LIED. He said MIERS was the most qualified he could find.....but this above statement proves he lied to America about that.
And anonymous, I tended to agree that Bush, by winning reelection, won the right to his SC nominees.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS RENDERED THAT THEORY USELESS WHEN THEY SABOTAGED BUSH'S LAST PICK!!!!
Dems were going to allow Miers to pass. Republicans didn't, because she was not crazy enough. Well, now that gives us a right to demand someone sane. And that is what I expect from our 45 Senators. Will they go with the filibuster is the only remaining question.
Anonymous, I agree with you to a degree. Bush won this election, and the entire nation knew what kinds of situations we could anticipate in his second term.
That said, I stand by my earlier statement. I don't have any specific names to suggest, but I imagine that there would have to be a small, qualified group of women - perhaps less conservative - that would have suited this position just fine. Personally, with my knowledge of the SC, I think women justices add balance and a certain degree of compassion to cases. That's not to say male justices aren't compassionate, but I do believe that women and men - just like conservatives and liberals and moderates - think differently, and the odds of more thought-provoking, balanced arguments in cases are more likely with more woman justices, rather than a male justice whose ideas seem to so closely mirror another current justice on the Court.
Just my opinion. There's really no argument either way, only different perspectives.
Anonymous - "I want the best person for the job, and Bush thinks that Alito is it."
No. Bush thought Miers was the best person for the job. Bush saw the merrits of appointing a woman to the supreme court and he did. Alito is sloppy seconds.
I do think it is wrong that the highest court in the land only has one woman. Our nation is 51% female. Alito would make the supreme court only 11% female. It looks to me like qualified women and minorities are the ones being passed up.
I kinda like this guy, from what I've read, he takes a libertarian view on the 1st amendment, he likes free markets, and althought the Fundamentalist Action Groups (FAGs) seem to be cheering, I wonder if they've read his decision in Planned Parenthood v Farmer, where he struck down a partial birth abortion ban? Seems to me like this guy respects court precedent.
Also, I think it is worth mentioning that regardless of the miers nomination, this guy IS qualified to serve, if he makes it through commitee, then the Democrats will look bad if they refuse to vote for him. His opinions are sound, he's not a fanatic, and he has a great resume.
respects precident?!?! this guy ruled that women should have to get consent from there husbands to have an abortion. also, i don't understand the charge conservatives make about activist judges. this is the kind of guy who overturns laws made by congrees. he doesn't believe congress has the power to regulate machine guns. this gut is out there. way, way to far to the right. i understand bush "won" the election and has the right to pick his nominee - its the senates job to deny nutcases like this a job on the highest court in the land. unfortunately dewine has come out for this wacko.
Kyle...good points on the ratio of women compared to women on the supreme court.
I still believe there are many men and women that are qualified, and I'm beginning to wonder what "qualified" really is while reading other posts. I still thinks its dangerous when we say there are many women or minorities, because qualifications should never be about skin color or if they are male or female.
Kyle you wrote.... No. Bush thought Miers was the best person for the job. Bush saw the merrits of appointing a woman to the supreme court and he did. Alito is sloppy seconds
I thought Bush appointed Miers because he knew she was gonna get heat, but then he could say he put a moderate, women to appease everyone, and then get the conservative pick in there after the first choice got knocked out. I am a little confused on that, but you say Alito is sloppy seconds, but is putting Miers up all part of the plan to set the stage for the more conservative pick after she said No.....
Now wait a sec he didn't "rule that women should have to get consent from there husbands to have an abortion."
He upheld a law that congress passed, which is funny, 'cause then you go on to say that "this is the kind of guy who overturns laws made by congrees"
Disclaimer, I personally hate such laws, I am pro-choice. But to me, the abortion debate is so minor compared to other "privacy" issues and more importantly property issues facing our courts today.
One could argue that he ignores Roe v. Wade, but Roe does kind of ignore the fact that half the genes in that baby came from a male...
and maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the law only required the woman to inform the man, not get his consent, better check your facts.
Let's start with your assertion that "this guy ruled that women should have to get consent from there husbands to have an abortion."
That, as far as I can tell, is completely untrue. Indulge me in a very long excerpt from an article about his dissenting opinion in PP vs. Casey (the case in question):
Alito began by noting the contemporaneous state of the law regarding abortion restrictions. He said that his major disagreement with the majority concerned the issue of whether spousal notification was an “undue burden.” Then, as now, deciding that issue required one to repair to the opaque writings of one Sandra Day O’Connor, and Alito did so, concluding:
Taken together, Justice O’Connor’s opinions reveal that an undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing “severe limitations,” rather than simply inhibiting abortions “‘to some degree’” or inhibiting “some women.”
Looking at previous restrictions that Justice O’Connor had approved, which “almost certainly were substantial enough to dissuade some women from obtaining abortions,” Judge Alito wrote that “it appears clear that an undue burden may not be established simply by showing that a law will have a heavy impact on a few women but that instead a broader inhibiting effect must be shown.”
I submit that this was a fair summary of Justice O’Connor’s explication of the term “undue burden” in writings that preceded Judge Alito’s dissent.
Judge Alito then noted that the spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify(through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions, including:
(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.
Judge Alito then argued that the appellees challenging the statute had not met their burden of proof — which Justice O’Connor had said rested with those asserting an “undue burden” — to show that the law had the “broader inhibiting effect” required by the whim of Justice O’Connor the relevant precedents.
Alito noted that the evidence showed that 1) most abortions are sought by unmarried women, and 2) about 95% of married women seeking abortions tell their husbands in any event. Of the small number of women remaining, the record was devoid of evidence as to what percentage would be unable to assert at least one of the four exceptions enumerated above. Nor was evidence offered to show what percentage of women would suffer retaliation from their husbands in ways not covered by the four exceptions.
Judge Alito concluded that, absent any evidence as to how many women would be adversely affected, the appellees had failed to meet their burden of showing that the spousal notification requirement imposed an “undue burden” on women. He specifically noted:
Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards.
Judge Alito then turned to a discussion of Justice O’Connor’s opinion in a previous case finding unconstitutional a two-parent notification requirement without a judicial bypass. Judge Alito argued that Justice O’Connor’s opinion (and Justice Stevens’s opinion, which Justice O’Connor joined) had applied a variant of the rational relationship test, which requires only that the restriction be reasonably related to the furtherance of a legitimate state interest. Again, this was a reasonable reading of the precedents at the time.
Judge Alito concluded with the uncontroversial proposition that the restriction in question furthered a legitimate state interest, “namely, the state’s interest in furthering the husband’s interest in the fetus.” Even the majority didn’t dispute that “promoting the possibility of spousal participation is undoubtedly a legitimate state interest.” Judge Alito found that the restriction in question reasonably furthered that interest. Whether the courts agreed with the policy decision was irrelevant:
Although the plaintiffs and supporting amici argue that Section 3209 will do little if any good and will produce appreciable adverse effects, the Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it “unwise” or worse. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. at 175, 101 S.Ct. at 459. “We should not forget that ‘legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberty and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.’” Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. at 465, 103 S.Ct. at 2511 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270, 24 S.Ct. 638, 639, 48 L.Ed. 971 (1904).
In case you didn't notice, I bolded Alito's direct quotes in my excerpt. I think they are a pretty clear refutation of your claim.
I also hope you notice that there is an entire paragraph in there where Alito explicitly states that the courts should not overtturn bad laws--only unconstitutional laws. There is a difference.
If you want a judge that never overturns a Congressional law, then you, sir, are the "wacko" and the "nutcase" and "out there." Please engage in more ad hominem attacks in your next post, as I didn't get enough the first time.
From the NY Times by way of my homey Instapundit...
"Judge Alito's jurisprudence has been methodical, cautious, respectful of precedent and solidly conservative, legal scholars said. In cases involving the great issues of the day - abortion, the death penalty and the separation of church and state - Judge Alito has typically taken the conservative side. Yet he has not flaunted his political views inside or outside the courthouse. Friends say Judge Alito seems to have inherited a distaste for shows of ideology from his father, an Italian immigrant who became research director for the New Jersey Legislature and had to rigorously avoid partisanship."
Anonymous, it is an interesting theory and I guess we'll never know, but I think you are giving Bush too much credit. Given all they have had to deal with lately, I doubt they would bluff a supreme court nominee. I'd think it would be too risky, but you raise an interesting hyporthetical.
Someone came up with a great idea with reference to Supreme Court Justices: they should be appointed for no more than 1 eight year term. Presidents are limited to no more than 8 years. Why should we be stuck with some of these people for they next 30 years!
Thanks, Jeff! Can't take too much credit, since the bulk of that post was a quotation of quotations, but I appreciate the compliment all the same.
Anonymous (the last one),
I believe the idea is that appointing Justices to life terms (haha I almost said "life sentences", which may be closer to the truth...) insulates them from political influence. If you're proposing, as I assume, that we limit their term to eight years without possibility of reelection then that does also insulate them from political influence, but the corresponding trade-off is that if you have a great justice, then you can't keep them around.
I believe the intent of term limits on Presidents was to prevent the feeling of a dictatorship or a kingdom, but you don't have that problem with Justices.
Personally, I think the term limits on the Presidency is silly, so using that as a justification for term limits on Justices is a flawed argument from the get-go in my book.
19 Comments:
What can I say - disappointing.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Alito either, but from what I've been surfing so far this morning, another Antonin Scalia is NOT what we need on the Court.
And yes, I am a little disappointed he didn't choose another woman - even if conservative - because Supreme Court opportunities do not happen often and I feel that we are taking a step backward. I understand that having had two women on the Court isn't any sort of requirement, but I do feel that Bush knocked that issue out of the way with Miers (and did so stupidly, alienating his base) so he could strategically appoint another conservative weenie to the Court.
I think Alito is an excellent choice. Also, I think that the democrats are going to have to confirm him without too much of a problem. Alito is everything that Miers was not, and as such, that is why Miers declined the nomination. And, knock on wood, there is a good chance that Bush might even get another nomination before his reign is over.
I will be shocked if Scalito gets one Democrat vote. Bush rushed to this decision to appease his base and deal with a poltical scandal. No effort was made to reach across the isle to Democrats, who were quite respectful of Miers. We have no reason "to bend over and grab the ankles" (one of my favorite Limbaughisms) just because Bush wants to appease the holy rollers in his base.
I'm also going to be curious to see how McCain, Olympia-Snow, Collins, Specter, Chaffee, and Dewine play this vote. Moderate Senators are our only hope.
What is wrong with this picture???
Please don't think that this nominee must be a women or a minority. I want the best person for the job, and Bush thinks that Alito is it. We'll look at him in the confirmation process and go from there.
The picture you put on there tells me that there should be another women added to the court, just to add another women. Thats BS, affirmative action is something great to talk about, but when your the person who gets past up for the women, or the black person, it's not so fun.
Bush won in 2004, and with that win, as painful as it was, he won the right to appoint juctices to his liking, no matter how far right they are.
We knew in 2004 that whomever won would have a huge impact on the Supreme court and we lost.
Any Dem that votes for this bum is dead to me.
Bush declared that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years."
So that statement alone proves looked America in the eyes when he appointed Miers and LIED. He said MIERS was the most qualified he could find.....but this above statement proves he lied to America about that.
And anonymous, I tended to agree that Bush, by winning reelection, won the right to his SC nominees.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS RENDERED THAT THEORY USELESS WHEN THEY SABOTAGED BUSH'S LAST PICK!!!!
Dems were going to allow Miers to pass. Republicans didn't, because she was not crazy enough. Well, now that gives us a right to demand someone sane. And that is what I expect from our 45 Senators. Will they go with the filibuster is the only remaining question.
Anonymous, I agree with you to a degree. Bush won this election, and the entire nation knew what kinds of situations we could anticipate in his second term.
That said, I stand by my earlier statement. I don't have any specific names to suggest, but I imagine that there would have to be a small, qualified group of women - perhaps less conservative - that would have suited this position just fine. Personally, with my knowledge of the SC, I think women justices add balance and a certain degree of compassion to cases. That's not to say male justices aren't compassionate, but I do believe that women and men - just like conservatives and liberals and moderates - think differently, and the odds of more thought-provoking, balanced arguments in cases are more likely with more woman justices, rather than a male justice whose ideas seem to so closely mirror another current justice on the Court.
Just my opinion. There's really no argument either way, only different perspectives.
Anonymous - "I want the best person for the job, and Bush thinks that Alito is it."
No. Bush thought Miers was the best person for the job. Bush saw the merrits of appointing a woman to the supreme court and he did. Alito is sloppy seconds.
I do think it is wrong that the highest court in the land only has one woman. Our nation is 51% female. Alito would make the supreme court only 11% female. It looks to me like qualified women and minorities are the ones being passed up.
I kinda like this guy, from what I've read, he takes a libertarian view on the 1st amendment, he likes free markets, and althought the Fundamentalist Action Groups (FAGs) seem to be cheering, I wonder if they've read his decision in Planned Parenthood v Farmer, where he struck down a partial birth abortion ban? Seems to me like this guy respects court precedent.
Also, I think it is worth mentioning that regardless of the miers nomination, this guy IS qualified to serve, if he makes it through commitee, then the Democrats will look bad if they refuse to vote for him. His opinions are sound, he's not a fanatic, and he has a great resume.
respects precident?!?! this guy ruled that women should have to get consent from there husbands to have an abortion.
also, i don't understand the charge conservatives make about activist judges. this is the kind of guy who overturns laws made by congrees. he doesn't believe congress has the power to regulate machine guns. this gut is out there. way, way to far to the right. i understand bush "won" the election and has the right to pick his nominee - its the senates job to deny nutcases like this a job on the highest court in the land. unfortunately dewine has come out for this wacko.
Kyle...good points on the ratio of women compared to women on the supreme court.
I still believe there are many men and women that are qualified, and I'm beginning to wonder what "qualified" really is while reading other posts.
I still thinks its dangerous when we say there are many women or minorities, because qualifications should never be about skin color or if they are male or female.
Kyle you wrote....
No. Bush thought Miers was the best person for the job. Bush saw the merrits of appointing a woman to the supreme court and he did. Alito is sloppy seconds
I thought Bush appointed Miers because he knew she was gonna get heat, but then he could say he put a moderate, women to appease everyone, and then get the conservative pick in there after the first choice got knocked out. I am a little confused on that, but you say Alito is sloppy seconds, but is putting Miers up all part of the plan to set the stage for the more conservative pick after she said No.....
Now wait a sec he didn't "rule that women should have to get consent from there husbands to have an abortion."
He upheld a law that congress passed, which is funny, 'cause then you go on to say that "this is the kind of guy who overturns laws made by congrees"
Disclaimer, I personally hate such laws, I am pro-choice. But to me, the abortion debate is so minor compared to other "privacy" issues and more importantly property issues facing our courts today.
One could argue that he ignores Roe v. Wade, but Roe does kind of ignore the fact that half the genes in that baby came from a male...
and maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the law only required the woman to inform the man, not get his consent, better check your facts.
Anonymous,
Where do I even begin?
Let's start with your assertion that "this guy ruled that women should have to get consent from there husbands to have an abortion."
That, as far as I can tell, is completely untrue. Indulge me in a very long excerpt from an article about his dissenting opinion in PP vs. Casey (the case in question):
Alito began by noting the contemporaneous state of the law regarding abortion restrictions. He said that his major disagreement with the majority concerned the issue of whether spousal notification was an “undue burden.” Then, as now, deciding that issue required one to repair to the opaque writings of one Sandra Day O’Connor, and Alito did so, concluding:
Taken together, Justice O’Connor’s opinions reveal that an undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing “severe limitations,” rather than simply inhibiting abortions “‘to some degree’” or inhibiting “some women.”
Looking at previous restrictions that Justice O’Connor had approved, which “almost certainly were substantial enough to dissuade some women from obtaining abortions,” Judge Alito wrote that “it appears clear that an undue burden may not be established simply by showing that a law will have a heavy impact on a few women but that instead a broader inhibiting effect must be shown.”
I submit that this was a fair summary of Justice O’Connor’s explication of the term “undue burden” in writings that preceded Judge Alito’s dissent.
Judge Alito then noted that the spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify(through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions, including:
(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.
Judge Alito then argued that the appellees challenging the statute had not met their burden of proof — which Justice O’Connor had said rested with those asserting an “undue burden” — to show that the law had the “broader inhibiting effect” required by the whim of Justice O’Connor the relevant precedents.
Alito noted that the evidence showed that 1) most abortions are sought by unmarried women, and 2) about 95% of married women seeking abortions tell their husbands in any event. Of the small number of women remaining, the record was devoid of evidence as to what percentage would be unable to assert at least one of the four exceptions enumerated above. Nor was evidence offered to show what percentage of women would suffer retaliation from their husbands in ways not covered by the four exceptions.
Judge Alito concluded that, absent any evidence as to how many women would be adversely affected, the appellees had failed to meet their burden of showing that the spousal notification requirement imposed an “undue burden” on women. He specifically noted:
Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards.
Judge Alito then turned to a discussion of Justice O’Connor’s opinion in a previous case finding unconstitutional a two-parent notification requirement without a judicial bypass. Judge Alito argued that Justice O’Connor’s opinion (and Justice Stevens’s opinion, which Justice O’Connor joined) had applied a variant of the rational relationship test, which requires only that the restriction be reasonably related to the furtherance of a legitimate state interest. Again, this was a reasonable reading of the precedents at the time.
Judge Alito concluded with the uncontroversial proposition that the restriction in question furthered a legitimate state interest, “namely, the state’s interest in furthering the husband’s interest in the fetus.” Even the majority didn’t dispute that “promoting the possibility of spousal participation is undoubtedly a legitimate state interest.” Judge Alito found that the restriction in question reasonably furthered that interest. Whether the courts agreed with the policy decision was irrelevant:
Although the plaintiffs and supporting amici argue that Section 3209 will do little if any good and will produce appreciable adverse effects, the Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it “unwise” or worse. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. at 175, 101 S.Ct. at 459. “We should not forget that ‘legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberty and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.’” Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. at 465, 103 S.Ct. at 2511 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270, 24 S.Ct. 638, 639, 48 L.Ed. 971 (1904).
In case you didn't notice, I bolded Alito's direct quotes in my excerpt. I think they are a pretty clear refutation of your claim.
I also hope you notice that there is an entire paragraph in there where Alito explicitly states that the courts should not overtturn bad laws--only unconstitutional laws. There is a difference.
If you want a judge that never overturns a Congressional law, then you, sir, are the "wacko" and the "nutcase" and "out there." Please engage in more ad hominem attacks in your next post, as I didn't get enough the first time.
From the NY Times by way of my homey Instapundit...
"Judge Alito's jurisprudence has been methodical, cautious, respectful of precedent and solidly conservative, legal scholars said. In cases involving the great issues of the day - abortion, the death penalty and the separation of church and state - Judge Alito has typically taken the conservative side. Yet he has not flaunted his political views inside or outside the courthouse. Friends say Judge Alito seems to have inherited a distaste for shows of ideology from his father, an Italian immigrant who became research director for the New Jersey Legislature and had to rigorously avoid partisanship."
Well, steve did check his facts!!
Good work steve, that is one of the best replies I've seen since my first post on the chief source.
Anonymous, it is an interesting theory and I guess we'll never know, but I think you are giving Bush too much credit. Given all they have had to deal with lately, I doubt they would bluff a supreme court nominee. I'd think it would be too risky, but you raise an interesting hyporthetical.
Someone came up with a great idea with reference to Supreme Court Justices: they should be appointed for no more than 1 eight year term. Presidents are limited to no more than 8 years. Why should we be stuck with some of these people for they next 30 years!
Thanks, Jeff! Can't take too much credit, since the bulk of that post was a quotation of quotations, but I appreciate the compliment all the same.
Anonymous (the last one),
I believe the idea is that appointing Justices to life terms (haha I almost said "life sentences", which may be closer to the truth...) insulates them from political influence. If you're proposing, as I assume, that we limit their term to eight years without possibility of reelection then that does also insulate them from political influence, but the corresponding trade-off is that if you have a great justice, then you can't keep them around.
I believe the intent of term limits on Presidents was to prevent the feeling of a dictatorship or a kingdom, but you don't have that problem with Justices.
Personally, I think the term limits on the Presidency is silly, so using that as a justification for term limits on Justices is a flawed argument from the get-go in my book.
totally opposed to 8-year term limits on justices.
Post a Comment
<< Home