lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
I have really, really tried to watch these Alito hearings and stay awake////
IMPOSSIBLE
No wonder this country is in the shape it's in...
All these elected officials just talking...
Not saying anything worth a fiddlers f@@k...
Just trying to trip this guy up...geez...
I could fool these supposed learned lawmakers...
On both sides of the line.....
Just pass this guy on and let him be a judge...he never let his pubic hair land on a coke can for crying out loud...and ya passed that moron/
Sheesh...if you have trouble sleeping just try watching these proceedings....YAWN!.....zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
These guys are grand-standing and talking mostly about themselves. Holding the floor for as long as they can. Yesterday may have been the high point in this "inquisition" as far as sensationalism goes....but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Kennedy again remains the worst of the bunch...with Schumer a close second.
Glad that you're getting sleep Z-man, it's always good for lymies but, this nonsense makes me mad. "Someone" will come on this thread and say how--necessary this is for the process--of course we should be careful, but everything that needs to be known about this man is in the judicial record....the statement by Schumer that this 'disturbs him', is again grandstanding silliness. What?? disturbs him--he's not getting enough airtime!?!?
[ 16. January 2006, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: meg ]
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
Its like that in government they talk to here themselves talk.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
the rightful, earnest, non-Paritsan one on issues of the day, which I think most Senators are intending..
What Kennedy did was out of line, pretty rediculous IMO..
But Shumer asked Alito a very important question.. does he still view the Constitution as non-supportive of abortion.. (as he is quoted to have stated publicly on 1985)
and Alito dodged that question more than half a dozen times and never answered it. He really side stepped it to the extreme. That is a question he should be answering, in that context. People/legislators have a right to know that.
He said what disturbed him was the fact he did not answer it (that specific question) in any wat, shape, or form.. not even to say 'I won't answer that'.
That will and should be a concern...as he is not replacing a conservative judge, he is replacing the swing voting O'Connor.
Not only this issue, but a few others regarding executive power and some other important things he is dodging his views/interpretation of the Constitution applied to the issues..
This appointment is for life, and with the even split in most views (historically) among thse judges.. (minus O'Connor)
another staunch conservative could potentially set the stage to change Supreme court ruling precidents on MANY issues that would have a big impact on our society.
IMO, being involved with a Princeton Alumni group that published some anti-minority views and actions is small potatoes, and doesn't even mean he holds those views now. (or then)
HOWEVER: it's important that Alito answers certain questions regarding his interpretation of the constitution openly. (in a Democracy, that is)
It's unnaceptable and innapropriate as nominee to the Supreme Court if he does what Roberts did and refuses to answer.
If Roberts is conservative, that will not change the Court balance.. but we must have O'Connor replaced by a true Moderate, or the scales will tilt dramatically in the Supreme Court.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mo: another staunch conservative could potentially set the stage to change Supreme court ruling precidents on MANY issues that would have a big impact on our society. but we must have O'Connor replaced by a true Moderate, or the scales will tilt dramatically in the Supreme Court.
Meg: It is not a requirement to make the Supreme Court a balanced body.....with every view represented. As judges, concerned with the LAW of the land, most decisions can be reached with a consensus.
It is hypocritical to expect one nominee to answer how they will rule, while another doesn't have to. It is unreasonable to expect a nominee to say how they will rule in a case, when the particulars ARE the case. As I said previously, everything they need to know is in the public court record.
Yes, I agree. They have to adhere to the Constitution, but there are different interpretations and applications of it that set precident.
Five judges by and large 'interpret' the Constitition 'conservatively' on issues of controversy, or those that become politically charged (such as dealing with executive power branch decisions, ect)
Five (right now) are less conservative in those cases..
Both groups have pretty consistant 'perceptions' case to case.
O'Connor tended to rule case by case in more of an individualized manner, often the deciding vote and going 'either way with it'.. not stuck in one way of thinking or another.
This above is clear in all their ruling histories.
These kinds of cases tend to have big impact on all of us.
If we have another judge in the 'deciding vote' position who is conservative leaning in these kinds of cases, or liberal leaning for that matter..
(also to be noted, the 'Far Right's' uproar over Myers, which caused her to back out..they feared the balance would shift too far away from their interests, but are happy as clams with Alito, because they feel confident he will support their interests, and that shouldn't be considered 'OK' either, we need balance)
The balance in the court will sway and the nation is facing some pretty huge issues right now... if interpretations/decisions made by this body go consistantly Conservative (or Liberal), somewhat like the Republicans or Democrats 'controling the house' .. (which isn't appropriate in Supreme Court, IMO, considering their job and it's impact)
I believe fair and balanced interpretation and application of Constututional Law on a case by case basis, and honor of precidents set..government checks and balances..societal impact considerations and other things.. may go out the window.
We do not need anymore 'leaning' IMO.. lest we fall over.
Meg, I do not expect a nominee to answer on a particular case, but I think it is reasonable and necessary to ask him how he interprets the Constitution applied to issues such as executive power or abortion.
Congress (and we) have a right to know that. I believe a nomine has the responsibility to share that, at least to his best ability and his current interpretations.
'They' are not obligated to set up a 'balance', but the PEOPLE want one. (unless one has agendas on either side and could hope the whole court shifted...I do not, I want a strong moderate who goes both ways in there) That is the issue most are talking about with Alito. "Where is he?"
(and Roberts was innapropriate in his not answering...so it's not that Alito shouldn't have to...it's that everyone should, and historically has)
It matters. And this country should not be 'run' by consertative choices in the highest court in the land, as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a population that should not be governed by one manner of thinking.
Mo
[ 12. January 2006, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mo could you please define what the Constitution requires for this process?--what I have come to understand of this is that the process has a very fuzzy interpretation-or none at all...except thru the President and then on to the Senate etc.
You have been stating that we should follow the Constitution....yes, of course we should....but there are no further details that define this nomination process that I can readily find.
Precidence is one thing, but can be a different thing than what the founders had in mind.
Mo: Yes, I agree. They have to adhere to the Constitution, but there are different interpretations and applications of it that set precident.
[ 12. January 2006, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: meg ]
posted
Supreme Court justices, on controvertial or politically charged cases/issues (as I stated above).. traditionally have two camps on their interpretation and application of the Constitution to such cases.
It's five/five now.
There should be one judge who is a true moderate, as/is was O'Connor, and is not one that will always err on one 'side' or another in these issues.
Certainly, there are many references in the Constitution to refer to regarding 'balance of power'. This balance applies to the Supreme Court as well as there are issues that historically invoke different interpretations of the Constitution. Therefore, I see it as rather un-Constitutional to knowlingly skew this body.. that's why Congress needs to know 'where he is at'. His record raises questions and leans conservatively.
That's at the cruxt of the Alito hearings for most people, except the ones who would like to see that balance shift in the conservative direction.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mo: Certainly, there are many references in the Constitution to refer to regarding 'balance of power'. This balance applies to the Sopreme Court as well as their are isues that historically raise dofferent interpretations of the Constitution. Therefor, I see it as rather 'un-Constitutional' to knowlingly skew this body..
Meg: Balance of power is the judicial/legislative/executive branches....but I thought we were discussing the Senates process of nomination and the Constitutions application thereof.....what the rules of this nomination process are.
I find nothing to indicate other than the process of the President, then ok'd by the Senate. Do you find an article that is different?
posted
I have not been able to find any law or constitutional requirement that states a U.S. Supreme Court nominee must testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I believe I read at one time a Supreme Court nominee refused to testify and was confirmed despite his refusal.
I've watched several hours of the televised hearings of Judge Alito. I personally think he's done a remarkable job maintaining his composure.
I believe we are discouraging the next generation of judiciary hopefuls who might have the desire to serve this country on it's highest court by having this type of "trial".
Why would anyone want to have to sit through the badgering that has been going on for the past few days? I think we're doing the Supreme Court and the American people a diservice by allowing this type of hearing.
Alito appears to me to have a sufficient record of applying the law fairly that all of the Senatorial posturing and pontificating shows how little respect the Senators have for the American people.
This, in my opinion, is another example of politics gone awry. The record of the nominee should speak for itself. Are they qualified to sit on the court or not?? The answer should be simple, direct and quick.
They're wasting time and tax dollars and there's plenty for them to be doing without wasting either of these precious commodities.
One day of introduction of the nominee along with his/her statement of why they think they're qualifed, then another day of questions by the committee should be sufficient to make a decision.
Besides all of that, each and every one on that committee has made up their mind how they will vote on Alito's confirmation. I believe all 100 Senators have already made up their mind, what's the point to making this a televised event???
Finally, Mo: It seems to me that requiring that we have a politically balanced Supreme Court would be about as logical as having a politically balanced Senate. The American people are not equally balanced politically. Why would we expect one branch of our government to be otherwise?
Being a member of the U.S. Supreme Court is not attained by being elected based on nominees political party, but rather based on that person's judiciary record. That's what brings the court it's real power in our system of checks and balances.
I doubt seriously that O'Connor was considered a "moderate" when she was nominated to the court by Reagan, although she has certainly been moderate in your rulings over the years.
[ 13. January 2006, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: lymedad ]
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Hey Mo how come everything is unconstitutional with you? Have you even read it? You just can't throw it out there everytime you disagree with something.
As far as I stayed conscious for,IMO, Alito did answer the main question...he said he would adjudicate according to the LAW....the existing LAW.
As far as balance goes...whenever the presidency changes they try and get a person from their political leanings into the supreme court.
This is where the balance comes from...and historically this does'nt seem to work anyway cus once they get the job they actually act like judges are supposed to act.
By the way, was that a misstype...five/five? I thought there were only nine supreme court justices...
Look this guy says he will adjudicate according to the law...
It's really up to the house and senate to make the laws...but they're too busy accepting bribes,drowning women or making it with pages to get anything worth anything done for the american people they supposedly represent.....
What I really get from your posts is that you don't want a ballance unless its tilted in the favor of the liberal side.
Personally as far as roe and wade...if God gave us a free will...how can our supreme court do less.
Would I be part of an abortion...definitely not, for other than damnation reasons...however...it's not specifically covered in the constitution cuz I doubt the founding fathers worried that much about it back then...
just like a lot of what science is comming up with...in this respect our constitution is antiquated and inadequate...
that's why we need these lawmakers to get off their collective stonewalling self important asses and do some of the work we elected them to do...
or we the people should vote their asses the hell out of office.
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Constitution doesn't have to specifically name a topic for it to be covered by the Constitution. That's one of the greatest things about this document and our Founders.
To me, one of the most interesting aspects concerns what the Federal government is supposed to concern itself with. Everything else is supposed to be left to the states and the people, where, the idea was, we could have more control over the outcome.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do think there are too many butt imprints left in the seats of Congress. Maybe they should fund a 'buns of steel' programme for the poor bloats.
But LymeDad.. on this:
It seems to me that requiring that we have a politically balanced Supreme Court would be about as logical as having a politically balanced Senate. The American people are not equally balanced politically. Why would we expect one branch of our government to be otherwise?
I couldn't disagree with this more. These are lifetime seats and this body makes decisions that have great impact on our society and our goverment, for that matter.
We absolutely require balance on issues that are 'politically' or philosophically charged. (IMO) To remain a Democratic republic in the area of judiciary governing.
I agree that noone should be badgering Alito, and most are not, but they are asking the tough questions.
I also agree that he seems like a stand-uop guy and with tons if judicial experience.
Still, the impact of his position at this time, what we are facing now, as well as based on founding father's intent.. IMO it is very important to acertain Alito's position in his interpretations and consider maintaining balance.
*It may not be specifically within the letter of the law, but I think certainly within the spirit of it to preserve balance. Hearings are a process than can help us do that.
As was mentioned, allot of things were not laid out specifically in the Constitution, but it is always applied as best as can be.
Tony -- I goofed the number, ya, ya.. my Lyme is showing.
I am not looking for a liberal leaning court, as I stated, as far as the Supreme Court goes, I feel strongly there shouldn't be a lean either way. I want a body that will be as objective as can be, that's the point.
(besides that ..I have only been dubbed a liberal here because I post on problems within the Bush administration. Liberal is used now like a dirty word. I am not liberal on issues across the board, but get the label because I speak up on certain Bush policies)
Since many of them are in a rut and always ruling the same way, I'd like to be as careful as possible that this Court doesn't turn into the joke Congess can be and have the nineth vote operate moderately.
There are moderate judges around who are as credentialed as Alito, with long histories of moderacy in ruling..very much like O'Connor. There's no 'rule' .. but it has been the sort of unwritten expectation regarding this nomination, given O'Connor is leaving and we have Roberts.
HOWEVER.. could it possibly be the case that folks most apt to say 'why question him at all'?? Wouldn't mind a conservative ace in the hole.
If some folks really feel that way, then that is outside the spirit of the law of America.. that's what I'm talkin' about.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We absolutely require balance on issues that are 'politically' or philosophically charged. (IMO)
It's my opinion that there can not be balance on issues that are "politically" charged mainly because they are political. Have you ever seen a more politically split nation in your lifetime?
It also seems to me that the highest court in the land should reflect the country's majority view on how it should intrepret the constitution, that's why it's called the majority.
quote:To remain a Democratic republic in the area of judiciary governing.
Here Mo I think you hit the nail right on the head in highlighting exactly the problem we have with the Supreme Court today. The judiciary branch is not a governing body, yet it has, in many cases, delegated itself with governing powers.
quote:Hearings are a process that can help us do that.
As I said before; these televised senatorial speeches disguised as a judiciary hearing have been a waste of tax dollars , a waste of the Alito family's time and a waste of the committee's time.
I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that the hearings we've all just witnessed will not change a single vote for or against Alito's confirmation.
For me personally the hearings have done nothing more than confirm my suspicions about two people:
Ted Kennedy is nut-job!! and a thorn in the side of America.
Arlen Specter is a courageous survivor. I have gained a newfound respect for him and I found that he can hold his own with anyone, including Teddy boy.
quote:HOWEVER..could it possibly be the case that folks most apt to say 'why question him at all'??
Wouldn't mind a conservative ace in the hole.
If some folks really feel that way, then that is outside the spirit of the law of America.. that's what I'm talkin' about.
That's the whole point isn't it??
A conservative is elected to the White House and nominates a conservative judge. Did anyone really think GWB would nominate a liberal to the court or even a so-called moderate?? I would hope not!
If Kerry were President, God forbid , would you expect him to nominate a conservative judge?? I would think not!
To say that the process is outside the spirit of the law of America really doesn't say anything positive about the intelligence of the founders of our country.
This process (Executive nominates Judiciary confirmed by Legislative)is not outside the spirit of the law or your "balance" concept would have been delineated in the constitution.
The framers of the constitution were smart enough to understand the politics of the day in which they lived and to assume that political differences would not just go away over time.
No, I don't mind having a conservative ace in the hole. I'm quite comfortable with a conservative in the White House, a Congressional conservative majority and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Works for me!! Works for America!!
Mo, one last thought. Utilizing your concept of insuring that we maintain a balanced court; four conservatives plus four liberals plus one moderate.
Why don't we fire the conservatives and the liberals and have one moderate sit alone on the bench and make all the decisions on the constitutionality of our laws??? Sure would save a lot of time and money!!! Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Just a thought from another angle concerning Alito not answering some questions....
Perhaps he did'nt want to piss off his conservative constituents...
If this guy is a staunch go by the letter of the law guy.....it may be he would slap GWB upside the head...
To say he would at this juncture would'nt get him on the supreme court now would it.
Oh well, it's all academic anyway....zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
GEDEN13
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 4151
posted
seem's momma alito's weeping,got to some of you...........gary
Posts: 1108 | From PA. | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kennedy went off the deep end during these hearings, a disgrace to any self respecting Irish Catholic! It was sad to see Mrs. Alito had cried, but at the same time, folks shouldn't be letting that muddy the waters in looking closely (certainly not badgering) at this nominee. Some republican rep media has taken that a bit too far, as they tend to do. It's being used to attack Democrats across the board, and (by conservatives who want Alito in there and the balance to shift) to try and blame the questioning process itself.
Don't loose sight of the issue here.
LymeDad, the thing is, many true Conservatives are not happy with GWB at all, especially in matters of executive power and spending, size/power of governent. (they want a small govt., but not a secret one full of curruption that weilds trmendous power anyway) among many other things.
So if Alito is in line with Wya, he most surely will not represent the 'majority' of Americans .. and I maintain that the highest Court is not meant to represent majorities, anyway.
** and ALITO's record of memos and rulings is FAR from mainstrem conservative.
Supreme Court is to work to uphold the Constitution, and yes, I think a true moderate is essential in doing that.
Take the Patriot act, for instance. It's gone well out of the relm of the Constitition, terrible infractions on civil liberties and privacy rights, and by and large the frightening treatment of hundreds of individuals as a result of thet Act has not made us 'safer'.
There is an extention of power required during War time, no doubt.. but this administration has gone way beyond that, the particulars of the Patriot Act goes way beyond that, and the President has acted without even utilizing the secret court in place to utilize when spying is necessary.
Many cases could (and should) come before the Supreme Court..
so, we don't need them 'governing', but we sure as heck need them keeping the executive branch in check when necessary. Checks and balances.
Another major issue is environmental issues. This is going unchecked and has swung into a very disturbing, money connections, release of all restrictions to certain coorperations.
If we have a conservative leaning court,their interpretations will not be in place to protect the country in these matters as well.
It just goes on and on.
Abortion is not the only issue here, tho it is the one many are focused on, because a reversal of Roe v. Wade, putting this decision in the hands of legislators state to state, will potentially revert society back to where it was before Roe v. Wade.. in this issue, and things were horrifying then.
IMO we need more assistance and educationally based programs, not to go backward decades in some archaic and arbitrary ruling based on personal beliefs.
This raises allot of questions, and is definately different than Congressional balance because these are lifetime appointments.
Everyone else looks pretty healthy and relatively young, and O'Connor is leaving.
George already got in one conservative (Roberts). Of course Clinton would not have chosen a conservative..but I doubt he would have replaced O'Connor in this case with a Liberal.
-- as the chips have fallen in this particular turn of events in the court, for Bush to put in two conservatives, and not respect the countries wishes (and need) for some balance is potentially deleterious to the countries future and our upholding the 'Spirit of the Law' of the Constitution, and Democracy.
Not surprising at all,,tho.. that this is how this administration operates, balance of power has been toppled in so many ways..but very concerning just the same. I believe Bush truly believes his views are right above all others -- I believe he believes ot too strongly to effectively lead in preserving a Democratic rebublic's balance.
and you may believe his belief's are true above all other's as well --- but that does not mean that they are..and certainly not that they should rule in the highest judiciary branch. This is no 4 year term, this is the most consequestial Supreme Court confirmation hearing in a generation.
....the Pres making decisions that will support only his views in such dramatic ways/potential outcomes errs toward dicatorship and away from Democracy. He consulted no-one but the far Right on the Alito nomination. (this after they flipped their lids over Myers..his polls were in the pooper, and this nomine was to hold on to his ultra-conservative base at the time) He did not consult the Senate as he had said he would on either.
Furthermore -- clearly, conservative (or should I say neo-conservative, as is the Bush admin, really) .. clearly (neo)conservative 'rule' is NOT working for America. We don't need it in the court, too.
This is a critical nomination.
Based on his record above all, and the questions he will not answer, I hope the Dems filibuster.. but I question their collective back-bone to do so. Whether they will step outside the box of worrying about political ramifications. Jeez, someone has to, by now.. What more has to happen before Congress acts with honor for the people?
That's an American hope, not a liberal one.
Mo
[ 14. January 2006, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[sleepy]](graemlins/sleepy.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
but, this nonsense makes me mad. 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[tsk]](graemlins/tsk.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic