I think under the cir stances it's a fair question. Especially, since she had this outburst because Senator Graham set her off. Things aren't going so well and they certainly needed a distraction. . Look at how the cameras zoom in on her just as she starts to "cry".
Who set her off dummy? It certainly wasn't Graham. And as usual "things are not
going well". Guess you could say that for the dimm-o-craps. They seemed to have
made fools out of themselves very well during these hearings. Especially the moral
one Kennedy. You know the swimmer, drunk and all around woman chaser. Yeah,
a real moral person. He got his ass handed back to him on a platter by the
chairman.....
"Things aren't going well"? For who? Certainly you can't mean for Judge Alito - the libs on the committe have shown just how stupid they really are. I mean, how can anyone think that Ted Kennedy has the right to question the ethics of anyone (except maybe Bill Clinton). This hearing is a bust for the democrats and they know it! They haven't been able to lay a glove on Judge Alito - so they resort to calling him a liar.
This hearing has exposed the libs and the conservatives couldn't ask for better advertising!
I think under the cir stances it's a fair question. Especially, since she had this outburst because Senator Graham set her off. Things aren't going so well and they certainly needed a distraction. . Look at how the cameras zoom in on her just as she starts to "cry".
Dude - he will be nominated and the only thing the liberals are doing right now is displaying their lower than previously thought levels of stupidity and harshness. Remember when ACLU employee Ruth Bader Ginsburg got nominated ? the Republicans didn't drag her through the mud like this and she is an ACLU'er on the bench.
GMAFB, the Republican echo-chamber has wasted no time using this personal incident to try and portray Democrats on the Judiciary committee questioning Alito as tactless and rude, but it was a Republican, Graham who made Mrs. Alito cry not Ted Kennedy.
Let's not forget that it was Dubya who wanted to make the Alito nomination a diversion from all the present scandals and questions about illegality involving the WH..
Yea your a genius.. your right....
OR... another democrat plan blows up in face?
Ya'll got owned again. No power...
Well... 3 more years to work on barbie collections.
GMAFB, the Republican echo-chamber has wasted no time using this personal incident to try and portray Democrats on the Judiciary committee questioning Alito as tactless and rude, but it was a Republican, Graham who made Mrs. Alito cry not Ted Kennedy.
Let's not forget that it was Dubya who wanted to make the Alito nomination a diversion from all the present scandals and questions about illegality involving the WH..
Dan are you crying because it's unfair that republicans fight back dirtly as hard as democrats did?
GMAGDFB!
GMAFB, the Republican echo-chamber has wasted no time using this personal incident to try and portray Democrats on the Judiciary committee questioning Alito as tactless and rude, but it was a Republican, Graham who made Mrs. Alito cry not Ted Kennedy.
Let's not forget that it was Dubya who wanted to make the Alito nomination a diversion from all the present scandals and questions about illegality involving the WH..
Man, you're not that clueless about the nomination process. LEt me see, There's a vacancy in the SC, therefore the president should nominate his pick. Easy,..no? I mean that didn't take a conspiracy to find that out did it?
Yes, it was just a simple as nominating Samharrietmiers Alito to fill that post.
Ok, looks like Dan gave up on that argument and your the lone cheerleader to still argue such flawed logic.
Going back the past few nominations for the SC through several presidencies these hearing seem to be such a circus. Both parties want their guys/girls in and want to block the other party's picks. The candidates are all smart enough that they just clam up as much as possible so not to say something damning to their chances so in the end the hearings don't really bring out any new information on people. (this is in general). There needs to be changes made on how we go about this, I don't know what it is yet, but hopefully we get it figured out before the next vacancy.
Yeah, for one Judges need to quit being able to cherry-pick the questions they choose to answer by claiming some sort of Judicial prerogative. If a candidate's answers, like Alito, are completely and utterly uncharacteristic of the candidates past judicial and professional opinions, then he deserves to be taken to task by the Judiciary Committee members.
The way things are today, unfortunately, unless Alito stood up and publicly claimed his allegiance to Satan, it has always looked like he was gonna get confirmation.
I'm not arguing Dan's point; I'm just saying that the nomination process is not as simple as picking someone and proceeding from that point. If Dan wishes to say that Judge Alito was the chosen nominee after Miers because the President was trying to deflect attention from other problems, that's Dan's choice; I don't agree with Dan about that. But I also don't agree with your suggestion that there is no political calculation that goes along with a nomination. Fair enough or do you wish to mindlessly impugn me again?
eh, that's just Gtown being Gtown
she got 98 votes dude and she is as liberal as Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and the bunch. Get real - Why should Judges be subject to such questions ? A judge is supposed to rule based on law regardless of political affiliation or whatever idiotology they adhere to. Ruth Bader votes her heart and whatever the Michael Moore's and Soross' of the Liberal agenda tell her to - she ignores law - Heck Roe V. Wade is probably one of the worst decisions ever ( debatable ) and a great injustice.
Look at Alito's past decisions - he has ruled in favor of abortion on numerous ocassions -- instances where he could have had himself reposed from the decision or even wrote a dissent but did not because he rules according to the law -- as flawed as it is with that terrible decision that sets precedent in the abortion issue - roe.
Liberal re .
Jon Maxson BlogspotThe intent of the judiciary is to be a safeguard for the minority. It has always been expected that the majority would pursue the will of the people through all legislative and executive means. But what protection does this leave for the minority? None, unless you have an unelected branch of government charged exclusively with interpreting the limits of power under the Cons ution. There were some things believed by our Founders to be above the whim of the ruling party. Even when unpopular, these rights – including those of minority religions, controversial speech and the due process of accused criminals – were deemed crucial to life in a free society. As a result, you can see how the judiciary could be unpopular to the majority, but that makes it no less essential.
As a result of this sort of governmental organization, the danger is profound when judges attempt to take a passive approach to juris prudence. In a judge’s role, refusing to act to protect the majority is de facto support of the majority. And make no mistake, Judge Alito sides with power
Their belief in restraint is not some attempt to be more just, but rather an attempt to fundamentally alter the role of the judiciary from a body of minority protection to an impotent legitimization of the majority’s tyranny.
As has come out in the Alito dog and pony show, Alito's judicial opionions/rullings have nearly always come down on the side of ins utions (local/state/fed/police/corporate) against individuals.
and that means what ? - Shall we take a look at Ruth Bader's record prior to taking her seat?
But that's the point, isn't it? I mean, if the law is the law is the law, then the Supreme Court should be issuing nothing but 9-0 decisions in every case. Funny then, that most decisions aren't 9-0.
What makes the difference in almost every case at the Supreme Court level is the jurisprudential philosophy of the particular justices. That jurisprudential philosophy can almost always be correlated to a political persuasion (or can be easily understood to fit within the beliefs espoused by one party or the other). Are you saying that we -- that our Senators -- shouldn't be concerned in any way with trying to understand what jurisprudential philosophies these nominees espouse and trying to determine whether those philosophies comport with the developed sense of Cons utional law? I mean, if there's a nominee who firmly believes that Brown v. Board is a bad decision, shouldn't we know that. If a nominee believes that the Court should have no justification for checking executive power, shouldn't we know that?
Those are undoubtedly extreme examples, but the inquiry into a nominee's philosophy shouldn't require overt extremism as a predicate. And that inquiry is at the heart of the advise and consent role the Senate plays in judicial nominations, particularly at the Supreme Court level.
why do you care now ? did you care when they nominated the ACLU RUTHY?
Ruth actually recalled what organizations she bragged about being a member of.
Since I've developed a conscience about such things -- I can't say I was overly concerned with Supreme Court nominations before the David Souter nomination, mostly because I was in my mid-teens or younger -- I do care about how judges view their role and the beliefs that they bring to the bench, particularly at 1 First Street. I did care with Justice Ginsburg, just as I cared with Justice Breyer, Justice Thomas, Justice Souter, and now-Chief Justice Roberts.
I don't have any great concerns with party affiliation in the nomination game, even though that's all the nomination game has become. I want to know that the judges who take those seats have a healthy respect for the law that exists and some reason to believe that existing rights will not be cir scribed on purely political or personal grounds. I think the confirmation process CAN serve that purpose. It rarely does.
and any do entation proving that she belonged to those organizations didn't just magically disappear.
Clearly, Mrs. Alito was looking for her cue from Karl Rove...
Last edited by Nbadan; 01-12-2006 at 05:59 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
