Judge Alito Victorious in Judiciary Committee

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, you're trolling with the Limbaugh/Hannity talking points.

Well, despite the fact that I don't have cable or even a working radio, I'm spouting Limbaugh/Hannity talking points. Maybe they're just RIGHT for once, ever think of that? Or do you automatically believe the opposite of everything they say to be true by default?

Maybe you or Todd can point out where any claim that I made here is non-factual in nature, or at least how my stating a simple fact is in any way equivalent to 'parroting talking points' from talking heads that I don't even listen to.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

Anyone?

http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/votes/Party-Percentages-99-00.shtml

 

[Starbuck1975]

We've seen that Alito wants to overturn Roe v. Wade

No he doesn't...judges are allowed to have personal opinions on issues so long as they do not interfere with their mandate on the Supreme Court...I give Alito a bit more credit then you do on this issue, especially considering he has stated many times that he respects precedent.

supports a unitary executive

I don't care how conservative a judge may be...the checks and balances provided by the Constitution hold even the Supreme Court in check, and if Alito were to swing decisions contrary to the Constitution, it would cause a political firestorm from which the Republicans could never recover.

s a pro-corporate whore

There is nothing wrong with being pro-corporation...it is not a binary issue...there is a balance between what corporations require to remain competitive in a global market place, and reasonable protections for workers...unions are in place to provide checks against corporate dominance, something even the Supreme Court can't control.

What else is there to know about the prick?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: loki8481
I said this in another thread...

I think at this point, everyone recognizes that the entire confirmation process is political theater.

on the one hand, Democrats could find pictures of Alito in a nazi uniform eating live kittens while wiping his ass with the bill of rights and he'd still get confirmed; on the other hands, Dems can't just play WoW on their laptops during the hearings or give Alito some oral pleasure like the Republicans at the risk of pissing off their base.

Oh, my. Did you even watch those hearings? They tried so desperately to throw everything and anything at him and got nowhere. The best part about the whole process is they made themselves to look like even bigger jackasses. :beer:

I somehow doubt it.

before the hearings began, everyone and their mother knew this thing was going to come down to a straight party-line vote.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: loki8481
I said this in another thread...

I think at this point, everyone recognizes that the entire confirmation process is political theater.

on the one hand, Democrats could find pictures of Alito in a nazi uniform eating live kittens while wiping his ass with the bill of rights and he'd still get confirmed; on the other hands, Dems can't just play WoW on their laptops during the hearings or give Alito some oral pleasure like the Republicans at the risk of pissing off their base.

Oh, my. Did you even watch those hearings? They tried so desperately to throw everything and anything at him and got nowhere. The best part about the whole process is they made themselves to look like even bigger jackasses. :beer:

I somehow doubt it.

before the hearings began, everyone and their mother knew this thing was going to come down to a straight party-line vote.

Doubt what? They didn't try to throw everything at him? Well watching the hearings in most of it's entirety I can most definitely say, they tried. I was just wondering when Teddy K was going to ask him what kind of TP he wipes his ass with.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Doubt what?

I doubt that any of the democrats really thought they had a chance to derail the nomination.

it was just political theater to appease their base.

 

[Zebo]

Alito is bad news - huge corporate whore voted to exonerate large corps in violation of Sherman over small businesses plenty of times. Also his by civil liberties record it's obvious he hates our country voting for warrantless surveillance and excesive use of force so many times I don't see his veiws changing. This nomination will bite the republicans in the arse - on the abortion issue - but that's not what going to hurt. It's when the women voters put a democrat back in office and he's uses his new found court given powers to impose retribution on the party who made those powers possible.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Alito is bad news - huge corporate whore voted to exonerate large corps in violation of Sherman over small businesses plenty of times. Also his by civil liberties record it's obvious he hates our country voting for warrantless surveillance and excesive use of force so many times I don't see his veiws changing. This nomination will bite the republicans in the arse - on the abortion issue - but that's not what going to hurt. It's when the women voters put a democrat back in office and he's uses his new found court given powers to impose retribution on the party who made those powers possible.

Women and young voters were supposed to bring it home last time, didn't happen. We will see though.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

Anyone?

http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/votes/Party-Percentages-99-00.shtml

Not SCOTUS but well go with that. You don't consider 2% nays rubberstamping?

 

[Starbuck1975]

This nomination will bite the republicans in the arse - on the abortion issue - but that's not what going to hurt.

Pretty sad that both of our political parties are anchored to an issue that has little to no relevance for the majority of Americans...yet people will base their vote on this one issue...perhaps it is symbolic, but I find it to be an enormous waste of time.

It's when the women voters put a democrat back in office

Just make sure it is a candidate with sex appeal, because that was a quality that many women voters found in Kennedy and Clinton...and women accuse men of thinking with their third leg.

he's uses his new found court given powers to impose retribution on the party who made those powers possible.

Which would in turn be contradictory to the criticisms against executive privilege made by the Democrats, thereby making their newly elected President a hypocrite and easy target for political smearing.

The vindictive cycle of American politics seems to be the status quo, but we should expect more...this isn't the playground.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We've seen that Alito wants to overturn Roe v. Wade

No he doesn't...judges are allowed to have personal opinions on issues so long as they do not interfere with their mandate on the Supreme Court...I give Alito a bit more credit then you do on this issue, especially considering he has stated many times that he respects precedent.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/5624973/detail.html

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned.

In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.


Alito disagreed with court decisions on reapportionmentWritten statement in '85 challenged Warren era rulings
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...t_decisions_on_reapportionment?mode=PF

Yeah, he just *loves* precedent

supports a unitary executive

I don't care how conservative a judge may be...the checks and balances provided by the Constitution hold even the Supreme Court in check, and if Alito were to swing decisions contrary to the Constitution, it would cause a political firestorm from which the Republicans could never recover.

In a speech to the Federalist Society in 2001, Alito said:
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0...al_Power_to_Eavesdrop_on_Americans.htm

When I was in OLC [] . . ., we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President. And I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure . . . ." "[T]he case for a unitary executive seems, if anything, stronger today than it was in the 18th Century.

The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

s a pro-corporate whore

There is nothing wrong with being pro-corporation...it is not a binary issue...there is a balance between what corporations require to remain competitive in a global market place, and reasonable protections for workers...unions are in place to provide checks against corporate dominance, something even the Supreme Court can't control.

What else is there to know about the prick?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

In the strange case of Kenneth Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened on behalf of Pirolli, a retarded man who complained of his workplace and presented "evidence that another one of Pirolli's co-workers, Harley Strauss, 'attempted to push a broom pole into (Pirolli's) behind as other staff watched." <http://www.eeoc.gov/briefs/pirolli.txt >.

What was Alito's reaction? "Pirolli's brief never asserts that his work environment was one that a reasonable, non-retarded person would find hostile or abusive." <http://www.supremecourtwatch.org/Pirolli2.pdf >.


Bend over.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We've seen that Alito wants to overturn Roe v. Wade

No he doesn't...judges are allowed to have personal opinions on issues so long as they do not interfere with their mandate on the Supreme Court...I give Alito a bit more credit then you do on this issue, especially considering he has stated many times that he respects precedent.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/5624973/detail.html

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned.

In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.


Alito disagreed with court decisions on reapportionmentWritten statement in '85 challenged Warren era rulings
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...t_decisions_on_reapportionment?mode=PF

Yeah, he just *loves* precedent

supports a unitary executive

I don't care how conservative a judge may be...the checks and balances provided by the Constitution hold even the Supreme Court in check, and if Alito were to swing decisions contrary to the Constitution, it would cause a political firestorm from which the Republicans could never recover.

In a speech to the Federalist Society in 2001, Alito said:
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0...al_Power_to_Eavesdrop_on_Americans.htm

When I was in OLC [] . . ., we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President. And I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure . . . ." "[T]he case for a unitary executive seems, if anything, stronger today than it was in the 18th Century.

The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

s a pro-corporate whore

There is nothing wrong with being pro-corporation...it is not a binary issue...there is a balance between what corporations require to remain competitive in a global market place, and reasonable protections for workers...unions are in place to provide checks against corporate dominance, something even the Supreme Court can't control.

What else is there to know about the prick?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

In the strange case of Kenneth Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened on behalf of Pirolli, a retarded man who complained of his workplace and presented "evidence that another one of Pirolli's co-workers, Harley Strauss, 'attempted to push a broom pole into (Pirolli's) behind as other staff watched." <http://www.eeoc.gov/briefs/pirolli.txt >.

What was Alito's reaction? "Pirolli's brief never asserts that his work environment was one that a reasonable, non-retarded person would find hostile or abusive." <http://www.supremecourtwatch.org/Pirolli2.pdf >.


Bend over.

This has what to do with the subject of this thread??

 

[conjur]

Read the thread and you will know.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Zebo
Alito is bad news - huge corporate whore voted to exonerate large corps in violation of Sherman over small businesses plenty of times. Also his by civil liberties record it's obvious he hates our country voting for warrantless surveillance and excesive use of force so many times I don't see his veiws changing. This nomination will bite the republicans in the arse - on the abortion issue - but that's not what going to hurt. It's when the women voters put a democrat back in office and he's uses his new found court given powers to impose retribution on the party who made those powers possible.

Women and young voters were supposed to bring it home last time, didn't happen. We will see though.

Nominating Frankenstein was a big mistake for democrats in addition to not having a message.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Zebo
Alito is bad news - huge corporate whore voted to exonerate large corps in violation of Sherman over small businesses plenty of times. Also his by civil liberties record it's obvious he hates our country voting for warrantless surveillance and excesive use of force so many times I don't see his veiws changing. This nomination will bite the republicans in the arse - on the abortion issue - but that's not what going to hurt. It's when the women voters put a democrat back in office and he's uses his new found court given powers to impose retribution on the party who made those powers possible.

Women and young voters were supposed to bring it home last time, didn't happen. We will see though.

Nominating Frankenstein was a big mistake for democrats in addition to not having a message.

The bigger mistake was underestimating the masterful Rove, it looked good for a while but then on election day everyone got a big surprise. Bush didn't win the election and Kerry didn't lose, Rove won and Kerry's campaign manager with his inept response to the swifties and not figuring a response to the "flip-flopper" issue lost.

 

[Cooler]

:music: We are the champions :music:

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Cooler
:music: We are the champions :music:

By we do you mean the morality police, big corporations, and big government activists

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, he just *loves* precedent

That statement was from 1985. On one of the many Alito threads, someone posted a series of quotes, by Democrats, that praised Alito's credentials and his capacity for unbiased and impartial judicial review...but some of you claimed those comments were irrelevant as they were nearly a decade old...and that people and opinions change.

Hypocrites.

Bend over.

I don't bend over for people blinded by the constraints of a partisan worldview.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I observed Alito to be 'Intelectually Dishonest' with his selective memory - where he forgot why he had embellished
his resume with claims to the Princeton group aimed at someone he was trying to impress when applying for a
position as a lawyer within the Reagan administration - it was aimed at someone for a specific purpose,
and his claiming that he would perform duties without adhering to any agenda, then reversing his course
and working in his own interests in the Vangard case.

He has a history of being against individual rights, while siding with Government controls and making decisions
that are beneficial and promotional to Big Business and Corporate Enterprises at the expense of common citizens.

I see packing of the Supreme Court with an individual that we will find exactly as predicted by the GOP's activists.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah, he just *loves* precedent

That statement was from 1985. On one of the many Alito threads, someone posted a series of quotes, by Democrats, that praised Alito's credentials and his capacity for unbiased and impartial judicial review...but some of you claimed those comments were irrelevant as they were nearly a decade old...and that people and opinions change.

Hypocrites.

More likely that quote wasn't known to the Dems at the time.

The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.

Bend over.

I don't bend over for people blinded by the constraints of a partisan worldview.

You must never bend at all when looking in a mirror, then.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

They unanimously supported him when he was appointed to the US Court of Appeals. What's the huge difference that they went from full support to zero support?

3 words...

"Roe vs Wade"

Sad, but true. That's all everyone seems to worry about. I don't give a rats butt about that as much as I don't want someone who wants more government/corporate power at the expense of losing ones individual rights. Probably won't matter much either way.

Actually only two words "Job history".

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah, he just *loves* precedent

That statement was from 1985. On one of the many Alito threads, someone posted a series of quotes, by Democrats, that praised Alito's credentials and his capacity for unbiased and impartial judicial review...but some of you claimed those comments were irrelevant as they were nearly a decade old...and that people and opinions change.

Hypocrites.

More likely that quote wasn't known to the Dems at the time.

The papers were from 1985. His hearing was in 1990.

 

[Starbuck1975]

More likely that quote wasn't known to the Dems at the time.

I would hope those quotes were known considering that Democrats were the ones who spoke the words.

You must never bend at all when looking in a mirror, then.

And at the end of the day, that's the best you have?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah, he just *loves* precedent

That statement was from 1985. On one of the many Alito threads, someone posted a series of quotes, by Democrats, that praised Alito's credentials and his capacity for unbiased and impartial judicial review...but some of you claimed those comments were irrelevant as they were nearly a decade old...and that people and opinions change.

Hypocrites.

More likely that quote wasn't known to the Dems at the time.

The papers were from 1985. His hearing was in 1990.

This was just a few posts above:

The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Not surprising that Alito, the champion of white male privilege, gets such support with the OP and the other fanbois.

Tell that to Teddy K. :laugh:

I would never give my vote to that drunk. :thumbsup: