StaffSaberist Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Well, now that Alito is a Supreme Court justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, I was wondering what you thought of him. Personally, I thought he made an excellent replacement. Listening to him speak, I decided that he was quite fair in his judgements. Even when cornered and asked to say how he'd vote on abortion, he never wavered from his statements that he would follow the Constitution. Days of greuling questioning leave little room for doubt; Alito will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court. Of course, I expect that my statements aren't going to be showered with praise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I think the whole system seems crazy to me. What is the point of having the judiciary seperated from the government if the judiciary is basically a political entity, politically appointed? In exactly the same way that governments waste billions by reversing each others decisions every 5 years or so when they get into power, you will get a supreme court that reverses its decisions every few years based on which political faction has the majority. Maybe i'm misreading it, but thats how it seems to me. As for the hearings, they seem like a politically motivated circus to me, and the very small bit of the questioning i saw reminded me of the way politicians answer questions: being non-commital and not giving a straight answer. I assume that now the republicans have a majority people will try and challenge every ruling the last lot made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 It's kind of hard to tell what to think of him, considering that he didn't answer a single question. But I say appoint him, just because there's no other option. Any Bush nominee will be a neo-con, and Bush DID get re-elected, which means that he gets to pick the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Incidentially, Mike the Mad Biologist does an excellent summary of why the Democrats should have filibustered Alito. There seems to be little more to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 From what I heard, they didn't have the votes to filibuster, so it's a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Even if they could filibuster, I don't see what good would come from it. So they defeat Alito, and Bush nominates a clone of him. This is a lose-lose situation for the democrats, so they should just let it pass and focus on winning elections so THEY can pick who they want. If Roe v. Wade is overturned it will be a huge wake-up call to the democrats that they need to get their act together and get back in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Even if they couldn't have won the filibuster (and IIRC they did have the votes), it would have sent an important signal to their grassroots. If they did succeed and W put forward another neo-con political animal, then you fecking well filibuster him too. And you keep doing it until the Bush regime starts taking the seperation of the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary seriously (oh and throw in seperation of church and state for good measure) - for a change. It's time to stop playing nice. The Bush regime doesn't play by the rules, so why in hell are the Democrats still polite to them? If history shows us anything at all it is that appeasement does not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 And you keep doing it until the Bush regime starts taking the seperation of the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary seriously (oh and throw in seperation of church and state for good measure) - for a change. As much as I'd like that, I don't see it happening. The only result I see from repeated filibusters is Bill Frist putting forth the "nuclear option" that he's just been waiting to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 And then you slam them in the next election. "Mr Republica-talking-head, please explain why your president put a YEC and a political appointee on the SCOTUS. And, while we're at it, why did you push a candidate that was so incompetent at covering his YEC and neo-con leanings that you had to steamroller over established parliamentary procedure to get him there?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I say appoint him. With a minimum of fuss. Anybody Bush nominates is going to be a conservative. So we either get an "up-front" conservative who seems to know a few things about the law (like Roberts,) a full-out conservative wacko (like Bork,) or (the most dangerous...) a "Bork in Roberts clothing"... a wacko who stealthy enough to get through without raising any hackles. I'm not sure which one Alito is... My gut tells me he's more "up front" than "stealth" but only time will tell. At least he doesn't seem like a total nut-case. But if the Dems managed to stifle his appointment in some way, eventually Bush will get someone in. And it may be the far more dangerous type... Personally, I think a Conservative-leaning court could do wonders for the liberal/ progressive movement in this country in the long run. Oh, in the short term there will be a lot of rulings that will go against everything they stand for... but eventually, if civil-liberties get too crushed by Supreme-Court rulings, the country will move left again, and when that occurs no outright conservative will be able to get elected to a major government office for a long time after that. What's the old expression?.. "Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it!" Especially if they move to overturn Roe too quickly* (which, let's be honest, is all this whole thing is about at the moment) which is the one thing that I can imagine could stir a lot of non-voting but moderate-to-left-leaning folks out of their stupor and into voting booths. In far bigger numbers than the Christian right could ever muster, too. And as liberals take the White House again, the court will eventually get filled with left-leaning justices,.. and the whole bloody cycle will start all over again. (*) A word of warning to our conservative friends: Don't go after overturning Roe too quickly, in your heady rush of victory celebration. The country is still not ready for that yet, despite what you might believe, and those you support will see an instantaneous backlash if you try it. The "Death by a thousand cuts" approach over a longer period of time will be far less noticed by the populous as a whole, and less likely to cause as dramatic a backlash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Personally, I hope he gets appointed if just to overturn Roe v. Wade. Let all the red, southern states outlaw it and the blue states can import their redneck wives, girlfriends & mistresses for high-priced, abortions. Or, if they can't afford them, they can have their babies and run their lives into the ground with a child they can't afford. Eventually, natural selection will take over. The red state populations will reach a carrying capacity and collapse, allowing the blue states to take advantage of competitive release and adaptively radiate. Then we can get the nation back into a progressive mode rather than a regressive one. But satire aside, I *do* hope Roe v. Wade is overturned. Then the Republicans could all stfu and *real* issues that affect the majority of the nation instead of a small minority can come to the forefront of politics. Wedge issues like abortion are largely meaningless and create cultural division, much to the design and delight of a$$hole politicians on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Agreed. And one has to wonder: What issue will bring out the Christian Right to vote in such numbers as we have seen in the last couple of elections once they get thier victory over Roe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Agreed too. Though it might suck for any poor teenage girl caught in the middle in the meantime. What's that saying? "its always easier to rally people against something than for something"? Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Well, I seriously doubt my home state is going to take any huge, radical actions to ban or overly restrict abortions. Eventually, the issue will come up before the courts again. Perhaps this time they can pass a much better "Freedom of Privacy" law that will cover all the bases, as well as be totally bulletproof from attacks. Better yet: a Constitutional Amendment... The mood of the country might be ripe for such a thing by then... after folks see just what it's like to lose freedoms that they had always taken for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Agreed as well. You all hit the nail on the head for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Anybody Bush nominates is going to be a conservative. So we either get an "up-front" conservative who seems to know a few things about the law (like Roberts,) a full-out conservative wacko (like Bork,) or (the most dangerous...) a "Bork in Roberts clothing"... a wacko who stealthy enough to get through without raising any hackles. I'd go for delaying the appointment long enough for the civilised part of the American political spectrum to retake either or both houses, and then stop him stone cold dead in every confirmation hearing. This is Congress Election Year, and Republican skeletons are falling out of White House closets by the bucketload. They only had to stay the course for - what? 10 months? And even if they managed to get a complete asshole in, surely there is a procedure for impeaching justices appointed by presidents that are impeached for criminal abuse of office? Personally, I think a Conservative-leaning court could do wonders for the liberal/ progressive movement in this country in the long run. Oh, in the short term there will be a lot of rulings that will go against everything they stand for... but eventually, if civil-liberties get too crushed by Supreme-Court rulings, the country will move left again, and when that occurs no outright conservative will be able to get elected to a major government office for a long time after that. You're assuming that government offices will still be (somewhat) accountable to the wishes of the people. But satire aside, I *do* hope Roe v. Wade is overturned. Then the Republicans could all stfu and *real* issues that affect the majority of the nation instead of a small minority can come to the forefront of politics. Wedge issues like abortion are largely meaningless and create cultural division, much to the design and delight of asshole politicians on both sides. And what makes you think that appeacement will buy us peace in our time this time around? Eventually, the issue will come up before the courts again. Perhaps this time they can pass a much better "Freedom of Privacy" law that will cover all the bases, as well as be totally bulletproof from attacks. Better yet: a Constitutional Amendment... The mood of the country might be ripe for such a thing by then... after folks see just what it's like to lose freedoms that they had always taken for granted. You assume that the courts will still by that time be independent and capable of performing judiciary review. You further assume that the government is still held accountable to the constitution and the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 They only had to stay the course for - what? 10 months? It comes down to political expedience: I'm sure most of the Democrats and Moderates were thinking that being seen as obstructionists to forward progress could also be political suicide at this point, and eventually be used against them. Karl Rove is still around, for the time being... and he could do wonders with a situation like that. The Dems could actually end up losing more seats in the end, no matter how badly the GOP implodes publicly, if they gave him enough fuel to feed the whisper-campaign engine. As it is they could still get the full treatment anyway... just for ever daring to question Alito too harshly. There's a lot of footage from the hearings that could be used negatively against them in the right circles. It's really a lose/lose situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I'm sure most of the Democrats and Moderates were thinking that being seen as obstructionists to forward progress could also be political suicide at this point, and eventually be used against them. Expedience be damned. The regime will launch its smear campaign no matter what, and the corporate fatcats in the media cartels will do the dirty work. There doesn't have to be substance to the smear campaigns the regime launches, because they rely on sheer attrition and are perfectly willing to create propaganda oppertunities out of whole cloth. If you try to appeace the regime, it will simply escalate its demands until you have to say no, and then it'll have the 'obstructionist democrats' crisis it wants. Baseless, petty, whining, and all those other adjectives - but it'll work no worse for that. So the only thing you accomplish by being accomodating is to give up hard-won ground for no return at all. The sooner you put your foot down, the less ground you'll lose - and the immediate consequences will be the same: The regime gets its 'scandal'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Good speaker, but a total conservative. He is incredibly intelligent. I was amazed just listening to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I'm not saying I totally approve of their tactics, Templar... but I do understand what they are trying to do. The Democrats are pretty much sitting back and watching the Republicans slowly dig their own grave. By the time the mid-term elections come around, all the various scandals will have come full-term and be on full display, and the hope is that the tolerance for "staying-the-course" in Iraq will then still be at an all time low and the mood will be ripe for a dramatic policy change... perhaps inspiring a country-wide shift towards the left. Sweeping a bunch of Democrats into House and Senate seats, giving them back some real power, and perhaps even control. If they can get to that point they won't need to use a filibuster to stop the things they don't like. It's happened before in the middle of an unsuccessful 2nd term that there was a house-cleaning in Congress, shifting control back to the other party. Coming out too forceful at this point could attract the country's attention on them, but perhaps in a negative way. It's a chance they don't want to take at this point. A calculated risk... The country doesn't see a filibuster as a positive thing, and I'm sure the Dems are trying to refrain from that option at any and all cost at this point. Like I said: I'm not exactly pleased with them taking this approach right now... but it's obvious to everyone why they are doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hasn't worked so far... But, hey, I'm not the one in charge of their tactical decisions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 I apologize for bing gone for so long. You'd never believe this, but I managed to make about half my computer explode. I think it was because of a stripped USB port (no idea how it stripped, but it was) that I entered my room only to find the power supply giving me arc flashes. People in welding class deal with arc flashes all the time, but that's not something you want in a computer box. Naturally, the box was history. And so was my $300 motherboard.Thank God for warranties! Anyhow, the system itself is up and running, but one teeny... tiny... problem... remains. The real pain in the butt to set up, the thing I miss the most: My wireless internet connection. Yeah, my computer's been running for two days, and I have no internet connection. Mainly because the Linksys setup is f***ing me over, royally. I'm supposed to install the driver, power it down, install the board, and boot the computer, where the Setup Wizard finishes the install. Problem is, the last step isn't working, and I can't access the Wizard from Step 3 on. Now I'm stuck with no internet. Maybe it's fried as well. Anyways, I'm saying this because it may be a few days before I can write again. I'm not abandoning the forums; I'm gone everywhere. Until then... adieu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Whelp, it's official, Alito is confirmed Can't say that I'm surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 At least Bush has one solid victory under his belt. He has successfully moved the court to the right. It's not something I can say I'm happy with, but only time will tell if the American public approves of their country going backward in a time when the rest of the world is moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm (obviously) glad Alito has been confirmed, and just as glad the Democrats didn't drag us into another excruciating filibuster/nuclear option debate...though I also think that if Alito was really as bad as Teddy Kennedy said, the Dems really would've filibustered. In my opinion, most of what was said by the Democrats in & amongst the confirmation hearings was nothing but a bunch of fallacious character assasination (yet another attempted Borking). On another note, I've found it highly entertaining to read the posts about the Democratic "strategy" of sitting back and doing nothing...or could it be that the Dems really have nothing in the way of substance, so try as they might, they just haven't succeeded in winning? The simple truth of it is that political/idealogical trends in society seem to be pendulemic (yes, I just made up my own word...it means, "reacting as a pendulum"). Societal trends tend to swing back and forth from conservative to liberal, but I'd say that overall, they tend to swing further to the left than to the right, creating an overall liberal trend...I don't like it, but hard truths are still true. As for this year's elections, I don't thing there will be any kind of a Democratic revolution in Congress - too many Congressional Dems have shown that they have no substance, and not enough style to make up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.