Alito May Quickly Affect Laws

[Algorem]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-alito15jan15,0,467186.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court

His confirmation to the high court would make him a decisive vote in several upcoming cases.

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who is poised to join the Supreme Court by the end of this month, is likely to have an immediate impact in the areas of abortion, religion and the death penalty.

Alito's arrival also would set the stage for far-reaching changes in two areas of law that went almost unmentioned during his Senate hearings: election campaigns and the environment. Both issues are to come before the high court next month.

The Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up a weeklong hearing on Alito's nomination Friday and is expected to approve him on a party-line vote as early as this week.

By succeeding centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, President Bush's nominee could tip the balance to the right on about half a dozen issues on which the justices have been closely split...

[Dogmudgeon]

1. There's a cure for that

In 2008, we elect an ass-kickin' Democratic president and a full Democratic legislature.

S/He then appoints four strongly liberal judges to the SCOTUS, who sail to confirmation. There's nothing sacred about having nine judges. Thirteen could be our lucky number -- like the number of original states, or stripes on Old Glory.

Or, we could just go through the legislature, and pass a bunch of legislation to take the issues out of the Republicans' hands. After all, they've been preaching against "legislating from the bench" since 1932 at least.

Let's give them what they want. Good and hard.

--p!

[HereSince1628]

3. Interesting, but what stopped Roosevelt from going to 15?

[stevekatz]

4. it was seen

It was widely seen as a naked grab for power.

It's bad politics and a bad idea.
What would ever stop republicans from adding another 4 judges when they eventually retook power?

It's important that we keep an independant judiciary, its the bedrock of our democracy. And that is something that is bigger then George Bush, John Roberts, or Sam Alito.

--Steve

[stevekatz]

5. It was seen

.
board error

[xchrom]

2. ...

''The three justices dissented two years ago when a 5-4 majority, joined by O'Connor, upheld the McCain-Feingold Act and its limits on big-money contributions from corporations, unions and the wealthy. A second set of provisions barred those groups from funding broadcast ads 60 days before a federal election.
Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy argue that these government-imposed limits on campaign contributions and political ads violate the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. If Roberts and Alito agree with that, they could reshape U.S. election law.''

well, that would be just about the most important thing he could accomplish for the corporatists in the political control sphere.