I'm Not Worried About Alito

[ruggerson]

And, frankly, I'm not worried about Roberts either. Of course, I'd much rather have a progressive President appointing justices, but, given the fact that this is the worst President since Ulysses Grant, my opinion is that so far, justice-wise, we've escaped by the skin of our teeth.

After reading a slew of Alito's opinions, my humble observation is that he is a fair minded jurist, who will move the court slightly to the right. I don't think he is an ideologue, and I don't think Roe is in danger, largely because the Republicans desperately need it for fundraising (you'd think the idiots on the religious right would wake up and smell the coffee and see how they're being used.)

Let's pray Bush doesn't get to appoint a third. But, I do not think we should expend much energy fighting this one, certainly not wasting a filibuster. We could have gotten far worse than Alito. He's not Scalia nor Thomas, not even close.

JMHO.

[DaveColorado]

1. I frankly don't know what to think of Alito

Some say he is to the right of Scalia, and some say he is not.

I have also heard that Alito was on the fundies' wish list, so that gives me pause.

I am hopeful about Roberts, and even if I disagree with him on some of his votes, I think he was well qualified for his job.

[babylonsister]

2. I respect your opinion, ruggerson. But why do you say

"wasting a filibuster"? How would it be wasted if deemed necessary?
Do filibusters span the different regimes that inevitably happen in Congress? Dimson is in the minus category as far as political capital.
I guess my question is, how would a filibuster hurt?

[DaveColorado]

3. I think we should fight it

We might very well lose, but there is also a small chance we could win if we tar and feather this guy, and * may appoint someone more moderate.

[ruggerson]

4. Because a filibuster will lead to a test of the "nuclear option"

which the Republicans are itching for, so they can permanently toss the filibuster for purposes of selecting judges.

If we are to provoke this, I'd rather do it when we actually stand a chance to win.

If Alito is seen by the public as an acceptable conservative, which I venture to say he is, then there would be no public pressure on any moderate Republicans to vote against the nuclear option if we pushed an all out war.

If we waste it on an Alito, it won't be there when we really do need it for, say, a Janice Rogers Brown or another far rightwing activist.

It's like the boy who cried wolf. I'd rather strategically we only cry wolf when there's a real and present danger to our democracy, and thus live to fight another day.

Mainstream centrist Americans, the swing voters, will respect the Democratic party more if we come out swinging only when truly provoked. And the name of the game is to swing even more and more of these voters our way, so that we can win back the Congress in '06 and the WH in '08.

[NNN0LHI]

11. They aren't itching for no "nuclear option"

When the Repugs lose Congress next year it will then be used against them. Plus the Dem's proved the other day what they can do if the Repugs try pulling the "nuclear option". They can shut the place down indefinitely if the Rethugs try pulling that crap. And thats exactly what they had better do if it becomes necessary.

Don

[DefenseLawyer]

14. Are you sure they are itching for the nuclear option?

Republican Senators can see how '06 is shaping up and they may find themselves back in the minority. I don't think they want to end the filibuster, just talk about it. I don't know how many of Alitos opinions you have read, but it is important to read his dissents. I have read several in the past week and I come to a completely different opinion. It's not simply privacy, it's civil rights, it's worker's rights, it's the Fourth Amendment. Alito is a nut, and proud of it. Honestly I think "mainstream centrist swing voting Americans" probably don't exist. And those that do don't know Alito from Mosquito. The tiny tiny number of "moderates" that would vote republican because the nut gets filibustered is not worth courting.

[ruggerson]

6. Another to thing to remember, Babylon

is that if we do not provoke a loss on the "nuclear option," that Senate Rules will then still allow a filibuster for the purposes of a judicial nomination.

Come '06, if we have more Democrats in the Senate (very likely) or even take control of the Senate, that means for Bush's last two years if, God forbid, he should get another SC appointment, we would be in the catbird seat, because we could filibuster anyone we wished to.

But if we provoke the fight now, the rules get changed, and then we are screwed down the road.

[Gloria]

5. I think he's a liar. Over at Kos, a big thread on his Vanguard

holdings, recusal.

Another really explains the bullshit about Griswold, how they pretend and create an "aura" of how they'll respect precedence....which they really won't do...

[Lexingtonian]

7. I haven't looked into things

much in detail, but we have two months to get a full impression of what he's about. That will be more than long enough.

My impression so far is that he's quite good but runs ungenerous on civil rights and has an erratic streak in which he kneejerks to 19th century or earlier Italian cultural views. There is something intellectually unsolid about him, though, some deeper flaw in his thinking from which the somewhat bizarre stuff he's opined emanates.

We shall see what emerges. My impression is that letting Republicans stew a bit and letting them start up their internal argument and cutting of disgusting deals with the Christian Right about Roe v Wade again can't hurt.

[autorank]

8. "Don't Bogart that joint" ruggerson n/t

:rofl:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

16. Jeez

I didn't realize I'd be provoking the ghost of Joe McCarthey.

I have a different OPINION from you. That doesn't make me insensitive to any of the things you mention.

And, as a matter of fact, I am more than quite subject to the whims and oppressions of the right. I can't even get legally married to the spouse I've been with for nine years. Can you fathom that?

I'm talking about a strategic process here. In politics, you take some hits and you score some successes and over time you try to nudge the ball significantly in the direction that you wish it to go. You know when to fight and when not to. That is not sacrificing ideology or commitment, it's called being rational and realistic.

I think it's desperately sad that you are so rigid in your thought processes that you don't tolerate any deviancy from your own personal belief system, whatever that may be, so much so that you insult someone else's bona fides as a progressive over a disagreement on tactics.

I happen to think that electorally we are in a really rough spot, which we have a very good chance of climbing out of in the next few years.

But we won't do it by alienating everyone who deviates from some rigid party line.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Little early to give him the thumbs up isn't it?

The hearings aren't until next year. Think I will take a wait and see attitude and see what comes out about this fellow. I don't trust Bush's judgment on anything.

If Fitzgerald comes out with more indictments between now and the hearings next year we may be able to run the clock out on any more Bush appointees for the SC.

Don

[ruggerson]

17. That's very valid

and I agree that caution is still the watchword here. But he strikes me as more of a Kennedy type conservative than a Scalia one. He does seem to be a strong advocate of first amendment freedoms to a fault and, from what I've read so far, does not imbue any of his opinions with Scalia-like language referencing religious belief systems as an underlying support system for constitutional analysis. I am cautiously optimistic that he is not a religious rightwing judicial activist.

[Raiden]

12. Let me post this Alito quote from another thread

"The court might have gone too far in separating church and state"


This is your fair-minded jurist? He may not be Scalia or Thomas, but that ain't saying much.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. I am. I'm deeply concerned and it's not because of Roe

We need to know his philosophy of Executive Powers. This is the one, single issue that needs to be queried by the Senate Judicial Committee, IMO. We need to know where he draws the line between Dictator and Commander in Chief.

Between secret prisons, torture, the 'war on terror' and now...how will classified information be handled in Libby's (and possibly others) trial? Those are all issues falling into the realm of Executive Powers.

We need to know.

[Oilwellian]

15. Excellent points....I just finished reading this article

The root of my opposition to Roberts can be found in the fact that he joined the Hamdan decision. Leave aside the valid questions about the propriety of Roberts joining a decision in this case while being considered for the Supreme Court by the White House. The critical point is that he joined this particular decision at all. Emily Bazelon explained why that case mattered so much:
Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. Tonight when Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.

...

The opinion says that Congress authorized the president to set up whatever military tribunal he deems appropriate when it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism in response to 9/11. While the president has claimed the authority only to try foreign suspects before the tribunals, there's nothing in the Hamdan opinion that stops him from extending their reach to any other suspected terrorist, American citizens included.
Bazelon has more. I suggest you read it.

Strike Three: The Padilla Case

Bazelon's reference to American citizens brings us to another reason why Roberts' confirmation is such a calamitous disaster for anyone who gives a damn about civil liberties. If our media or our politicians had even the slightest understanding of the constitutional principles involved, and if they fully grasped the implications of this case, the story of Jose Padilla would be familiar to every single American. As it is, most Americans don't know who the hell he is.

Keep in mind as you read what follows that Padilla is an American citizen. If this can happen to him, it can happen to you. These are the most recent developments in the Padilla case:
Jose Padilla, held for three years as an "enemy combatant" in the war on terrorism, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the government's power to detain American citizens as terror suspects without charges.

A federal appeals court last month ruled in Padilla's case the government can indefinitely hold U.S. citizens it determines to be enemy fighters in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration says Padilla, arrested in Chicago in 2002, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and was recruited by al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Padilla's appeal seeks to test the power of President George W. Bush's administration to wage the war on terror inside this country. Padilla asked the justices to decide when and for how long the government can jail U.S. citizens in military prisons.

"There is no question more important in American constitutional law than the power of the executive branch to subject citizens to indefinite military detention without criminal trial," Padilla's lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington.

...

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled unanimously against Padilla last month. The Supreme Court will decide late this year or early next year whether to consider his appeal.
If the Supreme Court hears the appeal, and if both Roberts and Alito are involved in the decision, I see no reason to be at all confident that the Supreme Court will cut back the president's power to the slightest degree.

It is vital that everyone understand what that power means: in terms of the constitutional principles involved and their implications, it is the power of an absolute dictator. The power is that of the president to declare that you, or I, or any other American citizen is an "enemy combatant," the power never to have to present his reasons for making that declaration, and the power never to have to charge anyone with any crime at all. And we can be locked up for the rest of our lives.

(much much more)
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2005/11/three-strikes-and-were-out-destroying.html