I heard Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy's insane tirade that included several lies and distortions in the context of his usual obsession with race and gender. I heard a little of Diane Feinstein saying "row" incessantly. I assume she was referring to the issue of pregnancy termination in humans because Alito apparently wrote that the Constitution as written says nothing about abortion which is true of course, the Roe vs. Wade case notwithstanding.

Day 1 of the Alito Hearings in Haiku form: (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/alito_opening_h.html)

Here's a couple:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
You're Conservative
"We Can Pretend That's Not True"
But, Judge, Bro, it is.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein
On Rybar And Roe
So Much For You To Explain
Sigh. Filibuster.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Before I'd Vote "Yay"
You Gotta Tell Me How You'd Deal
With The NSA

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Your Modest Approach
To Judging Seems To Bode Well
For Democracy

That Alito hearings from the democrat viewpoint.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!

I heard Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy's insane tirade.......

Teddy 'The Hut' Kennedy named his dog Splash. Really.

Alito's a thug. I hope he gets Borked.

Alito's a thug. I hope he gets Borked.

What is this based on? Have you analyzed his decisions or are you just holding to the party line?

He looks kind of nerdy.....So, he'll make a great judge..

What is this based on? Have you analyzed his decisions or are you just holding to the party line?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, ( :| ), and suggest he's just toeing the party line. Expect a flood of liberal talking points to make their appearance in 4.....3.....2.....1......

Except there isn't a party line - on the Democratic side - on Alito.

Except there isn't a party line - on the Democratic side - on Alito.

Yeah there is. Just waddle your penguinish self off to DU, Kos, Moron...er, moveon, etc, and bone up on all things anti-Alito.

The idiotic "Wolf Blitzer" and his silly "Situation Room" are focusing on some club Alito was a member of at Princeton in an effort to label him a White supremist. This is consistent with CNN's policy of trying to promote racial division by presenting the extremely rare White on Black crimes as "lynchings" and avoiding all mention of very common Black on White crime.

Surprisingly CNN does have a brief rundown of some issues.

Alito's record reveals conservative, cautious judge

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Sunday, January 8, 2006; Posted: 2:01 p.m. EST (19:01 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Here are some rulings of Judge Samuel Alito from his service on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals since 1990:

Holiday religious displays

Agreed with the majority that a city hall holiday display containing a creche, a menorah, secular symbols of the season, and a banner proclaiming the city's dedication to diversity did not violate the constitutional ban on government "establishment" of religion. The non-religious symbols in the display in Jersey City, New Jersey, included Frosty the Snowman.

Alito: "Reasonably viewed, none of these displays conveyed a message of government endorsement of Christianity, Judaism or of religion in general but instead sent a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one's own beliefs."

But Alito made clear that displays of religious symbols alone would be on shaky constitutional ground.

"Jersey City would have us believe that the symbol of the creche has achieved such a level of secular status that it is religiously benign," he wrote. "We are not so persuaded. The mere fact that a religious symbol is pervasively displayed during the holiday season does not diminish its religious significance. A creche unambiguously represents a belief that is not universally shared by the citizens of this country." ACLU v. Schundler (1999)

Abortion: spousal notification

Disagreed with the majority that struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their husbands.

"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems-- such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," wrote Alito.

"The Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it 'unwise' or worse."

...Agreed with majority that a state law banning a late-term abortion procedure critics call "partial birth" was unconstitutional, following a then-recent Supreme Court case. The high court is now considering whether to accept for review a similar federal law banning the procedure, which Alito could hear if he is confirmed. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer (2000)

Immigration

Agreed with the majority that an Iranian woman did not fulfill a requirement that she have a "profound abhorrence" of her country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms" in order to be eligible for asylum. However, the court established an important legal precedent: including women for the first time in a "particular social group" that might then be the basis for asylum. In this case the woman was allowed to try to prove she would be persecuted because of "gender specific laws and repressive social norms" in her Iranian homeland if she were deported. The court ultimately rejected the specific claim. Fatin v. INS (1993)

Disagreed with the majority that a Korean immigrant couple could not be deported for filing a false tax return, which did not meet the definition of an "aggravated felony." Alito sided with the Justice Department's interpretation of the statute and, in other immigration appeals, appeared to support the government's hard-line stance against illegal immigrants in a post-9/11 environment. Lee v. Ashcroft (2004)

Death penalty

Agreed with the majority that a death-row inmate received adequate legal representation.

Writing the majority opinion, Alito concluded Ronald Rompilla essentially was saying he was entitled to the "most resourceful defense attorneys with bountiful investigative support. ... We may hope for the day when every criminal defendant receives that level of representation," but that is more than the Constitution requires...

Free speech: public schools

Agreed with the majority that struck down a public school district's anti-harassment policy, saying the policy -- which included non-vulgar, non-school-sponsored speech -- violated the First Amendment. Saxe v. State College Area School District (2001)

Agreed with the majority that a Pennsylvania law preventing school newspapers from accepting beer advertising was unconstitutional. He wrote, "If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment." The Pitt News v. Pappert (2004)

Harassment: public schools

Agreed with the majority in a ruling that held a school district failed to provide free education to a high school student because it did not protect him from bullying and taunting from fellow students, who harassed him because of his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation. Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., unnamed student (2004)

Fair trial: jury discrimination

Agreed with the majority granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American prisoner after state courts would not hear the testimony of a witness who said he heard a juror make racist remarks after the trial was over. Williams v. Price (2003)

Due process: drugs

Disagreed with a majority that ruled a state university violated a campus policeman's due process by suspending him without pay and without a hearing after he was arrested on drug charges. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the case on other grounds but agreed with Alito's argument that the suspension had merit because of the seriousness of the allegations. Homar v. Gilbert (1996)
Freedom of religion

Agreed with the majority that Muslim police officers were wrongly fired for not shaving off their beards for religious reasons. The unanimous ruling said the state engaged in an unfair double standard.

Alito: "We cannot accept the department's position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not." Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark (1999)

Gun control

Disagreed with the majority that allowed the federal government to continue banning machine guns and certain assault weapons.

Alito wrote that states should have greater discretion in regulating private gun ownership. And he argued the federal law violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in light of the then-recently decided Supreme Court case U.S. v. Lopez, in which the justices struck down another law on the possession of guns near a school...

Job discrimination

Disagreed with the majority favoring a hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against because she was African-American. The majority criticized Alito's dissent, saying Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz(ing) an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the 'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1997)

Disagreed with the majority who concluded a woman could sue the state for allegedly failing to accommodate her disability from a car accident. His fellow judges said Alito used an overly strict legal standard in dismissing the woman's claims. Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania (1991)

Agreed with the majority that a state employee could not sue his state employer for removing him from his job for taking medical leave. He concluded requiring employers to provide 12 weeks of medical leave was not a proper remedy for gender discrimination, characterizing it as a disproportionate remedy when compared to the harm at issue.

Alito: "Notably absent is any finding concerning the existence, much less the prevalence, in public employment of personal sick leave practices that amounted to intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development (2000)

Police searches

Disagreed with the majority that police in Pennsylvania were not entitled to qualified immunity after conducting a strip search of a drug suspect's wife and the couple's 10-year-old daughter. The court concluded the warrant did not specifically incorporate an affidavit requesting the search of all the home's occupants. Alito argued for a "reasonable" and "commonsense" approach to interpreting the intent of search warrants. Doe v. Groody (2004)

Prisoner rights

Disagreed with the majority that certain high-security prisoners could continue having access to personal photos and reading material. Alito argued corrections officials should have discretion in controlling "deterrence of future infractions." A Pennsylvania inmate claimed his free speech rights were being violated by the restrictive policies...

Seems like a moderate so far. :shrug:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/06/alito.keycases/

Expect a flood of liberal talking points to make their appearance in 4.....3.....2.....1......


Yeah there is. Just waddle your penguinish self off to DU, Kos, Moron...er, moveon, etc, and bone up on all things anti-Alito.


So you are disappointed the democrats are not spewing talking points here as you wished ?


Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy's insane tirade

Teddy 'The Hut' Kennedy named his dog Splash

what ? no monica lewinsky jokes ? you guys disappoint

Yeah there is. Just waddle your penguinish self off to DU, Kos, Moron...er, moveon, etc, and bone up on all things anti-Alito.
None of these have anything to do with an official Democratic party position.

Let me modify my original statement - the position of Senate Democrats is to participate in dignified, informational hearings and withhold judgement until the hearings conclude, just as they did during the Roberts hearings.

Let me modify my original statement - the position of Senate Democrats is to participate in dignified, informational hearings and withhold judgement until the hearings conclude, just as they did during the Roberts hearings.



Uhhhhh......

So you missed Kennedy's opening statements yesterday, did you?

So you are disappointed the democrats are not spewing talking points here as you wished ?

Hey, look! A straw-man, in that thread, over there! Go beat it up.






what ? no monica lewinsky jokes ? you guys disappoint

Ok.

Question: What do Monica Lewinsky, and Mary Jo have in common?








Answer: Nothing, Mary Jo is dead, because Kennedy killed her.

Funny, eh?

Uhhhhh......

So you missed Kennedy's opening statements yesterday, did you?
Hey, look! A straw-man, in that thread, over there! Go beat it up.
I find it ironic that you would post these back-to-back. You countered my statement that Senate Democrats haven't taken a caucus position on whether to confirm or deny Alito with an example of one senator, who you imply has already taken a position in opposition to his confirmation.

#1) This is a straw man.
#2) Senator Kennedy has not taken a position on this nomination. What he has done is express some concerns about Alito's record, but is holding off judgement until he has a chance to ask Alito questions, and listen to what the other witnesses have to say. And he's certainly doing this in a dignified manner. Here's how he concluded his opening statement:So, Judge Alito, I have serious questions to ask. I congratulate you on your nomination and I look forward to your answers in these hearings.

I find it ironic that you would post these back-to-back. You countered my statement that Senate Democrats haven't taken a caucus position on whether to confirm or deny Alito with an example of one senator, who you imply has already taken a position in opposition to his confirmation.



I find it ironic that you believe Kennedy has not taken a position on Alito's nomination, based on his comments yesterday.


#2) Senator Kennedy has not taken a position on this nomination. What he has done is express some concerns about Alito's record, but is holding off judgement until he has a chance to ask Alito questions, and listen to what the other witnesses have to say. And he's certainly doing this in a dignified manner. Here's how he concluded his opening statement:So, Judge Alito, I have serious questions to ask. I congratulate you on your nomination and I look forward to your answers in these hearings.

And here's some more of the opening statement that you somehow 'missed':

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

And here's some of his actual, (as opposed to the gin induced rantings of one Senator Kennedy), record:

* In Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000), Judge Alito dissented from the majority's holding that a man who claimed he was fired because of his race could not sue in federal court. According to Judge Alito, the plaintiff was entitled to sue because a longer statute of limitations applied. The Supreme Court later vindicated Judge Alito's dissent. See Jones v. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

* In Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., 228 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2000), a race and sex discrimination case, Judge Alito reversed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendant employer. The Third Circuit ruled that the plaintiff, a black woman, had introduced enough evidence to call into doubt the employer's explanation for why she was given lower-quality assignments.

* In Smith v. Davis, 248 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2001), an African-American probation officer brought a claim of race and disability discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Judge Alito joined a unanimous decision to reverse the lower court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant employer.

* Judge Alito's dissent in Sheridan v. DuPont, 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc), is a principled balancing of the interests of employees and employers, and the Supreme Court later vindicated it.

* Judge Alito interpreted the Supreme Court's holding in a previous case as requiring that a Title VII plaintiff who produces certain evidence * i.e., that the employer's stated reason for the employment decision was false * should "usually" but not necessarily "always" be permitted to go to trial.

* The Supreme Court agreed with Judge Alito's Sheridan dissent in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Reeves was a unanimous opinion signed by Justice O'Connor * whose seat Judge Alito is poised to take.

* In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997), Judge Alito would have affirmed the trial court's ruling for the employer because the plaintiff, an African-American woman, had failed to meet her burden of proof under relevant Supreme Court precedent.

* Marriott explained that it promoted a white female instead of the plaintiff because the white female had a higher objective employee rating, had superior experience, and had participated in more seminars and training sessions.

* Judge Alito argued that discrimination claims of require evidence of actual discrimination, not just evidence that an employer failed to comply with its own internal procedures.

* Judge Alito has held that prosecutors' efforts to exclude African-Americans from juries is unconstitutional discrimination.

* In Jones v. Ryan, 987 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1993), an African-American defendant was convicted in Pennsylvania court of robbery and criminal conspiracy; at trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude three African-Americans from the jury. Judge Alito joined a unanimous opinion holding that the prosecutor had discriminated against the potential jurors on the basis of race, and granting the defendant habeas relief.

* In Brinson v. Vaughn, 398 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2005), an African-American defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in Pennsylvania court and sentenced to life in prison. The prosecutor had used 13 out of 14 peremptory challenges against African-American potential jurors, and Judge Alito held that this pattern raised an inference of discrimination.

Dngr, are you going to address point 1?

Dngr, are you going to address point 1?

No. Why?

Are you going to continue under the delusion that Kennedy has not come to these hearings with his position already figured out?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, ( :| ), and suggest he's just toeing the party line.
I think I've effectively made the case that this statement was absurd.

And Kennedy hasn't formally taken a position, but you're welcome to infer.

None of these have anything to do with an official Democratic party position.

Let me modify my original statement - the position of Senate Democrats is to participate in dignified, informational hearings and withhold judgement until the hearings conclude, just as they did during the Roberts hearings.

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: Dignity is the last thing we'll see from the Senate democrats.

I think I've effectively made the case that this statement was absurd.

How so?



And Kennedy hasn't formally taken a position, but you're welcome to infer.

Again, for those of you on the left, who insist on closing their right eyes when reading, Kennedy's own words:

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

If Kennedy were as open minded as you imply, why then would he include obvious lies in his opening statements? What, if not Kennedy's own words, might I formulate an opinion of him from?

Except there isn't a party line - on the Democratic side - on Alito.

Which democrats are indicating support?

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: Dignity is the last thing we'll see from the Senate democrats.
Give me a counter-example that you've seen so far, during this confirmation process, or during the Roberts, that would suggest that Senate Demorats are anything less than dignified.

How so?
I pointed out the flaw in your logic which seems to be: if one member is opposed to the nominee (this is dubious), then there is an official Democratic caucus position.
Which democrats are indicating support?
None to my knowledge. This is consistent with the party's "wait until after the hearings" mantra, and with the Roberts nomination.

Give me a counter-example that you've seen so far, during this confirmation process, or during the Roberts, that would suggest that Senate Demorats are anything less than dignified.


Pretty much anything Kennedy and Schumer say. DngrMse gave you a good example.


None to my knowledge. This is consistent with the party's "wait until after the hearings" mantra, and with the Roberts nomination.

If they did not have hardened positions coming into the hearings, Roberts would have cruised like every democrat appointed justice has. (has any democrat appointed justice been narrowly confirmed in the last 30 years?) Alito's nomination was a foregone conclusion. Bush could have nominated the Pope and they would have freaked out. Naturally, because he's pro-life.

Is it true that Alito never once found for the individuals, but always for the government? That he's always favored more government power and less individual rights?

Is it true that Alito never once found for the individuals, but always for the government? That he's always favored more government power and less individual rights?

He certainly leans that way, he even dissented in favor of the police when they exceeded the bounds of a search warrant and strip searched a 10 year old girl during a drug raid.

I'd like to see the part of the constitution that grants the police those powers.

I don't know how you people have the balls to oppose Republican nominees when we put Ginsberg in office with over 90 votes.

Utterly shameless.

I don't know how you people have the balls to oppose Republican nominees when we put Ginsberg in office with over 90 votes.

Utterly shameless.
Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, suggested Ginsburg to President Clinton.

Did Leahy suggest Roberts? Alito?

But here's a relevant example: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested Miers to Bush, Bush agreed, and there was a Republican blacklash.

Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, suggested Ginsburg to President Clinton.

Did Leahy suggest Roberts? Alito?

But here's a relevant example: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested Miers to Bush, Bush agreed, and there was a Republican blacklash.

You seem to have captured WHY your example isn't relevant. Bill Clinton had a Republican majority, he gave them a list, they told him the people they could live with.

I don't see a Democratic majority. We're Conservatives, we won the election. Its ridiculous to suggest we can't appoint Conservative justices.

LOL By the way, are you trying to suggest Ginsberg is a centrist?

We're Conservatives, we won the election. Its ridiculous to suggest we can't appoint Conservative justices.


http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2005/features/battlefield.html


Winning elections doesn't give one party the right to just do whatever they wish, including forcing their far right views down the throats of a population that is far from agreeing with the far right.

Hell, why not just kill the opposition, you guys won!:rolleyes:

You seem to have captured WHY your example isn't relevant. Bill Clinton had a Republican majority, he gave them a list, they told him the people they could live with.

I don't see a Democratic majority. We're Conservatives, we won the election. Its ridiculous to suggest we can't appoint Conservative justices.
That would be a very compelling argument... if it were true. One problem, though: Democrats controlled the Senate until 1995, and Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton in 1993.

Round two: guess who suggested Breyer to Clinton? Hint: it was in 1994.

I fail to see how a guy who favors more government power is "conservative" anyways..

That would be a very compelling argument... if it were true. One problem, though: Democrats controlled the Senate until 1995, and Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton in 1993.


Touche. :)

It doesn't particularly matter. The GOP recognized that a leftist President was appointing a person to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and we wern't so partisan as to attempt to refuse him his Constitutional right.

Ginsberg was a liberal but was a decent jurist and and an honest woman.

We didn't vote for her because she was at all moderate in her views.

Winning elections doesn't give one party the right to just do whatever they wish, including forcing their far right views down the throats of a population that is far from agreeing with the far right.


One day you leftists will win the White House. Are you suggesting now that a Republican Senate can fillibuster Democratic appointments if they don't conform to our world view?

Originally Posted by Corporate Avenger

Winning elections doesn't give one party the right to just do whatever they wish,.

The point of democracy is that they are'nt doing whatever they wish they're doing what their constituents wish as shown by their electing them. If there are enough conservatives to appoint a conservative justice it's because enough people support conservatives for it to represent the will of the American people.

The GOP recognized that a leftist President was appointing a person to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and we wern't so partisan as to attempt to refuse him his Constitutional right.
Pop Quiz:
- Which political party refused to hold hearings for many of President Clinton's District and Circuit Court nominations?
- Which political party refused to hold a hearing for one of President Bush's Supreme Court nominations?

If you answered Republicans to both questions - you're right!!

Pop Quiz:
- Which political party refused to hold hearings for many of President Clinton's District and Circuit Court nominations?


I didn't know the Supreme Court was the same as a circuit court.


- Which political party refused to hold a hearing for one of President Bush's Supreme Court nominations?


Thats simply false. It was an idiotic choice and withdrawn before hearings could be held.

Except there isn't a party line - on the Democratic side - on Alito.

Ther most definitely is a party line on the left, and it boils down to one thing, as it always does; abortion. That's the litmus test.

Uninformed people are under the false impression that if Roe was vere overturned, that abortion would be illegal everywhere. This is false. The decision would simply go back to the states where it should have stayed in the first place.

The left spends huge amounts of money trying to convince the public otherwise, and it has worked.

One thing the left never brings up is the fact that almost half of the abortion facilities in the US have closed in the past 11 years. They also don't bring up the fact that Roe allows abortion right up to would have been the day of natural delivery. Millions of americans think it only allows first trimester abortions.

There will always be states that will allow abortions, regardless of what happens on the high court. The fact is, the SCOTUS will most likely never overturn it anyway. The issue is always used as a scare tactic in an attempt to get liberals appointed to the bench. It's the same old song and dance.

This time around, the winner of the last election gets to appoint, as did the last President. It's funny though. Ginsberg was confirmed with no problem, even though she's been a liberal activist for a very long time, and an ASLU hack. When the roles are reversed, the left acts as though putting a conservative on the court is some kind of crime, and that the president has some sort of duty to keep the court "balanced" according to their definition.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, and if the left wants their people on the court, they should find some candidates who can run effective campaigns and win national elections. As long as they keep nominating admitted liberals, they'll continue to lose, and cry when they can't get their leftist agenda through.

If the Democrats are so obsessed with a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, why haven't they ever sponsered a federal law to be presented to the House and Senate so it could be signed by the President? That way the unconstitutional judicial activism of the past could be made legal or it can be discarded.

Let me modify my original statement - the position of Senate Democrats is to participate in dignified, informational hearings and withhold judgement until the hearings conclude, just as they did during the Roberts hearings.


You're a fool if you think this includes Kennedy if not a couple others

Brownback, to my knowledge, is the only senator who has unequivocally said he's voting one way or the other on this nominee. Guess whch!

It is entertaining to watch the ravings of The Swimmer. He brought up some politically incorrect articles in some college magazine and asked if the judge ever read them. The judge kind of wimped out and instead of asking the Swimmer what is factually incorrect about the articles, he said he didn't agree with the articles.

The judge's daughter is hot. :drool:

The judge's daughter is hot. :drool:
The woman in the back with straight dark brown hair and a white/black suit is Rachel Brand from the Department of Justice. I'm assuming that's who you're talking about. Alito's kids are all funny-looking.

Here's pics:

Couldn't resist the zoom-in... ;)

Her chin is like Batman from the Animated Series:

My god, that is scary. The chin I mean, not batman.

Zooming into a low resolution pic when she is making a face is a great way not to make a judgement. :p

I just assumed she was a relative. h2g2, where did you get the pic, communistdreams.com?

If the Democrats are so obsessed with a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, why haven't they ever sponsered a federal law to be presented to the House and Senate so it could be signed by the President? That way the unconstitutional judicial activism of the past could be made legal or it can be discarded.

They are obsessed, but they're not completely stupid. They know that any legislation written to Roe vs Wade standards would go down in flames if it ever made it to a vote. That's why they insist that every SC justice bow and scrape before Roe.

Alito has to be the greatest tap dancer since Fred Astare. I noticed that nice little stunt his wife pulled when she ran out of the chambers in tears. I wonder how many people will be crying once he is sitting on the bench. Its the same kind of "I am the victim" garbage that Clarence Thomas tried to pull. Only this time around the Democrats and all free thinking americans arn't buying the BS.

Alito has to be the greatest tap dancer since Fred Astare. I noticed that nice little stunt his wife pulled when she ran out of the chambers in tears. I wonder how many people will be crying once he is sitting on the bench. Its the same kind of "I am the victim" garbage that Clarence Thomas tried to pull. Only this time around the Democrats and all free thinking americans arn't buying the BS.

I'm sure they're trying, but Alito is clearly making fools of the democrats, just as Roberts did. They've not gone into this with any attempt to determine judicial qualifications or temperment. They hate the man who appointed him, they hate his perceived political affiliation, and they are appearing more ridiculous as time goes on.

I pointed out the flaw in your logic which seems to be: if one member is opposed to the nominee (this is dubious), then there is an official Democratic caucus position.

I don't recall making that claim, so if you could quote where I did, I'd appreciate it, and might even accept that as a valid invitation to respond.

Second point, you still believe Kennedy approached these meetings with an open mind? If so, how do you explain the obvious lies Kennedy told on day one, (you still have'nt addressed this....one begins to wonder why)?

Let me modify my original statement - the position of Senate Democrats is to participate in dignified, informational hearings and withhold judgement until the hearings conclude, just as they did during the Roberts hearings.

You still stand by this?

It's been a circus, on the dems side....the only thing that could make this better would be Kennedy expounding (again) on the Goldwater presidency, (you know, the Goldwater presidency? The one that never happened?).

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton?"

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/mccarthy.jpg

themistocles :p Someone needs to photoshop Shuma or The Swimmer on there.

Heh...

And you know, who is Teddy Kennedy to be questioning someone else's past?

I say God bless Dick Durbin for bringing proof that Alio felt it was ok for a mentally retarded man to endure harassment [including threats of rape] in the workplace [www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/15/5532/3685],but all of these uncaring conservatives seem to care more about greedy corperations than they care about human beings.


As for Ted Kennedy,he is a great Senator and a trur patriot and these so-called "jokes" about him are the same kind of "humor" that one would expect to find at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

And if Alito's personal views won't prejudice his legal rulings,then why won't he be open about those views?

One final thing,about Alio's wife crying,I don't give a damn if the beech cries a river ,all these right-wing,conservative scumbags on talk radio [and elsewhere] tell lies about all of us on the left and thier/our loved ones don't like it but all the right-wing/conservative baiters and haters don't care what their loved ones think,so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot[f-ing long overdue in fact].

The fact is that Alito did belong to a biogted organization,if Alito was so frickin' stupid that he didn't what the group he blonged to was all about,then that's just one more reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.

Alito's lying out of his ass and everyone with an IQ above 0.02 knows it,if he wasn't lying than all the rigthies wouldn't be so lock-step behind him.

As for Ted Kennedy,he is a great Senator and a true patriot.......

Then why don't you explain your take on the lies Ted 'Goldwater Presidency' Kennedy told during his opening statements on day one?

.....and these so-called "jokes" about him are the same kind of "humor" that one would expect to find at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

KKK? You mean Sen Robert Byrd, ex grand kleagle of the KKK, is making Kennedy jokes?

the same kind of "humor" that one would expect to find at a Ku Klux Klan rally.


Incidentally where you would also expect to see many future Democratic politicians were you to attend one in the past century. :p

I'm talking present day KKK,not over 60 years ago.

Then why don't you explain your take on the lies Ted 'Goldwater Presidency' Kennedy told during his opening statements on day one?


Just because one might call something a lie doesn't mean that it is.

I tend to take what conservatives say with as many grains of salt as possible because in my experience they don't tell the whole truth and in some cases they outright lie.

I'm talking present day KKK,not over 60 years ago.

So was being a member of the KKK more noble 60 years ago? Or just more understandable?

While TT contemplates the insanity of his initial remark that critics of The Swimmer being KKK members... http://smiliesftw.com/!/kkk.gif

I say God bless Dick Durbin for bringing proof that Alio felt it was ok for a mentally retarded man to endure harassment

Don't link to some crappy, leftist blog. Where is the proof that Dick Turban presented?

As for Ted Kennedy,he is a great Senator and a trur patriot and these so-called "jokes" about him are the same kind of "humor" that one would expect to find at a Ku Klux Klan rally. OTFLMFAO :|

And if Alito's personal views won't prejudice his legal rulings,then why won't he be open about those views? a leftist wanting to force someone to give their the 'personal' views....that's strange :nice:

One final thing,about Alio's wife crying,I don't give a damn if the beech cries a river True liberal compassion ;)

The fact is that Alito did belong to a biogted organization,if Alito was so frickin' stupid that he didn't what the group he blonged to was all about,then that's just one more reason why he shouldn't be confirmed. only fact I can get out of this is that you are clueless if you think Alito is stupid

Alito's lying out of his ass and everyone with an IQ above 0.02 knows it,if he wasn't lying than all the rigthies wouldn't be so lock-step behind him.Seems that word is all you folks can ever resort to. Odd how the leftists can't find anything in his legal work to point to as being wrong or a big screw up so you have to go back 32 years to a tenious connection to CAP and try to imply he is a bigot ...no surprise from the "dignified" left

If the Democrats are so obsessed with a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, why haven't they ever sponsered a federal law to be presented to the House and Senate so it could be signed by the President?

:nice: I actually agree!! They should make it into a REAL federal law, so that the ultra-religious, sexist barbarians would stop forcing their religion on us and just accept reality. I'm tired of the whole issue, how about abortion just stays legal FOREVER and whoever doesn't like it can go ahead and move to some islamic sh!thole:p .

As for Ted Kennedy,he is a great Senator and a trur patriot and these so-called "jokes" about him are the same kind of "humor" that one would expect to find at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

I don't know about "great senator", but he's obviously better than the fanatics he's fighting against, and I only wished that instead of assuming that Alito is honest, he would just make him sign a statement that he will NOT touch Roe EVER, or otherwise...WAR. And not only on Abortion, but on ALL issues of freedom, privacy, people's rights and others.

And if Alito's personal views won't prejudice his legal rulings,then why won't he be open about those views?

Good question. That's what I'm saying...make him sign that no matter what he may believe in...he will NOT bring back social conservatism and all of that BS, like anti-abortion laws and the rest. I couldn't care less what he believes in, as long as he will not force his values on the rest of us.

One final thing,about Alio's wife crying,I don't give a damn if the beech cries a river

:nice: AND NEITHER DO I!!!!:p

all these right-wing,conservative scumbags on talk radio [and elsewhere] tell lies about all of us on the left and thier/our loved ones don't like it but all the right-wing/conservative baiters and haters don't care what their loved ones think,so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot[f-ing long overdue in fact].



I want freedom and human rights...and I couldn't care less if that makes somebody cry:p Enough with this emotional BS, it's politics, not a movie with Nicolas Cage:nice:

Alito's lying out of his ass and everyone with an IQ above 0.02 knows it,if he wasn't lying than all the rigthies wouldn't be so lock-step behind him.

There's always a 1-2% chance that he isn't lying, but why risk it?:confused: :)

KKK? You mean Sen Robert Byrd, ex grand kleagle of the KKK, is making Kennedy jokes?


Byrd can go to hell too, as every other KKK member.:p

Incidentally where you would also expect to see many future Democratic politicians were you to attend one in the past century.

Democrats, Republicans...who gives a sh!t...ALL KKK members belong in jail and mental hospitals:nice:

So was being a member of the KKK more noble 60 years ago? Or just more understandable?

No, unless they REALLY appologized for that and proved that they are not insane anymore:) .

a leftist wanting to force someone to give their the 'personal' views....that's strange


Of course not, we just want him not to use his (very possibly insane) beliefs in terms of making laws and forcing the values on us, especially when it violates the constitution, and YES, the constitution does include a right to privacy.

True liberal compassion


Being liberal doesn't mean that we must feel compassion towards a wife of some right-wing fanatics who cries because she's afraid that her bigoted husband MIGHT not be able to force his values on us.:p

We all wish them a happy and wonderful life...just outside of the supreme court, that's ALL:D

only fact I can get out of this is that you are clueless if you think Alito is stupid

He's not stupid at all actually, just most of the people who think he's a "moderate".

Seems that word is all you folks can ever resort to. Odd how the leftists can't find anything in his legal work to point to as being wrong or a big screw up so you have to go back 32 years to a tenious connection to CAP and try to imply he is a bigot ...no surprise from the "dignified" left

1. Who is a "leftist":confused: Just because I think he shouldn't force his possibly insane and arrogant views on us, would that make me a "leftist"?
You don't need to be a "leftist" to understand the reality:p .

2. The issue is not "the left" here. I mean, I know that it's easy to bring up Kennedy, Clinton, FDR, and whoever else, and put down some "leftists" for something that may or may not have happened in the past, but it won't help your arguement that Alito should be a judge. Even if we assume that ALL leftists are horrible, it still wouldn't mean that all or any rightists are great. You can always bring up Stalin when people talk about Hitler, but it will NOT make Hitler any better.:nonono:

Just because one might call something a lie doesn't mean that it is.

Ok, let's examine this statement, made by Kennedy, on day one of the hearings:

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

This is demonstrably false, as I've already shown. If not a lie, what other explanation is there?


I tend to take what conservatives say with as many grains of salt as possible because in my experience they don't tell the whole truth and in some cases they outright lie.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Incidentally where you would also expect to see many future Democratic politicians were you to attend one in the past century. :p
And you're suggesting they're in fact the direct forebears of today's Democrats? :confused:

Ok, let's examine this statement, made by Kennedy, on day one of the hearings:

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

This is demonstrably false, as I've already shown. If not a lie, what other explanation is there?

Couldn't care less.:rolleyes:

Can you give me a good evidence that he will NOT try to take away abortion rights and will be pro-freedom and have REAL respect for the constitutional right to privacy?:confused:

Couldn't care less.:rolleyes:

Not surprised. Honesty, it would seem, is expected on the right, but when it comes to the left, we apply a different set of rules. Kennedy lied...yet no one on the left will even go so far as saying it was wrong. Democrats engaged in an attempt to assassinate Alito's nomination, but not by bringing up legitimate points of concern, but by lying about him, and his record, and focusing on the absurd. It was a witch hunt, and it was all caught on camera.

Alito's wife reduced to tears, Teddy's little tantrums, lies, and displays of senility will not play well for the left. They came out looking like cruel, and small minded idiots, while Alito remained respectfull throughout. I expect you'll be able to assess the validity of your concerns over the next several years, because Alito will be confirmed.

Of course not, we just want him not to use his (very possibly insane) beliefs in terms of making laws and forcing the values on us, especially when it violates the constitution, and YES, the constitution does include a right to privacy. This is probably the one bit that summarizes most of the oppositions thinking.

a) You are attempting to marginalize a man because of his humble moral convictions

b) You are implying he has/will attempt to force his values on "us"... Do "us" a favor and use some of his past rulings to back this position you have

c) You also make the claim he has or will viloate the Constitution...one again, back your claim with evidence.

As far as I can determine it is these claims that are "insane"

Being liberal doesn't mean that we must feel compassion towards a wife of some right-wing fanatics who cries because she's afraid that her bigoted husband MIGHT not be able to force his values on us.:p This stands on it's own ;)

We all wish them a happy and wonderful life...just outside of the supreme court, that's ALL:D Your previous statements don't support this....smells like whitewash :|

Not surprised. Honesty, it would seem, is expected on the right, but when it comes to the left, we apply a different set of rules. Kennedy lied...yet no one on the left will even go so far as saying it was wrong. Democrats engaged in an attempt to assassinate Alito's nomination, but not by bringing up legitimate points of concern, but by lying about him, and his record, and focusing on the absurd. It was a witch hunt, and it was all caught on camera.

Look, this is not about Kennedy...he's just another fat politician who does good and bad things. If the only way to get rid of an anti-abortion, pro-police power extremist when it comes to making laws in this country, is to exagerrage his bigotery towards Black people or whatever, then let the dirty politician do Americans a favor. If he has to lie about him being a friend of bin-laden, go ahead:p . The point us, many of us DON'T WANT HIM IN, and I will support Senator Kennedy's efforts to limit the guy's powers or get him out of here.

And no, it's no more of a witch hunt than any job interview, and he wanted this job...if he doesn't, he can just walk away and Kennedy won't ever say one word to him.

And no, I'm not a leftist, more of a libertarian, I just don't want social-conservatives to force their values on us, ever heard of separation of church and state?:confused:

Alito's wife reduced to tears,

WAAAAAAWAAAWAAA....somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance!!!!:p

Teddy's little tantrums, lies, and displays of senility will not play well for the left.

Good for him, I don't care about the left, I'm not the left and it hardly matters to me any more than that stupid b!tch crying because of Senator K. She wanted politics, she got politics...stop with this emotional crap please, I care about the country and keeping it non-religious with as much freedom as possible, that's what I care about.

They came out looking like cruel, and small minded idiots, while Alito remained respectfull throughout. I expect you'll be able to assess the validity of your concerns over the next several years, because Alito will be confirmed.

If he will be confirmed and over the next several years he will not TOUCH abortion, privacy rights, increasing pig (ummm, excuse me...:p police) power, and constitutional freedom...and will prove himself to be an honest, moderate, reasonable and constitutional judge...I will be more than happy to appologize. Does that possibility exist? Sure it does, but very unlikely.:rolleyes:

a) You are attempting to marginalize a man because of his humble moral convictions

Not just a man, but A SUPREME COURT JUDGE possibley who will then probably use his "moral convictions" to make laws that will take away freedom and constitutional rights for at least some people.

I have no problem with people's views...I also have friends that are conservatives on social issues including abortion...yet they aren't going to effect the laws of the country or make a difference, right, so therefore I just respect their opinion. Just like they can believe in socialism and the ideas are cool and all...but once somebody starts turning it into a country's system...believe me, I will raise HELL!!:D

b) You are implying he has/will attempt to force his values on "us"... Do "us" a favor and use some of his past rulings to back this position you have

His opinions about the constitution not protecting the right to privacy/abortion, his ruling about giving police more power, including searching a 10 year old (the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves from this alone), his ruling on limiting abortion and including a bit of sexism in the middle (the husband must know about what his wife does)...you know...why don't YOU read it. I already know my information.


c) You also make the claim he has or will viloate the Constitution...one again, back your claim with evidence.

Well, to many of us, the constitution protects the right to privacy, therefore, anti-abortion laws and letting police more freedom when it comes to searching and spying on people...it's HARDLY constitutional.:rolleyes:

As far as I can determine it is these claims that are "insane"

Well, why won't he just PROMISE Ted K. and other senators that he will not touch abortion or other issues that make this controversy? Can't he just sign something or even directly and honestly say what's up? Why can't he be 100% honest and direct about it if the claims are soooo insane?:confused:

This stands on it's own

:confused:

Your previous statements don't support this....smells like whitewash

AHHH, but it does, some social conservatives don't get it...just because I don't like a politician doesn't mean that I have to hate him as a person and wish him anything other then good luck in private life. After 1974, I have nothing against Nixon, I hope he lived a very happy life, but I'm glad he got kicked out nevertheless. I probably will no longer give a sh!t about Bush when he's no longer a president or pollitician. Just because I don't want somebody to rule over my country doesn't mean that I hate them or want anything bad for them, I just simply do not want them to force their sh!t on me, THAT'S ALL.

Just like some of you believe that if one is against the government taking away the legal right to have abortions, the person must be in love with abortions...:p

Ok, let's examine this statement, made by Kennedy, on day one of the hearings:

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

This is demonstrably false, as I've already shown. If not a lie, what other explanation is there?


The fact is in nearly every one of his rulings Alito has sided with the corperations and authority figures,not their victims.

Dick Durbin gave one example on [I think it was Tuesday] when Alito refused to support a mentally retarded man who whent though intense abuse [including threats of rape] at his workplace,maybe Kennedy should have said "has written very few" instead of "not written one",but the bottom line still remains the the same.

What you call a "lie",I'd call a mistatment.

I'd call saying there are WMD's when there were none is a outright lie,I'm sure you'd call that a mistatment.


Pot. Kettle. Black.



Wow,how original.:rolleyes:




Alito's wife reduced to tears,


She was probably coached to cry,in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Lindsey Graham [George Wallace in sheep's clothing] even gave her the signal to set off the waterworks and have all her ugly mascaera come down her face so it could play for the cameras.

Again,the scum on the right do it to the left all the time and not care how their loved ones think,it's about time these rightist scum had the shoe on the other foo,long overdue in fact.



while Alito remained respectfull throughout.



Alito was an actor,his handlers gave him the script,he played the role.

Anyone who believes he's sincere is a fool.

What you call a "lie",I'd call a mistatment.

I'd call saying there are WMD's when there were none is a outright lie,I'm sure you'd call that a mistatment.

:nice:

She was probably coached to cry,in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Lindsey Graham [George Wallace in sheep's clothing] even gave her the signal to set off the waterworks and have all her ugly mascaera come down her face so it could play for the cameras.

:nice: As somebody with friends in Hollywood, it hardly takes a talented actor to fake crying really well. Some people can naturally do so without a problem, some might need an hour of pracrtice, but it's not THAT hard:p .

Alright, will somebody call the WHAAAAAAAAAAmbulance now?:confused: :p

Again,the scum on the right do it to the left all the time and not care how their loved ones think,it's about time these rightist scum had the shoe on the other foo,long overdue in fact.

I'm not a #1 fan of Bill Clinton and never was, however, after what republicans did to him, he had WAYYY more of a reason to really cry in front of the cameras...and republicans aren't known to be the most sensitive people on earth...until somebody takes their job away from them:p .

Alito was an actor,his handlers gave him the script,he played the role.

Ummm, I'd say that Reagan was a much much better actor, but then again, he was pro, so you can't compare:D .

Anyone who believes he's sincere is a fool.

:nice: They don't, they just want most Americans to get sensitive towards him so that they will have a shot against abortion:p .

a) You are attempting to marginalize a man because of his humble moral convictions
It's completely appropriate when the man is being confirmed to a supremely influential political office & it's believed those "humble moral convictions" are a danger to the nation's well-being.

You are implying he has/will attempt to force his values on "us"... Do "us" a favor and use some of his past rulings to back this position you have
That's been done repeatedly, as in his ruling on the strip search without a warrant.

You also make the claim he has or will viloate the Constitution...one again, back your claim with evidence.
See above - the Constitution requires warrants for police searches.

Ummm, I'd say that Reagan was a much much better actor, but then again, he was pro, so you can't compare:D .



Well,that's pretty much what I felt about Reagan,he was an actor,the ruling class gave him the script,he played the role.

While we are treating the conservatvies they same way they treat us : Did you hear that Ann Coulter once beat off a rapist?:D

It's completely appropriate when the man is being confirmed to a supremely influential political office & it's believed those "humble moral convictions" are a danger to the nation's well-being. It is completely inappropriate and Un-American. Personal/individual choices, beliefs, and freedoms are what this coutry are founded upon and to think a man should have to answer any questions about those things in order to obtain a job is ridiculous (And illegal for any other job)


That's been done repeatedly, as in his ruling on the strip search without a warrant. wrong


See above - the Constitution requires warrants for police searches.wrong

Look, this is not about Kennedy...he's just another fat politician who does good and bad things. If the only way to get rid of an anti-abortion, pro-police power extremist when it comes to making laws in this country, is to exagerrage his bigotery towards Black people or whatever, then let the dirty politician do Americans a favor. If he has to lie about him being a friend of bin-laden, go ahead:p . The point us, many of us DON'T WANT HIM IN, and I will support Senator Kennedy's efforts to limit the guy's powers or get him out of here.

He's been a judge for a number of years now, so his record must certainly be littered liberally with examples of these failings, should they not? If so, why did Kennedy not use them? How bout the rest of the dems sitting up there? How about some character witnesses? He's been involved in the law for much longer than he's been a judge...where are all the witnesses that can attest to his bigotry, anti-abortion, pro-police leanings? With all this GREAT ammo the dems had available to them, why did'nt they take him down?

Rather than applauding kennedy's attempt at character assassination, you should be condemning his incompetence. Or, is that they really did'nt, (and could'nt), find any of this alleged ammo....which indicates that Alito may just be the man he's presented as, (which was corroborated by a number of character witnesses for him, from the left and the right).


And no, I'm not a leftist, more of a libertarian, I just don't want social-conservatives to force their values on us, ever heard of separation of church and state?:confused:

Show me where Alito has, as a judge, or attorney, written an opinion, rendered a verdict, or argued against the seperation clause.



WAAAAAAWAAAWAAA....somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance!!!!:p

It's immaterial whether you find it theatrical or not....and assuming for the moment that it was staged, the dem stooges certainly played right into it, don't you think? Again, they seemingly go out of their way to insure their own collapse.



Good for him, I don't care about the left, I'm not the left and it hardly matters to me any more than that stupid b!tch crying because of Senator K. She wanted politics, she got politics...stop with this emotional crap please, I care about the country and keeping it non-religious with as much freedom as possible, that's what I care about.

What makes you think Alito is going to change that?



If he will be confirmed and over the next several years.....

Kennedy, and friends have pretty much guaranteed that he will be. Of course, you're still Kennedy's self appointed cheer leader, so I'll just be quiet, and let you bask in his martini fueled glow.




......he will not TOUCH abortion, privacy rights, increasing pig (ummm, excuse me...:p police) power....

Some how, I doubt he will be consulting with you on which cases the SC hears, or how they rule.

It is completely inappropriate and Un-American. Personal/individual choices, beliefs, and freedoms are what this coutry are founded upon and to think a man should have to answer any questions about those things in order to obtain a job is ridiculous
Your political beliefs are completely relevant to any political position you're applying for, particularly for a judge, & the questions are therefore entirely legitimate.

The Congress has confirmation authority & is entitled to make sure they approve of his judicial & political philosophy.

(And illegal for any other job)
No, you're mistaken - you can legally be fired or not hired on the basis of your political beliefs. The Civil Rights Act of '64 specifically permits it.


wrong
Your knowledge of the Bill of Rights is poor:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


A strip search without a warrant is therefore unconstitutional - no reasonable person, & more importantly, the SCOTUS, would disagree. If that's not an "unreasonable search," there is no such thing.

I just heard that Arlen Specter has swallowed his manhood and is going to sell out by voting for Alito.

Not just a man, but A SUPREME COURT JUDGE possibley who will then probably use his "moral convictions" to make laws that will take away freedom and constitutional rights for at least some people. Read my reply to Cowpunk. Illegal in any other occupation and you haven't provided any proof beyond "Probably"

I have no problem with people's views You certainly do..that is the entire point to your opposition

...I also have friends that are conservatives on social issues including abortion...yet they aren't going to effect the laws of the country or make a difference, right, so therefore I just respect their opinion. Just like they can believe in socialism and the ideas are cool and all...
the job of confirming a SC judge should be to verify whether they have the qualifications and to research past practice that may lead to the conclusion the nominee will abuse the office (i.e. legislate from the bench) Whether or not you approve of their personal views was decided at the ballot box when the President and Congress was elected

but once somebody starts turning it into a country's system...believe me, I will raise HELL!!:D who has done this?



His opinions about the constitution not protecting the right to privacy/abortion, his ruling about giving police more power, including searching a 10 year old (the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves from this alone), his ruling on limiting abortion and including a bit of sexism in the middle (the husband must know about what his wife does)...you know...why don't YOU read it. I already know my information. were any of these rulings overturned by higher courts? If so then I'd say you have a case that he trashes the constitution.




Well, to many of us, the constitution protects the right to privacy, therefore, anti-abortion laws and letting police more freedom when it comes to searching and spying on people...it's HARDLY constitutional.:rolleyes: where exactly does it mention the 'right to privacy?" As opposed to say..."the right to Life, Liberty...blah blah" You are extending the interpretion of an interpretation. yes, the right to privacy is inherent but not without limits (suicide is illegal and so is drug abuse) The right to an abortion does not exist anywhere within the Constitution...if you believe it does then you also believe a woman should be allowed to abort until the very last second since it is here body.

Quite simply, you're mistaken - it's legal to fire someone or refuse to hire them in any occupation on the basis of their political beliefs.

Quite simply, you're mistaken - it's legal to fire someone or refuse to hire them in any occupation on the basis of their political beliefs.It seems you make no distinction between political and personal


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A strip search without a warrant is therefore unconstitutional - no reasonable person, & more importantly, the SCOTUS, would disagree. If that's not an "unreasonable search," there is no such thing.

Disagreed with the majority that police in Pennsylvania were not entitled to qualified immunity after conducting a strip search of a drug suspect's wife and the couple's 10-year-old daughter. The court concluded the warrant did not specifically incorporate an affidavit requesting the search of all the home's occupants. Alito argued for a "reasonable" and "commonsense" approach to interpreting the intent of search warrants. Doe v. Groody (2004)

Seems to me there was a warrant (you were wrong there) and his argument was that the police felt it was reasonable to search the wife and daughter if they felt the drugs were hidden on them.
As long as it satisfies the "reasonable" clause then warrantless searches are not only legal but common. In this instance you had a warrant and the police felt it was reasonable to think it extended to the occupants of the house so therefore should not have been the subject of a civil lawsuit "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY"

It seems you make no distinction between political and personal
There is no distinction when his beliefs impact public policy as it relates to his authority.

Seems to me there was a warrant (you were wrong there) and his argument was that the police felt it was reasonable to search the wife and daughter if they felt the drugs were hidden on them.
There was NO warrant to search his WIFE & DAUGHTER - they were therefore searched without a warrant. The fact that a search warrant was issued for the home is immaterial to that. There was not one for them, as the court ultimately ruled.

As long as it satisfies the "reasonable" clause then warrantless searches are not only legal but common. In this instance you had a warrant and the police felt it was reasonable to think it extended to the occupants of the house so therefore should not have been the subject of a civil lawsuit "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY"
The fact that the police BELIEVED it was reasonable does not mean that it in fact was, & the court agreed. Strip searching a private individual without a warrant to do so is inherently unreasonable.

There is no distinction ... nuff said


The fact that the police BELIEVED it was reasonable does not mean that it in fact was, & the court agreed. Strip searching a private individual without a warrant to do so is inherently unreasonable.

The fact the police "believed" it was reasonable is germane to the entire argument. If they believed the warrant covered all inside the house then they were acting within their duty to search anyone/everyone. Your argument of "inherently unreasonable" is defeated by your own words:
A strip search without a warrant is therefore unconstitutional - no reasonable person, & more importantly, the SCOTUS, would disagree. If that's not an "unreasonable search," there is no such thing
*If it can be "reasonable" to strip search someone WITH a warrant then strip searching is reasonable.
*The police had a warrant.
*The police believed (incorrectly) that warrant applied to all within the house.(reasonble).
*The police strip-searched (reasonable with a warrant)

Sounds to me like all this meets the constitutions "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," test, at least with respect to "qualified immunity." Alito argued for "qualified immunity" because they were doing there job and should not have been subjected to civil suits...all this makes sense to me

I heard Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy's insane tirade that included several lies and distortions in the context of his usual obsession with race and gender. I heard a little of Diane Feinstein saying "row" incessantly. I assume she was referring to the issue of pregnancy termination in humans because Alito apparently wrote that the Constitution as written says nothing about abortion which is true of course, the Roe vs. Wade case notwithstanding.

I heard Snout the S.S.G. to propaganda on his master's nominee. What is Alito?

373. Extortion by scandal (1/12/06)

From Water gate, Chandra Levy to Abramoff, scandal is a tool to extort politicians by D.O.J.. A series of scandal broke off recently. I allege it was targeted at Supreme Court Judge nomination.

Bush had nominated three candidates for the vacancy of Supreme Court. Among them: Roberts and Alito are typical agents of D.O.J. Harriet Miers is a 'yes lady' who is similar to Clarence Thomas. All of them will judge to the order from D.O.J. not to the principle of the Constitution.

Roberts was nominated in early September and was confirmed in 9/28. He took oath on 9/29. During the hearing, on 9/24, a big title was on news: "Probe into Frist stock sale expands". Frist was the Senate Majority leader. Then the scandal spread to the House Majority leader, Tom DeLay. He was indicted on 9/28 by a conspiracy charge.

In October, the news of DeLay's case, Frist case and CIA leaking case (Rove and Libby) were mixed with the nomination of Harriet Miers. Harriet Miers gave up at last. It ends with the indiction of Cheney's aid: Libby.

There was a silence period in the end of the year for scandal and Supreme Court nomination. Then both came back in January. Alito goes into hearing on 1/10/06. Six days before his hearing, Abramoff scandal became top news on 1/4. On 1/8, news reported that Rep. DeLay abandons bid to keep GOP leadership.

Bush's nominee obviously are the representatives of D.O.J. not the Republicans. So there is opposition from the GOP. That's why the scandal targeted at the Republican politicians. Of course there are D.O.J.'s agents in Demos. But if they vote against their party opinion, their real face will be exposed. So the extortion this time aimed at GOP. To create a false appearance of a struggle between two parties not by a dictatorship. The fake mask of "democracy" has to be maintained.

374. A covert totalitarian (1/12/06)

The point is to control the Supreme Court. When Alito replaces O'connor, D.O.J. will control the majority votes of the Supreme Court. Thus they can justify the secret spying by the approval of Supreme Court.

Roberts was proved not work for the civil right but for the interest of D.O.J.. (see #357. Another attack from D.O.J. (11/12/05))

Alito is the same. Re: "Analysis shows Alito favours authorities"
" In one case, Judge Alito said police did not violate the rights of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter, who were strip-searched during a raid of a drug dealer's home."

"A Knight Ridder analysis of more than 300 written opinions by Alito, for example, reveals that he has almost never found a government search unconstitutional and that he has argued to relax warrant requirements and to broaden the kinds of searches that warrants permit."

You can expect under such a Supreme Court, what kind of judgement Americans will have. The administration will take over the power of legislation to authorize themselves the right to spy on its citizens. They will bypass the court system to search and seize without warrant.

US is proud with its democratic system: three independent powers check and balance. But now there is only one power left: the administration. The core is D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls law makers by scandal and election. It also sends the representatives of its own to control the Supreme Court. When they can do whatever they want to do, they think they are the "God". A name always referred by Pat Robertson and Jorge Bush to justify the power abusing.

It's completely appropriate when the man is being confirmed to a supremely influential political office & it's believed those "humble moral convictions" are a danger to the nation's well-being.


That's been done repeatedly, as in his ruling on the strip search without a warrant.


See above - the Constitution requires warrants for police searches.


:nice:

Did you hear that Ann Coulter once beat off a rapist?

:bowrofl: :lol: :rofl: :rofl::D :nice:

It is completely inappropriate and Un-American. Personal/individual choices, beliefs, and freedoms are what this coutry are founded upon and to think a man should have to answer any questions about those things in order to obtain a job is ridiculous (And illegal for any other job)

Ok, cool, and what if he was a member of the nazi or communist party?:confused:

where are all the witnesses that can attest to his bigotry, anti-abortion, pro-police leanings?

Do you deny all of it and can you give me some evidence that it is NOT true?:confused:

It's not about the little chance that it might be wrong, it's about the much much bigger chance that it is true:rolleyes: .

Rather than applauding kennedy's attempt at character assassination, you should be condemning his incompetence. Or, is that they really did'nt, (and could'nt), find any of this alleged ammo....which indicates that Alito may just be the man he's presented as, (which was corroborated by a number of character witnesses for him, from the left and the right).


Even if what Kennedy does is "evil"...something just tells me that it is still nothing compared to the evil that will be once the guy is our judge:rolleyes: . Sometimes we got to go with the lesser of the 2 evils.

Show me where Alito has, as a judge, or attorney, written an opinion, rendered a verdict, or argued against the seperation clause.

See his opinions and rulings on abortion, police searches...especially.:rolleyes:


It's immaterial whether you find it theatrical or not....and assuming for the moment that it was staged, the dem stooges certainly played right into it, don't you think? Again, they seemingly go out of their way to insure their own collapse.


I do believe that in politics, republicans are much much better actors...I give them credit where they deserve:p .

What makes you think Alito is going to change that?


It's not that I'm 100% sure about it, it's just the fact that I'm afraid there's a very good chance that he will, and his history makes me feel that way.

Kennedy, and friends have pretty much guaranteed that he will be. Of course, you're still Kennedy's self appointed cheer leader, so I'll just be quiet, and let you bask in his martini fueled glow.

I DO NOT GIVE A SH!T ABOUT KENNEDY!!!!:p I'm not a democrat, radical leftist, fan of Ted K. or anybody else here. I just don't want any right-wing extremists to make this country even less free and even more religious.:mad: :p

Some how, I doubt he will be consulting with you on which cases the SC hears, or how they rule.


So do we agree that there is a BIG CHANCE that he will do what I think he will do? Yes or NO?:confused:

A strip search without a warrant is therefore unconstitutional - no reasonable person, & more importantly, the SCOTUS, would disagree. If that's not an "unreasonable search," there is no such thing.


Your political beliefs are completely relevant to any political position you're applying for, particularly for a judge, & the questions are therefore entirely legitimate.

The Congress has confirmation authority & is entitled to make sure they approve of his judicial & political philosophy.

No, you're mistaken - you can legally be fired or not hired on the basis of your political beliefs. The Civil Rights Act of '64 specifically permits it.


Your knowledge of the Bill of Rights is poor:



:nice:

the job of confirming a SC judge should be to verify whether they have the qualifications and to research past practice that may lead to the conclusion the nominee will abuse the office (i.e. legislate from the bench) Whether or not you approve of their personal views was decided at the ballot box when the President and Congress was elected

:nonono:


where exactly does it mention the 'right to privacy?" As opposed to say..."the right to Life, Liberty...blah blah" You are extending the interpretion of an interpretation. yes, the right to privacy is inherent but not without limits (suicide is illegal and so is drug abuse) The right to an abortion does not exist anywhere within the Constitution...if you believe it does then you also believe a woman should be allowed to abort until the very last second since it is here body.

1. Your knowledge of the Bill of Rights is obviously very very very bad.

2. The right to privacy exists, and you still have yet to show me WHAT are the "limits" are.

3. Suicide, prostitution, drugs are illlegal, but that arguably DOES violate the constitution and that's why so many people are against it being illegal, and just because some wrongs are already done, it doesn't mean that we should do another one, such as criminalizing abortioin, because...

4. It is protected by the constitutional right to privacy.:p

Well, why won't he just PROMISE Ted K. and other senators that he will not touch abortion or other issues that make this controversy? Can't he just sign something or even directly and honestly say what's up? Why can't he be 100% honest and direct about it if the claims are soooo insane?:confused:


Because he CAN'T. He's a judge, and judges CANNOT approach any case before them with their minds already made up on how they will rule. If he did that, he would be a horrible judge.

Because he CAN'T. He's a judge, and judges CANNOT approach any case before them with their minds already made up on how they will rule. If he did that, he would be a horrible judge.

Which seems to be just what the democrats are looking for.

Which seems to be just what the democrats are looking for.

I agree. They are blatently seeking to politicize the judiciary by ignoring qualifications and seeking only a rubber stamp of their legislative preferences.

Alito will be confirmed.


Now all you libeal nazis can cry in your beers and i don't care.


I hope that one of the liberal justices dies/retires so that Bush can cement the constructionist/conservative majority for the next generation.

I could not be happier.

This has been our dream for 70 years and now it is finally happening.

We have achieved our purpose.

Read my reply to Cowpunk. Illegal in any other occupation and you haven't provided any proof beyond "Probably"


Only because Alito has been stonewalling.

If he'd come out in the open we'd have all the glorious proof you seem to want.



were any of these rulings overturned by higher courts?



:not: ,Conservative judges cover each other's ass all the time.



The right to an abortion does not exist anywhere within the Constitution...


According to Alito himself Baird v. Eisenstat is Constitutional,Baird v. Esienstat was the ruling that lead to Roe v. Wade .


if you believe it does then you also believe a woman should be allowed to abort until the very last second since it is here body.

And I do.

The fact the police "believed" it was reasonable is germane to the entire argument. If they believed the warrant covered all inside the house then they were acting within their duty to search anyone/everyone. Your argument of "inherently unreasonable" is defeated by your own words:
You seem confused: "reasonability" isn't defined by whether the POLICE think it's reasonable to conduct a search. If we used that standard, they would have the power to search anyone they wish.

The question is whether the "reasonable person" would believe that it's okay to for them to strip search two persons not named to any warrant without the slightest probable cause.

It's similar to the standard for "reasonable doubt." The court agreed that it was not "reasonable" - that a reasonable person would not conclude that the Constitution permitted the search - & therefore NOT constitutional

Alito argued for "qualified immunity" because they were doing there job and should not have been subjected to civil suits...all this makes sense to me
That's why the man shouldn't be on the bench.

According to Alito himself Baird v. Eisenstat is Constitutional,Baird v. Esienstat was the ruling that lead to Roe v. Wade .


:nice:

This has been our dream for 70 years and now it is finally happening.

They will not make abortion illegal. What can happen AT WORST (and it's still bad, don't get me wrong) is that it will be illegal in only some states:nonono: .

However, I still think the chances are small even when it comes to that...it's just that I don't see a good reason to risk it:) .

ich seems to be just what the democrats are looking for.

I don't know, I'm not a democrat...do they?:confused:

I know what I'm NOT looking for...and it is a right-wing religious freak in the supreme court:p .

Because he CAN'T. He's a judge, and judges CANNOT approach any case before them with their minds already made up on how they will rule. If he did that, he would be a horrible judge.

I want evidence that he is NOT anti-choice.:mad:

[QUOTE=GanjaFreebirdI want evidence that he is NOT anti-choice.:mad:[/QUOTE]

That's fine and dandy, but you're missing the main point. A judge CANNOT take his personal preferences into a case. If he does, he's not giving that case a fair and impartial hearing. A Supreme Court justice has to be especially careful to rule only on the case that's before him in accordance with the Constitution. That's why it's so important that they have a solid judicial temperment, and are not given to passionate desires to "fix" things or to "make" things be a certain way. Any judge that assures you he's anti-life and will always rule that way is completely unfit to sit on the bench. That's why it's so sad that the democrats have so completely politicized the judiciary.

It is a bit silly that Judges can't say how they would rule on a well-known case...they must have thought of it before from a legal perspective. But Alito recognizes that every case has different circumstances and variables and I respect that he works hard to not bring his personal feelings into a case.

Alito will be confirmed.

Indeed. One thing that the hearings proved to me was that while Alito is not a politician (and polished like some of the talking heads that were throwing all kinds of convoluted questions his way) - he is smart, and will stick to the letter of the law in all of his decisions. What more could we ask for from a Justice?

I respect that he works hard to not bring his personal feelings into a case.


You're assuming that he wasn't lying.

You're assuming that he wasn't lying.

I don't buy that kind of stuff for a second. Do you honestly think a man of his reputation would try to 'pull a fast one' on a group of vultures on such a large stage? I don't think that would fly. He is no politician.

They will not make abortion illegal. What can happen AT WORST (and it's still bad, don't get me wrong) is that it will be illegal in only some states

It's a start.

However, I still think the chances are small even when it comes to that...

I am hopeful.. ven confident.. that abortion will some day be just another black mark on american history.

I don't buy that kind of stuff for a second. Do you honestly think a man of his reputation would try to 'pull a fast one' on a group of vultures on such a large stage? I don't think that would fly.


Why not?

Once he's in he's in for life.


He is no politician.

Well,I do think he is a stealth politican because I live in the real world.

It's a start.

Ummm...it's THE WORST possiblity for an END...let alone a start. Face the truth here...I'm not gonna even talk about it being good or bad...the worst they can do is overturn Roe, which would mean that states will decide on that issue. Assuming that most people in SOME states are against abortion, how is it going to effect the states that most people support legal right for abortion?:confused: And the people from anti-abortion states (assuming there would even be many of them after 30 years of keeping it legal) who are not VERY poor, would always be able to go to another state and have abortions there.

That will mostly effect poor women who do not have the money or the car to go to New-York, California or whatever. Also, in the anti-abortion states, a woman will still be able to have abortion if the doctor says that her life is possibly in danger, and very often, you can just pay the doctor some $ for that, or do it through connections:p.

Abortion CANNOT and WILL NOT possibly be outlawed on the federal or constitutional level, since even most anti-abortion conservative (especially judges) leaders do not believe in a pro-life constitutional amendment, nor would that be really possible, so the chances for that are less than 1%.

If you will be satisfied about some poor women in 100% anti-abortion states, who have no connections or anything whatsoever (and not willing to do it illegaly as well), not being able to have abortions, then more power to you, but it doesn't change the fact that everybody else will be having abortions just as much:rolleyes: .


am hopeful.. ven confident.. that abortion will some day be just another black mark on american history.

The ONLY way it can realy happen in reality is if somehow it will be possible for women not to have unwanted pregnancies, like 100% perfect birth control or something, and that would mean that the government will make sure that EVERY woman takes it.

Otherwise, there ALWAYS be unwanted pregnancies, abortions (legal or illegal), and some (if not most) people/state will support women's choice for that as well. Welcome back from your dream into the real world:).

Abortion CANNOT and WILL NOT possibly be outlawed on the federal or constitutional level, since even most anti-abortion conservative (especially judges) leaders do not believe in a pro-life constitutional amendment, nor would that be really possible, so the chances for that are less than 1%.


If that's true, then there shouldn't be any worry about Alito getting on the Supreme Court, even if he votes for life, since abortion can never be made illegal. Putting the question back to the states would allow the voters to have a say in it again, and that's a good thing.