Alito to USSC

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

You don’t even understand the issues.

Note your lack of understanding:

"Just because an organization insists that high academic standards should apply to everyone doesn’t make them racist or sexist.

If someone argues that academic standards should be different based on race and gender it does appear to be racist/sexist.

I really don’t know too much about the Owl Club or CAP but what little I do know makes the Owl Club seem a little worse on the issue of racism and sexism."

Is that really what makes CAP sexist/racist or was it their disdain of the admitting of women, minorities, and eek!.. homos! and there is no comparison to the Owl Club. Good lord.

There’s not much to understand. Since they had nothing substantial to use to attempt to smear Alito, they attempted a smear by association. Not only did they fail to establish that Alito had any link to anything objectionable about CAP, they failed to establish that there was anything objectionable about CAP during the time Alito was a member or afterward. Pathetic.
[/quote]

“Smear by association.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. It is no smear to point out the obvious. If the group wasn’t sexist/racist/anti-gay etc. tt would not have been on his resume. And of course that’s really pathetic (not the pointing out how pathetic it is). Good Lord. Then you can go on and on about how objectional he is. The last thing we need is activism like Scalia’s and Thomas’s.

122

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

There’s not much to understand. Since they had nothing substantial to use to attempt to smear Alito, they attempted a smear by association. Not only did they fail to establish that Alito had any link to anything objectionable about CAP, they failed to establish that there was anything objectionable about CAP during the time Alito was a member or afterward. Pathetic.

100meters wrote:

“Smear by association.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. It is no smear to point out the obvious. If the group wasn’t sexist/racist/anti-gay etc. tt would not have been on his resume. And of course that’s really pathetic (not the pointing out how pathetic it is). Good Lord. Then you can go on and on about how objectional he is. The last thing we need is activism like Scalia’s and Thomas’s.[/quote]

Ah, now here we get to the heart of the matter. The logic is, he was trying to impress a Republican Attorney General, and EVERYONE KNOWS Meese was sexist, racist, and, for good measure, anti-gay, so Alito finds a nice, representative organization to list on his resume to impress him… So nice to get to the real faulty assumptions…

P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.

123

Good overall observation from Prof. Bainbridge from UCLA – I agree wholeheartedly:

Alito Vote

Even though the latest CNN poll ( CNN.com - Poll: Alito should sit on high court - Jan 23, 2006 ) indicated the American people support Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the same poll indicated that barely a third would support a Democrat filibuster, all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have voted against Alito ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/alito.ap/index.html ).

The politicization of the confirmation process the Democrats began when they first turned bork into a verb thus continues.

Of course, the confirmation process has become so politicized precisely because our courts have become so politicized. We have allowed nine old men and women in robes to elevate themselves into a super-legislature in which they exercise privileges they deny to our elected representatives. ( ProfessorBainbridge.com )

I wonder what the founders would think of our modern Supreme Court as it happily goes about the business of, as Justice Scalia put it, “Day by day, case by case, … designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” My guess is that many of them would agree with Judge Bork that the courts have taken sides in the “struggle between the cultural or liberal left and the great mass of citizens who, left to their own devices, tend to be traditionalists. The courts are enacting the agenda of the cultural left.” And even among those founders who would take the other side of the culture wars (Jefferson?), there might be some who would recognize that their cherished checks and balances are breaking down as the Court becomes less and less accountable. (Quotes taken from Richard Neuhaus’ review ( http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20118/news_detail.asp ) of Bork’s latest book: Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges. ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0844741620/corporatilawa-20 ))

124

More BB BS…

Alito should be nominated to the SCOTUS ASAP!

I could care less what the rest of America thinks and neither does BB.

125

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

There’s not much to understand. Since they had nothing substantial to use to attempt to smear Alito, they attempted a smear by association. Not only did they fail to establish that Alito had any link to anything objectionable about CAP, they failed to establish that there was anything objectionable about CAP during the time Alito was a member or afterward. Pathetic.

100meters wrote:

“Smear by association.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. It is no smear to point out the obvious. If the group wasn’t sexist/racist/anti-gay etc. tt would not have been on his resume. And of course that’s really pathetic (not the pointing out how pathetic it is). Good Lord. Then you can go on and on about how objectional he is. The last thing we need is activism like Scalia’s and Thomas’s.

Ah, now here we get to the heart of the matter. The logic is, he was trying to impress a Republican Attorney General, and EVERYONE KNOWS Meese was sexist, racist, and, for good measure, anti-gay, so Alito finds a nice, representative organization to list on his resume to impress him… So nice to get to the real faulty assumptions…

P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.[/quote]

Sooo…you think he put it on there…accidentally.(?) Which other things were put there randomly? Writing articles for National Review? Or…member of the federalist society, because I guess it would be a real stretch to think that Meese, and the Reagan gang would find those things attractive.

I mean Alito would have to be a real idiot (err…pathetic) to have put those down, in the assumption that somehow these things would “impress” a republican attorney general. What a moron Alito would have been if you were right.

Of course he’s not a moron, so you can “assume” that you’re probably wrong.

126

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Good overall observation from Prof. Bainbridge from UCLA – I agree wholeheartedly:

Alito Vote

Even though the latest CNN poll ( CNN.com - Poll: Alito should sit on high court - Jan 23, 2006 ) indicated the American people support Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the same poll indicated that barely a third would support a Democrat filibuster, all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have voted against Alito ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/alito.ap/index.html ).

The politicization of the confirmation process the Democrats began when they first turned bork into a verb thus continues.

Of course, the confirmation process has become so politicized precisely because our courts have become so politicized. We have allowed nine old men and women in robes to elevate themselves into a super-legislature in which they exercise privileges they deny to our elected representatives. ( ProfessorBainbridge.com )

I wonder what the founders would think of our modern Supreme Court as it happily goes about the business of, as Justice Scalia put it, “Day by day, case by case, … designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” My guess is that many of them would agree with Judge Bork that the courts have taken sides in the “struggle between the cultural or liberal left and the great mass of citizens who, left to their own devices, tend to be traditionalists. The courts are enacting the agenda of the cultural left.” And even among those founders who would take the other side of the culture wars (Jefferson?), there might be some who would recognize that their cherished checks and balances are breaking down as the Court becomes less and less accountable. (Quotes taken from Richard Neuhaus’ review ( http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20118/news_detail.asp ) of Bork’s latest book: Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges. ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0844741620/corporatilawa-20 ))[/quote]

Of course it’s claptrap.
The founding fathers would’ve surely stabbed Scalia, Thomas, and certainly Alito with their quill pens if they could.

And polls indicate…good lord. It’s convenient for the article I suppose that this poll isn’t mentioned…
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113631602732036724-NVQeq6nAnyaEKCswYTou97u4GzU_20070104.html?mod=blogs
and the countless others like it.

(If the majority of dems are against Alito, why would it be surprising that Dem senators would be against him?)

127

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

You don’t even understand the issues.

Note your lack of understanding:

"Just because an organization insists that high academic standards should apply to everyone doesn’t make them racist or sexist.

If someone argues that academic standards should be different based on race and gender it does appear to be racist/sexist.

I really don’t know too much about the Owl Club or CAP but what little I do know makes the Owl Club seem a little worse on the issue of racism and sexism."

Is that really what makes CAP sexist/racist or was it their disdain of the admitting of women, minorities, and eek!.. homos! and there is no comparison to the Owl Club. Good lord.

[/quote]

You really are off the deepend.

Ted Kennedy belongs to the Owl Club that excludes all women, yet this is not sexist.

Alito is a member of CAP which has women members and embraces their admission to Princeton and only asks they meet the same academic standards as their male counterparts and this is sexist in your mind.

In your mind CAP is sexist because Aliti put it on his resume.

I can’t take it any more. Go back to the Democratic Underground and stop wasting our time with this clap trap.

128

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

There’s not much to understand. Since they had nothing substantial to use to attempt to smear Alito, they attempted a smear by association. Not only did they fail to establish that Alito had any link to anything objectionable about CAP, they failed to establish that there was anything objectionable about CAP during the time Alito was a member or afterward. Pathetic.

100meters wrote:

“Smear by association.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. It is no smear to point out the obvious. If the group wasn’t sexist/racist/anti-gay etc. tt would not have been on his resume. And of course that’s really pathetic (not the pointing out how pathetic it is). Good Lord. Then you can go on and on about how objectional he is. The last thing we need is activism like Scalia’s and Thomas’s.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Ah, now here we get to the heart of the matter. The logic is, he was trying to impress a Republican Attorney General, and EVERYONE KNOWS Meese was sexist, racist, and, for good measure, anti-gay, so Alito finds a nice, representative organization to list on his resume to impress him… So nice to get to the real faulty assumptions…

P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.

100meters wrote:

Sooo…you think he put it on there…accidentally.(?) Which other things were put there randomly? Writing articles for National Review? Or…member of the federalist society, because I guess it would be a real stretch to think that Meese, and the Reagan gang would find those things attractive.

I mean Alito would have to be a real idiot (err…pathetic) to have put those down, in the assumption that somehow these things would “impress” a republican attorney general. What a moron Alito would have been if you were right.

Of course he’s not a moron, so you can “assume” that you’re probably wrong.[/quote]

No, he put it on there because he viewed it as a conservative political organization that he thought would look good to Meese. The axiom you’re attempting to implant is that Alito put it on there because he knew CAP was sexist/racist/anti-gay [NB: You have not, and neither has anyone else, established that CAP was any of those things during the time Alito associated himself with CAP, nor has anyone established that Alito was closely enough associated with CAP to know all its specific positions, let alone that he would have religiously read its magazine – so, my “smear by association” characterization is quite apt], and those qualities are what he thought would impress Meese.

A simple, Sesame Street-level analysis of the groups you listed, i.e. “what do they have in common,” would lead one to the conclusion he included conservative/libertarian groups on his resume to apply to a position in a conservative administration. The rest of your attempted ad ons – the racist/sexist/anti-gay stuff, are the pathetic part.

129

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Good overall observation from Prof. Bainbridge from UCLA – I agree wholeheartedly:

Alito Vote

Even though the latest CNN poll ( CNN.com - Poll: Alito should sit on high court - Jan 23, 2006 ) indicated the American people support Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the same poll indicated that barely a third would support a Democrat filibuster, all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have voted against Alito ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/alito.ap/index.html ).

The politicization of the confirmation process the Democrats began when they first turned bork into a verb thus continues.

Of course, the confirmation process has become so politicized precisely because our courts have become so politicized. We have allowed nine old men and women in robes to elevate themselves into a super-legislature in which they exercise privileges they deny to our elected representatives. ( ProfessorBainbridge.com )

I wonder what the founders would think of our modern Supreme Court as it happily goes about the business of, as Justice Scalia put it, “Day by day, case by case, … designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” My guess is that many of them would agree with Judge Bork that the courts have taken sides in the “struggle between the cultural or liberal left and the great mass of citizens who, left to their own devices, tend to be traditionalists. The courts are enacting the agenda of the cultural left.” And even among those founders who would take the other side of the culture wars (Jefferson?), there might be some who would recognize that their cherished checks and balances are breaking down as the Court becomes less and less accountable. (Quotes taken from Richard Neuhaus’ review ( http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20118/news_detail.asp ) of Bork’s latest book: Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges. ( Amazon.com ))

100meters wrote:

Of course it’s claptrap.
The founding fathers would’ve surely stabbed Scalia, Thomas, and certainly Alito with their quill pens if they could.

And polls indicate…good lord. It’s convenient for the article I suppose that this poll isn’t mentioned…
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113631602732036724-NVQeq6nAnyaEKCswYTou97u4GzU_20070104.html?mod=blogs
and the countless others like it.

(If the majority of dems are against Alito, why would it be surprising that Dem senators would be against him?)[/quote]

You’re quite good at avoiding the main point. One might just think that politicians that weren’t looking to impress the special interests that make up the Dem base might actually care what the majority of people think, rather than the majority of Democrats. Of course, if all they want to do is capture the majority of the Democrats, that makes me quite happy.

As for the founders, one can be quite certain they didn’t foresee a government in which the federal branch was dominated by a judiciary that had the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution - or that said judiciary would go around the amendment process the founders so clearly laid out to amend the Constitution themselves whenever it struck the judges’ fancy.

130

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I was commenting on the poll(Wasn’t that a main point?), it’s stupid to say if uninformed the public would do this. Why not cite 70 percent do not support him if would overturn Roe v. Wade. (70 is a majority right?) And of course Dems are right to represent the concerns of that 70 percent. So this author’s post is just fake to begin with. There is no risk in not voting for him. Huge risks in voting for him. And the founders couln’t foresee alot of things, hence the constitution is not a timewarp, but no way in hell would the writers approve of activists like Thomas, Scalia, etc. (That you’d have to admit right?), I mean with Kennedy they are the 3 most activist judges on the bench.

What are democratic special interests?

131

It’s almost too embarrassing to watch.

The Dems are shooting themselves in the foot on this one and the country is watching. They truly are a party divided and without direction. Harry Ried in particular is acting like a hand wringing coward with his public indecision.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1549992

Democrats Squabble Over Alito Filibuster; Approval Still Seems Certain

By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Jan 27, 2006 ? Long-smoldering Democratic dissension flared openly Friday as liberals sought support for a last-minute filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito against the advice of leaders worried about a backlash in the 2006 elections.

“I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future. ? The choice is now,” said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party’s 2004 presidential candidate and a White House hopeful for 2008. He said it was imperative to fight for “those people who count on us to stand up and protect them.”

Two of the party’s Senate leaders, Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York, privately made clear their unhappiness with the strategy, even though they, too, oppose Alito’s confirmation. And Rep. Harold Ford, seeking a Senate seat in Republican-leaning Tennessee, dismissed the filibuster approach openly.

“It does not appear that there is any reason to hold up a vote. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will move quickly to bring this process to a dignified end,” he said.

Despite a decision by Kerry, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and others to try and block a final vote, leaders of both parties agreed that Alito’s confirmation was assured for next Tuesday. The 55-year-old appeals court judge would replace Sandra Day O’Connor, who has cast deciding votes in recent years in 5-4 rulings on controversial issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action and the death penalty.

Democrats fear he would shift the court rightward on those and other issues.

Because of moves by Kerry, Kennedy and others, supporters of Alito’s nomination must produce 60 votes on Monday to advance his nomination and an Associated Press tally shows at least 62.

That would clear the way for a final vote on Tuesday. The AP tally shows at least 53 Republicans and three Democrats intend to vote to confirm Alito, well over the required majority.

Reid announced he would side with Alito’s critics on Monday, though on Thursday he had made clear his unhappiness with their strategy. “There has been adequate time for people to debate,” he had said Thursday. “I hope this matter will be resolved without too much more talking.”

132

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[/quote]
It is disappointing. Always in a million different directions.