Comments on: It’s not news that Alito disapproved of Roe v. Wade

By: ehf

ehf — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:12:48 +0000

It’s always funny to me that during the Miers hearings, the conservative side of the aisle were gung-ho about questioning Miers’ “judicial philosophy.” Aside from her arguable lack of judicial experience, many members of the right wing were up front that she didn’t follow a far right agenda and thus would vote “no” on her nomination. I was at Schumer’s press conference today where media questioned his skepticism of Alito’s record. Why? When his record is so transparent and lengthy, why are we prohibited from questioning his past judicial decisions?We’re not talking about personal beliefs. Alito has made it clear that his personal beliefs often affect his judicial ones.Examples: He’s made it clear he wants to reverse Roe v. Wade completely.-Polls show 60-70% of Americans want to retain Roe v. Wade in its entirety.Is this middle of the road? Is he really representing the law as Americans want to see it?

Things to think about (to rip off Schumer): What if the nominee said “I personally believe that there should be no guns on the street. Thus, I think constitutionally, according to the strictest of definitions, I will work my utmost on the Supremem Court to block gun possession completely.” Would (should?) conservatives not question this due to respecting his judicial philosophy? No.

By: esod

esod — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:16:20 +0000

The “White House is pulling for her?”

Actually, I did a lot of pulling for her on that submarine, if you know what I mean.

By: Rage

Rage — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:37:37 +0000

Me too. I agree that Roe should not be the sole focus, but, in case you haven’t noticed (i.e. read anything), Phillip, concerns about Roe are just the tip of the iceberg.

By: J M Walker

J M Walker — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:38:30 +0000

Great one, Philip. There is such an abundance of information presented in your soliloquy that one doesn’t need to look any further, does one? How about a link to this mysterious memo the Liberal Activists are “all abuzz” about. We might find things are taken out of context maybe? Gee, bet that never happens, does it? As it is, this is a useless piece of information that tells us absolutely nothing but what you want us to read. But then again, isn’t that what blogs are all about? Personally, I expect something better.

By: codie

codie — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:11:34 +0000

As long as he ain’t Pro casino he is OK.Anybody notice the shameless plug for casinos by the Eagle?

By: Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:46:21 +0000

The Senate shouldn’t block a nominee based “on this one issue.”

How about if he said he thinks the constitution is just a g-damned piece of paper? Would that be just “one issue”? What if he said that the second amendment does not guarantee Americans the right to own guns and that all guns should be confiscated by the gov’t? Would that “one issue” be enough to block his nomination?

Is there any opinion that a potential jurist can hold that would disqualify them from holding a Supreme Court seat?

What if they’re just really dumb?