There was only a mild clash of the titanic editorial boards in recent days over Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court.
For The New York Times’ editorial board, which headlined its Monday editorial “Judge Alito’s Radical Views,” it came down to what he isn’t: another “cautious, centrist” Sandra Day O’Connor. It advised voting “no.”
On Jan. 15, The Washington Post editorial board gave Alito less of an endorsement than a shrug: “He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.”
Ditto a Los Angeles Times editorial that day, which declared that “there are no legitimate grounds to entertain a filibuster of this nominee, or to be overly shocked that he is the sort of justice Bush would select.”
Not a lot of enthusiasm out there — or well-founded opposition.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
44 Comments
Partisan politics among the Democrats.
Remember that Republicans overwhelmly voted for Clinton’s picks, knowing them to be left liberal. But it was about qualifications not politics.
That is why I disagree with Democrats so much! They are too emotional and not logical.
Joe Williams,
Regarding your phony comparison, back in the 1990’s, Bill Clinton went to Orrin Hatch, asked what candidates he would be able to get through the Committee, and nominated accordingly. That’s why we have Breyer and Ginsburg, who, despite your spin, are both centrist liberals rather than ones who are far to the left.
Bush did consult Harry Reid on the Miers nomination. And when nutjobs like Dobson and Tony Perkins put their foot down, Bush went partisan and sent up a candidate chosen from the far,far, far right wing of the party. So it’s willful ignorance to argue that Democrats are partisan and Repukes are pure.
As for Democrats being ‘emotional,’ well, do you mean ‘emotional’ like Mrs. Alito’s staged little hankie-fest?
If the Democrats have any balls at all, they’ll filibuster and throw this right back in Bush’s face. Let’s have the fight, already.
CF: I appears to me that your example only illustrates that the republicans in control at the time were more accomodating to those of different ideology than today’s democrats. There is no way anyone at that time would have considered Ginsburg anything but far left liberal considering her background and position. Yet what was the confirmation vote? 96-3 or something like that.
It is the democrats that have turned this into a partisan fiasco, rather than a legitmate exercise and measure of judicial qualifications and temperment.
Outlander,
It appears to me that your attempt to compare Democrats now to Republicans then ignores the obvious fact that the former are out of power and the latter were and are in power. Confronted with the Democratic President, Republicans compromised. In doing the bidding of a Republican President, the GOP-controlled Senate saw no need to do any such thing.
And again, your revisionist revisioning of Ginsburg ignores the fact the Clinton wanted to nominate Bruce Babbit to the Court, but that, dissuaded from doing so by Hatch, he offered up Ginsburg and later Brier as consensus candidates. Here’s the link to an excerpt from Hatch’s own account of the deal:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601090002
The press at the time saw Ginsburg and Brier both as moderates. So don’t blame me if the spin you’re reading doesn’t appear to feel any need to check with the recorded history of the nomination.
CF
The press has historically tried to determine what “mainstream” is. They told us what to think and how to feal and many of us went along.
Those days are past. There are to many sources of information available to the people. There are to many ways for the average person to cross check facts and to many outlets telling all sides of a story. The press can no longer determine what is “mainstream”.
An example- Walter Cronkite told us what a disaster the Tett Offensive was for the American military. I never paid much attention, I was a little young at the time, I didn’t know until about 3 yrs ago that the commanders on the ground at the time considered it a resounding victory. We crushed the Viet Cong. But for decades the press had reinforced the idea that it was a defeat for us. And we believed them.
Those days are gone. If you want to see how far out of the mainstream the press is look at the last 25 years worth of Presidential elections-look at who the press votes for versus who the American people vote for and you will see that the press is so far removed from the people that they can’t even relate to them.
Ginsburg and you are way out in left field, it doesnt matter what the press says, they’re out there with you and the leadership of the Democratic party.
Heck, I deg to biffer. The American public polls way left even of the Democratic position–strong majorities want single payer gov’t health care (socialized medicine to you), want out of Iraq now, want more gov’t regulation of business, want tougher laws against pollution, and even want to allow gay marriage.
A lot of those people have quit voting because neither party reflects their positions.
As for Tet, you’re right, it was a disaster for the North in a military sense.
But what the media said about it was essentially true–it showed that the US position that we had everything under control and we were steadily winning, was total bunk.
Zionist like Breyer and Ginsburg are not ever liberal or conservative they are simply evil. It should come as no surprise that the zionist were responsible for the abominable Kelo ruling.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Heckler,
I don’t buy it. With the ending of the Fairness Doctrine by the Reagan Administration in the 1980’s, the number of news sources multiplied and the tenor of news reporting became objectively more partisan. Can you tell me, with a straight face, that news reporting is now more factually accurate and reliable than thirty years ago?
Moreover, the claim that the media sphere is far to the left is just, well, laughable. A joke. Your conservative victimology is as out of date as it is politically necessary to make your arguments plausible. In this column from Salon, Peter Daou really nails how far right the press has shifted, and how it has thrown its weight behind the Bush Administration.
http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=59f92c44-e7ec-48c4-91c7-b51768df79a3
If you think the press is no longer trying to determine what counts as ‘mainstream’, and that they aren’t engaged in the business of ‘mainstreaming’ far right positions and delegitimating even moderate ones, then I seriously question your ability to objectively assess the truth content and ideological slant of reporting in the mainstream, corporate-owned media.
Tet showed two things: (1) The VietNamese would sacrifice mightily to fight the occupiers; and (2) the puppet ARVN would not fight to defend the occupation.
Where is Galahad on this issue? I miss his insightful commentary.
ProudLib
I think you may be cherry picking from rather slanted polling data.
The media is doing with Iraq what they did with Viet Nam- burying us with all the bad news they can find and ignoring all the good news. It is agenda driven and they are doing it with the intent of getting us to pull out so that Bush and Republicans look bad politically.
But they can’t do it like they did because we have to many outlets for info. Soldiers coming back and telling their stories have more impact than the alphabet news outlets evening anchors.
More to the point, Alito was able to answer every question the Dems threw at him with sound legal reasoning. When a judge is deemed extreme for following the law and the constitution it says alot more about the people calling him extreme than it says about the judge.
But as a historical document the Constitution is rather extreme to some people.
Is Galahad a guy; I always assumed he was a broad?
V.L.R.B!!
CF
You are right about news sources becoming more partisan. No doubt.
But let me explain the good part of all this. I can go online and check the The New York Times, New York Post, I can listen to Brian, Wolf, Brit, and Dobbs. I can listen to Colmes, Rush, and Neal. I can check countless opinion pieces by dozens of credible columnists.
I can compare the facts and compare the spin and over time determine for myself over time who is most consistant about giving me the most factual information. And I can concentrate on them to find out what’s really going on.
Dan Rather can’t tell me what to think any more.
I don’t see this as a bad thing.
I guess it always comes beack to the point for me that you should not let your adversary set the strategy/tactics or goals of the engagement.
If al-Quaeda or the Baathist underground really wanted us out of Iraq, then they should simply go to seed until the US believes it has “pacified” the country and leaves. Then they could sprout up with little chance that the US would deploy again.
No, in fact it is their strategy to keep us involved there…and when we find ourselves buying into THEIR strategy – to “stay the course”, then it’s time to rethink the strategy.
WE should be causing THEM to react to US, not vice-versa. And it seems to me that the way to kick the feet out from under these guys is to win the population over…give them hope, money, jobs, whatever it takes. It’s hard to be a radical when you have to pay for your cell phone, DirectTV, car, house, and all the rest.
The founding fathers realized that long ago when they set a strong framework up for personal property rights. And other US policies, like the GI Bill and student loans, give the citizen a vested interest in the stability of the country. The same would be true for Iraq.
As far as Alito is concerned, I find the whole “activist/original intent” debate a bit silly. Judges are put in place to be “activists”. The Supreme Court is there both to affirm, as well as to strike down, laws passed by the various states and by Congress, no matter how popular those laws might be on the one hand, or how outrageous they might seem on the other. They are there to bring the workings of the republic into closer harmony with the ideals enshrined in the Constitution and in the Enlightenment (both products of 17th and 18th century classical liberalism, by the way). They are there to ensure the rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments, and to further ensure to us those unenumerated rights guaranteed to us all. What are those unenumerated rights? That’s what the Court is there in part to decide.
CF
I can go online and see what a dozen different constitutional experts have to say about the NSA wiretapping operation. I can weigh what each one has to say and decide for myself who I think is most credible. Or I can go to a dozen different bloggers who over time have proven to be a reliable source of information and see what they have to say. I can cover the political spectrum from end to end and weigh for myself who is credible. I don’t have to settle for Hannity OR Colmes, I can find the info for myself. Again, a good thing.
Those are very good observations, Brian. I’m working on an article about the Iraq shituation and I’d like to quote you.
If the Bush administration really wanted out of Iraq, they’d be doing what you suggest. The fact that they only want to funnel money to their own people (Halliburton, Bechtal, big oil et al.) shows that they don’t really want to let the oil fields go.
Democracy is a sham in Iraq just like it was in Vietnam. Real democracy means giving up control.
This is what BushCo. won’t do. They went in for control.
I’m really glad we have Steve around to tell us what to think.
“Not a lot of enthusiasm out there — or well-founded opposition.”
The staunchy non-partisan American Civil Liberties Union has come out against Alio, and issued a detailed report on Alito (yes, I read the whole thing!–it took several days). This is only the THIRD time in their 87-year history they’ve opposed a Supreme Court nomination. You might at least consider at SKIMMING it, Rhonda. . . whether you comprehend it may be a different question.
Alito’s most creatively reckless legal inventions can found in the sections dealing with immigrants and prisoners (who cares about either?). All cases are properly cited and available for perusal on the 3rd Circuit’s website.http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23216res20051222.html.
Take a look, Rhonda. G’wan, I double dare ya!
Alito’s creatively reckless “reasoning” aside (sorry, I’m not going to waste my time tutoring you), one might be a little concerned with putting someone on the Supreme Court who believes the Executive branch can ignore laws they don’t like, and that independent agencies are prima facie unconstitutional (no doubt independent counsels would also be considered unconstitutional).
Both of these are well-known features of Alito’s Unitary Executive view–the same one Bush is asserting to brazenly break the law, and vomit upon our Constitution. . . by attempting to make, by creative lawyering and–eventually–judicial fiat, that which was illegal, legal.
And then night begins.
Presumably one could disagree with the concerns about Alito, but to describe them as “not well founded” is to seriously demean one’s own intelligence.
“Not a lot of enthusiasm out there — or well-founded opposition.”
The staunchy non-partisan American Civil Liberties Union has come out against Alio, and issued a detailed report on Alito (yes, I read the whole thing!–it took several days). This is only the THIRD time in their 87-year history they’ve opposed a Supreme Court nomination. You might at least consider at SKIMMING it, Rhonda. . . whether you comprehend it may be a different question.
Alito’s most creatively reckless legal inventions can found in the sections dealing with immigrants and prisoners (who cares about either?). All cases are properly cited and available for perusal on the 3rd Circuit’s website.http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23216res20051222.html.
Take a look, Rhonda. G’wan, I double dare ya!
Alito’s creatively reckless “reasoning” aside (sorry, I’m not going to waste my time tutoring you), one might be a little concerned with putting someone on the Supreme Court who believes the Executive branch can ignore laws they don’t like, and that independent agencies are prima facie unconstitutional (no doubt independent counsels would also be considered unconstitutional).
Both of these are well-known features of Alito’s Unitary Executive view–the same one Bush is asserting to brazenly break the law, and vomit upon our Constitution. . . by attempting to make, by creative lawyering and–eventually–judicial fiat, that which was illegal, legal.
And then night begins.
Presumably one could disagree with the concerns about Alito, but to describe them as “not well founded” is to seriously demean one’s own intelligence.
Not a lot of enthusiasm?
I’m chilling a bottle of champayne for the special ocasion!
Gee, don’t you mean ChamPAIN, NJC?
Funny how these right-wingers gleefully surrender their own rights. They always think that the monster they created will never turn on them.
Heckler,
That’s what you do and I do. Of course I favor the democratization of information.
But that doesn’t mean I think all sources are created equal, or that major media megaphones don’t enjoy an incalcuable advantage. The replacement of factuality by the ‘he said/she said’ criterion effectively legimitates every viewpoint; do you really think, Heckler, that all viewpoints are legitimate, much less equal?
The fact that stations aren’t required to act in the public interest essentially turns the public airwaves into a private billboard. And in a situation like the current one, where the interests of the Administration coincide with those of the media corporations, your account of the media buffet simply ignores the built-in advantages and asymmetries that are fostered by entrenched power.
As much as the next guy, I want to see ‘a thousand flowers bloom,’ if I may employ a phrase with a questionable history. But I don’t think we have that. What we DO have is another dawning era of media hegemony, in which the market dominates the public airwaves and cyberspace, unconstrained by any requirement that it satisfy the public interest.
Of course as ever the main issue with Alito is Roe V Wade.
But that ….as ever, is the screen, the little hol hole that the right defends and puts forth.
There are bigger issues here. We live in a time when public weatlh, and hence power is increasingly concentrated to the few. Alito has demonstrated in his past that he is well in favor of this.
How often we hear the right talk about “strict adherence to the Constitution” and “the Founders set this in stone” or other such platitudes.
Hey folks? The Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. It was written entirely by white men almost all of whom were wealthy. Now despite some “liberal” tinkering with it, our system of Government if not the Constitution itself, continues to reserve rights and freedom still mostly to the priveledged few.
Now I know that most of the folks who rail for “strict adherence to the Constitution” ala Alito, Scalia, and that puppet house boy Thomas: well you got a dog in this fight. Namely your own greater freedom and power over others.But see the rest of us? You know, women, blacks, the poor, the disenfranchised……well YOUR Constitution does not well serve them quite equally yet. And unless and until that changes……..well maybe we don’t WANT strict adherence to the Constitution.
Alito is patently unfit to serve any but the best interests of the FEW. As such, he could not be fair and equitable. Therefore,he is unfit to be a judge over anyone let alone the interpreter of justice at large for the entire American people and the growing American empire.
Well put, JR. I wasn’t here when you were around last, but I belatedly join XXX in welcoming you back.
Ultimately, it comes down to individual freedom vs. unchecked power. Alito consistently sides with unchecked power, and he goes out of his way–using some truly pathetic reasoning–to do it.
If the Democrats refuse to roll over and play dead (prompting another blog entry here), I might follow up with some details. Otherwise, I hardly see the point (sigh).
One point of divergence, though: “strict constructionism” is a misnomer. They in fact use their ahistorical textualism to complete misrepresent both the text AND the history of the Bill of Rights.
Rage, totally. Think they’ll get a spine and grow a pair?
I see that Mary Landrieu wants to play nice and not filibuster. Screw her. Guess that means I’ll be sending money to anyone who challenges her in the primary. I called Sen. Ben Nelson’s office and told them the same thing. Pissed ‘em off, but they better expect it.
Any Democrat who votes for this tool of the Executive better get ready to answer for it.
PL,
I’m honored :-)). The only one I ever find quoting me is myself.
“The only one I ever find quoting me is myself.”
Looks like I just proved you wrong!! ;-)
Lack of sleep makes me wacky. . .
CF. . .no. I think it’s because they won’t have the 40 votes to sustain. Incredible.
:-(( Rage, har har harrrrdy har har….
I guess you have bouts of insomnia too, huh?
JR,I may not be one of Alito’s fans, but I find it difficult to go along with the negativity so associated with him by what I perceive to be mainly Liberals. I am not a fan of the ACLU. I find they pick and choose their fights to suit their agenda more than they do to serve their clients interests. Ergo, I take what they say about Alito with a grain of salt.
The comments here echo are more of a mainstream line than does the ACLU: http://www.judgealito.com/docs/what/Your comments about wealth and power being increasingly concentrated to the few doesn’t quite ring true. While the Republicans have made a total mess of Washington, we have the power to change that. If we get our collectives together, we can vote in people who can provide the leadership we need.
As for the money, there are more millionaires being created every year than at any time in the past: http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm While that may not be public money, the private elite do have a big say in many communities. I doubt they all are Republicans, unless, of course, they think the Liberals want to take it all away from them:-)
I am not sure if Alito will or won’t be a good Supreme court justice; I ain’t worth a damn at reading minds, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Alito’s still got butt cheeks hanging off the end of his chin, just like yesterday. At least they’re nicely groomed.
CF
I think I understand what you’re saying, but what’s the alternative? Take radio for instance. Who determines what “the public interest” is?
I never listened to talk radio before Limbaugh came along so I have no idea what was there. I have no idea what radio was like before the Fairness Doctrine went away, I only listened to the radio for music and weather. It’s seems to me that the Fairness doctrine put a lot of power in the hands of the major news services to “frame the debate” just as network news did on TV.
Is “fairness” providing a balanced amount of time to both sides of a debate? Who determines what is fair? Or is “fairness” running programming that people actually listen to.(and advertisers pay money to advertise on). Fairness is kind of an arbitrary thing.
I provide a link that gives detailed analysis of Alito’s work-product, complete with exact quotes and citations, making it possible to check the original source–as I frequently did–and Walker ignores it.
He then provides a “mainline” source: a vapid cheerleading site that lists nicey-nice quotes about the man, but tells us absolutely nothing about the man’s jurisprudence (intentionally).
Translation into English: Walker opposes abortion and supports Alito on that basis. He’s willing to ignore the self-evident lunacy in Alito’s record to achieve this goal.
By the way, the ACLU’s “agenda” is defending the freedoms of all. . .
Except the freedom to own firearms or practice Christianity anywhere outside of the basement of my home…
yeah the ACLU is protecting all our freedoms… LOL
“Except the freedom to own firearms or practice Christianity anywhere outside of the basement of my home…”
Nathan, it is stuff like this that makes us laugh at you. And we are laughing at you not with you.
Yep, I remember well that ACLU basement lawsuit. I guess the ACLU must have lost that one given your posts here.
I suppose I could bore you with a list of every lawsuit the ACLU has filed against any aspect of Christianity in the public sector.
I can go straight to their website to show you they don’t support the freedom to bear arms.
Rage,I never said I support Alito . . . you can read, cant you? . . . I also qualified my statement by giving my OPINION of the ACLU. If you want to make some ridiculous assumption about my beliefs, go right ahead, but You have no true knowledge what my beliefs are.
And as for my pointing out statements by various people about Alito I did read the link to the ACLU report, and found it very one sided. The link I provided has comments from both the left and right. A little more bipartisan, don’t you think? After all, the trial lawyers association is composed of a majority of liberals, and they gave Alito their highest mark. But I think you would dismiss anything that does not slam Alito because your agenda says so.Me, I’ll take a wait and see attirude.
Off topic: As for abortion: yes, I am against it. But a womans choice is her choice. I am not going to picket, protest, shoot doctors, etc, but I will state my OPINION.
What are women going to do when a fetus is viable from inception? It’s getting closer all the time. Will that give the fetus constitutional rights, just like everybody else? Interesting question, I think.
Thanks the welcome back Rage. Always nice to know when I’m missed.
Hey Bushies? If bush is so wise and precient, why did you so VEHEMNTLY oppose Harrriet Miers? Now I must admit I joined you in that. It was rank cronyism. But if his Miers pick was SO BAD, shouldn’t all of us be very concerned about this or any other appointments bush would make? You know……..folks like Michael Brown and Paul Wolfowitz? Oh But I forget, he is only wise when he does your particular ideological bidding!
A Supreme Court Justice is one of a club of nine of the most powerful people on the planet. They stand even over the President…..who I would argue is number 10. Supreme Court justices can even CHOOSE a President; as happened in 2000 ironically enough with this pResident. As such the vetting of for them should be measured to that awesome power endowed to them.
Here we come back to the issue of Roe again. I cite it to so illustrate how these Justices have such great power over the most fundamental issues of law. Certainly those on the right have done no small amount of hand wringing over that.
Now given that, those questioning Alito should be APPLAUDED. They are doing the most important of work. The founders were very wise in their delineation of powers. No President, particularly this one (given his penchant for accmulating power to himself and his handlers) should get a rubber stamp for his appoiontments to these most important and powerful of positions.
I would argue that these positions are SO important that Senate approval should be unanimous or nearly so. Now as divided as America is this would no doubt be difficult. But bushies, might do well to remember that this is not some bloody football game where one side wins or loses. WHen freedom is lost for some it is inevitablly lost for all.
Final thought? (and it will be final unless the Dems do the right thing and fillbuster) For reasons I do not pretend to understand, as of now 3 Democrats have voted to approve Alito. Yet NO Republicans oppose him.
Is that illustrative in these troubled times that conservatives are also conservative in thought?
“I never said I support Alito . . . ”
True enough, JM, but you’ll be waiting and seeing for the next 35 years, so it works out the same. If we talking about Anthony Kennedy even John Roberts (who didn’t have much of a paper trail), I might find your “what the hell, let’s let it happen and find out” attitude a little less confounding. Oh well. It’s unlikely to make any difference either way.
JR, remember how we were forever told that conservatives want to get government out of our lives? Maybe in the past this was a consistent view, but now we see a big push to get government out of the business of, well, business, but, hey, let’s strip the courts of all but the most rudimentary abilities to check the excesses of government, and let’s strip the legislative branch of the power to rein in such excesses. Limited government? Uhm, right.
Rage,After reading ACLU’s report on Alito, I find that I agree with him more than I do the ACLU. Many of Alito’s decisions seem more in the line of common sense than anything else.
For instance: his opinion that the mother and ten year old daughter should be searched rang true in light of the fact that the drug bust was taking place in an environment where the father was putting his family at risk by selling drugs in the home in the first place. Such an individual, in my opinion, would not be above using his wife and/or daughter to hide the drugs on their person. And the police are well within the bounds of law by insisting they be searched. That is common sense. If the blame should be placed on anybody, it should be placed squarly on the fathers shoulders. It’s called responsibility.
His reasoning in many cases concerning individual rights pointed out the fact that it is the individuals responsibility to prove there was an injustice done to them. In many of the cases I read, that just didn’t happen. Liberals are using his opinions as a cold stone to throw at the public, but the majority of the public isn’t buying it.
I would venture to guess that no judge has ever gone through a career without having opinions overturned. That’s why there are judges. If they agreed on everything, we wouldn’t need them. I think he will be a credit to the Supreme Court. But that’s just my opinion.
It’s all over but the shouting, and I should probably leave this dead horse alone. But thanks for the response, Walker. It was instructive.
I do object to non-specific search warrants (as would the Founders of this nation), but that wasn’t the issue in the case. It was the narrow issue of whether the judge approved the searches, and he didn’t. They couldn’t even produce verbal statements to defend their view!
No matter to Alito. No warrant? No problem. The view that you have unwittingly endorsed renders judges irrelevant. If Alito had his way, the probable cause affidavit–submitted by the police–would settle the issue, period.
That’s pretty scary, and un-American.
You’re looking at the situation in isolation from the principle (and, by the way, no drugs were found on them). Yeah, yeah, drug-dealers, keeps drugs on his family (and of course the police NEVER LIE), blah blah blah. Never once consider the ethical presumption of innocence.
There is far more about Alito that’s disturbing, but you’ll find out. . .(sigh).