alito.

erikamay · Post by **erikamay** » January 24th, 2006, 10:43 am

from the confirmation hearings, i didnt hear nearly what i expected as far as stringent conservative views on personal rights, etc, which surprised me.

then again, i am still not assured that he can truly separate his personal views from interpretation of the constitution when it comes to hot button issues.

as far as i heard this morning, the vote is going to split pretty much down party lines, with no real risk of a filibuster on the part of the dems.

o'connor was a really great justice because she upheld her conservative views on fiscal issues (property rights, etc) but voted more like stevens and breyer when it comes to personal privacy stuff.

anyway, i am interested (and somewhat afraid) to see how an alito confirmation affects the voting.

what are other people's thoughts on this? am i calling myself out as a political nerd by caring about this?

e

arclight · Post by **arclight** » January 24th, 2006, 12:44 pm

Alito is a bad man. Granted his CAP membership was 20 years ago, but consider that either a) he only joined to pad his resume to suck up to get a job with Edwin Meese, or b) he joined out of a personal conviction that minorities and women should be unwelcome at Princeton and that the school should return to being the exclusive domain of white men.

So either he's a racist, sexist asstard or someone who will say anything to get a job -- neither of those are characteristics I want in a Supreme Court justice.

Beyond that, his decisions and dissents often show a creative interpretation of the law which tend to be overturned by saner, more senior judges. His record shows him as an activist judge of the worst stripe with a history of ruling against individuals in favor of corporations and the state. He's the perfect Bush nominee - someone who'll back up Dubya's 'unitary executive' power grab.

If I had one wish, it'd be that the Dems would filibuster this nutjob and ratchet the Republicans into nominating someone closer to O'Connor (i.e. a sane moderate.)

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » January 24th, 2006, 2:05 pm

He'll glide on by and the Democrats won't try to stop him on any serious level because no one is paying attention, not enough of us anyway. There is too little to gain from the fight.

And the vote will go down party lines because that is what our nation has been reduced to. Two parties that fairly consistently vote as unifrom blocks. Toe the line! With us or against us!
Judicial litmus tests? My ass.
Let's face it, when it comes to politics, independence in thought and action is dead. Most of the Senators don't even read the bills they vote on...or even the one's they propose and submit! Why should they spend anytime researching and thinking about their position on a Justice when they can just not rock the boat and do whatever the rest of their party does?

Personally, I'm "tough on crime" so I like tougher, more conservative low-level and criminal courts, but I'm big on personal freedoms and so I tend to like a slightly more liberal higher court. But above all, I believe in a completely politically-independent, personal freedom-minded, judicial originalist who understands that they have no power inherent to their office that is not granted them by the people of this nation. But, I don't see that type of candidate being nominated for some time.

Issue ideology used to not even really be a concern. It wasn't until after FDR's court stacking, Brown v. the Board of Education, and after the spread of telelvision that these confirmation hearings took on more of this feel they have today. God bless modern American politics.

If I was on this committee and it got to me for questioning, I'd ask the nominee "Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, to use it as the final arbiter of your decision making over all other legal documents both foreign and domestic, to interpret it as written, and to consider the original context and intent of its writing when applying it to modern situations? Following the answer, I have no more questions and I'm ready to vote."

erikamay · Post by **erikamay** » January 24th, 2006, 8:52 pm

natch, i am not a fan of alitos, and think the administration threw harriet myers to the dogs to diffuse this fight. americans have a sad and quickly diminishing attention level when it comes to this stuff, unless you have commented on the presence of pubic hair on your coke can and are up for nomination.

if alito is confirmed, it will likely split like this on most hot buttons (says me):
scalia, thomas, roberts, alito

breyer, ginsberg, stevens

and souter and kennedy as swing votes

as a point of consolation, gerald ford has repeatedly said that his biggest regret of his presidency is the nomination of john paul stevens. stevens identified as conservative, but consistently votes more democratic on issues related to personal privacy.

hopefully alito will do the same.

i want to write a rock song about samuel alito - he has such a great name.

e

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » January 24th, 2006, 9:44 pm

stevens identified as conservative, but consistently votes more democratic on issues related to personal privacy.
hopefully alito will do the same.

Hell, following Kelo, I don't know what "voting liberal or conservative" on an issue means anymore. Is voting democratic on personal privacy keeping the government out or allowing them to know more?
There was a time, prior to the Patriot Act, where I would have actually thought the Republicans to be more for personal privacy in most cases (not counting abortion as covered under the right to privacy) than the Democrats, but nowadays, I have no idea who is who anymore. In the Judiciary, Congress, or Executive Branch!

One of my goals in life is to write a book on my political philosophy, which I will, as of this moment, be calling "modified libertarianism" so as not to be confused with the full on nut-jobs. I'm only half nut-job...half common sense. I already know that the title will be "Ideological Recombobulation: A Guide to Becoming Who We Were Supposed to Be."

Evilpandabear · Post by **Evilpandabear** » January 25th, 2006, 1:20 am

Hey, I'm (currently) writing a book right now. The leading title so far is, "Sake for Round Eye." That's sake as in the japanese alcoholic beverage. WOO HOO!

erikamay · Post by **erikamay** » January 25th, 2006, 12:40 pm

hey - lunchtime. time to talk about politics MORE!

the question regarding personal privacy (and defacto rights) is a good one, and i agree that there is less party orientation is making these decisions and way more ideological rifts (with neo-cons on the side of surveillance, military power and 'large government', despite their claims that they hate big budget government...witness our current record deficit, but i digress).

my point was more that i strongly support upholding the 2nd, 9th and 14th amendments. that is probably a weird combination of amendments for a "progressive liberal", but i support the right of individuals to own and carry handguns.

i also support (but don't personally subscribe to the idea) of a woman's right to choose. i think this is going to come under fire VERY quickly. roberts has already lined up with scalia and thomas - i think alito is going to line up accordingly. so, voila - you have a neo-con backed voting block in the highest court.

also, if the court will not protect the individual right to privacy/arm themselves, how will they view infringement by the executive branch on unreasonable search and seizure? gonzales and bush have been VERY vocal lately about the fact that executive privledge includes surveillance that is not NSA sanctioned or approved. i think we are going to see a steady and slow crumbling of our personal freedoms in deference to 'protecting the state' with the alito, thomas, scalia, roberts crew.

on the topic of political affiliations, although i am registered as a dem, i am a fiscal conservative and free market supporter so long as kids get fed, housed and clothed appropriately.

and - what is Kelo? was this a court decision i missed?

arclight · Post by **arclight** » January 25th, 2006, 12:54 pm

I think Kelo was the eminent domain (public seizure of private property for private development) case. I'm not familiar with the nuances, but it's easy enough to fix that by passing state laws prohibiting the practice.

I too find no inconsistency in supporting the 2nd and 4th Amendments as well as the right to die and right to choose. Ultimately, you have to trust citizens to behave responsibly and that means trusting them to responsibly use firearms, encryption, and (if they have one) theur uterus. Plus it seems a bit inconsistent for the state to put criminals to death but get all bent out of shape over the destruction of a few hundred undifferentiated cells, blastocysts, or people who are terminally suffering who of their own free will choose to end that suffering by their own hand.

I see Alito as promulgating more of that dictatorial neocon horseshit and I can't bear the thought of him spending the rest of his natural life wrecking this country.

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » January 25th, 2006, 1:37 pm

Oh! You said 2nd and 9th Amendments! I'm in love!
(Sorry, Bob. I guess I'll let you keep her for now, but if she ever says she's also in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment...well, it may be on.

)

Most people don't even know the 9th Amendment exists, but it is my second favorite behind the 2nd (my view being that regardless of your stance on guns, the 2nd Amendment is essentially there in order to protect the very existance of the rest. Reading the Founders thoughts on the subject, it is a very valid and crucial Amendment. There's a reason it was 2nd on the list for them).

As for both your and Bob's other points, I fully agree. I'm basically a (modified) libertarian, so I don't fall fully in Republican or Democratic camps, a blessing and a curse in the modern political sphere. And for a long time, I thought them both fairly harmless, but since September 11th (Everything changed!!!!), I have seen a steady downhill slide into big government, potential abuse of power, and a lack of transparency. Or, when something is disclosed, they basically say "Yeah, we're doing that, so what?" My favorite was when the office of disinformation was revealed and when the stink erupted, they "closed it down" and everyone was happy. It was an OFFICE OF DISINFORMATION!

This administration has got to go and the people have to start demanding better from their leaders.

Yes, Kelo was the eminent domain case. Previously only really used for public use facilities (roads, hospitals, schools, etc), lately city governments have been seizing property for "tax base" purposes. They argused that if they had the right to take a home from a private owner to build a public road "for the public good," then they also had a right to take a home from a private owner and give it to another private owner to develop into a Wal-Mart, because the taxes generated by a Wal-Mart are more than the taxes generated by the house and so it was "for the public good," as well. The court sided with them in an opposite sl=plit than what many thought would happen. Although it has led to my favorite modern protest and one I would love to see work: The Lost Liberty Hotel (A plan to eminently sieze Justice Souter's home and turn it into a hotel)

Evilpandabear · Post by **Evilpandabear** » January 25th, 2006, 1:51 pm

what's your big beef with the 17th amendment? i've always felt shady about the 27th personally, the loop whole being that they give the next congress a raise, then simply worry (which isn't much) about being re-elected.

Evilpandabear · Post by **Evilpandabear** » January 25th, 2006, 1:52 pm

hole dammit i meant hole

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » January 25th, 2006, 1:54 pm

Ultimately, you have to trust citizens to behave responsibly and that means trusting them to responsibly use firearms, encryption, and (if they have one) theur uterus.
I agree. I am for an expansion of freedoms and rights AND of personal responsibility for using them.

For example, I'm all for people being allowed to own, and even concealed carry guns, but the second you use one to commit a crime, I think the sentence should be longer and harsher than it is currently. You have a right to get high in your basement, but the second you get on a public road, the sentence is severe. Your rights end where another's begin, but included within your rights is the right to fuck up, to fail, to destroy yourself, request a death with dignity, to marry people of the same sex, and to be free from having the government "look out for your safety" at every turn.

I believe in social engineering primarily through free market means (i.e., I'm totally against a government applied and enforced smoking ban in non-government facilities and businesses, but if people want to protest and request and 'vote with their dollar' to have a bar be smoke free, so be it. If the business is there, the owner will cater to it. The problem is that a free market is a vocal market and people find it easier to go to gvoernment to have them pass a blanket law than to petition and work with the individual businesses).

I am for a severe limiting of government, especially at the national level, because I believe the government exists for very specific reasons (both philosphically and as outlined in the Constitution) and it has overstepped those limitations time and again. I'd reduce most federal agencies to "advisory" roles, rather than active, intrusive, controlling ones (like, the department of education would be a tenth of its current size. School control would return to the local levels and the department would only serve to issue guidelines on curricula and monitor progress with other nations, not to demand this or that restriction be followed, control funding, and set mandatory learning paths).

I'm not for a "nanny state," but I would restructure programs like welfare. I wouldn't completely eliminate them, but I would restrict access, say no more than 6 months at a time (possible extensions in you are in some re-educational training program to learn a new job place skill) and not more than 3 years within a 10 year span or something. Then the government would be there to help out when things went disasterously wrong, but not to mollycoddle and take care of you indefinitely.

I'd allow people to opt out of programs like Social Security if the promise not to ask for money. It is their responsibility to save for their own retirment.

In short, your rights are virtually limitless so long as they do not conflict with the rights of another. MUCH smaller government, MUCH more personal responsiblity, free market, conservative spending, and adherent to the Constitution above all other legal documents.

I could go on, but I'll spare you. I'm VERY passionate about politics, and try to stay educated on the world and national situation. We should all grab a beer and chat political some night.

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » January 25th, 2006, 2:06 pm

what's your big beef with the 17th amendment?
Because the Congress was set up to represent two interests. The House represents the people of a state and the Senate was designed to represent the state as an individual political entity within a larger whole. And for a very long time, it was a quite amicable solution. The Senate represented "state" interests and was selected by and answered to each individual state's own Congressional body (original wording: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof...).
By agreeing to the 17th, several things have happened. First, the states have become nationally weaker, except by population. They don't have an individual state interest represented in Congress anymore. People have paid increasingly less attention to local Legislatures for this and other reasons because they cannot hold them responsible for sending good or bad people to the Senate. Senators have served increasingly longer terms via public re-election than via state legislature selection (i.e. it is harder to get a Senator out of office). There are a number of other reasons, but as a 'stronger states' rights, weaker federal government' person especially, I find the 17th to be a slap in the face of what was intended and to have had negative results in the running of this country beyond citizen feel-good-ism.

Funny you should mention the 27th, because it was one of what were known as "the Madison Amendments" and was first proposed in 1789.
(by James Madison: That in article 2st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives.") It only took them more than two centuries to get around to passing it. I think it makes slightly less sense today than it did during the initial 50 or so years of the nation, save as a symbolic gesture.

Personally, if I could Amend the constitution, I'd add something along these lines "No action that does not deprive another of life, liberty, or property, though either force or fraud, shall be considered a (federal) crime."

Evilpandabear · Post by **Evilpandabear** » January 25th, 2006, 2:23 pm

wait... does not deprive?

so wes is against the death penalty?

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » January 25th, 2006, 5:05 pm

wait... does not deprive?
so wes is against the death penalty?

Not necessarily.
I also said deprive of liberty and property, but I wouldn't construe that to mean that the government did not have the right to imprison or fine criminals. I think the state should have the right to use the death penalty, but that they should full well be able to support the decision. My feelings on it are too complex for a forum post.