# Alito and the nuclear option: Is he an "extremist"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778 "2005-10-31T20:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/21 "2005-11-01T00:24:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not blaming anyone… yet. If the Dems try to fillibuster, and the Gang of 7 agree, then I think they’re word doesn’t mean shite. This is guy idoes not seem to be out of the judicial mainstream. :dubious: The Democrats in the gang of 14 agreed to block a fillibuster in return for bipartisan nominations. Alito is a nominee that Reid specifically said was not acceptable. Bush nominating Alito broke a part of the agreement and as such it is null. Why this somehow makes the Democrats word shite and not the Republicans is a mystery to me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/22 "2005-11-01T00:31:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …This is guy idoes not seem to be out of the judicial mainstream. Whatever the Hell _that_ is! Are you putting forth the notion that Mr. Alito is of the center-right stripe? Then why are the Trog righties throwing ecstatic fits? (I have a link to a Fox News segment of “Anne of Green Goebbels” Coulter having multiple orgasms. I refrain from posting it in deference to your sensibilities…) Are they mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/23 "2005-11-01T00:40:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s my thread, and I’ll decide what’s relavent! 🙂 Apparently, you also get to decide how to spell it! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/24 "2005-11-01T00:44:34Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The Democrats in the gang of 14 agreed to block a fillibuster in return for bipartisan nominations. Alito is a nominee that Reid specifically said was not acceptable. Bush nominating Alito broke a part of the agreement and as such it is null. Why this somehow makes the Democrats word shite and not the Republicans is a mystery to me. They agreed that there would be Senate cosultations, but there isn’t any specific mention of “bipartisan nominations.” What I objected to was interpreting “extraordinary circumstances” to mean “O’Conner retired”. That was expected. But I will agree that “extraordinary circumstances” was left vague, and it was left vague on purpose-- they would never have agreed on a definition. In fact, this is a lot like constitutional interpretation. 🙂 I should have linked to the actual agreement in my OP. Sorry. [Here it is:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14) > [@](#): > > MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS > > ``` > We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority > Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among > the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future > judicial nominations in the 109th Congress. > > This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; > Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be > acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee. > > We have agreed to the following: > > Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations > > A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial > nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla > Owen (5th Circuit). > > B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on > the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit). > > Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations > > A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and > Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be > filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own > discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. > > B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, > we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any > amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a > judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII. > > We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word > “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the > use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of > government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior > to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. > > Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor > that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. > > We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States > Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/25 "2005-11-01T00:52:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Whatever the Hell _that_ is! Are you putting forth the notion that Mr. Alito is of the center-right stripe? Then why are the Trog righties throwing ecstatic fits? (I have a link to a Fox News segment of “Anne of Green Goebbels” Coulter having multiple orgasms. I refrain from posting it in deference to your sensibilities…) > > Are they mistaken? Nope. Never said he was center right. Are you putting forth the notion that the Gang of 14’s agreement is void if the candidate is further right than “center-right”, whatever that is? Frankly, though, I don’t like using the term left and right to describe judicial philosophies. An originalist interpretation will produce some pretty liberal results at times. The Constitution is, afterall, a liberal document (in the “liberal = freedom” sense of that word). Scalia has been the court’s strongest critic of Bush’s indefinite detention of US citizens, for example. Not a minor issue by any stretch. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/26 "2005-11-01T01:10:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > They agreed that there would be Senate cosultations, but there isn’t any specific mention of “bipartisan nominations.” What do you call this: We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior o submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Then? > [@John Mace](#): > > What I objected to was interpreting “extraordinary circumstances” to mean “O’Conner retired”. That was expected. It was not expected so soon and again, its not just her retiring its the nomination of a Justice who appears to be quite far to the right. No one is saying that a conservative can never be nominated but a moderate is what is needed at this point. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/27 "2005-11-01T01:33:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Nope. Never said he was center right. Are you putting forth the notion that the Gang of 14’s agreement is void if the candidate is further right than “center-right”, whatever that is?.. Well, yeah, depending. I mean, if you start from center, turn right and keep walking, sooner or later you get to Extremeville, yes? Our definitions may vary, but I make bold enough to suggest that we both agree that if such icky ilk as Coulter, Dobson, and Bauer are turning cartwheels, I have reason for concern. As have you. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/28 "2005-11-01T05:56:58Z")
> [@](#): > > The question is not whether the Dems will oppose, but how seriously and with what effect. There will never be a 96-3 confirmation vote for a Bush nominee, in other words, as there was for Ginsberg. A week ago, conservatives were complaining that the nominee wasn’t true to the cause. Now they have a pure-hearted conservative dream nominee and you’re complaining that he’s not going to get everybody’s approval. There are plenty of respected judges and legal scholars out there who would get 96 votes - but conservatives don’t want them. Conservatives want a conservative nominee - not a popular one. If they get five votes more than a majority, they’ll figure they should have asked for someone a little more to the right. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/29 "2005-11-01T06:00:25Z")
As for Alito being nominated to the Supreme Court doesn’t qualify as an “extreme” case, what would? Can anyone name an even halfway qualified nominee who’s noticably more conservative than Alito? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/30 "2005-11-01T06:25:06Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What do you call this: > > We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior o submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. > > Then? Some nice words that don’t have any bite to them. “We encourge”… yeah, right. How about “We expect” or “We require”. > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, yeah, depending. I mean, if you start from center, turn right and keep walking, sooner or later you get to Extremeville, yes? Our definitions may vary, but I make bold enough to suggest that we both agree that if such icky ilk as Coulter, Dobson, and Bauer are turning cartwheels, I have reason for concern. As have you. I expect they will be very surprised when Alito does NOT reverse _Roe_. From what I’ve read of his legal opinions, he is very careful and cautious. He might well interpret \*Roe \*a bit more restrictively, but I don’t think he’ll vote to overturn it. I don’t think Roberts will either. Of course, it’s not even clear that it will ever come to that-- ie, that the SCOTUS will get to strike down _Roe_. Besides, don’t you trust your MN legislature? You guys are practically Sweden from what I hear. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/31 "2005-11-01T06:31:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, yeah, depending. I mean, if you start from center, turn right and keep walking, sooner or later you get to Extremeville, yes? Our definitions may vary, but I make bold enough to suggest that we both agree that if such icky ilk as Coulter, Dobson, and Bauer are turning cartwheels, I have reason for concern. As have you. To be fair, however, many of these people will say whatever they’re told to say, or whatever seems expedient at the moment. I’ve got more reservations and Alito than I did about Roberts - I never formed an opinion about Miers’s judicial philosophy, as that swiftly took a backseat to all the other weirdness surrounding her nomination - and while I’m wary of anything Dobson says he likes, I’m not willing to say “Game Over” based solely on that. In fact, Dobson’s word meant more to me during the Miers saga because we had nothing else to go on. I haven’t read enough about Alito yet, but at least I know there is stuff to find out. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/32 "2005-11-01T06:50:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > He does not necessarily have to fit the bill. Remember its extraordinary circumstances not extremists nominees. When a mainstream judge like O’Connor is being replaced that alone makes it an extraordinary circumstance. This judge will have the power to tip the balance on a lot of important social issues in the near future. While Alito might be an ordinary conservative judge that doesn’t mean that this is an ordinary nomination nor does it necessarily mean he should be confirmed. This is, to put it mildly, a very novel viewpoint. And I’m afraid that justification for this view might rest only in your head, in a sense of How Things Ought To Be. Because I can’t find any justification for this anywhere else. I recall that Justice Ginsburg is on the Court because Justice Byron White chose to retire in 1993. Now, Justice White was a Kennedy appointment, but he turned out to be a moderate to conservative justice. He even voted against Roe. Had Clinton wanted to maintain ideological balance on the Court, he would have chosen a similar pragmatist. He did not. He chose a liberal. And I sense that you have absolutely no problem with that action, now do you? Why should Bush choose a moderate to replace a moderate, when this is an action that Clinton did not take when it was available to him? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/33 "2005-11-01T07:03:53Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > …Why should Bush choose a moderate to replace a moderate, when this is an action that Clinton did not take when it was available to him? Because it would be better for the country than picking a fight? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/34 "2005-11-01T07:22:26Z")
Oh great the “Clinton did it” card. Listen, all I am doing is stating what the Democrat’s perspective on the confirmation will be. They simply can not just sit on their hands and let a guy whos nickname is “Scalito” pass without a fight. Especially when he is essence replacing the swing vote and consensus builder on many important social issues. That alone makes this nomination an extraordinary circumstance and the Democrats will make filibuster noise. Whether that will be justified remains to be seen. > [@John Mace](#): > > Some nice words that don’t have any bite to them. “We encourge”… yeah, right. How about “We expect” or “We require”. The entire agreement was just nice words that don’t have bite to them. When the two sides agreed to stop the filibuster/nuclear option a Supreme Court nomination battle was not expected. Certainly the Democrats in this case never meant to sign their ability to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee away especially not one that they explictily said was not acceptable before he was nominated. Am I the only one that remembers 5 years ago when Bush billed himself as a consensus builder? The nation is fairly divided at this point and the Supreme Court nominee should have reflected that. Instead Bush is going to try a ram a canidate that he knew was unacceptable to the democrats through the Senate. Its going to be a messy and entirely avoidable affair. Where is criticism of Bush nominating a divisive justice instead of one like Roberts that is acceptable to all? Why this is a thread about Democrats possibly fillibustering a nominee that they said was unacceptable before hand instead of a thread about the Republicans in the gang of 14 not pressuring the executive branch to nominate a consensus canidate still eludes me. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/35 "2005-11-01T11:40:17Z")
**ex·trem·ist** (from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)): “One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.” Alito demands that women seeking an abortion must notify their husbands first. He would also probably vote to overturn _Roe_. Whatever one thinks of those positions, Alito is “advocating measures beyond the norm”. Alito is, by definition, an extremist. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/36 "2005-11-01T14:04:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Did Graham vote against Roberts? Is that what you mean? No, he’s just come out squarely in favor of Alito, hearings be damned. > [@](#): > > Does Alito fit the bill? Maybe, even probably, but I haven’t assessed enough information yet to decide that for myself. If he really has predecided any case, for instance a reconsideration of Roe, though, wouldn’t that disqualify him? > [@](#): > > Bork had a number of unique problems, not the least of which is that he came off as cold and unlikeable. Then there’s the mug-- one that only a mother could love, if even that! He didn’t cut a sympathetic figure… Do you really think that’s what was at the core of it, not his extremist views of Constitutional interpretation? Haven’t his subsequent public pronouncements convinced you that he really was unsuitable for the job, just as the Democrats said at the time? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/37 "2005-11-01T14:49:01Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > **ex·trem·ist** (from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)): “One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.” > > Alito demands that women seeking an abortion must notify their husbands first. He would also probably vote to overturn _Roe_. > > Whatever one thinks of those positions, Alito is “advocating measures beyond the norm”. Alito is, by definition, an extremist. Isn’t something like 40% of the people in the USA against abortion? Would you label **all of them** extremists? I mean, by that definition every single person in the country is an extremist. Everybody has at least one position on something that is “against the norm”. The gang of 14 can interpret their deal however they want, which makes it almost meaningless. I seem to remember that they used the phrase “extraordinary circumstances” rather than “extremist”. Whichever words you choose, I think the meaning is clear: Something extraordinary, extreme, or way outside the norm. Bush appointing a conservative to the court isn’t extreme or unusual. It should be expected. I haven’t seen anything about Alito that would indicate that he’s extreme. In fact, you can make a case that he’s not simply based on the fact that he’s already survived approval onto a lower court. IMO, it would violate the spirit of the gang of 14’s agreement to break their deal over this candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/38 "2005-11-01T14:52:52Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > **ex·trem·ist** (from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)): “One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.” > > Alito demands that women seeking an abortion must notify their husbands first. He would also probably vote to overturn _Roe_. > > Whatever one thinks of those positions, Alito is “advocating measures beyond the norm”. Alito is, by definition, an extremist. Alito doesn’t demand that. Alito doesn’t believe that the Constitution FORBIDS that. Different. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/39 "2005-11-01T15:10:04Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Oh great the “Clinton did it” card. > > Listen, all I am doing is stating what the Democrat’s perspective on the confirmation will be. They simply can not just sit on their hands and let a guy whos nickname is “Scalito” pass without a fight. Especially when he is essence replacing the swing vote and consensus builder on many important social issues. That alone makes this nomination an extraordinary circumstance and the Democrats will make filibuster noise. Whether that will be justified remains to be seen. I think not justified. Justice White was an important swing vote and consensus builder in his day, wasn’t he? And he was replaced by a woman who, whatever her virtues, cannot be described as such. Yet she was confirmed with little complaint from Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/40 "2005-11-01T15:26:15Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > **ex·trem·ist** (from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)): “One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.” > > Alito demands that women seeking an abortion must notify their husbands first. No he’s doesn’t. That law was passed by the PA legislature, and signed by the (Democratic) governor. It represents the majority opinion in that state. All he said was that that particular law was constitutional, and he argued that in terms of current SCOTUS precedent. I hope you’re just mistaken by thinking that the spousal notification issue is something Alito dreamed up. Are you suggesting that if the PA legislature had passed a bill saying spousal notification was NOT required, that Alito would have struck down that bill? After all, according to you, he demands that this be done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=3)