: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.
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?
Apparently, you also get to decide how to spell it! 
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Some nice words that don’t have any bite to them. “We encourge”… yeah, right. How about “We expect” or “We require”.
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.
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.
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?
Because it would be better for the country than picking a fight?
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.
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.
ex·trem·ist (from 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.
No, he’s just come out squarely in favor of Alito, hearings be damned.
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?
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?
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.
Alito doesn’t demand that. Alito doesn’t believe that the Constitution FORBIDS that.
Different.
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.
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.