You need to be able to differentiate between when the stampede is for a good thing or for a bad thing. It appears the Republicans will never tire of bringing up Senator Byrd’s past.
I am so differentiating, and a filibuster of Judge Alito would be a bad thing indeed.
It is also a bit hypocritical of you to criticize me for bringing up Byrd’s past, since illustrious members of your party seemed so interested in Judge Alito’s actions of many decades ago. Besides, the latest ethnic slur by the distinguished Senator Byrd isn’t yet five years old.
If Byrd were nominated for the Supreme Court, then his Klan past would indeed be a dominating factor in the debate and probably a cause for disqualification. I think there’s a huge difference in the potential impact of what a person’s possible prejudices are between the Senate and the Supreme Court. Byrd represents 1% of 1/2 of 1/3 of government, Alito potentially represents 1/9 of 1/3. It’s only right that such an influential position receives much more intense scrutiny than that of a Senator.
I think there is a far simpler explanation for your belief, actually. The evidence is pretty clear that you’re quite tolerant of racists, as long as the racists happen to be Democrats.
Your attitude toward Byrd demonstrates this, as does your attitude toward another noteworthy bigot, Al Sharpton:
That’s precisely what makes it un-democratic. A pure democracy would put no impediments whatsoever in the path of majority rule.
Part of the genius of our system is that potential impediments are everywhere.
Probably.
I guess it depends on your definition of “democracy”. Like I said above, most people think of democracy as rule by the people, and by implication, rule by the majority. Also note that I said it wasn’t necessarily bad that it’s anti-democratic. The founders purposely didn’t create a pure democracy-- far from it.
Now, one might argue that since the filibuster rule itself was decided by majority vote, that it is democratic. It’s a way for the majority to concede that it might one day be in the minority. However, if one concedes that, then one must concede that if the majority votes to abolish the filibuster, that, too, is a democratic move and attempts to block that abolishment is ant-democratic.
Don’t confuse “democratic” with “good”. The founders surely didn’t.
A liberal checking in. Caught just bits and pieces of this process along the way.
And I have to say that I see nothing here that seems as bad as my first media impressions of him were. I am impressed by the testimonies of his past clerks who self-identify as liberal Democrats and who have the highest praise for the man. I hear him coming off as a bit of a nerd (my kind of person, there) who takes precedent very seriously.
As part of semi-informed Joe Public I have to say that I became convinced that he is within the broad mainstream and qualified and that as such should be confirmed. Of course he is conservative, and of course he will have such a bias. But my sense is that his conservatism is to stick with how laws are rather to alter past interpretations. Roe v Wade will not be over-ruled by his vote, even if he helps the states get more rights to regulate it more closely.
If I am at all representative of the public at large (and admittedly I usually am not) this has been a useful exercise. I was hoping for a filibuster before the process began, or for enough libertarian Pubbies to be concerned about increased executive powers and vote against him to derail the process. Now I think that he is better than what we should expect from this very religious-conservative president especially with a sympathetic Senate. My views have been informed by this process.
A rare moment of good conscience. 
On the other hand, it’s Alito who’s being nominated here, not Scalia. And Alito is already known to be in favor of “absolute immunity” for warrantless wiretaps, the unitary executive, and the President’s use of signing statements to bypass Congress whenever it suits him (John McCain got pwned). Coupled with his gross insensitivity to anyone who isn’t white and male (Hey, kids! Racial discrimination is no different than being left-handed!), I don’t see anything in Alito that tells me he won’t simply rubber-stamp rulings in favor of the haves and the powerful at the expense of the have-nots and underdogs.
Yeah, that’s why so many of his liberal colleagues were eager to testify in favor of his confirmation. But you know him much better than they do. :rolleyes:
Anyway, since you’ll never let facts get in the way of a partisan rant:
Mwuh-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! The Originalists will rule you all!!! 
So, because he’s a nice guy to go to the bar with, that’s enough reason to confirm him? Or are you just admitting you got nuttin’?
What the fuck are you talking about? Obviously, you didn’t listen to the testimony, which was about what kind of judge he was to work with-- testimony from some people who had worked with him for over a decade. I guess that wasn’t written up in those left-wing blogs from which you derive all your “facts”. Anyway, it’s a moot point. Alito is in, so you’re going to have to suck it up and live with it. 
Now that the whole thing is over, and the left and the right have weighed in here with their views, I’d like to make an observation as someone with a strictly libertarian ideology. I just gotta say that I have come to have a great admiration for Senator Feinstein. She’s one of the few non-lawyers, and as such, her questions were heartfelt and pertinent. While the Kennedys and the Hatches peacocked all about the place, snarling and growling over the piece of meat in the witness chair, Feinstein was asking questions for the purpose of understanding the witness. No speeches. No loaded questions. No beating dead horses. No speaking on his behalf. No commenting on how dumb or how brilliant other Senators’ questions had been. Just plain old fashioned inquiry. Earnest. Sincere. And enlightening. The impression I get from her is that she sees this as a job. An important job, but just a job. She’s nothing special just because of her station. And other people aren’t dumbasses just because they don’t agree with her. What a breath of fresh air. California is lucky to have her.
When we get tired of Byrd, we can always switch back to Ted Kennedy
I didn’t notice Feinstein so much in Alito’s case, but I did in Roberts’ (and I think I noted it in one of the Roberts threads, too). She stands out in that respect, Liberal. I do agree with you. Of course, when all is said and done, she won’t vote for Alito because he doesn’t pass her *Roe *litmus test-- just as she didn’t vote for Roberts. It’ll be interesting to see what Feingold does and for what stated reason(s).
…which has no bearing at all on the decisions he renders, many of which IMO are batshit crazy.
Sorry, but the idea that just because “Alitio is a nice guy to work with, therefore he isn’t a nut” is not one I’m ready to share. Actions speak louder than words.
“Batshit crazy?” Is that some Latin legal term?
Christ almighty, watch the actual hearings and quit reading the blogs!! No, they said he was an excellent judge, not that he was “nice… to work with”.
I can’t believe it has come to this … I’m advocating for an Alito. But come on rjung, these were his clerks! They prepared his research and discussed the cases, heck probably did the actual write-ups. They were commenting on the manner in which he approached makiing judgements. And if they are to be believed he is methodical and very concerned about being consistent with precendent. If they are to be believed he is ethical and without an agenda in his rulings. They didn’t talk about his being a laugh to have drinks with. Or the jokes he told at the water cooler. (And of note they didn’t talk about pubic hairs or porno tapes.) Just that he was a great legal mind, committed to making rulings consistent with the laws and with precendent of previous interpretations of the law. I left with the impression that he spoke less vigorously of “super-precedent” but that he in fact respects it more than does Roberts.
Of course these were selected speakers and they knew what we wanted to hear. Of course, he was very well coached in how to answer these questions to allow us each to not find anything too bad about him. He may actually be a conservative activist judge ready to say that Roe v Wade is not entrenched and that the executive branch has powers far greater than we want to grant it. But there was no smoking gun produced against him during these trials. He succeeded in presenting himself as someone who is thoughtful and methodical and concerned about interpreting the law consistent with intent and with precedent and nothing but the law, whether it produces what he considers just outcomes or not. If the outcomes are unjust then Congress needs to rewrite the law, not his job.
He’s in.
I don’t know exaclty how the “guest speakers” were selected, but there were some anti-Alito voices in the crew. Note, though, that not one of those anti-Alito voices came from anyone who actually worked with him. Lawrence Tribe was the one anti- voice with some serious clout (at least that I’m aware of). There was a woman from NARAL who (shocker!!) told us how horrible America would be with Alito on the court. This is the same group that predicted back-alley abortions if Souter was confirmed, right?
Christ almighty, read his actual rulings and quit focusing on superficial fluff!
Wich rulings in particular. I hear he has quit a few under his belt.