Come on guys, there is no way that the Dems would give up the option of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination. The agreement for the Gang of 14 concerned the Federal Judges and was specifically to avoid a showdown over them. It should be viewed in that light not as some far reaching agreement.
I have to say though I have the same concerns about Alito’s memory that I did have about Roberts. He, like Roberts, seems to have convientently “forgotten” what their involvement was in very conservative organizations. Alito, despite putting his involvement on a resume, has no recollection of his involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton University. One can only hope that he remembers his law classes a bit more clearly.
I agree that most Democratic Senators have little to lose (other than their integrity) by voting against Alito. But filibustering is another thing altogether. It’s entirely unlcear how much a “win” this would be for any given Senator. Americans are of two minds about this: Ask them if the Senate filibuster should be preserved and they will say “yes”. Ask them if every nominee should get an up or down vote in the Senate and they will say “yes”.
So, it depends on who frames the issue best later this year during the midterm elections. It’s unlikely that Alito will have any signifincant record on the SCOTUS by then, but if the Dems filibuster, that will be something everyone remembers. And there are a whole series of “conservative” justices waiting the wings to nominated to the SCOTUS. Filibuster Alito, and Bush will nominate Lutig. Just how long can the Dems filibuster before they look like mindless obstructionists?
This is such a non-issue. Kennedy looks like a mean-spirited asshole as he lectures Alito about that organization. If he thinks he’s going to prove that Alito hates women and minorities, he’s a bigger fool than I thought he was. And anyone listening to Alito’s answers knows damn well he knows his case law. That dog not only won’t hunt, it ain’t gettin’ off the porch.
I think that the agreement of the Gang of 14 was intended to cover more than the Federal bench nominations that were pending at the time of the agreement. There’s a section called “Future nominations” which actually contains the phrase “extraordinary circumstances.”
They’re not giving up the option, just trying to make it less common and indiscriminant, IMO.
I think he will work with Thomas, Scalia and (likely) Roberts to issue decisions that gut Roe v. Wade – anything that makes getting an abortion difficult, preferably impossible, without out and out overturning it (so he won’t be lying about stare decis).
On NPR this morning they were talking about a Princeton campus organization Alito was a member of, which was “alarmed at all the women and minorities Princeton was admitting.” The organization, Concerned Alumni for Princeton was basically a bunch of Neanderthals SO EXTREME that Bill Frist described them as extreme. Bill! Fucking! Frist! Too extreme, man! Too extreme!
Alitopologistas will probably say, that was his early years, surely he matured as he grew. Well, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But here’s an interesting quote:
Put all this together, and you have a picture of a guy who just doesn’t like women and minorities. Much more comfortable with tighty-whities in power, and women in their place.
I think voting the interests of your citizens in this case is the “integrity” thing to do. YMMV, although it must involve a pretty twisted version of “integrity.”.
I’m thinking a little down the road, when Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Roberts – all Catholics, aren’t they (or at least Thomas went to Catholic school)? get to chewing on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. At THAT TIME I can hear smarmy-voiced conservatives saying, “Well, if you Dems REALLY hated Alito, why dincha filibuster him? You knew we had the votes to get him in, and you just let us vote him in. If you REALLY hated Alito, you’d have filibustered him.”
Sorta like they’ve said about the Senate resolution authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq. I think if the Dems filibuster, they have a clean shot at wiping the Pubbies out of power in Congress and the White House, given that Roe v. Wade will be gutted by Scalito.
Oh, there may be some corruption scandals and a war or two to distract the voters from the judicial nominations. The question is, how will they look to the center, and the center likes Roe v. Wade like it is. I think they’ll look real damn good to the center, filibustering anti-choice nominees.
What is a non-issue? Alito’s involvement in the organization or his memory loss of that involvement?
Perhaps, but its not exactly a binding agreement. There is so much wiggle room that for all practical purposes there is no agreement. Even if there were it was never intended to remove the filibuster option on Supreme Court nominees.
Thanks for the explanations and links. I notice that they are both from advocacy groups, which doesn’t necessarily invalidate what they contain, although those are the kinds of sites which generally spur me to look for less biased alternatives. There are sites on my side of the political spectrum which I would be very reluctant to use as support for a position of mine in a debate with you, for instance, because the source would be likely to correctly cause your BS meter to go off. In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a Washington Post article and graph on Alito’s decisions. Did you get a chance to look at those? My reading of that info is that Alito has made more decisions against certain groups than for them, but it is by no means an “all one way” record. If it was all one way, I would be concerned that he was more of an idealogue than a judge, but I don’t have that concern from what I see. Here are the graph and story.
And you are correct that I view the Concerned Alumni thing to be old, unimportant news.
Ted Kennedy is the Republican’s wet dream, because he’s far left, an idiot, and pathetic. I’m disgusted that they’re spending any time on the while Concerned Alumni of Princeton issue. It’s pathetic, sad, and insulting.
First of all, I thought imposing religious litmus tests on public servants went out of style back in 1960 or so.
Secondly, when they were in vogue, it was the Democratic Party that suffered most by their application.
Third, Clarence Thomas is an Episcopalian. Not that it matters.
Fourth, you fail to realize an important thing, which is that positions and votes have consequences. These consequences involve public policy, true, but they also involve a party’s or a candidate’s electability.
If you look like a nut while opposing what looks to most people like a reasonable jurist, your party will suffer in reputation. If you oppose military action in the face of a clear threat against our country, your party will be seen as weak and unelectable.
Put you in charge of the Democratic Party, and they’d be in far worse shape indeed. You would out-Dean Dean.
No, he’s Catholic. He used to attend an Episcopal church with his wife, but he is most certainly a Catholic, and attends Catholic church now. Not that there’s anything wrong with it.
Um, actually one of the sources I cited was the Washington Post. The others were fairly partisan, but if you think you can dig up a cite that leads to different conclusions than the one in my cite with the same amount of background (i.e., the NOW site at least listed the specific decisions Alito made that gave rise to their concern) feel free. Otherwise, you pretty much have to take my word for it, arm-waving notwithstanding.
There are sites on my side of the political spectrum which I would be very reluctant to use as support for a position of mine in a debate with you, for instance, because the source would be likely to correctly cause your BS meter to go off. In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a Washington Post article and graph on Alito’s decisions. Did you get a chance to look at those? My reading of that info is that Alito has made more decisions against certain groups than for them, but it is by no means an “all one way” record. If it was all one way, I would be concerned that he was more of an idealogue than a judge, but I don’t have that concern from what I see. Here are the graph and story.
[/quote]
Did ya read that graph? With your eyes? On the topics that’s gemane here: Age, Race, Sex and Disability discrimination, Alito voted against the claim on 75 percent of the time. That’s 40% more often than Democrat appointees opposed discrimination claims, and 20% more often than REPUBLICAN appointees did. This indicates to me that the guy continues to be a partisan hack.
I understand that you want to minimize that. But along with everything else, it certainly creates a pattern.
He has been given the highest rating across the board from the ABA. He has been praised by justices who served with him from across the political spectrum. You’ll hear from some of these later this week-- liberal as well as conservative. But you’re sure he’s a partisan hack.
Look, I’m pretty confident that you would oppose any Bush nominee. It’s your political beliefs that are far outside the mainstream, not Alito’s.
On a completely non-partisan note, it sure is fun to watch Specter and Kennedy argue back and forth like little children. I don’t think we can count on any of these guys to act with honesty and integrity.
Roe v. Wade is the big issue on the court and four Republican appointees are Catholics, all with strong indications of being anti-choice. I’m just saying, and there’s nothin’ you can say about it – 'cause it’s true.
This is a fairly common opinion and one some liberals even hope for. My brother works as an executive for a very well known organization commonly seen in the forefront of women’s reproductive health rights and this is an opinion he shares. While he would rather the SCOTUS not dump Roe he believes there is a very real backlash that may occur and be a silver lining, if you will, that would likely benefit his organization greatly (in the form of donations and so on).
I am surprised conservatives don’t see it coming or, if they do, not seem to pay it much heed because it may well pull them down. Political pendulums are very like real world pendulums in that they tend to swing back sooner or later.
Here is a snip from The Economist magazine article in talking about just this (and it mentions Alito just to be topical for this thread).
I can’t agree that they are non-issues. Being involved in CAP shows at least something about his personal beliefs. As much as Judges and nominees like to say that their personal beliefs don’t come into play thats junk. Its simply impossible to make a judgement without basing it at least somewhat on your personal perceptions and beliefs.
The fact that he has “forgotten” and feels that is an acceptable answer makes me go: :dubious:
