I tend to agree that Congress should limit the terms of justices, but not the way the article proposes. Let’s consider a constitutional amendment that limits to term to, oh I don’t know, 10 years or so. I doubt that any nominee would be willing to commit to a fixed retirement date in advance, and the majority party wouldn’t stand for it anyway. If we can’t agree thru the democratic process that a change is needed, then no change should be made.
Cut them some slack. How often does a senator get to say something with the whole country watching, not just the politiconerds of the C-Span fanbase?
I’m sure the Republican spin machine was ready to interpret anything less than total acquiescence from the Democrats as “nasty gestapo-like interrogation”. Why do you think they had Mrs. Alito and the Swift Boaters on standby?
The Republicans are putting up a defence for Alito. Which is, in fact, I think a bad sign. They shouldn’t have to. But given the structure of the hearings, he can’t defend himself.
I wholly disagree. of course, the problem here is that many liberals assume that any opposition to Affirmative Action is grounded in racism or sexism. But that’s neither here nor there.
If it were just questions, I wouldn’t care. What I do dislike is the inquisitorial mood. Alito is considered guilty until proven innocent.
CAP isn’t about Affirmative Action. The organization wanted to numerically limit the number of women at Princeton.
I think you would agree that his membership in such an organization is fairly significant, yes?
From the news media, it comes from wanting to have an interesting story. From the Republicans, it comes from wanting to make the Democrats look mean-spirited, partisan and insensitive. From the Democrats, it comes from wanting to show their constituents that they gave Alito the third degree and that he dodged their questions. So a lot of attention is being paid to it.
A lot of this junk is just for show, but a review of potential nominees really is necessary. I’m not sure what would change the tone.
looking for the “Applause” smilie
That’s one idea, but it won’t solve the problem of people being afraid the President (whoever it is) will try to pack the court if possible. Therefore, I propose the following:
The President has to pick two judges of opposite judicial and personal philosophies. Then, I believe I can sum it up as follows “Two men enter, one man leaves.”
Here’s something Bush could have done. He could have nominated somebody like Richard Posner, a highly respected judge and legal scholar (and he’s not a liberal by any reasonable definition of the word). Posner would have been confirmed by 95 votes and Bush would have been praised for his nomination.
But back when the conservatives were talking about their dream nominees they kept saying “wouldn’t it be great if we could get Alito?” Admit the facts - Alito is the conservatives’ choice for the Supreme Court. Okay, they got their man and it looks like he’ll be confirmed. But you don’t get to make a blatently partisan choice and then complain about not getting bipartisan support.
Aren’t these common beliefs among Christians?
They’re not universal.
What is probably the most defining aspect of FC is the authority it places in the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God. Biblical literalism is actually a minority view in Christianty. So is the principle of sola scriptura. The Fundamentalist position that the Bible is the only source of religious authority available to humans is also a not so subtle way to deny the authority of the Pope.
Why should he have to? Part of being President is appointing people that you want. A liberal President would love to have an activist on SCOTUS and as much as the conservatives would hate it. It’s a fact of life and both sides of the aisle must accept it.
What makes you think a liberal president would want an activist? What makes you think that conservatives would hate an activist?
Because his job title is President of the United States of America, not Head of the Republican Party or Conservative in Chief. He took an oath to represent everybody not just the people who voted for him.
And you might want to update your conservative talking points - being an activist judge is a good thing now. After all, you wouldn’t want Alito actually giving deference to established court rulings, would you?
I also remember scads of Republican politicians and conservative wonks condemning conservative judges for following the rule of law instead of making radical, activist decisions in the Schiavo case.
First off, there are many conservatives who would love an “activist”, so long as that activist was for the outcomes that they wanted. Be real. An activist judge is precisely what most liberals are afraid Alito will be. This is a great example of a word being misconstrued for political purpose.
As to the op. This is quite close to how this process should work, with only a few unavoidable annoyances. I for one had come into the process thinking that Alito should be filibustered, and by the end found that his opposition had produced no smoking guns against him. The weakness of the case of the case against him and his ability to present himself as caring about precedent and the law and not his personal values was enough for me, as a liberal member of the general public, to say, “Hey, he’s conservative but not to an extreme and he seems unlikely to be a conservative activist judge. He might chip at Roe v Wade but there is no evidence that he’ll overturn it or grant the Executive supreme powers.” It worked. Now sure he was coached and evasive but those clerk endorsements were telling to me. Without this process I would probably still think worse of him than I currently do. If he did have a real record of supporting a supreme executive, or of being an activist, then he might have been voted down by enough defections of libertarian minded Pubbies. If he was shown conclusively to be a dangerously activist judge outside of the mainstream of American values, then the public would have been supportive of a filibuster. These notably did not occur. Once again, this process worked.
That said, it is entirely specious to non-answer questions because they may come before the court. You can answer without prejudging to specifics. It is just politically unwise to do so.
And what, you are disgusted and shocked that politicians grandstand? No, no republicans went on and on without offering any real questions. My god.
Im sorry it took me so long to respond. Honestly? I forgot about the thread. Embarrassing, since I started it.
However, no, it doesn’t bother me. Remember that Princeton was a male-only school until '69. I have no problem with male-only schools, or female-only ones for that matter. I find it natural and unremarkable that individuals may not wish to attend a co-ed institution, and may wish to limit its impact. I didn’t personally atend one, but I have no problem with peope doing so.
More to the point, no one has given any real evidence that Alito engaged in behavior or supported causes which demean women.
Being a member of a sexist club *is *engaging in behavior that demeans women, regardless of other behavior and support.
But even if you believe they wanted women out because they thought a single-sex institution was more educational ( :rolleyes: ), you should know that CAP wanted to do the same for minorities. Do you believe that it is natural and unremarkable that individuals may not wish to attend an inter-racial institution?
Hey! We politiconerds are people too!
This is interesting. I think that after Harriet Miers, the liberal base had exhausted public sympathy for its righteous indignation, and when a qualitfied, experienced candidate came along, people were excited enough that the fact that he was so conservative seemed less dangerous. I wonder if he would have had a harder time if he were nominated to begin with, without Harriet Miers coming first.
I thought the Peggy Noonan piece was monumentally condescending, but she made one interesting point:
He was given an easy way out and didn’t take it. This is for one of three reasons:
-
He was afraid he’d look bad for abandoning the “I don’t remember why I joined” approach.
-
He’s not politically astute enough to recognize a life preserver when it’s handed to him.
-
He’s a good guy who genuinely didn’t remember why he joined and was just telling the truth, thus rendering an alternate explanation unnecessary.
Having watched a good chunk of the hearings, I saw that Alito looked a little nervous whenever a question he headn’t prepared for came up. I don’t think #1 is likely, because it requires him to lie, keep track of the lie, and quickly assess the media damage for changing his story. He just didn’t seem that good at all this.
#2 or #3 I’d buy. Either one is reassuring; either he’s an authentic guy with integrity (obviously good) or he’d a bad politician (good, because I know he’s not particularly good at being calculating with his responses).
I loved Russ Feingold’s line of questioning. “Did you cover this in the practice sessions? Who was there advising you on your responses?” Alito looked genuinely thrown, like he was thinking, “Wait! You’re supposed to pretend those don’t exist!”
You are assuming what you set out to prove.
No, it wanted them not to have preferential admissions, which is not the same.