Bush is expected to nominate his third choice candidate to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court:
Scalia-lite? Interesting…
Is he really that conservative, or does he just look ultra conservative compared to the rest of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
They nicknamed him “Scalito” and for good reason. The Dems so far have been “keeping their powder dry” but by all accounts, this is one guy we need to use whatever powder we have. This will be an interesting test of the Dem Congressional leadership … do they have any powder to use and are they willing to use it?
Oh, yeah, and nominating a hard-core conservative at this point in time is an obvious attempt at wagging the dog by the White House. Gotta stay focused on Plamegate and all the other shit the White House has been up to.
He’s not Scalia-lite, he is the same or as bad as Scalia. Frex, he was the lone dissenter on an abortion-related decision because he felt that a provision that mandated spousal notification should be included when the rest of the Court of Appeals wanted it thrown out. They were concerned that battered women who were required to notify spouses of an abortion wouldn’t do it, due to a well-founded far that they’d get the shit beaten out of them. Alito didn’t care. He’s scum.
Gentlemen, start your filibusters. Think Progress, , while not the most unbiased source in the world, gives us some insight into Alito’s mindset.
He’s been described, on NPR, by colleagues as being driven by points of law and not ideology. This includes people who would not always agree with his POV. They say he’s experienced, careful, yadda yadda. Like Roberts but with more of a record to look at.
What would be the justification for filibustering Alito?
Uh … because he won’t let the libs legislate from the bench?
They won’t fillibuster because they need to save it for when they really need it … when Ginsburg and Stevens leave.
Whyncha go to the Think Progress link BobLibDem provided and read the headers and come back with some reason he SHOULDN’T be filibustered?
I’m on your side of the fence, generally, but that site seems somewhat slanted.
Because he is too conservative. Hey, you guys opened that door by shooting down Miers for being to liberal.
One can have little doubt that the President nominated a person who, in his opinion, is the most qualified. Next to Harriet Meiers, of course.
What?
- Conservatives didn’t filibuster her.
- Conservative objections to her weren’t ideology driven. She wasn’t qualified.
Or, you could actually read the cases rather than the headers and make up your own mind. I’m in the middle of doing this, and haven’t formed an opinion yet.
Admittedly so. But in any event, the cases cited therein can be referenced in more impartial cites.
Why filibuster? Because his philosophy is far outside the acceptable mainstream of modern political thought.
Blind squirrel, etc. etc.
They didn’t have to, Bush folded like a cheap lawn chair.
Haw haw haw, just keep repeating that over and over, and maybe someday it will be true!
(Reflexively reaches to protect nuts)
We’ve got a case before him right now. So if he rules for our client, he’s obviously a model of restraint and a sober jurist with a deep and abiding respect for the law and the traditional of American society. If he rules against us, though, well, it goes without saying that he’s a unshackled movement conservative that has no business on the bench.
Just kidding! I don’t know too much about him because others on the team are on that side of it, but I’ve been told that they were impressed by how tough he was on both sides during oral argument.
–Cliffy
Tain’t so, McGee. Yes, she was unqualified, which is why the moderates on the judiciary committee came around to the view that she shouldn’t be confirmed, but from day one (OK, maybe day two), the right-wing of the GOP decried her nomination on idealogical grounds, and then was happy that she truly didn’t have the chops.
–Cliffy