# You lost on Alito, what next? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2006, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332 "2006-01-31T11:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/41 "2006-01-31T23:10:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It would have had to have been a hell of a reason. But yes, actually. > > But that’s a pretty unfair hypo, since we know there was no good reason to fight England, and plenty good reason to fight alongside England. > > Let me offer a hypo that’s closer to the facts: if Germany had not declared war on the US, would have been OK if FDR trumped up a reason to declare war on them? > > YES. Yes, it would. In fact, given FDR’s violations of the Neutrality Act, that’s about what happened. Yes, and Bush’s actions in lying into taking us into Iraq are more forgivable than claiming he is the one to look to to make a clear break from the previous administration who was too keen on “nation-building” :rolleyes:. Just like FDR’s maneuvreing us into war is more forgivable than his winning the Presidency by claiming he would not lead us into war, then doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/42 "2006-01-31T23:17:05Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Yep, some of us rely on the facts and legal arguments and others make shit up and ignore history. And the fact is that nobody was charged with leaking were they. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/43 "2006-01-31T23:20:00Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Is this really appropriate for GD? If you’re going to preemptively say that any democrats who challenge your views are “whining,” shouldn’t you have put this in the Pit? You’re right, I should have left “whining” out of the description but I had bad dreams of Teddy Kennedy whining on the Senate floor all night. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/44 "2006-01-31T23:25:45Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > And the fact is that nobody was charged with leaking were they. Yesnobody has been charged with leaking in either the NSA or the Plame affair. Your point? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/45 "2006-01-31T23:25:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I DON’T want a “friend of the disabled” as a justice. I DON’T want a justice to “stand for the working men and women”. Etc. I want a justice who will side with the party that the written law favors. Period. I want a referee. I don’t want an advocate for women, for labor, for children, for parakeets. I want a judge who will read the WORDS and decide based on the WORDS. Period. > > _[fix tags --g]_ This is not now and never has been a legitimate juridical theory. It takes no substantial steps to respond to the core judicial challenge; namely deciding between competing interpretations of the relevant words. ‘It’s a good idea for the President to lie,’ ‘I support due process’, ‘Land me some strict constructionism:’ These inconsistent arguments spring from the same ideological sources being arguments of convenience, because the underlying principles cannot be openly advanced. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/46 "2006-01-31T23:43:37Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > You’re right, I should have left “whining” out of the description but I had bad dreams of Teddy Kennedy whining on the Senate floor all night. You also forgot to call him _fat_ and make a Chappaquidick reference.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/47 "2006-02-01T00:05:01Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Yesnobody has been charged with leaking in either the NSA or the Plame affair. Your point? Seems like you were referring to “facts” that are still in dispute. Maybe you were just referring to the “fact” that the WaPo reported something as fact. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/48 "2006-02-01T00:13:25Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I find it rather indicative of the modern Republican mindset that the attempt to block a judge with decidedly lax views regarding executive authority to a _lifetime appointment_ to the Supreme Court is reduced to “losing”, as if this was all just a game of football or basketball instead of the colossal blunder that it’ll eventually prove to be. You are right I should have said that they “failed” in their attempt to prevent a judge who didn’t agree with their view of the law from being confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/49 "2006-02-01T00:17:00Z")
My main concern with Alito is that it appears he’s never seen an expansion of executive power he didn’t like. Others have different concerns. But the American people understood the kind of person Mr. Bush was and what kind of Presidential style he follows and what type of appointments he would make – take your lumps, there’s no takebacks. I can get used to the idea of a firm father type leading us, and if it gets too bad there’s always Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/50 "2006-02-01T01:21:30Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > Wow, you’re really abdicating a lot of power to the president. I do NOT think it’s acceptible for a president to “trump up” (lie) in order to force us into a war. If Congress cannot be convinced to go to war based on the _truth_, we shouldn’t be at war. No matter how noble your goals, the political process should not be circumvented like that. To drag this slightly back to the OP, even if I thought Alito was a terrible judge, I would not consider it moral to “trump up” reasons to get Congress to defeat his nomination. I thought you were all about the proper process–when did you shift to “the ends justify the means”? Question: how do you feel about our entry into World War II? How do you feel aout the events leading up to it - specifically the representations made by FDR to pass the Lend-Lease Act? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/51 "2006-02-01T01:34:12Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > This is not now and never has been a legitimate juridical theory. It takes no substantial steps to respond to the core judicial challenge; namely deciding between competing interpretations of the relevant words. If two equally authoritive laws conflict, I agree that additional analytical tools are needed to resolve the conflict. However, when a general proposition like “due process” is held to forbid the state from regulating abortion during the first trimester, no “competing interpretation” analysis is needed. > [@](#): > > ‘It’s a good idea for the President to lie,’ ‘I support due process’, ‘Land me some strict constructionism:’ These inconsistent arguments spring from the same ideological sources being arguments of convenience, because the underlying principles cannot be openly advanced. I don’t have the slightest idea what this paragraph means. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/52 "2006-02-01T01:46:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Question: how do you feel about our entry into World War II? How do you feel aout the events leading up to it - specifically the representations made by FDR to pass the Lend-Lease Act? Didn’t we enter WW II because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Didn’t we declare war on Japan as a direct result of their attack on Pearl Harbor? And didn’t Germany declare war on the USA before the USA declared war on Germany? I know you didn’t address your question to me but my opinion is that our entry into World War II was absolutely necessary and fully justifiable. Our invasion of Iraq was and is neither. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/53 "2006-02-01T01:57:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > However, when a general proposition like “due process” is held to forbid the state from regulating abortion during the first trimester, no “competing interpretation” analysis is needed. Well I have only the slightest idea what this paragraph means. Is this _Roe v Wade_? If so, it illustrates my otherwise obscure meaning. The legal doctrine you advance is not principled. Rather it is all about outcomes in particular cases, specifically overturning/limiting _Roe_. In fact it is no different to the earlier examples you decry. e.g. > [@](#): > > …I don’t want an advocate for women, for labor, for children, for parakeets… ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/54 "2006-02-01T02:01:39Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > Unless GWB picks someone on the left side of the real mainstream… and the conservatives let him get away with it, the Dems will definately fillibuster the next nominee. > > 1. They like being the whining victim party. > > Surely there is a debate or two in there… Ok, I’ll bite, there must be a debate in there. So I went looking for some cites, this is what I found: "Dubya and Republicans whining about “obstructionist Democrats” " [amptoons.com](http://amptoons.com) “Southern Republican Whining” [http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/273](http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/273) “Republican Whining @ MindSay” [http://www.mindsay.com/tags/republican+whining](http://www.mindsay.com/tags/republican+whining) “Republican whining about DeLay/Frist” [http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/09/29/republican-whining-about-delayfrist-early-returns/](http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/09/29/republican-whining-about-delayfrist-early-returns/) “There’s nothing more pathetic than Republicans whining about being victims” [http://nehring.blogspot.com/2005/11/rated-r-republicans-in-hollywood-2003.html](http://nehring.blogspot.com/2005/11/rated-r-republicans-in-hollywood-2003.html) “A Reality Check On GOP Whining About Judicial Nominations” [http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html](http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html) “republicans who can’t stand losing, always whine til they get their way” [http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/001132.html](http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/001132.html) “more Republican whining” [http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get\_topic;f=53;t=002922;p=2](http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=002922;p=2) I guess that wraps it up! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/55 "2006-02-01T02:04:01Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Well I have only the slightest idea what this paragraph means. Is this _Roe v Wade_? > > If so, it illustrates my otherwise obscure meaning. The legal doctrine you advance is not principled. Rather it is all about outcomes in particular cases, specifically overturning/limiting _Roe_. In fact it is no different to the earlier examples you decry. e.g. That would be true if I wanted my legal doctrine applied on a case-by-case basis. But I don’t. I contend it should be applied across the board, even if the result is one I don’t like. That makes it the very definition of principled. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/56 "2006-02-01T02:07:03Z")
And yet you are unwilling to state what those principles are. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/57 "2006-02-01T02:07:05Z")
> [@LouisB](#): > > Didn’t we enter WW II because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Didn’t we declare war on Japan as a direct result of their attack on Pearl Harbor? And didn’t Germany declare war on the USA before the USA declared war on Germany? I know you didn’t address your question to me but my opinion is that our entry into World War II was absolutely necessary and fully justifiable. Our invasion of Iraq was and is neither. And before Germany declared war on the US, didn’t the US violate the principles of neutrality by supplying England with munitions? Didn’t the US violate its own laws by doing so? And didn’t those illegal actions have something to do with Germany declaring war? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/58 "2006-02-01T02:11:33Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > And yet you are unwilling to state what those principles are. What are you talking about? The principle is one I’ve enunciated very clearly: statutory and constitutional provisions should be interpreted by reading the text of the provisions, not strictly, not loosely, but simply _reasonably_. No reliance on “penumbras” or “emanations”. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/59 "2006-02-01T02:14:58Z")
That simply returns to my orginal objection. Reasonable people can differ and do. It’s not responsive to the question of how to elect between competing interpretation. Other than to discount emanation and penumbra, which are by no means self-evidently unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332/60 "2006-02-01T02:26:01Z")
On reflection the question probably isn’t fair. The diversity of the common law system mirrors physics. It precludes a ‘simple unified theory’ for every category of cases. The thing is, that observation changes the way to think about appointing judges in the US. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-lost-on-alito-what-next/342332.md?page=4)