Say Anything Blog

I read where Alito was a federal prosecutor and has been on the federal bench for 15 years. It seems he is qualified to be on the SC, better qualified that Harriet Maiers was. It is pretty sad, maybe even pretty sick, that our collective focus is on abortion. We have more significant problems than this.

[...] President Bush Appoints Alito By Rob on October 31, 2005 at 9:28 am [...]

Hopefully he won’t actually be a “Scalito” after all, and has been on the bench long enough to wash off any ideological bent.

I bet the Rep’s.’ will be happy about this one, the Dem’s unhappy, and the rest of the nation, well, maybe, confused.
At least this judge has a lengthy record; one that can be examined and his position on some issues illuminated.
It is the sort of a “rags to riches” story that Amerika loves, Poor Italian Immigarant arrives in the United States, works hard .... to have his son nominated for a position on the highest bench in the Land.
I hope that enough of Alito’s record is revealed so that the American public can be informed of his judicial philosophy and call, mail, email their congressional representatives with their preferences…

Poor Italian Immigarant arrives in the United States, works hard …. to have his son nominated for a position on the highest bench in the Land.

Yet another immigrant taking a job that could have gone to one of “us.”

They took our jobs!!!

MI wrote:

Hopefully he won’t actually be a “Scalito” after all, and has been on the bench long enough to wash off any ideological bent.

I actually wouldn’t mind if the next judge DID have an ideological bent--as long as that “bent” was libertarian, as Brown’s was.

For those of you hoping the new Supreme Court might put an end to some of the more troublesome aspects of Bush’s treatment of suspected terrorists, it doesn’t look good--Alito is another Ashcroft in his 4th Amendment rulings.

Interesting article in the NYT about Supreme Court Justices and their rates of overturning Congressional legislation. If Bush is looking for less judicial activism then he may be on the wrong track.

I actually wouldn’t mind if the next judge DID have an ideological bent–as long as that “bent” was libertarian, as Brown’s was.

You’re assuming that a libertarian bent ensures someone who can rule based on a strict interpretation of the constitution.  I’m not sure that’s true.

Frankly, I’d be in favor of putting Hillary Clinton on the high bench if I were convinced she could set her ideology aside and rule on the text of the Constitution.

For those of you hoping the new Supreme Court might put an end to some of the more troublesome aspects of Bush’s treatment of suspected terrorists, it doesn’t look good–Alito is another Ashcroft in his 4th Amendment rulings.

I still think you’re wrong about Brown ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of captured enemy combatants.  I am convinced that Brown is capable of ruling on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and nowhere in that document do I see the rights of U.S. citizens being extended to prisoners of war.

You seem to want Brown to be a judicial activist, only in the “libertarian bent,” as you’ve described it.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: