Posted on 11/01/2005 10:42:59 PM PST by indianrightwinger
Democrats Try to Use Alito Row To Tip Scales in Midterm Election By JEANNE CUMMINGS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL November 2, 2005; Page A6
The battle lines over the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court began emerging Tuesday.
Democrats are hoping to use his conservative record as a federal appeals court judge in Philadelphia to drive a wedge between Republicans and swing voters who could be critical in next year's midterm elections.
"If kowtowing to the extremists in his own party is necessary for [President Bush's] political survival, and it may be in the short run, we have to make sure that the moderate voters who decide elections see what's going on and who is actually calling the shots for Bush now," says Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant.
Republicans hope to cast Judge Alito as a much-needed tempering voice in a judiciary that has been running roughshod over religious liberties and community values.
Judge Alito's lengthy legal résumé and cool demeanor could also undercut the Democrats' campaign. "He seems a very humble, disciplined public servant," says Scott Reed, a Republican adviser. The intense reactions on both sides illustrate the stakes both sides see in replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's swing vote, and the political opportunities in turning the confirmation process into a partisan brawl.
President Bush nominated Judge Alito after the Republican Party's conservative base waged an intense campaign to force the withdrawal of White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who was deemed unqualified and insufficiently conservative.
Democrats believe the president's bow to his base and Judge Alito's conservative stances will turn off independent and moderate voters and tip the scale in close races next fall, including Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson's expected tough re-election.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Can some one say wishful thinking?
Bush did a great diservice in naming Roberts to replace Renquist.
Roberts was picked to replace O'Conner and he was already going to pass for her seat when Renquist died.
Roberts replacing renquist is wrong on many ends. He is a moderate while renquist was a conservative. O'Conner would have been off the court if he had let Roberts replace her. Her vote is going to be costly on a lot of key cases now. Alito would have been replacing Renquist and the dems couldn't have used the replacing a moderate vote. Also there would have been much more pressure to move the nomination along quicker with only 8 justices leaving the potential for a 4-4 tie. I am so sick of O'Conner's name for both these nominees. He should have got her off the court when he had the chance.
If he has half the cool that Roberts showed at his hearings, the Dems are in for another huge disappointment. And today's hijack of the Senate is hot likely to play well either.
In short, the midterms may not bode as well for the Democrats as they like to think. True there is a historic tendency to lose seats at the mid-terms, but this time, with a little careful planing, it might be the Dems that lose them.
Oh boy, where to start.......
There is NO O'Connor seat. So, everything argument that uses the O'Connor seat as its premise is not strong.
I have no idea where you get the idea that Roberts is a moderate. Any evidence of it?
Roberts was such a superb human being and a legal scholar. He is a perfect fit for the CJ.
And, why in the world would you not want a fight with the DUmmies and the DemocRATS?
From every appearance of Alito I see on TV, I am confident that he will be as sharp and smooth as a hot knife in butter.
Democrats will make complete fools of themselves on TV, again. There is no other outcome possible.
And, if the Dems still insist on obstructing, the Republicans should simply bring out the "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Italian" charges full court.
Well I don't think she will be there for that many to be heard in the short term but there are a couple key issues coming up before the end of the year.
More interesting is how is this going to be done.
Certainly she would follow through and issue her opinion on the cases for which she heard arguments, and she would simply stop attending arguments for new cases after Alito joins the court.
But does that mean there will be a period of time for which we have 10 judges? Could someone object that the Supreme Court accepted the case, and therefore they should be heard by ALL the Judges?
Sometimes these judges issue injunctions, and what-not separate from the whole court. Are there 10 such injunction sources for that period?
What if some other judge shuffles off this mortal coil before O'Conner wanders off to retirement? Do we hold her over?
The court has had as many as 18 (i think) judges in the past, but there would be a lot of potential for mischief.
Alito can't vote on any cases where he wasn't there for the arguments and O'Conner's vote doesn't count if the vote is handed down after she has left even if she has heard the arguments. There can never be 10 judges on the supreme court. You need 6 judges for a quorum and the most judges there can be are 9.
Is that written anywhere?
The Constitution provides that there shall be a Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to determine its size by statute. We started out with six justices, we have had as many as ten, and since 1869 we have had nine. There is no constitutional reason why we should not have fifteen or twenty-five. If Congress allowed it, the number could be anything.
Even if Congress did not allow and increase, the President might choose not to nominate any replacement if one or more judges kicked the bucket leaving the court tilted in his favor. In 1870 the Supreme Court declared the Legal Tender Act invalid by a vote of four to three. There were two vacancies on the Court at the time. President Grant filled these places with two men who promptly voted with the minority of three to reverse the decision by a vote of five to four.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Uhhhh, she's sitting in it, in case you haven't noticed.
Bill Nelson (D-FLA) needs to be defeated for encouraging our dependence on Saudi oil by refusing to allow drilling 125 miles off the Atlantic coast in FEDERAL waters. Every Floridian pumping gas at 2.40/gal needs to vote against him.
the DemocRAts think that by 2008 we will be out of Iraq and that another Carter/Klinton time will be at hand. There will be no national security problems for the campaign and they can elect an America first (save the environment, save social security etc. etc.)person instead of a security first person. They are so wrong.
Note his sign on date. I suspect troll
But actually there is not a vacancy now, so one wonders how this might play in some future political scenario. Someone could announce a retirement pending replacement (is that even something the Constitution envisioned)? Then a President nominates a nominee whom the sitting judge detests. Could the retiree declare he/she is not retiring after all?
I would like Nelson defeated just so I won't have to listen to his whiny voice anymore.....along with the refusal to drill of course.
“The Republicans nominated someone who is supremely competent, and experienced to an important post. Vote for us!”
I do believe that when a justice does retire that is a desicion can not be taken back simply for the justice not like who gets the nod from the president.
i justify this by it hasnt happened as of now and that when justice retire they usally do so when a president of same party is in office..
All this will be irrelevant in 2 months once Alito is on the bench.
The loss of a conservative vote is equally costly on a lot of key cases.
If you want to look like an obvious partisan idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.