Posted on 10/29/2005 5:23:51 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
WASHINGTON - Rebounding from the failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush is poised to select between two of the nation's leading conservative federal appeals court judges - both experienced jurists with deep backgrounds in constitutional law - for what promises to be a bruising Senate confirmation battle.
With an announcement expected Sunday or Monday, administration officials have narrowed the focus to Judges Samuel Alito of New Jersey and Michael Luttig of Virginia, sources involved in the process said. Both have sterling legal qualifications and solid conservative credentials, and both would set off an explosive fight with Senate Democrats, who are demanding a more moderate nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
I still can't comprehend how John Loftus has the nerve to show his face in public, after assuring the entire nation that Saddam Hussein, his execrable progeny, and one of the Iraqi vice-presidents were all eliminated in the initial "decapitation" strike preceding OIF.
Does he actually believe no one remembers his idiotic speculation at the outset of the war, which he tried to pass off as "inside knowledge?"
The Arabs that operate my corner grocery store have better ME sources than Loftus.
"What should be far more troubling to Senate Democrats, however, is Alito's 1996 dissent from a decision upholding the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the possession of machine guns. Applying the logic of the Constitution in Exile for all it's worth, Alito insisted that the private possession of machine guns was not an economic activity, and there was no empirical evidence that private gun possession increased violent crime in a way that substantially affected commerce--therefore, Congress has no right to regulate it. Alito's colleagues criticized him for requiring "Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute." His lack of deference to Congress is unsettling."
The words in bold are a killer if true. You may not like it, but it just is. Heck, the rationale was based on the commerce clause and not the second amendment. Bush would make a second mistake to nominate this guy, if the words are true, unless there is some nuance I am missing.
Don't be. That happened after Carhart v. Stenberg. And sadly Carhart was the controlling precedent. Alito was also put in a similar situation over the same thing.
He is 65 years old and he represented Bush in the election mess. I think his chances are slightly better than Ken Star.
I meant that in the context of the pick. It was a very bad pick, but it's over. I just hope it doen't make it any harder to get a good solid righty on there.
They won't so long as they get paid to do it lol
I believe this is another trial balloon by the Bush Administration. They floated Gonzalez, he sunk; they floated Roberts, he survived; then they floated Miers, and presumed the silence was affirmation. Oops!
Despite all the huffing and puffing, I can't imagine a solid rational jurist being rejected, conservative, or not.
God please let this be true.
"and Specter are lost causes..."
Specter likes Alito. Not because of his views, but because he sits on a court located in Pennsylvania.
That sounds a lot like the reasoning used to throw out the Violence Against Women Act. If anything it shows a Renquist like reasoning.
Why choose either? With another vacancy almost guaranteed between Ginsberg/Stevens, its just a matter of order.
Great picks, but Bush's practice has been to carefully conceal the true pick and surprise everyone. We'll see.
Machine guns are a product.
Let the babies whine.
Luttig probably wrote something just like that when the VAWA was challenged at the Fourth Circuit.
If it was based on the commerce clause, then it would be more palatable to non-conservative people, because it would still leave open state regulation of machine guns.
By the way, I answered my own question about Luttig and Roe. I found this at Slate.com:
At that point, he explained that at the time of his initial decision to let the Virginia ban stand, he understood Casey to be "a decision of super-stare decisis"—meaning super respect for precedent—"with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose."Two words: RED ALERT!
If that is true than I hope Alito is the pick.
If one can deem the impulse to violence a product that travels in interstate commerce, then Luttig is wrong too.
I would hope that DeWine has seen the light by now; if not, he deserves to be defeated next time around.
I don't think Alito is confirmable. Luttig should be. Write that down.
Instead that silence turned out to be from a read of the floated name as lunacy from a know-nothing. Oops. I don't think that'll happen again.
All I want is someone good. I'm over Miers and *very* optimistic.
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.