Posted on 10/31/2005 1:39:46 PM PST by RWR8189
| WELL, THAT'S MORE LIKE IT. In Judge Sam Alito, President Bush has chosen a more plausible High Court nominee. Make that a much more plausible nominee. His legal qualifications are exceptional, his character widely attested. And having spent 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, he has demonstrated an approach to judging that clearly identifies him as a judicial conservative. Two points are worth noting on day one of this nomination. The first is Alito's legal experience. His many years on the Third Circuit mean that he knows the labor of an appellate judge, which of course he'll continue to be, only now at the highest level. But early in Alito's career he had plenty of trial work--first as a young prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey, and then, some years later, as the head of that office. He knows what it means to investigate a case, to go before a grand jury, to charge or not charge, to prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, there are the six very different years Alito spent in the Justice Department. From 1981 to 1985 he served in the Solicitor General's office, where he worked on appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing a dozen cases. And from 1985 to 1987 he was the chief deputy in the Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, which William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia headed during the Nixon and Ford presidencies, and which has the critical job of advising the president and the departments on legal issues. (An aside: I happened to work at main Justice from 1983 to 1988, and Alito's reputation then was that of a bright, hard-working lawyer of even temper and reserve. He came into the department as a career employee, but his exemplary work impressed his superiors, who recommended him for his presidential appointments as U.S. Attorney and to the Third Circuit.) The second point concerns the confirmation process. Much has been said in the last few days about how, in the wake of the failed Miers nomination, the president cannot credibly ask for an up-or-down vote on his new nominee. Apparently, because Miers withdrew her name and there was no floor vote on her nomination (nor even in committee, as the hearings were aborted), the president must not believe his own talking point, and so it may easily be dismissed. But this argument, such as it is, fails to acknowledge the obvious distinction between the president's power to nominate and his power to appoint. The former is entirely the president's, while the latter is shared because an appointment is made only if the Senate approves the nomination. A president can withdraw a nomination at any time since the nominating power is his alone. A president is not forced to force a nominee to go through a confirmation process destined to end in defeat. But for nominees that do go through the process--as is the case with almost all nominees--a president can, as Bush has, fairly contend that each one deserves an up-or-down vote. Alito shows every sign of being a nominee who will go through the process--a process that ought to culminate in, yes, an up-or-down vote. |
I will readily admit I do not know about the new nominee, but watching the dims going into total meltdown makes me like him. After the next opening, Janice Brown.
This is what I have been arguing for the past couple of weeks. There is no logical connection between the President's changing his mind and withdrawing a candidate (or the candidate asking to withdraw) and the president's right to have an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
That means that nominations should not be bottled up in committee, delayed simply for the sake of delay, or filibustered on the Senate floor.
But the president has always had the right to withdraw a nomination, or even to refuse to appoint a candidate who has been confirmed by the Senate, should he so choose, though it's hard to imagine that situation arising.
Miers withdrew her name so we didn't even get to an up or down vote, so the point is MOOT!
MIERS FAULT!
< /humor>
Meltdown is only the half of it.
From DU :
"54. Destroy him, destroy his family now
We must take him down through whatever means."
These people are just plain nuts!
I can't tell if you are attempting to imitate Ted Kennedy or "Diamond" Joe Quimby from The Simpsons.
The DEMs pretend like they don't know Judge Alito is totally bogus. They voted for him TWICE 100 to none each time because of his juriprudence. The DEMs don't have ANY case against him.
My only concern is Specter trying to drag the hearing out which only provides time for the DEMs for campaign money. Sometime you wonder which party Specter swore loyalty to!!!
Is there a major difference 'tween the two?
"Vote for Quimby! If you were running for Mayor he'd vote for you."
What William Munny Said to Little Bill just before he shot him:
"Deserve ain't got anything to do with it".
Nukiller Option - or up and down Vote!
President Bush has made an offer that Senate can not refuse.
Don Scalito!
bttt
Holy crap. I just did a search for this quote and behold....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1889112#1889390
WoW. I have seen partisan politics go nuts over the years but have never seen the right say something like this. These people are just plain nuts and are so full of hate its beyond words.
Alito...I'm smiling ear to ear. Thank you, President Bush.
This is so true...From what I heard on Bennett this morning, it will be the race card. He didn't rule in a leftist way on a case where the jury was all white. Sigh...I am so sick of Democrats.
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.