Farah's a fairweather johnson. This statement alone discredits the rest of his post.
Here's the new updated WND homepage:
Posted on 10/31/2005 10:21:12 PM PST by goldstategop
Judge Samuel Alito is a very good nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is what those who voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004 were hoping for and expecting when they pulled those levers.
There are no questions about Alito's judicial philosophy. We know what he believes.
And because we know what he believes, the opposition will be fierce.
The extremists will be pulling out the long knives in an effort to convert his name into a verb as they did with another very distinguished nominee, Judge Robert Bork.
While I have no reservations about criticizing President Bush when he is wrong, it's time to rally around this good selection.
Let's have the debate about the proper role of the courts in America. It's not about single issues, like abortion or homosexuality or property rights or affirmative action. It's about what the Constitution says about the role of the courts.
The courts were not designed to be a super-legislative body. They were designed, instead, as a check and balance on power.
From all indications, Alito understands, respects and reveres the Constitution. We can ask for no more from a Supreme Court nominee.
He is eminently qualified. No one can suggest he is not up to the task intellectually. Even those dreading his nomination in part do so because they understand his qualifications are impeccable.
However, despite what some analysts suggest, his confirmation does not suggest a change of direction in the court. All one needs to do is review decisions of the last several years to see most controversial rulings have been by 5-4 or 6-3. Even assuming Chief Justice John Roberts rules like his predecessor, William Rehnquist, Alito's confirmation on the court only gives "conservatives" a solid four votes.
No shift in power on the Supreme Court takes place as a result of this nomination.
The big problems on the court remain: John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven G. Breyer. One of these five will need to be replaced to have a chance to return sanity and consistently constitutional rulings to the Supreme Court.
And, again, that assumes Roberts lives up to the legacy of Rehnquist. I remain unconvinced that Roberts will do that.
Nevertheless, it's a time to be thankful for this most recent nomination. It's a time to be supportive of this man who is about to endure an unrelenting attack from those forces who want to use the courts to impose their will on the people. It's a time to be hopeful about returning judicial restraint to America.
President Bush won two elections by pledging to name Supreme Court nominees in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito is that kind of nominee. I would submit he is the first such nomination by Bush. Neither Roberts nor Harriet Miers were.
That's why this nominee will prompt the harshest opposition of the three.
There are people in this country who don't want the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution, to follow the law to serve the people. There are people in this country who want the court to be master of the people rather than their servant under the law. There are people who want to use the courts to rule without accountability to either the people or the law.
Samuel Alito will greatly disappoint those people.
And that is why his selection to the court is so heartening for those of us who want to return sanity and restraint to the courts.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Farah's a fairweather johnson. This statement alone discredits the rest of his post.
Here's the new updated WND homepage:
It's principled and intelligent to demand an end to the failed stealth strategy and for known originalist whose record can be verified.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Your right, the jury is still out on Roberts. I think that Farah is simply expressing his concern that Roberts will not be in the mold of Rehnquist, let alone Scalia or Thomas. Stealth nominees have NEVER been good picks from GOP presidents. Time will only tell on Roberts. If he does break left, we will have the next 30-40 years to regret it. I feel a whole lot more confident with the verifiable track record of Samuel Alito. President Bush redeemed himself with this excellent pick, but I also hope it dosen't simply up cancelling out Roberts nomination if Roberts would end up being another stealth moderate-liberal.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Even I have to give Farah credit on this one. I'm surprised that he is interested in such a moderate (that is, pro-law) candidate, and not holding out for one that's an activist-to-the-right.
This is dishonest (I have to assume Farah knows better). Replacing O'Connor with Alito is a significant shift.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Yes it is. There have been many 5-4 votes on which O'Connor was the deciding one. Replace her with Alito, and McConnell v. FEC probably goes down in flames. That was McCain's campaign finance reform.
The difference is more in your mind than actual. Someone who upholds the rule of law is an 'activist to the right'.
Well, if there is a third opening, I am STILL predicting Alberto Gonzales!
I fully believe that when Justice Alito becomes part of SCOTUS you will begin to see Souter coming around.
I think he wants to keep his house.
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.