Give me an asterisk. A star as well. I'm autonomous in large part because I refuse to accept the views of "mainstream black America."
I think Alito will do just fine.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Posted on 11/01/2005 8:51:38 AM PST by steveegg
In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs?
The nomination is troubling in that 1) it's liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues. Still, Alito deserves the benefit of the doubt until he gets his day in court - or rather before the Senate Judiciary Committee - to make the case for his confirmation.
Bush had chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but many conservatives vigorously objected, questioning whether Miers had the intellectual stamina to stay conservative. The nominee withdrew her name. Now, Bush has picked Alito, a judge who may be in the archconservative mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Prior to Miers, Bush had named Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor but switched to have him succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in September. A guiding principle for Bush in the two previous nominations seemed to have been candidates with thin paper trails - the less to trip them up at the hearings.
Bush discarded that principle in naming Alito, who boasts a thick portfolio of opinions he's authored, the result of sitting on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for 15 years. Bush said that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." That experience, the intelligence he displays and his firm grasp of constitutional law are pluses.
But, regrettably, Bush declined to consult with Senate Democratic leaders in making his choice. A big reason President Clinton had relatively smooth sailing on his high court nominees is that he did consult with GOP leaders beforehand.
Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.
In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.
Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify their husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor.
In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. Also that year, he tried - in the end, futilely - to make it harder to bring discrimination complaints to trial.
These and many other issues deserve a thorough airing by the Judiciary Committee.
"If Clarence Thomas is an asterisk, what is Ruth Ginzburg? Does she represent women or even Americans in general? She is so far left as to be off screen."
---->
GREAT point!
Wish they would have provided examples but that would have required work.
A true American success story. Libs hate that.
Given that he was a conservative justice on the 3rd Circuit, I'm not surprised.
Where's the diversity in the 3rd Circuit, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel???? Only the 9th Circuit Court is more liberal.
Who knew?
That's debatable.
It's that old Democrat racism coming out again.
Thanks,
That deserves a radio commentary which I will record tomorrow morning.
Bob
If the past four elections haven't proven to the democrats that the nation isn't as equally divided as they like to thin it is, then nothing will. The nation is majority conservative, and not split right down the middle. There is a higher percentage of real conservatives in the right of middle political voting block, and a lower percentage of real liberals in the left of middle political voting block, and with the michael moore, whoopie goldberg, howard dean, moveon.org, radical voice of the liberal mindset being the only real voice of the democrat party, it's shrill unattractive and not something that makes people want to embrace it. The voice of the conservative movement is altogether more positive and encouraging and not so hate filled and angry and venomous like the liberal voice, and that is why democrats can't win elections. They have nothing to offer, and they keep making the same mistakes all over again, and now, making brand new ones, with their "culture of corruption" mantra, trying to criminalize conservatism and make being conservative a crime. And that too will blow up in their face, with Tom DeLay leading the charge taking it right to the liberal's faces, knocking them down yet again.
Whew... Nowhere does this editorial give the slightest hint that the author understands the job description of the Supreme Court. Notions such as "diversity" and "representing views" have absolutely NOTHING to do with the written Constitution and the intent of its framers.
This editorial is a perfect example of the disgraceful ignorance that is killing America's hard-copy press. Of course, who would really expect better from a worthless little toilet paper out of Wisconsin? I suppose it's only natural that the liberal college kids who end up at a newspaper like this one firmly subscribe to the liberal propaganda that the Supreme Court is at the top of the food chain rather than merely a co-equal branch of the federal government.
His granddad is his hero!
"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."
Racists!
The idea that you are't black if you aren't a democrat just shows how stupid and devoid of intellect the democrat party is today. If they can say that, then I can say to them, if you aren't a conservative, that just shows how stupid you are. 8) And democrats are stupid. Their actions prove that. The democrats are the racists, and always have been, because they're the ones that go at blacks because of their race, if they dare to get "out of line" and leave the democrat plantation. That's the real racism in America. The democrat party.
Give me an asterisk. A star as well. I'm autonomous in large part because I refuse to accept the views of "mainstream black America."
I think Alito will do just fine.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Clarence Thomas isnt a real black. According to Liberals he must be something like 3/5 black. Martin Luther King must really love this.
Ruth Bader GinzBorg was divisive. But Republicans didn't waste their time trying to drag her down nor deny her a Supreme Court seat. Even though she was extreme left and former ACLU president
Republicans knew their complaints would get ZERO traction in the mainstream media. While this same press will trumpet all Democrat propaganda and accusations
Actually, an unsigned editorial signifies that the editorial board agrees to it by consensus. THus, it does not represent the opinions of one editor or columnist, but rather the on-the-record assertion of the newspaper as a whole. (Mind you, that doesn't mean that every journalist agrees with it, any more than all Americans agree with the President when he speaks for America as a whole.)
So, actually, an unsigned editorial is bolder than one which is presented as the mere opinion of a single columnist.
In the marxsist world, all Priniplces, all postions, and fearfully yes, even all Virtues are attributed to economic interests of those holding the position.
To a true marxist, you can't be a judge, or for that matter any office holder with a specific duty -- you are always representing the interests of your class.
Thus, if Justice Thomas does his sworn duty as outlined in his oath and protects the Constitution and decides an issue based upon legal standards, then to the leftist it is a foregone conclusion that he is not adhereing to the specific interests of a class to which they have arbitrarily assigned him and thus betrayed his duty in the marxist world.
How can such an arguement be made with a straight face and few readers protest in alarm? The subversion of the last sixty years is the plain answer -- leftists.
I'm going to guess "Mabel Wong" isn't black.
(YOu don't have to be either Wong or Wight!)
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.