Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A nomination that will divide (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls Justice Thomas an asterisk)
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | 11/1/2005 | MJS editorial board

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alito; plantationasterisk; racism; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: BadAndy

"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!


41 posted on 11/01/2005 9:27:01 AM PST by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: i_dont_chat

Wish they would have provided examples but that would have required work.


42 posted on 11/01/2005 9:30:04 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

A true American success story. Libs hate that.


43 posted on 11/01/2005 9:32:40 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
"He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard ... In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld ..."

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.

44 posted on 11/01/2005 9:35:48 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852; Crawdad; frogjerk; July 4th; RockinRight; Watery Tart; Diana in Wisconsin; ...
Sandra Day O'Connor grew WISER during her tenure on the Court??!!

Who knew?

45 posted on 11/01/2005 9:36:01 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
How convenient that any time the Lefties decide to mobilize, it's because the right has done something that will "divide" the nation. Some one needs to tell them that ELECTIONS COUNT! Cheers to the Iguana for nailing it. Ping!
46 posted on 11/01/2005 9:39:06 AM PST by Grunt67us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Only the 9th Circuit Court is more liberal.

That's debatable.

47 posted on 11/01/2005 9:39:23 AM PST by steveegg (Take two - throw those long knives at the DemonRATs and lieberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Now we have liberalism, in all its ugliness, on display for ALL the world to see! You are not black unless you live on the plantation. This editorial clearly states that YOU ARE NOT A BLACK PERSON UNLESS YOU THINK OR BELIEVE A SPECIFIC, CERTAIN WAY!

It's that old Democrat racism coming out again.

48 posted on 11/01/2005 9:40:01 AM PST by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite

Thanks,
That deserves a radio commentary which I will record tomorrow morning.
Bob


49 posted on 11/01/2005 9:40:46 AM PST by bocopar (Author's Response)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

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.


50 posted on 11/01/2005 9:41:21 AM PST by Allen H (Remember 9-11,God bless our military,Bush,& the USA! A sad ACLU, for a better America!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

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.


51 posted on 11/01/2005 9:41:53 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
A true American success story.

His granddad is his hero!

52 posted on 11/01/2005 9:44:26 AM PST by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

"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!


53 posted on 11/01/2005 9:48:39 AM PST by TexanToTheCore (Rock the pews, Baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
Well, isn't that how libs have been for many years? I mean, the liberals are like that with any one who is black but a Christian and actually have those values in politics, making them a conservative. JC Watts, Condolezza Rice, to a lesser degree Colin Powell, since he was more moderate. They've all been called "Uncle Tom's" and "Aunt Jemimimah" by liberals.

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.

54 posted on 11/01/2005 9:52:46 AM PST by Allen H (Remember 9-11,God bless our military,Bush,& the USA! A sad ACLU, for a better America!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
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.

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.

55 posted on 11/01/2005 10:00:32 AM PST by rdb3 (Does this wheelchair make me look fat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

Clarence Thomas isnt a real black. According to Liberals he must be something like 3/5 black. Martin Luther King must really love this.


56 posted on 11/01/2005 10:03:59 AM PST by stocksthatgoup (Polls = Proof that when the MSM want yo"ur opinion they will give it to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

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


57 posted on 11/01/2005 10:14:34 AM PST by dennisw (You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you - Bob Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

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.


58 posted on 11/01/2005 10:27:05 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
One thing I think is so interesting is that the paper presents a clearly marxist arguement and soesn't even have to acknowledge it.

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.

59 posted on 11/01/2005 10:27:41 AM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

I'm going to guess "Mabel Wong" isn't black.

(YOu don't have to be either Wong or Wight!)



60 posted on 11/01/2005 10:30:17 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson