Skip to comments.
Alito or Scalito? (If you're a liberal, you'd prefer Scalia)
Slate ^
| November 2, 2005
| Robert Gordon
Posted on 11/02/2005 11:37:19 AM PST by RWR8189
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1
posted on
11/02/2005 11:37:21 AM PST
by
RWR8189
To: RWR8189
2
posted on
11/02/2005 11:39:17 AM PST
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: RWR8189
God, I love news like this...let the war/games begin.
3
posted on
11/02/2005 11:42:09 AM PST
by
el_texicano
(Liberals, Socialist, DemocRATS, all touchy, feely, mind numbed robots, useless idiots all)
To: RWR8189
And neither Scalia nor Alito has really explained how to reconcile the criticism of activism on one front with the embrace of activism on the other.I'm sure it couldn't be that, where Alito is 'activist,' the constitution limits the government powers and Alito thinks we should enforce that. OTOH, where he is not, the constitution does not prescribe the expansion of judicial powers to made-up rights.
To: RWR8189
"And neither Scalia nor Alito has really explained how to reconcile the criticism of activism on one front with the embrace of activism on the other."
This is a fairly idiotic thing for Robert Gorton to say. Why would it be activist to overrule a federal law's application to a state because it violates the 10th amendment, but not activist to overrule a state law because it's contradicted by a federal one?
5
posted on
11/02/2005 11:56:36 AM PST
by
Moral Hazard
("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
To: RWR8189
6
posted on
11/02/2005 11:59:25 AM PST
by
TAdams8591
(It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
To: RWR8189
Alito is
MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN SCALIA??I have gone from 99.99% supportive to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% supportive!
7
posted on
11/02/2005 12:05:16 PM PST
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: ModelBreaker
The type of reasoning in the quote you cited stems from the liberal attempt to define overturning judicial precedent that conflicts with the originalist interpretation of the Constitution or statute in question as being activist. An originalist would argue that activism is a justice deciding law based on personal or political belief rather than what the law says and was intended to mean at the time it was adopted.
That's why discussing whether a justice is "conservative" or "liberal" should be irrelevant. That's the value of a consistent judicial interpretation. If you take two people, one a married, fundamentalist evangelical, meat-eating, gun-owning firebrand justice and the other a gay, devil-worshipping, vegetarian who believes in conflict resolution classes for naughty people, with an originalist judicial philosphy, chances are you're more often than not going to get the same decision.
That's not to say there can't be different interpretations even within the originalist philosophy. It also doesn't mean that personal views won't ever intrude....it does mean that it is less likely to happen if you are rooted in a particular discipline of interpretation. It also means you're less likely to drift and grow over time. I think the fact that Judge Alito has been on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (one of the more liberal Courts) for 15 years and has shown no sign of leftward drift is one of the strongest arguments in his favor as well as a good demonstration of how a judicial philosophy grounds you.
One other quote from the article I found amusing was "In the Washington Post, Cass Sunstein examined Alito's dissents and found them "almost uniformly conservative." Cass Sunstein is so liberal, I'm sure he say the same thing about the Constitution itself!
To: Moral Hazard
And neither Scalia nor Alito has really explained how to reconcile the criticism of activism on one front with the embrace of activism on the other. To the libs a conservative activist is someone who interperts the constitution as written, a judge who deems the Constitution a "living document" is "progressive".
9
posted on
11/02/2005 12:09:47 PM PST
by
Graybeard58
(Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
To: RWR8189
"Both Alito and Scalia's views of sovereign immunity trumped their deference to democratic decision-making." Lemme see, I think I need to put on my secret decoder ring?!?
Sovereign immunity = Constitution
Democratic decision-making = Congress
Now to rewrite the decoded message:
Both Alito and Scalia's views of the Constitution trumped their deference to Congress."
I fail to see a problem here, Congress 'ain't' always correct. After all, ts not like they've never passed unconstitutional laws (Hi John McCain).
10
posted on
11/02/2005 12:10:41 PM PST
by
Condor51
(Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
The type of reasoning in the quote you cited stems from the liberal attempt to define overturning judicial precedent that conflicts with the originalist interpretation of the Constitution or statute in question as being activist. An originalist would argue that activism is a justice deciding law based on personal or political belief rather than what the law says and was intended to mean at the time it was adopted.Couldn't have said it better myself.
To: Recovering_Democrat
Actually, from what I've read Alito is probably more judicially similar to Thomas than Scalia.
12
posted on
11/02/2005 12:28:15 PM PST
by
RockinRight
(It’s likely for a Conservative to be a Republican, but not always the other way around)
To: Condor51
Both Alito and Scalia's views of the Constitution trumped their deference to Congress."
isn't that the whole point of HAVING a supreme court? to overrule unconstitutional laws passed by congress?
13
posted on
11/02/2005 12:28:57 PM PST
by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: Recovering_Democrat
So, he is not just Scalito, but a Scalito++.
Great. Confirm him now!
To: absolootezer0
***isn't that the whole point of HAVING a supreme court? to overrule unconstitutional laws passed by congress?***
Yeah that's how I remember my 7th Grade Civics class. Apparently this Robert Gordon person was home sick that week.
Or more likely, he's terminally STOO-PID
:-)
15
posted on
11/02/2005 12:36:53 PM PST
by
Condor51
(Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
To: RWR8189
In other words, if Congress can stop gun trafficking, which is clearly commerce, Congress can also stop people from having machine guns in order to choke off trafficking. In other words, if Congress can stop piracy on the high seas, which is a crime clearly placed within federal jurisdiction by the Constitution, Congress can also stop people from going to sea in order to choke off the supply of booty.
At least, that's how Liberalland legal logic works.
16
posted on
11/02/2005 12:52:23 PM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: RWR8189
Justice Scalia himself adopted this common-sense (by leftie Bizarro World standards)
logic last yearnot in addressing gun possession, but in agreeing with the court's liberals that Congress could stop local production of marijuana as a way to get at interstate drug dealing. Scalia wrote that the "regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself 'substantially affect' interstate commerce." What was Scalia smoking when he wrote that?
17
posted on
11/02/2005 12:53:52 PM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: RWR8189
This is the second article I've read that concludes Alito is even to the right of Scalia.
My own thinking is that he's more of a softie than Scalia, but let them hyperventilate about it all they want. I think the Republicans will have all their ducks in a row sufficiently to cram him down the throats of Demonrats when the vote does come.
18
posted on
11/02/2005 12:55:03 PM PST
by
Kryptonite
(McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee - put them in your sights)
To: RWR8189
WAHOOO!
See what happens when you hold the President's feet to the fire!
All you bushbots who though that Miers was just fine... where do I ship the crow?
19
posted on
11/02/2005 12:55:58 PM PST
by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
To: steve-b
I think he hates potheads. Sadly this is judicial activism.
20
posted on
11/02/2005 12:59:36 PM PST
by
zendari
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson