Posted on 11/20/2005 1:00:30 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Nuke em
The democrats have planned to filibuster Alito from the beginning, regardless of what they could dig up. They are not coming out and admitting it. If I'm wrong and the democrats don't filibuster, great. If I'm right, Frist should be ready to use the constitutional option.
You're assuming an argument against- the article merely states 'Alito's views'. Having said that, I know less than you- what is this issue of 'reapportionment' and why is it so important?
The Democrats would have announced a filibuster if they knew they could sustain it. But Gang of 14 members Mike DeWine (R-OH) & Lindsay Graham (R-SC) let it be known that they would support the nuclear option of they tried it. Also, RINO Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and moderate Democrat Ben Nelson (D-NE) have indicated that Alito's nomination didn't fall under the catagory of "extraordinary circumstances", which put the DemocRATS in a bind.
They are fishing for "extraordinary circumstances".
biden = fool
This means the professional gamblers still see a confirmation of Alito as a pretty sure thing.
By the way, when Bush first put Alito's name forward, this bet opened at 78. So Alito's odds have actually improved slightly, rather than diminished, despite the wisdom of the MSM which says that Bush's poll numbers are down, and that should make Alito harder to confirm.
The odds tend to be a little behind the current events. So look for the odds to fall slightly, maybe as far down as 70. But he's still more likely than not to be confirmed.
The more I really listen to what Joe Biden has to say, the more I am convinced that the man is as dumb as a stump ~ all teeth, glimmering hair and no grey matter.
So look for the odds to fall slightly, maybe as far down as 70.If you feel sure about that, and if you're a gambling person, you should be selling some of those $83 contracts, and covering them later with some $70 buys.
I personally don't think its every going to be below 83, but I'm not sure enough about it to bet.
I did make some money during last year's election (jumped in right after those phoney 'exit polls' drove Bush down to 27), but I don't bet often.
Awwww, poor wittle Joey. He can't have his fillibuster because too many members of the "Gang" have already said they won't support it. In other words, Constitutional Option time. Buh Bye Joey.
From the article:
But Biden, D-Del., said he was most troubled by Alito's comment about reapportionment under the Supreme Court when it was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. ... "The part that jeopardizes it (Alito's nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment — one man, one vote," Biden told "Fox News Sunday."
"The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that," Biden said.
In the document, Alito wrote, "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment," he said. Biden said the chances of a filibuster against Alito had increased because of Alito's assertions in the document. "If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision — that is, the idea of Baker v. Carr, one man, one vote — then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. ... That would include a filibuster, if need be," Biden said.
So, the allegation is clearly out there. Now, I have no idea to what Alito was referring. That's what I'm trying to find out.
The issue of reapportionment, or the "one-man-one-vote" view, has to do with the population size of voting districts for same-class offices at the local and state levels. (I don't think it involved federal.) Anyway, in the 1960s there was a growing concern that various voting districts for same level offices were being drawn disproportionately based on population. It really was the case that in some states (let's say for the office of local state representative) that District 1 had a population of 20,000, but District 2 had a population of 100,000. Many saw a problem in that each district had one rep. (with "equal" power) but there was a total difference in accountability. It was viewed that District 2 voters had less power because their views (much greater in number) had only equal power to the views of a much less populous district.
IOW, states were drawing (gerrymandering) districts the federal Senate way, instead of the federal House way. The Earl Warren Supreme Court ruled that this was not proper and held that it had to be the House way. I think it is important because of the corruption involved with gerrymandering. Without equal apportionment at the state and local level, liberals would have much room for mischief.
For example, let's say that San Francisco has 20 seats on its city council. They could gerrymander their districts to have 19 districts composed of 100 homosexual activists each, and one district comprising the remainder of the city. Would that be fair? So, I do think there should be equal apportionment. I note that Biden was not clear at all on what Alito's position is. Biden is just throwing out the accusation and hoping for facts later. I just want to know Alito's position and reasoning too.
"When I first became interested in government and politics during teh 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., in the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickel advocating judicial restraint, and it was largely for this reason that I decided to go to Yale Law School."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/17/alito_disagreed_with_court_decisions_on_reapportionment/
http://allianceforjustice.libsyn.com/
Argument for malapportionment:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=280
Also I've noted that such sites as Daily Kos are spouting remarks like "Alito against Democracy". Eye roll.
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.