Skip to comments.
Poll to FReep (Alito)
Houston Comical ^
Posted on 01/09/2006 1:00:03 PM PST by The_Victor
Should Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito be confirmed by the Senate?
Yes! Finally, a conservative majority!: 10%
Yes, he has a fine legal mind: 13%
Not sure. I'm eager to learn more in hearings: 6%
No, there are too many questions about his record: 6%
No! He's too far to the right!: 65%
Total Votes: 2010
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; alito; alitohearings
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 last
To: Preachin'
It's hardly worth voting 2,000 time in an irrelevant poll for the sole purpose of making someone you don't even know squirm. What a complete waste of time.
Then by all means, don't waste your time on it.
41
posted on
01/10/2006 5:59:07 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
If alito gets on the court, I still don't understand how 4-5 winds up being a majority for Conservatives.
42
posted on
01/10/2006 6:32:09 AM PST
by
Beagle8U
(An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
To: Beagle8U
If alito gets on the court, I still don't understand how 4-5 winds up being a majority for Conservatives. I wondered about that one too. Still the next answer, "Yes, he has a fine legal mind," was quite valid as far as I am concerned.
43
posted on
01/10/2006 6:34:10 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
I think Alito is a great choice, but that still only makes 4 Conservatives on the court once he gets on.
We need one more!
44
posted on
01/10/2006 8:16:27 AM PST
by
Beagle8U
(An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
To: The_Victor
USSC Precedent is not Constitutionally-authorized law according to Article I Section I.
To: The_Victor
USSC Precedent is not Constitutionally-authorized law according to Article I Section I.
To: The_Eaglet
USSC Precedent is not Constitutionally-authorized law according to Article I Section I. Like it or not, USSC precentent is law as it has been interpreted, including the interpretation of the Constitution. It is not up to a lower court to overrule the USSC which was Alito's role in the lower court rulings. And in fact if Alito had attempted to overrule precedent from the lower court he would be guilty of excercising the powers reserved for the legislature in A1 S1.
47
posted on
01/10/2006 10:19:56 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
If he had attempted to "overrule" a precedent he would be applying known law to the case for which he is responsible. He is not responsible for previous court decisions.
Like it or not, the Constitution never gave the Judiciary legislative power (the word "all" in Article 1 Section 1 means something).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 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