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

To: OXENinFLA
Yea .. but at least Spector will ask questions and allow Alito to answer

The Dems will grandstand and accuse .. but won't give Alito the time to answer the question
97 posted on 01/10/2006 6:36:21 AM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]


To: Mo1
Yea .. but at least Spector will ask questions and allow Alito to answer

He just interrupted Alito. You were saying?

98 posted on 01/10/2006 6:38:01 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1

He keeps interrupting him though. Twice he hasn't let Alito finish his answer.


100 posted on 01/10/2006 6:38:26 AM PST by ilovew ("We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom." GWB 12-14-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1

Specter sounds like a broken record.


102 posted on 01/10/2006 6:39:22 AM PST by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1
Yea .. but at least Spector will ask questions and allow Alito to answer The Dems will grandstand and accuse .. but won't give Alito the time to answer the question

Specter is doing a good job. He is setting a good example - he isn't making acusations, and his questions are specific with well defined context and substance.

Alito is giving good answers re: stare decisis and reliance by the public; but I think was vague at the end of that. Not to worry, he'll be grilled on stare decisis a few times today.

The Miranda rule is one of convenience for the courts - it creates a bright line that is easy to judge. The alternative (to Miranda) creates a matter of judgement for the court as to whether or not a confession was voluntary. Scalia talked about this in Dickerson ...

Today's judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops' Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today's decision does not pretend that it is--and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people's representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision--especially a celebrated decision--that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.

I dissent from today's decision, and, until §3501 is repealed, will continue to apply it in all cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's confession was voluntary.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428 (2000)

Dang - there goes super precedent and super stare decisis.

Specter advocates having the Court adopt and decide social hot button issues, and has said so. THis is a popular approach for legislators becuase it gets them off the hook of accountability.

122 posted on 01/10/2006 6:45:46 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

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