Posted on 01/19/2006 8:20:11 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Sen. Leahy opposes Alito nomination
8 minutes ago
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his opposition on Thursday to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
Leahy charged that President George W. Bush's 55-year-old conservative candidate failed to demonstrate at last week's confirmation hearing that he would bring a needed independence to the nation's highest court.
"At a time when the president is seizing unprecedented power, the Supreme Court needs to act as a check and to provide balance," Leahy said in a speech prepared for delivery at Georgetown University Law Center.
"I have no confidence that Judge Alito would provide that check and balance," Leahy said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
This supposed "seizing" of executive power relies on the ignorance of American citizens of even our recent past, when President Clinton's Executive Order count represented a real seize of power.
All we need are a few Supreme Court justices who will faithfully interpret our written Constitution; for it is that document, not men in black robes bent on using their rulings to exert power, that the Founders intended to be the protection of our liberty.
If there is any doubt as to how they should interpret it, Thomas Jefferson provided a standard that would not fail, even in the 21st Century:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
The Far Left agenda relies on a court that will find "emanations and penumbra" in the words of the Constitution, and Leahy and his cronies are frustrated that a "constructionist" may tend more toward Jefferson's method. Jefferson may have had such "emanations and penumbra" in mind when he wrote:
""Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
Sigh....someone has to go into the "fiery pit" once in a while to see how the crazies are acting....
The commercial for Ed Schultz's show later today was all about how the Republicans and "their" media are coming at Clinton....to take her down!!!
For once I agree with something I heard on Air Amerika.
Leahy criticized the existence of the Independent counsel in 1998, but last week he took Alito to task for criticizing the Independent Counsel statute in 2000
"been corrupted and no longer serves its intended purpose"
LEAHY: Judge, that's an answer -- substance of what you said is something, obviously, I would like. But I'm still troubled by it, because in November of 2000, right after the presidential election, ...you criticized the Supreme Court's upholding the independent counsel statute, among other things.
Leahy was never going to vote for Alito anyway. I can't stand hearing the junk that comes out of his mouth. I'm at the point I don't even want to talk to democrats anymore.
I seem to recall that Congress is supposed to provide that check and balance, and the Supreme Court only gets involved as judge of one against the other, or of the people against both. Leahy ignores the possibility of Congress overstepping its mandate.
Leaky Leahy, just another scum sucking bottom dweller deMARXocrat. Can't expect him to 'vote' for what is right and good.
If Leahy wants a good example of "no confidence" he should run on a national ticket and see what people really think of him rather than the socialists in Vermont.
I'm guessing that he will have at least 62 votes.
No doubt Leahy would approve of JUDGE CASHMAN!
In the immortal words of Dick Cheney, "Go f**k yourself."
I am still worried about this. so far, I don't see Frist acting like a guy who has 50 solid R votes to change the rules. If the Dems smell even a whiff of that, they will hold 41 votes to filibuster Alito. All these people saying "Alito's confirmation is in the bag" - are being prematurely optimistic.
The senator from Vermont opposed to the presidents choice? I, for one,(the only one?) am shocked to hear this news.
I seem to recall that Congress is supposed to provide that check and balance, and the Supreme Court only gets involved as judge of one against the other, or of the people against both. Leahy ignores the possibility of Congress overstepping its mandate.
I seem to recall that Congress is supposed to provide that check and balance, and the Supreme Court only gets involved as judge of one against the other, or of the people against both. Leahy ignores the possibility of Congress overstepping its mandate.
the floor vote is meaningless (we have plenty of votes for that), the vote we have to win is holding 50 Rs for the rules change.
I wish that Frist would step down...if he is truly thinking of running for POTUS, then he is too darn distracted, cautious, wimpy...you name it...
to run the Senate...that Senate needs to be run by someone who will get things done....and make sure that the other GOP members know how important it is to STOP WIMPING OUT!!
But, that is not going to happen....so, I am with you. I will be surprised, actually, if the dems don't attempt a filibuster.
I think you've nailed it.
Bought off activists praise brokeback Mountain in columns, they plot its releases-dates/locations, they give it Golden Globes. It's all supposed to create the picture it's a huge success and catapult audiences to theaters. And so far it's fizzled. When you consider all the promotion it's got, it should be number one.
Same thing here.
Create illusion the nomination is falling apart so come next week people actually believe they've been saved at the last second from a disaster. Won't work, in large part because no one belives the Dems would say any different or vote any different. They overplayed their hand a long time ago on this issue.
No one should ever say Republican Senators have anything in the bag. We've seen them lose that bag too often for anyone to grant them that type of faith.
Frist isn't my concern. I'm more disturbed to hear they scheduled the vote the day of the SOU. Think the Dems want to give G.W.B. a victory on the day of his SOU? That means the Reps have to come through that day.
Now I've stated I don't care when the vote is, so long as he's confirmed. I stand by that. I've stated I don't have faith in Reps to follow through the day they say they'll follow through, which is why Specter delaying the vote was of no surprise or irrtation to me. But I DO care if the vote is blocked on the day of SOU temporarily, and I don't trust Reps to prevent that from happening.
the floor vote is scheduled for the day of the SOTU? oh man.
I think there are alot more delays and blocks coming up on this from the Dems.
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.