They don't know the meaning of the word. :P
Posted on 01/23/2006 2:42:31 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Perhaps the most revealing and underreported exchange during Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings began when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tried to pin Alito down on whether Roe v. Wade is so powerful as to be a permanent fixture in our constitutional jurisprudence.
Alito noted that the precedent in Roe, while important, “is not an inexorable command.” Feinstein’s sophisticated Roe radar went off. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, you see, once used this exact phrase in arguing for Roe’s reversal. Feinstein concluded that Alito had sent a subtle signal that he would vote to overturn the constitutional underpinning to abortion.
Feinstein later summarized the political arguments on behalf of Roe. Roe, she insisted, has withstood 38 challenges over 33 years, enjoys the support of a majority of Americans, and is now “settled” law. Or, she asked Alito, is it?
While acknowledging a “general presumption” that precedents will be jettisoned only when a “special justification” exists for doing so, Alito reiterated his view that precedents aren’t “inexorable commands.” If they were, he explained, we would be stuck with constitutional abominations such as Plessy v. Ferguson (where the court first espoused the “separate but equal” doctrine).
“When an issue is one that could realistically come up, the people who would be making the arguments on both sides of the issue have a right to a judiciary of people with open minds.”
In one sentence, Alito deftly shifted the discussion from a political one probing his adherence to abortion rights to terrain where he controlled the moral high ground. The real issue he continued, is whether judges should carry out their duties with “open minds” and consider all the arguments in cases properly brought before the court—or be, well, intolerant and unwilling to consider alternative perspectives.
“If I am confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court,” Alito explained, “it would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, ... ‘I’m not even going to listen to your argument. I’m not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away. I’ve made up my mind.’” That, he concluded, “is the antithesis of what courts are supposed to do.”
And pressuring judicial nominees to be close-minded on important issues that could come before the high court, Alito might have added, is the antithesis of how senators are supposed to carry out their “advise and consent” responsibilities.
Decision: Alito, by a knockout.
Yes, they'll want to preserve the filibuster option for the next nominee. If they allow the GOP to go nuclear now, the odds of a successful filibuster on the next nominee are drastically reduced.
The RATS are simply huffing and puffing and delaying with their typical rancid and scheming behavior. They want to hold the Alito vote down as much as possible to "send the President a message."
And the President can reply to them, "Bite me. The next nominee is JRB."
I don't they think dare, but I perked up when I saw common tator say they might.
But could we get this lucky?
If they filibuster and
If we nuke them,
Then we can replace the next lib with Janice Rogers Brown and it will take only 51 votes.
Pretty silly of the Dems, who if they pick up just 2 Senate seats then will be in a stronger position to filibuster in 07 and 08, unless of course they get nuked this session.
Of course, the Dems are silly people.
Hey, a girl can dream, can't she?
And let's face it: they haven't disappointed us yet.
I never said they wouldn't filibuster. I only said that it would be incredibly stupid.
Of course, this is the party that chose Howard Dean as it's head. Stupidity is standard operating procedure over there.
Well, clearly we have a very different view of the role of advise and consent.
I believe that our nation would have been greatly disserviced over many decades had the Senate engaged in your philosophy, because the blatant politicization of the Judicial branch of the government would have undermined the Republic.
RATS continue to play with fire on this. For this great experiment of America to continue from one generation to another, we must preserve the fabric of judicial independence and settle elections at the ballot box, not at the courthouse door or inside the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The politicization of the courts has been a terrible phenomenon since Bork. One place where this mess has taken us is that the candidate of the Democratic party for President of the United States in 2000 actually sued his own country to become president, mindful that he would have a sympathetic judiciary to help him along this journey.
I fail to believe that this type of precedent is good for our Republic.
A Senator's oath to the Constitution would demand no less.
Frist was going to keep the senate in session over the weekend if they had not voted up or down by next Friday.
However, some Republican senators were scheduled to be overseas at an economic conference then, so the final vote would probably be on Tuesday, the VERY day of the State of the Union Address.
I fully expect to see and hear weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth on the dem side of the aisle as President Bush introduces the newly sworn in Judge Alito sitting beside Laura.
If elections settled everything, then what's the point of dividing government into various branches with all of the checks and balances between them? Might as well just have one election for President and give him the keys to everything.
Elections are just the beginning of the process, not the end.
yes, tomorrow from what we understand.
Imagine you are a Democratic Senator. Alito is confirmed with out a filibuster by a vote of 56 to 44. What do you tell the Democratic base? Do you tell them you preferred a conservative Supreme Court? Do you tell them you were afraid of ticking off George W. Bush by filibustering his nominee? Do you tell the teachers union that what they get for all their donations to you is a supreme court they hate? Do you tell the AFL and the CIO that even though the Democrats had enough votes to sustain a filibuster .. they did not?
There are states where Democratic Senate Candidates need the support of moderates and even some of the right to win. There is no state where a Democrat can win with out the support of the Democratic base.
Allowing Alito to be confirmed would be the single most damaging thing a Democrat could do to his own career. It would anger the Howard Dean faction of the party beyond belief. Dean represents over half the Democrats that vote in their primaries. Democrats are very reluctant to tick those people off.
All we have is Feinstein saying she did not think there would be a filibuster. She doen't think Clinton was with Monica either... No one asked her if she would vote against cloture if filibuster were attempted.
One Democrat said he would vote for Alito. He did not say he would vote for Cloture if a filibuster is tried.
Do you know what I think the agreement of the gang of 14 was? I think it was Bush could get who he wanted for one of the empty seats and the Democrats could get who they wanted for the second empty seat.
That sounds like something Mike DeWine would DeFine as Fair... The Question is does Frist have 50 votes for the nuclear option?
Or until the Dems pull another swifty and Specter and Frist roll over!
Elections do not settle everything, of course.
But, historically, they have settled the principle that great deference is due to the President in selecting his Cabinet and to other nominations, including judicial appointments.
"To the victor go the spoils."
Balance in the Judiciary is achieved not by projecting outcomes to one judicial nominee or another, or through so-called "balance" on the Court, but rather through the give and take of public opinion at the ballot box.
This has been the Senate tradition of advise and consent for two centuries, until the RATS poisoned yet another precedent and institution of American integrity and constitutional stability.
The Tator has on numerous recent posts predicted that the DEMs will filibuster Alito.
A quick scan of http://www.freerepublic.com/~commontator/in-forum shows the assertion and rationales for the prediction. He's softened the prediction up a bit in the past couple weeks, with some "ifs" and "maybes," but a couple weeks a go, it was a certainty that Alito would not be confirmed, and the nuclear option would fail. Fun stuff, predictions.
If Alito is the test case, Frist has the 50 votes for the nuclear option.
RATS are playing with fire on this.
This is beyond being Clintonized.
For all his faults as a human being and the worst President ever to stain the office. I believe Mr. Clinton would actually do the right thing here and put this qualified man on the bench. He lost the respect to be called President
This democrat leadership simply are beyond all rational thought. They are beholden to the moonbat loonie left Socialist /Marxist wing of the democratic party.
To compare Mr. Clinton to these people makes them seem almost normal and able to be reasoned with.
Now Mrs. Clinton is a completely different story.
No, it's achieved through judges faithfully applying the law and not their own ideologies. And it's the job of anyone involved in the process of appointing judges - Senators as well as the President - to make sure, by whatever means are available to them, that they appoint judges who'll do just that, and not appoint judges who'll do the contrary.
The "give and take of public opinion at the ballot box", on the other hand, sounds very much like the politicization of the courts which you've indicated you're opposed to.
It's taking longer than it needs too.
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.