Posted on 10/28/2005 8:33:00 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Multiple sources are telling RedState that Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will be named by the President at the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court as early as Monday.
“The situation is still in flux,” says one source, “but not very much.” Says another, “The White House Counsel’s Office is not doing too good at keeping this a secret.”
Still another source says, “Luttig and Alito were the fall backs to Miers. They have both been vetted. Alito seems more palatable. There is no need to drag this out, he’s been vetted a million times.”
And yet another source tells me that he is convinced Alito is the nominee barring some last minute unforeseen issue. All signs are pointing to Judge Alito right now. Things could change, but as the weekend draws closer it seems more and more likely that Judge Alito will be the nominee and conservatives will have a fight on their hands in the Senate — a very winnable fight.
What happens if the three FR rockstars are rejected? Why risk them when we have such a weak position in the Senate? Once they are rejected they become damaged goods and a re-nomination will likely never occur -- especially if the background digging by the left finds some dirt on them. Then they are blackballed forever even if the GOP gets more Senate seats.
****
There are more than 3 rock stars. And how do you think the Dems are going to look if they continue to obstruct these nominees?
Alito is a friend of Spector's because of where they live. Spector will support him because of this.
Gelato, I think those are great questions. Good to know there's people who want to keep their eye on the ball, and off the kool aid. We must reject the so-called Ginsburg standard and encourage the Senate to do its job.
Leftist tactics? Like?
Holding the President to his campaign pledge?
Voicing our opinions that Miers was completely unqualified for this job? Exercising our free speech rights to say so?
Not marching in lockstep with the administration because they say we should?
Not turning a blind eye to the fact that the woman has been all over the map and supports judicial activism and legislation from the bench?
Which of these are Leftist tactics?
Go to confirmthem.com. They have tons of info on him and several threads going right now about him. There is also a person named alitofan who says he clerked for Alito. And someone just posted Alito's dissent in Casey vs Planned Parenthood in one of the threads.
His nickname is Scalito. That says it all.
You misunderstood me. When I said, "every time", I was referring to the fact that man, every man, will at some point or other let you down. They won't let you down every time they do something. Hopes this clears up the misunderstanding.
Ditto. But remember who they also called up and fed those steaming piles to. They burned some bridges to the Christian Right.
Take some Metamucil. It'll fix you right up.
Check tradesports. Alito is wayyyyy up today.
http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=37113&eventSelect=37113&updateList=true&showExpired=false
Uh, a large part of the Christian Right is pissed at the way the uber-cons treated Harriett Miers.
There have been no bridges burned to anyone of any significance.
This will take a lot of prayers and serious research. I pray Miers will also give sound advice on this pick. She wasn't right for the Supreme Court, but undoubtedly has aided the President in choosing his nominees.
Perhaps Alito is perfect for the job, but I hope we have more to base that on then the nickname Scalito.
It's very likely that this already is our strongest position. And that will become even more likely if we operate from a position of weakness, as you suggest.
Are the DEMs on clear record as being in favor of judges that "legislate from the bench?" Do the DEMs want to strip the people of the power to decide social issues, and instead have judges decisde those issues? They do stand for that, bt haven't been forced to say so, in those terms.
The DEMs have succeeded in making the judicial nominations a question of issues advocacy. For example, "The conservatives will take away your right to choose!" But in fact, stripping the abortion matter from the court gives "the right to choose" back to the people.
With the argument properly framed, if there isn't a mandate, then we have forever lost the Republic of our founders.
Very happy with the idea of Alito.
Whether it will be, I don't know. A number of people tend to spread gossip. But, the W.H. also floats names. That Alito keeps coming up is encouraging.
So much for reconciliation, huh?
A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/alito/index.html
"Answer: the nominee is rejected."
And that scares me. makes you wonder why Bush nominated Miers in the first place.
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.