Posted on 10/31/2005 10:18:38 AM PST by freedomdefender
When Harriet Miers nomination was first announced, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley called her an amazingly bad choice. This morning, he weighed in Samuel Alito:
JONATHAN TURLEY: Hes the top choice for particularly pro-life people. Sam Alito is viewed as someone who is likely to join the hard right in likely narrowing Roe and possibly voting to overturn Roe.
KATIE COURIC: So he is a strict constructionist in every since of the word? I know President Bush is looking for a conservative jurist, so he fits the bill in terms of someone who will interpret the Constitution literally and may disagree with the right to privacy, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade?
TURLEY: Oh absolutely. There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues.
COURIC: Not even Antonin Scalia?
TURLEY: Theyll have to make a race to the right, but I think it will be by a nose, if at all.
COURIC: And ideology trumped gender in this case, right?
TURLEY: I think so. I think the president wanted, first of all, to show he could pick someone who was clearly qualified and has the resume, but he also wanted to rally his base. Hes done both with Sam Alito. No one on the conservative base can be unhappy with Sam Alito. The question is whether they can weather this storm that will be coming, I think, and whether there will be a filibuster.
Yawn. You don't know . . . we don't know . . . any more about Harriet's suitability now than we did before the lynching.
It is a new day. Celebrate it.
Amen.
Which of the 5 originalist interpretations of the 9th Amendment do you prefer (state-law rights, residual rights, individual natural rights, collective rights or federal)? I tend to find the last two the more persuasive. And my comment was directed more to Katie's acknowledgement that Roe was bad law because it isn't based on anything remotely Constitutional. In fact, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was much more grounded in Constitutional principle than the original Roe decision or at least made the attempt to give it Constitutional grounding.
Again, I ask what specific rights do you consider covered by the Ninth Amendment?
Maybe you should have addressed your comments to MEDIAMOLE who was already starting in on those who were against MEIRS
My comment was to HIM
[[Maybe you should have addressed your comments to MEDIAMOLE who was already starting in on those who were against MEIRS
My comment was to HIM]]
My comment was appropriately addressed to you. You seem to be willing to continue to provoke the divide, as demonstrated by your post following yours to me.
-------
To: AmishDude
We won't behave like the Miers opposition.
Oh the Meirs opposition will be supporting Alito so you are opposing him eh
-------
You twist AmishDude's words with semantic largesse, where clearly he was indicating support for Alito. We need unity behind the Alito nomination, the Miers debate is over, whichever side anyone was on.
Hey, Charles, what's up? I'm having withdrawals from the DUmmie FUnnies, guess P.J. must have been hit by Wilma. It might be time to state another demonstration - no DUFU, no peace!
most of the gang of 14 (well, on the GOP side) have already come out in support of Alito, even saying they would support the nuc option if Dems filibuster. I don't think we will have a problem with the RINOs except for one or two maybe this time. I think we may pick up one Dem or so. With Cheney's vote if necessary, he will be confirmed, even with a filibuster.
What I want to see someone say, when they trot out the argument for a 'living breathing document' which must conform to changing opinion is: Well, look at the past 10 years worth of election data -- opinion has changed, now get out of the way.
[[Like I said YOU HAVE SELECTIVE INDIGNATION
It was posters like him who started in on the Meirs oppostion NOT VICE VERSA]]
Pot, kettle, black. I recall quite well the Miers opposition attacking those defending, not Miers, but the Constitutional process, i.e. Bushbots, RINOs and Kool-Aid drinkers. The puerile 'they did it first' argument is not borne out by the facts. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Unlike you, I have said let it go.
The fact that some on both sides feel the need to cast aspersions still reveals the angst created by that fight.
Your references on this claim, please.
As a person who opposed Miers, I agree it's time to bring it.
I think the hard left will require a battle.
How's J. P. Steven's health? (No nefarious wish here, just curious)
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.