Turley: “There Will Be No One to the Right of Sam Alito on This Court” (Hear, hear!)

Today Show transcript ^ | October 31, 2005 | Jonathon Turley

[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: He’s 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: They’ll 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. He’s 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.

[gogeo]

Today/Katie is the fast food of media.

[gogeo]

Anyway, do you deny that people are upset that another Catholic was nominated?

OMG...I assumed you were kidding!

[Brilliant]

As far as I know, the only problem with him is that he's old (and liberal).

[uncbob]

recall quite well the Miers opposition attacking those defending, not Miers, but the Constitutional process, i.e. Bushbots, RINOs and Kool-Aid

I am talking about ON THIS THREAD about the new nomination

Didn't notice you telling them to knock if off

[GOPJ]

Turley's on the money:

...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. He’s done both with Sam Alito.

[chris1]

Amen brother. I have seen some really disgusting comments come from the religious wing of the party concerning Alito's religion. They are worse than that at DU and Jesse and Al.

[Netheron]

There will be someone to the right of him.

The next appointment.

[Freedom4US]

Prove them wrong in an arguement, and they won't acknowledge it, just vault off on another arguement as if it proved them right...

No, actually it's much worse than that. The mistake that people of good will - i.e. most Americans, make is thinking that there is an even playing table with respect to debates on "policy issues". Leftists are most assuredly not interested truth or reality, insofar as it is an obstacle, not surprisingly, to their agendas. They simply aren't interested in facts, unless they can be used in their favor. Another fatal mistake that regular working stiffs make is a somewhat naive willingness to compromise. "Compromise" in leftist-speak means "Do what we say.." etc. etc. They have various buear, er, red-tape strategies. First, wow them with BS. "Experts" will explain what's going on to you. Lots of fancy buzz-words. Of course you can't be expected, nor should you even try, to understand. This is known since ancient times as "Appeal to Authority" - a classic rhetorical device.

Unfortunately, if you _insist_ on bringing facts or reality to the table, generally they will not concede the point to the point of ad nauseum. Generally this is a good time for them to change the subject, label you as "extremist" and worse. But, as long as they get what they want, they don't care what you think - period. As a practical matter first and foremost they seek to _define the terms_ of the debate, since only then can they "win", which is always preferable. Once you get the hang of it, it's very easy to pick apart just about any story and reverse-engineer what's really happening remotely, the bias found in newsprint and the TV and radio is really bad. Further, even the basic nuts and bolts part of writing has declined noticeably in recent years. Anyeay, this is why public PC speech codes come in, and are so very important, they are not only an end-run around free speech, they squash any public discussion quickly into accusations of bigotry and racism - perfect foils - if one can't even _discuss_ certain subjects, certainly nothing else can follow. It's very Soviet, very subtle.

[MNJohnnie]

COURIC: And ideology trumped gender in this case, right?

Poor Katie. She so desperately wanted gender to trump ideology.

[Skywalk]

We may have our opinions on abortion but the danger in just flatly dismissing "right to privacy" is that it neglects the deeper implications of the 9th Amendment. Perhaps "privacy' was just a very bad choice of words.

"Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies" is longer, and again, maybe we don't agree that it applies to abortion but it seems a lot of conservatives want to RESTRICT our freedoms based on the poor reasoning of the Roe decision.

We should be looking for those who have EXPANSIVE interpretations of liberty, so long as it's not assertion of 'positive rights.'

[LibWhacker]

...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?

Katie, you ignorant slut!... Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with privacy; it has everything to do with killing innocent children. The Framers would never in a million years have written the Constitution in such a way as to permit murder.

[MNJohnnie]

"Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies"

Does the prostitute have "Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies" rights? How about the drug user? Hmm how do you arrest a criminal and lock them up if they "Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies"? Do we have to declare war on them as a "Sovereign power" before we can arrest them?

Happy Scalitoween everyone!

[ConservativeDude]

It still surprises me that literally in every article about the court, the first line of cases or particular case which is mentioned is about abortion. It truly is the holy grail for the media and the american left.

[NatsFan]

Well if Specter is a concern, then all PA Freepers ought to contact Specter and urge him to support Alito, and work against any Democratic efforts to kill him either in committee or by a filibuster.

[Skywalk]

"Does the prostitute have "Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies" rights? How about the drug user? Hmm how do you arrest a criminal and lock them up if they "Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies"? Do we have to declare war on them as a "Sovereign power" before we can arrest them?"

--

Actually yes, she does. And yes the drug user does. And "sovereignty" is not unlimited, it merely means that actions that impact you and your body are not to be infringed. You can make rules and laws about where, in the public sector, they can do this maybe, but philosophically, the man who uses coke is no different in his use of a substance than a man who drinks.

It's not an unlimited power--if you harm others you are arrested and lose your freedom. However, even if arrested, invasion of your body must be within limits. You can take away a shoplifter's freedom for a time, but you can't start using them for medical experiments.

[MNJohnnie]

same conservatives who opposed Miers had better get ready to fight like hell for Alito. And what will the Meirs supporters do

Fight like hell for Alito same we did Miers.

[Political Junkie Too]

It sounds like the Democrats want to depict the mainstream as a very narrow stream. I guess in today's world, the extremes are the rivers and the mainstream is a tributary.

-PJ

[MNJohnnie]

Actually yes, she does. And yes the drug user does. And "sovereignty" is not unlimited, it merely means that actions that impact you and your body are not to be infringed

Explain why we have laws against Drug use and Prostitution then? It there is this "Sovereignty of the individual over their bodies" rights. How can you have Conscription in time of war? Forced evacuations from Disaster Zones? Eviction Notices?

[Skywalk]

I didn't argue that we follow this principle to its logical conclusion, only that there ARE rights beyond those enumerated specifically in the Constitution. INdeed, the people who crafted that document and the Bill of Rights amendments said so directly.

I'd add that we didn't always have laws against drug use--as our Republic has declined, we have more laws regarding EVERYTHING including forcing people to wear helmets, seat belts, buy licenses for the right to do business, etc.