Statement on Judge Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court

lgraham.senate.gov ^ | 10/31/2005 | Lindsey Graham

[Cboldt]

Lindsey Graham: "From a subjective view, she [Ginsberg] was clearly out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence"

Cboldt to Senator Graham: "You seem to be admitting that GOP Senators cast votes that are contrary to their principles."

MortMan: Not really. The principle in play is that "elections matter".

No argument that elections matter. I am throwing stones at GOP Senators who approve SCOTUS Justices that are clearly outside of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. I was lead to believe that GOP principles were to approve only of Justices that adhered to the Constitutional balance of powers.

Are you saying the GOP does not now stand for approving -only- justices that adhere at least to mainstream American jurisprudence?

Barring qualifications issues, personal issues, or other unknown problems that prevent a nominee from adjudicating fairly ...

Is judicial activism "adjudicating fairly"?

[conservative physics]

has there been an invasion of libs on FR recently ?

[Cicero]

"Sort of like the fair up and down vote Miers got..."

Miers did not receive that considerations because "conservative" zealots hounded her into withdrawal

1. "Every candidate deserves a fair up and down vote" means a) that the opposition shouldn't bottle the candidate up in committee; and b) the opposition shouldn't delay and filibuster forever. It does not mean that the president cannot use his constitutional prerogative to withdraw the candidate at any time up to confirmation; and it does not mean that the people cannot make their views clear during the process.

2. Those who supported Miers insisted that the president had a right to nominate anyone he chose. Now he has nominated Alito. Are you going to keep on beating dead horses, or are you going to support the president's candidate, Alito? Which is more important, to get a solid candidate on the court or to hash over old arguments for the next year or two?

[IamConservative]

For the first time in my life I received a poll call from the Washington Post last night. From my perspective, the poll questions were designed more to shape opinion than poll opinion. Among others, they asked:

"Would you personally vote to overturn Roe V. Wade?"

(The woman on the phone was just reading a script of course, but I told her I thought this was a bad poll question. Why not just ask if I was for or against abortion? I went on to explain the question was seeking my opinion on a legal matter with no context or case upon which to base my opinion.)

"Would Alito's position on whether to overturn Roe V. Wade change your opinion of his nomination?"

(I replied "No." What was interesting is this is the only question in which Alito's name came up.)

"Do you feel there is a culture of corruption in the Bush Whitehouse?"

(Numerous questions around the CIA leak case and the "culture of corruption" DNC talking points. I am certain I skewed their desired results.)

"Do you support staying in Iraq even if it means more casualties?"

(Numerous questions about the Iraq War, all slanted toward creating an outcome to support their agenda.)

It was an interesting experience. Probably 40-50 questions and about 20 minutes on the phone. They asked if a reporter could call me, I said "Certainly." I am not waiting by the phone. Based on the questions they asked, I am pretty sure I don't confirm any of their desired conclusions.

[conservative physics]

my favorite poll question:

"is the country in your opinion headed in the wrong direction? "

ROFL!

who the heck believes things are getting better in America!

Then the media spins the obvious, "no I don't believe the county is headed in the right direction" into a proclamation by the people that Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction with his right wing agenda ! When the reality is, Bush is trying his hardest to stop America from marching off the cliff to hell, and turn things around in the right direction.

The other Poll question I hate is the one about the Iraq war

"do you agree with Bush's handling of the war in Iraq"

If you answer "no" they assume that you are against the war.... When in actuality many people like myself would answer no, but not because we are against the war, but because we would have preferred to drop a couple of nukes on their heads and not have lost 2,000+ of our best and brightest needlessly.

[Buffalo Head]

"Which of the two do you prefer"

I prefer to have faith and confidence in our elected president to perform his constitutional duty, rather than allow a bunch of load mouth zealots to turn the judiciary branch of government into a political circus, complete with quotas by gender, race and personal view about abortion.

Too many 'conservatives' would rather wage battle with their envisioned 'enemies' than work to win the long term war. We nearly lost the last two presidential elections because George Bush wasn't 'conservative' enough for them.

Right wing kooks aren't electable. If they slip in by default, they are notoriously ineffective at moving along any sort of desirable agenda.

It's way past time to help George Bush, rather than to fight him and assist the liberals.

[Buffalo Head]

See post 26.

[gogeo]

Exactly.

[Buffalo Head]

“....the opposition shouldn't bottle the candidate up in committee” They did not; ‘conservatives’ stuck a knife in her back.

“....the opposition shouldn't delay and filibuster forever.” They did not; ‘conservatives’ did their work for them.

“It does not mean that the president cannot use his constitutional prerogative to withdraw the candidate at any time....” He did not. Miers withdrew, reportedly because of ‘conservative’ hounding.

“....and it does not mean that the people cannot make their views clear during the process.” Our Constitution defines the process as a matter between the President and the Senators, not you or ‘conservatives’.

“Are you going to keep on beating dead horses, or are you going to support the president's candidate, Alito?” See Post 26.

“Which is more important, to get a solid candidate on the court or to hash over old arguments for the next year or two?” A candidate has no value unless confirmed by the Senate.

With friends like some ‘conservatives’, our President doesn’t need enemies.

[Cicero]

Why don't you just move over to DU if you consider FreeRepublic too conservative for your tastes?

[uncbob]

You still haven't answered the question

WHO do you prefer Meirs or Alito and why

[uncbob]

We nearly lost the last two presidential elections because George Bush wasn't 'conservative' enough for them.

We nearly lost the last two election cause Bush is NOT a leader

Want proof

First election
Florida Upheval--Bush says "If I lose it will not be the end of the world and I will go back to my ranch and live my life ( words to that effect)
HE DID NOT SAY I will accept the verdict of the courts but I will continue to aid and speak out for the beliefs of the GOP voters and use my energy and time to further the cause

Second Election--First Debate
George Bush "This is a hard job this job is hard etc etc
Real inspiring words to come from a leader
Kerry's campaign was in disarray with internal fighting until that debacle
That breathed a new life into their efforts
Good thing the SWIFT BOAT VETERANS had enough stones to take Kerry on
They saved it for Bush

Unfortunately what we see is what we got

He was so out of touch with his base he never expected the problems with Meirs
I quess he figured good enough for Reid/Schumer good enough for me

[Buffalo Head]

It is none of your business and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Supreme Court members are determined by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Period.

[Buffalo Head]

Your inane comment does not deserve or warrant a response:

To others on this thread: Is it not it interesting that some folks here can easily spot the liberal kooks and wackos posting on DU but can not see themselves viewed as equally irritating right-wing kooks and wackos by the rest of the population?

[Cicero]

Before the nomination was pulled, more than 45% of Freepers were opposed to it. That figure is somewhat low, because the poll was posted about a week before things really started to slide. If you think 45% of Freepers are extremists, then, as I said, perhaps you should find another forum.

[uncbob]

It is none of your business and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Supreme Court members are determined by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Period.

Then I guess it's none of your business either

BUT It is my business cause I have a right as do all American citizens to petition my President and members of congress or did you decide that I can't do that either

Some conservative you are. Facist be more like it