Let the battle begin...

[Parkbandit]

SAMUEL A. ALITO JR.
A strong conservative voice in his 15 years on Philadelphia's 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

• AGE
55. Born April 1, 1950, in Trenton, N.J.

• EDUCATION
AB, Princeton, 1972; JD, Yale, 1975

• EXPERIENCE
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1990-present; U.S. attorney for the district of New Jersey, 1987-1990; deputy assistant to the U.S. attorney general, 1985-1987; assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, 1981-1985.

• FAMILY
Alito and his wife, Martha, live in West Caldwell, N.J. They have two children, a college-age son, Philip, and a younger daughter, Laura. His late father, Samuel Alito Sr., was the director of New Jersey's Office of Legislative Services from 1952 to 1984. Alito's sister, Rosemary, is a top employment lawyer in New Jersey.

[Kefka]

Scalito. Scalia clone.... Scarito

[CrystalTears]

Here I'll start...

He's TOO qualified and TOO conservative! Send him packing!

/Dem-bashing

[Parkbandit]

There's plenty of judicial decisions for both parties to get a clear picture of where he stands at least.

Republicans will like him.

Democrats won't like him, but I don't know if there is anything they can latch onto to prevent his appointment.

Should be fun to watch at least.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Here I'll start...

He's TOO qualified and TOO conservative! Send him packing!

/Dem-bashing


ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

Great guy

[Hulkein]

Care to give us some of the details on why he argued this? I doubt he just said 'TEHY CAN SEARCH THEM KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK WHO WANTS COFFEE!'

[CrystalTears]

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.

Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/024532p.pdf

It's not like he said "you can search children!" there were valid reasons to search everyone in the drug dealer's home.

[Edited on 11/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Here I'll start...

He's TOO qualified and TOO conservative! Send him packing!

/Dem-bashing


ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

Great guy

This warrant was served on people suspected of drug dealing, they had information from an informant who had bought drugs from these people within the 48 hours prior to the warrant being served. Further they had a history of drug gang affiliation.

The affidavit gave the officers permission to search anybody they encountered in the house when executing the warrant.

http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/024532p.pdf

[Kefka]

According to the appeal, the warrant did not authorize the search of mother and daughter.

[CrystalTears]

I don't see where it says that. What I do see is...


In sum, the District Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgement. I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their busienss and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged - and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority - I would reverse.

[Edited on 11/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka
According to the appeal, the warrant did not authorize the search of mother and daughter.

No you have it wrong. What you are referring to is the contention of the lawyer making the appeal.

Alito heard the appeal and decided that the warrant covered the search of anyone found in the house.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by xtc]

[Kefka]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I don't see where it says that. What I do see is...


In sum, the District Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgement. I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their busienss and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged - and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority - I would reverse.

[Edited on 11/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

Looks like a dissent which is normal when judges don't agree.

I'm referring to xtc's pdf file:

We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified. - Chertoff

[Wezas]

First place I'd hide my drugs would be my sons's Diaper Genie.

Noone's going in there. :D

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Kefka
I'm referring to xtc's pdf file:

We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified. - Chertoff

Yeah his pdf file is the same one I quoted. Could you point out what page or area that was stated? For some reason I can't search in this file.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Kefka
I'm referring to xtc's pdf file:

We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified. - Chertoff

Yeah his pdf file is the same one I quoted. Could you point out what page or area that was stated? For some reason I can't search in this file.

2nd page, under opinion of the court.

[CrystalTears]

So aside from a decision for people to get searched in a drug dealer's home, is there anything else wrong with this guy that would be a problem nominating him?

[Kefka]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
So aside from a decision for people to get searched in a drug dealer's home, is there anything else wrong with this guy that would be a problem nominating him?

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/

[Sean]

I say no, just because he lives like 5 miles from me and I don't like his town.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Kefka
I'm referring to xtc's pdf file:

We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified. - Chertoff

Yeah his pdf file is the same one I quoted. Could you point out what page or area that was stated? For some reason I can't search in this file.

2nd page, under opinion of the court.

I think that was the lower court's ruling which was overturned.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tijay
I say no, just because he lives like 5 miles from me and I don't like his town.

So far, that's the most valid reason.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Kefka
I'm referring to xtc's pdf file:

We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified. - Chertoff

Yeah his pdf file is the same one I quoted. Could you point out what page or area that was stated? For some reason I can't search in this file.

2nd page, under opinion of the court.

I think that was the lower court's ruling which was overturned.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Argued September 15, 2003

Argued before: Alito, Ambro and Chertoff, Circuit Judges.

[Tsa`ah]

So far we have 1 pro:

Advocated searching all residents of a known drug dealer.

It's not like he wants to give cops a free pass to strip search anyone and everyone.

And 1 con:

Antagonistic toward the FMLA. While the act needs some tweaking, I think the direction of the act was the right one. If you need to take care of your family during a time of illness, you shouldn't lose your job over it ... rather accept a protected LOA.

Bush appointing him is a con, but even a poorly trained chimp is going to get it right so long as the effort is made with great frequency.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Kefka
I'm referring to xtc's pdf file:

We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified. - Chertoff

Yeah his pdf file is the same one I quoted. Could you point out what page or area that was stated? For some reason I can't search in this file.

2nd page, under opinion of the court.

I think that was the lower court's ruling which was overturned.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Argued September 15, 2003

Argued before: Alito, Ambro and Chertoff, Circuit Judges.

Sorry I re-read my link, you are correct. Anyway the point is that Alito has a dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the officers had a warrant to search the premises and in his view that included anyone in the residence. These people were known drug dealers with gang affiliations. An informant had bought drugs very recently at the house in question. He argued that drug dealers will use children to hide hide drugs. This isn't a case of a search without a warrant or probable cause, it is a case of what the warrant covers. In my mind Alito made the right decision.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by CrystalTears
So aside from a decision for people to get searched in a drug dealer's home, is there anything else wrong with this guy that would be a problem nominating him?

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/

Your link is far from objective. They claim that Alito would overturn Roe vs Wade because he voted for informing fathers before an abortion is performed. Yet your link fails to include that Alito ruled that a state ban on partial birth abortions was unconstitutional.

The site should be renamed think biased.


I think his ruling in the case of The Family Medical Leave Act had more to do with rights of State Governments vs/ Federal Governments and the 11th amendment.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by xtc]

[Kefka]

Originally posted by xtc
Sorry I re-read my link, you are correct. Anyway the point is that Alito has a dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the officers had a warrant to search the premises and in his view that included anyone in the residence. These people were known drug dealers with gang affiliations. An informant had bought drugs very recently at the house in question. He argued that drug dealers will use children to hide hide drugs. This isn't a case of a search without a warrant or probable cause, it is a case of what the warrant covers. In my mind Alito made the right decision.

It's all alleged, right? They are still considered innocent by the rules of the courts. It was a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. I'd like to think I'd have certain rights if someone gave the authorities reason enough to search my home. Alito was wrong in his dissent. Even if it was the case as you've stated, these decisions affect future cases where the circumstances could be very different. Cops will be allowed to strip search anyone as long as they have a search warrant, and those who sue will look back at this case and say it's been done before.

[Drezzt]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Care to give us some of the details on why he argued this? I doubt he just said 'TEHY CAN SEARCH THEM KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK WHO WANTS COFFEE!'


:lol2:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by xtc
Sorry I re-read my link, you are correct. Anyway the point is that Alito has a dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the officers had a warrant to search the premises and in his view that included anyone in the residence. These people were known drug dealers with gang affiliations. An informant had bought drugs very recently at the house in question. He argued that drug dealers will use children to hide hide drugs. This isn't a case of a search without a warrant or probable cause, it is a case of what the warrant covers. In my mind Alito made the right decision.

It's all alleged, right? They are still considered innocent by the rules of the courts. It was a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. I'd like to think I'd have certain rights if someone gave the authorities reason enough to search my home. Alito was wrong in his dissent. Even if it was the case as you've stated, these decisions affect future cases where the circumstances could be very different. Cops will be allowed to strip search anyone as long as they have a search warrant, and those who sue will look back at this case and say it's been done before.

The facts I got from my link. Certainly I am a big believer in the fourth amendment however considering they had an informant who bought drugs at the house within 24 hours of serving the warrant. The people in question were in the house and the police had a warrant to search the house and they had probable cause and dealers use kids to hide drugs. I will have to disagree with you. I think Alito made the right call.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by xtc
Sorry I re-read my link, you are correct. Anyway the point is that Alito has a dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the officers had a warrant to search the premises and in his view that included anyone in the residence. These people were known drug dealers with gang affiliations. An informant had bought drugs very recently at the house in question. He argued that drug dealers will use children to hide hide drugs. This isn't a case of a search without a warrant or probable cause, it is a case of what the warrant covers. In my mind Alito made the right decision.

It's all alleged, right? They are still considered innocent by the rules of the courts. It was a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. I'd like to think I'd have certain rights if someone gave the authorities reason enough to search my home. Alito was wrong in his dissent. Even if it was the case as you've stated, these decisions affect future cases where the circumstances could be very different. Cops will be allowed to strip search anyone as long as they have a search warrant, and those who sue will look back at this case and say it's been done before.

The facts I got from my link. Certainly I am a big believer in the fourth amendment however considering they had an informant who bought drugs at the house within 24 hours of serving the warrant. The people in question were in the house and the police had a warrant to search the house and they had probable cause and dealers use kids to hide drugs. I will have to disagree with you. I think Alito made the right call.

Sounds like you're making assumptions. You feel they were right to strip search the mother and daughter cuz that's what drug dealers do?

[Drezzt]

Originally posted by Kefka
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/


As far as the FMLA goes, if you have sick family member and you can't ask your employer for a few weeks off (12 weeks? OMFG!! 4 tops) you're working for the wrong company.

Having said that any company that won't hold your job for 4 weeks if you request leave for a sick family member in advance (not just staying home calling in each day for 4 weeks) should get a good berating.

And farther still I don't think it says anywhere in the constitution that you get 12 weeks off because your family has bad luck. It's not a Supreme court issue to handle, though that hasn't stopped them before.

*** Edited because I often post as I think and sometimes my fingers don't type as fast as my head thinks they should DOH! ***

** Edited again because the phrase "my fingers aren't as fast as my head" has nasty sexual connotations" **

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Drezzt]

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Drezzt]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Kefka
Sounds like you're making assumptions. You feel they were right to strip search the mother and daughter cuz that's what drug dealers do?

Yep. They were searching a drug dealer's house. They were in that house. They were associated with the drug dealer. I'd want them searched. That's what they have to deal with when associating with a felon. Sorry.

[Drezzt]

Originally posted by Kefka

Sounds like you're making assumptions. You feel they were right to strip search the mother and daughter cuz that's what drug dealers do?


buddy, if you're even WALKING by a house they're busting for drugs and they don't search you then I'd be wanting heads to roll. Get that crap off the streets and anyone remotely associated should be subject to search and seizure.
Case Closed.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by xtc
Sorry I re-read my link, you are correct. Anyway the point is that Alito has a dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the officers had a warrant to search the premises and in his view that included anyone in the residence. These people were known drug dealers with gang affiliations. An informant had bought drugs very recently at the house in question. He argued that drug dealers will use children to hide hide drugs. This isn't a case of a search without a warrant or probable cause, it is a case of what the warrant covers. In my mind Alito made the right decision.

It's all alleged, right? They are still considered innocent by the rules of the courts. It was a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. I'd like to think I'd have certain rights if someone gave the authorities reason enough to search my home. Alito was wrong in his dissent. Even if it was the case as you've stated, these decisions affect future cases where the circumstances could be very different. Cops will be allowed to strip search anyone as long as they have a search warrant, and those who sue will look back at this case and say it's been done before.

The facts I got from my link. Certainly I am a big believer in the fourth amendment however considering they had an informant who bought drugs at the house within 24 hours of serving the warrant. The people in question were in the house and the police had a warrant to search the house and they had probable cause and dealers use kids to hide drugs. I will have to disagree with you. I think Alito made the right call.

Sounds like you're making assumptions. You feel they were right to strip search the mother and daughter cuz that's what drug dealers do?

The mother and child were in the house. Within 24 hours of the warrant being served an informant had bought drugs from the house. The police had been observing the house and observed drug activity. They had seen them together with known gang members. They had a warrant to search the house. Yeah I would have searched the mother and child. Women can be drug dealers and what if the women had a weapon or they had stashed a weapon in the child's clothes. These people weren't exactly Leave it to Beaver. To ensure I wasn't placing myself or my fellow officers lives in jeporday I would have searched them.

[xtc]

"Sam Alito is in my mind the strongest candidate on the list," says Pepperdine law Prof. Douglas Kmiec. "I know them all . . . but I think Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness."

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Drezzt

Originally posted by Kefka

Sounds like you're making assumptions. You feel they were right to strip search the mother and daughter cuz that's what drug dealers do?


buddy, if you're even WALKING by a house they're busting for drugs and they don't search you then I'd be wanting heads to roll. Get that crap off the streets and anyone remotely associated should be subject to search and seizure.
Case Closed.

While I do understand your sentiment, I'd prefer assumptions, presumptions and what have you to stay out of the courts. I don't want law enforcement to force my family to strip because 'that's what drug dealers do'. I don't want them breaking down my walls because 'drug dealers stash stuff in their walls.' Or anything they've seen on Training Day or the latest drug movie.

They 'enforce' the law. Not interpret the meaning of a warrant.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by Drezzt

Originally posted by Kefka

Sounds like you're making assumptions. You feel they were right to strip search the mother and daughter cuz that's what drug dealers do?


buddy, if you're even WALKING by a house they're busting for drugs and they don't search you then I'd be wanting heads to roll. Get that crap off the streets and anyone remotely associated should be subject to search and seizure.
Case Closed.

While I do understand your sentiment, I'd prefer assumptions, presumptions and what have you to stay out of the courts. I don't want law enforcement to force my family to strip because 'that's what drug dealers do'. I don't want them breaking down my walls because 'drug dealers stash stuff in their walls.' Or anything they've seen on Training Day or the latest drug movie.

They 'enforce' the law. Not interpret the meaning of a warrant.

You are selling drugs from your house. You are seen doing this, an informant buys drugs from your house. You are seen in the company of known gang members. The warrant entitle them to "break" into your home. I would search your wife and kid as well to make sure they weren't hiding a weapon for starters.

[Sean]

Glad I wasn't a 10 year old living at home in any of your houses.

Too bad ToJ's banned or i could look forward to a 'at 10 years old I was living on my own making 50k a year and thus everyone should be doing the same' post.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Tijay]

[Kefka]

Search and strip search are two different things. There's rules and procedures. The officers broke those rules.

[Back]

Doesn't his confirmation really hinge on his abortion views for the most part?

Pro-life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans can make this a toss up.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Backlash
Doesn't his confirmation really hinge on his abortion views for the most part?

Pro-life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans can make this a toss up.

If thats the case, then theres a lot of stupid people if they think that abortion is the only thing the SC rules on.

[kranfer]

He does appear to be a good nomination for the supreme court. A lot of republicans seem to like him. However the Democrats just do not understand that they do not hold the Oval Office, they cannot dictate who will be nominated this term... Bush chose and nominated someone very qualified for the job. The Democrats are just completely against anything Conservative... I still have yet to see any real reasoning as to why.

When asking friends "Why do you hate Bush?" I get answers that they just do, hes an idiot, because of the war.

But even when I heard liberals fight it out on the radio they have no solid ground for this hatred... ::shakes his head:: Bush is doing what he feels is best for the country.

Would you rather that we did not go into Iraq and Afganistan and see more terrorist attacks?

Do me a favor, and go back and read:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010911200318/http://www.cnn.com/

That. Freedom is not free my friends. Nor will it ever be. It wasn't in the 1770's when we fought off the British, in the 1910's when we fought the second reich... or in the 1940s when we fought off Hitler... its NOT free NOW fighting off Terrorists. We need to be preemptive and proactive on the issue. ::shrugs::

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka
Search and strip search are two different things. There's rules and procedures. The officers broke those rules.

A matter of opinion.

[xtc]

Originally posted by kranfer
He does appear to be a good nomination for the supreme court. A lot of republicans seem to like him. However the Democrats just do not understand that they do not hold the Oval Office, they cannot dictate who will be nominated this term... Bush chose and nominated someone very qualified for the job. The Democrats are just completely against anything Conservative... I still have yet to see any real reasoning as to why.

When asking friends "Why do you hate Bush?" I get answers that they just do, hes an idiot, because of the war.

But even when I heard liberals fight it out on the radio they have no solid ground for this hatred... ::shakes his head:: Bush is doing what he feels is best for the country.

Would you rather that we did not go into Iraq and Afganistan and see more terrorist attacks?

Do me a favor, and go back and read:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010911200318/http://www.cnn.com/

That. Freedom is not free my friends. Nor will it ever be. It wasn't in the 1770's when we fought off the British, in the 1910's when we fought the second reich... or in the 1940s when we fought off Hitler... its NOT free NOW fighting off Terrorists. We need to be preemptive and proactive on the issue. ::shrugs::

Let’s try to stick to the subject at hand instead of getting derailed into a thread about Bush. I could list many reasons for my dislike of Bush and why I believe the war in Iraq isn't justified or the 9-11 commissions conclusion that Iraq had no role in 9-11. However this thread is about Judge Alito's nomination, despite my dislike for Bush I am objectively evaluating Alito as I expect Congress to do without the usual childish antics.

[kranfer]

despite my dislike for Bush I am objectively evaluating Alito as I expect Congress to do without the usual childish antics.


Childish antics? The Democrats will threaten their "Nuclear" option against him. Simple as that. They will not support anyone nominated by a republican.

[Sean]

Because obviously only bush would have acted against terrorists.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tijay
Because obviously only bush would have acted against terrorists.

Can we please try to stay on topic? Any discussion on Bush will only lead to 20 pages of accusations and counter-accusations.

[xtc]

Originally posted by kranfer
despite my dislike for Bush I am objectively evaluating Alito as I expect Congress to do without the usual childish antics.


Childish antics? The Democrats will threaten their "Nuclear" option against him. Simple as that. They will not support anyone nominated by a republican.

I am hoping they will act like adults and give Alito an up and down vote.

[Back]

Originally posted by kranfer
despite my dislike for Bush I am objectively evaluating Alito as I expect Congress to do without the usual childish antics.


Childish antics? The Democrats will threaten their "Nuclear" option against him. Simple as that. They will not support anyone nominated by a republican.

Well thats just flat out wrong because Roberts made it as Chief Justice just a few weeks ago. WTF?

[Sean]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Tijay
Because obviously only bush would have acted against terrorists.

Can we please try to stay on topic? Any discussion on Bush will only lead to 20 pages of accusations and counter-accusations.

Just responding to the previous post by kranfer asking what I'd prefer.

[Back]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Backlash
Doesn't his confirmation really hinge on his abortion views for the most part?

Pro-life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans can make this a toss up.

If thats the case, then theres a lot of stupid people if they think that abortion is the only thing the SC rules on.

Well, obviously. Thats why I used ”for the most part” rather than absolutely will, or unequivocally so. Its a primary issue for people right now so I don’t quite understand how it could not be a big part, no, not the entire, but a huge part of how people will decide if they want him in or not.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by kranfer
despite my dislike for Bush I am objectively evaluating Alito as I expect Congress to do without the usual childish antics.


Childish antics? The Democrats will threaten their "Nuclear" option against him. Simple as that. They will not support anyone nominated by a republican.

Well thats just flat out wrong because Roberts made it as Chief Justice just a few weeks ago. WTF?

I think there is a fear that because this nominee is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, the swing vote on the Supreme Court, that the Dems will fillabuster anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool socialist.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tijay
Because obviously only bush would have acted against terrorists.

Clinton didn't seem to do much.

[Warriorbird]

:rolls eyes:

As for Alito, nominees like him are the price we have to pay for letting a Republican win the presidency. I see absolutely no reason why he won't be confirmed unless he has some huge family scandal or something. At the very least he's not an embarassment, ala Miers.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
As for Alito, nominees like him are the price we have to pay for letting a Republican win the presidency. I see absolutely no reason why he won't be confirmed unless he has some huge family scandal or something. At the very least he's not an embarassment, ala Miers.
/signed

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
As for Alito, nominees like him are the price we have to pay for letting a Republican win the presidency. I see absolutely no reason why he won't be confirmed unless he has some huge family scandal or something. At the very least he's not an embarassment, ala Miers.

Very true. I've read several reports on him and while conservative, he does seem to be a thoughtful judge who considers cases on their merits without an obvious agenda. At least that's the conclusion I've come to based on admittedly meager information so far.

I've even agreed with some of what I read about his rulings. I don't want Bush appointing any judges but since that's not an option, he's better than someone like that asshole Pryor.

Raven

[Drezzt]

Originally posted by Kefka
I don't want law enforcement to force my family to strip because 'that's what drug dealers do'. I don't want them breaking down my walls because 'drug dealers stash stuff in their walls.' Or anything they've seen on Training Day or the latest drug movie.

I'm sure you don't, but if you're living in a drug house 90% of America doesn't give a flying flip about what you want. Strip search your entire family down to your newborn kids with open cavity searches and xrays. Probe you with cattle prods. Whatever it takes to teach you that "Drugs = bad" "No drugs = good"

It wont take too many cattle prods in the butt to teach you that selling drugs makes you walk funny.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Drezzt]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Drezzt
Strip search your entire family down to your newborn kids with open cavity searches and xrays. Probe you with cattle prods. Whatever it takes to teach you that "Drugs = bad" "No drugs = good"
90% of the time that doesn't even happen. Reality please.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Drezzt

Originally posted by Kefka
I don't want law enforcement to force my family to strip because 'that's what drug dealers do'. I don't want them breaking down my walls because 'drug dealers stash stuff in their walls.' Or anything they've seen on Training Day or the latest drug movie.

I'm sure you don't, but if you're living in a drug house 90% of America doesn't give a flying flip about what you want. Strip search your entire family down to your newborn kids with open cavity searches and xrays. Probe you with cattle prods. Whatever it takes to teach you that "Drugs = bad" "No drugs = good"

It wont take too many cattle prods in the butt to teach you that selling drugs makes you walk funny.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Drezzt]

Somehow, I think your way will increase the number of armed confrontations. I think your 90% of people that think like you is closer to 2%. While I agree that the majority want drugs out of our neighborhoods, I highly doubt many would go your route.

[Sean]

Do you really believe that only 10% of Americans do drugs?

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Drezzt
I'm sure you don't, but if you're living in a drug house 90% of America doesn't give a flying flip about what you want. Strip search your entire family down to your newborn kids with open cavity searches and xrays. Probe you with cattle prods. Whatever it takes to teach you that "Drugs = bad" "No drugs = good"

It wont take too many cattle prods in the butt to teach you that selling drugs makes you walk funny.


I have little sympathy for dealers, but the strip searching of children and anyone who happens to be found in a house is taking things too far to me.

In your zeal to rid the country of those who would pollute the youth with various illegal drugs you would be giving up the rights and dignity of those same citizens.

Police make errors and bust into the wrong homes. Now if they do this and traumatize some poor family including the children do we just say "Oh, sorry." ?

Strip searches need to be granted on a case by case basis for children at least if not for everyone.

[Warriorbird]

The war on drugs = hilarious.

[Hulkein]

It's not a war that will ever be won, that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial for most of society.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Beneficial in being a collossal waste/misdirection of money, if you consider those benefits.

Gosh...that almost sounded conservative of me.

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by Drezzt

Originally posted by Kefka
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/


As far as the FMLA goes, if you have sick family member and you can't ask your employer for a few weeks off (12 weeks? OMFG!! 4 tops) you're working for the wrong company.

Having said that any company that won't hold your job for 4 weeks if you request leave for a sick family member in advance (not just staying home calling in each day for 4 weeks) should get a good berating.

And farther still I don't think it says anywhere in the constitution that you get 12 weeks off because your family has bad luck. It's not a Supreme court issue to handle, though that hasn't stopped them before.

*** Edited because I often post as I think and sometimes my fingers don't type as fast as my head thinks they should DOH! ***

** Edited again because the phrase "my fingers aren't as fast as my head" has nasty sexual connotations" **

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Drezzt]

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Drezzt]

In a perfect world, the companies would approve for things on thier own. In reality, without that protection, the companies fire people who are out too often, even for illness.

-A

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Backlash
Doesn't his confirmation really hinge on his abortion views for the most part?

Pro-life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans can make this a toss up.

If thats the case, then theres a lot of stupid people if they think that abortion is the only thing the SC rules on.

However, there are a lot of stupid people who believe conservatives wouldn't do just that..rule on abortion..once they knew they had the ability to overturn a ruling..

-A

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by kranfer
despite my dislike for Bush I am objectively evaluating Alito as I expect Congress to do without the usual childish antics.


Childish antics? The Democrats will threaten their "Nuclear" option against him. Simple as that. They will not support anyone nominated by a republican.

Funny seems quite a few voted for Roberts..

-A

[Ilvane]

The ruling he had on abortion was slightly bothersome in a few ways.

1) It made it so spouses needed to be notified, not giving any regard to whether the person was being battered.

Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."


One more thing:
Please read about this. This is scheduled to be reviewed in November.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2005/ayovpla.html

Directly related to abortion rights.

-A

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Ilvane]

[Hulkein]

:thumbsup: on the quadruple post.

[Back]

Harry Reid sparks a dramatic Senate standoff (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9887457/)
On quiet Indian summer afternoon, Democrats spring an Iraq-Libby surprise

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051101/051101_reid_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg

Lets do this... all you bitches.

[Ilvane]

Some more information about Alito, for educational purposes.

--In Sheridan v. DuPont, Alito was the lone vote in a 12-1 decision on a case of sex discrimination. The plaintiff in the 1996 case had claimed discrimination after a demotion and sexual harassment. Alito wrote that a plaintiff in such a case should not be able to avoid having a judge summarily dismiss the case just by casting doubt on an employer's version of the story. The full 3rd Circuit ruled that the case should be reconsidered for a new trial.

--In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Alito sought to throw out the hiring-discrimination case of a black hotel housekeeper who was denied a promotion and saw the job go to a white woman. A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit ruled in 1997 that she could take her case before a jury, overturning a lower court decision that she had not made a strong enough case for that.

--In Rompilla v. Horn, Alito upheld a 17-year-old death penalty of Ronald Rompilla, who alleged that his public defenders failed to review records showing mitigating evidence of mental retardation and traumatic upbringing, even after prosecutors gave warning they planned to use the documents against him. The Supreme Court decided 5-4 to order a new penalty trial, warning state courts that shoddy defense work won't be tolerated

--In the 2001 case of Riley v. Taylor, Alito dissented in the case of a black death row inmate who argued that the prosecution improperly challenged black jurors. The defendant had used statistical evidence, and Alito wrote, "suppose we ask our 'amateur with a pocket calculator' whether the American people take right- or left-handedness into account in choosing their presidents."

The opinion drew the wrath of his colleagues

-A

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
It made it so spouses needed to be notified, not giving any regard to whether the person was being battered.Pro-life rhetoric aside, a fetus is not solely constructed from the mother's body. Therefore, the father should be at the very least informed of the life or death of his child. If the battery of spouses was legal, then your claim might have some merit.
from Backlash's article
California Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman replied to Solomon by saying, "Never underestimate a desperate partisan whose lust for the president's blood causes him to make statements which unintentionally give aid and comfort to the enemy.":wow:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Beneficial in being a collossal waste/misdirection of money, if you consider those benefits.

Gosh...that almost sounded conservative of me.

So you would allow all drugs to be distributed to children without any interference from law enforcement?

It may be a tough battle but it is a worthwhile one. Personally I think capital punishment for drug dealers is a good idea.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ilvane
The ruling he had on abortion was slightly bothersome in a few ways.

1) It made it so spouses needed to be notified, not giving any regard to whether the person was being battered.

Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."


One more thing:
Please read about this. This is scheduled to be reviewed in November.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2005/ayovpla.html

Directly related to abortion rights.

-A

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Ilvane]

Notifying the father before an abortion is wrong? Get real. Remember this ruling had to do with married couples only.

Secondly to inject some balance into this discussion Alito ruled that a state ban on partial birth abortions was unconstitutional.

[Warriorbird]

So you would allow all drugs to be distributed to children without any interference from law enforcement?


When I've seen far more devastating drugs sold daily...I don't believe that "distribution to children" is that significant an issue regarding alcohol or tobacco. Society does a decent job of policing itself, with a few hitches.

The results of alcohol and tobacco are pervasive. Alcohol is significantly more dangerous than marijuana. Tobacco is more dangerous on a long term basis. Marijuana still makes up the vast majority of drug arrests.

I'd tax the hell out of most of drugs...or at the very least allocate the funds to really go after cocaine/heroin (We love them Afghanis!), rather than arresting so many "dangerous" marijuana distributors or users.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
Personally I think capital punishment for drug dealers is a good idea. I'll quote you. Get real.

[Warriorbird]

Man. You better watch out if you work in convenience stores if xtc gets elected president!

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

So you would allow all drugs to be distributed to children without any interference from law enforcement?


When I've seen far more devastating drugs sold daily...I don't believe that "distribution to children" is that significant an issue regarding alcohol or tobacco. Society does a decent job of policing itself, with a few hitches.

The results of alcohol and tobacco are pervasive. Alcohol is significantly more dangerous than marijuana. Tobacco is more dangerous on a long term basis. Marijuana still makes up the vast majority of drug arrests.

I'd tax the hell out of most of drugs...or at the very least allocate the funds to really go after cocaine/heroin (We love them Afghanis!), rather than arresting so many "dangerous" marijuana distributors or users.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

I would like to see some statistics proving that most arrests are for marijuana.

Drugs like methamphetamines, crack, heroin, cocaine etc have devastating effects on society. I have spent time volunteering at rehab/treatment centres, the people there have been destroyed by drugs, their lives and the lives of their families have been ruined and are in tatters, many die, many never recover. I would love the pro-drug crowd to spend sometime in one of these centres for a week.

[xtc]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc
Personally I think capital punishment for drug dealers is a good idea. I'll quote you. Get real.

Spend some time volunteering in rehab/treatment centre then get back to me. Try comforting someone who just lost their 18 year old daughter to drugs then see how you feel.

People who deal drugs are the scum of the earth. I would have no hesitation in instituting capital punishment as an option for the Judge/jury to use in deciding these cases.

[Hulkein]

I don't see how people think society can police itself when it comes down to a mixture of highly addictive, devestating drugs and teenagers.

Give me a break... Where the hell do you live?

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc
Personally I think capital punishment for drug dealers is a good idea. I'll quote you. Get real.

Spend some time volunteering in rehab/treatment centre then get back to me. Try comforting someone who just lost their 18 year old daughter to drugs then see how you feel.

People who deal drugs are the scum of the earth. I would have no hesitation in instituting capital punishment as an option for the Judge/jury to use in deciding these cases. Lots of people have personal experiences with drugs and drug abuse, xtc. It's just not a very realistic or probable solution. That's all I'm saying.

[xtc]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by xtc
Personally I think capital punishment for drug dealers is a good idea. I'll quote you. Get real.

Spend some time volunteering in rehab/treatment centre then get back to me. Try comforting someone who just lost their 18 year old daughter to drugs then see how you feel.

People who deal drugs are the scum of the earth. I would have no hesitation in instituting capital punishment as an option for the Judge/jury to use in deciding these cases. Lots of people have personal experiences with drugs and drug abuse, xtc. It's just not a very realistic or probable solution. That's all I'm saying.

I am not talking about arresting people for marijuana possession. I am talking about the damage that hard core drugs are doing. I think stronger deterrents are needed, to dissuade people from taking up drug dealing as an easy way to make money. I wonder how many people would deal drugs, if they knew that the courts could sentence them to death for it. I guess this is the Conservative in me.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Ilvane
The ruling he had on abortion was slightly bothersome in a few ways.

1) It made it so spouses needed to be notified, not giving any regard to whether the person was being battered.


-A

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Ilvane]

The actual law read:

(a) SPOUSAL NOTICE REQUIRED. — In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law.

(b) EXCEPTIONS. — The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statements need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

(c) MEDICAL EMERGENCY. — The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a medical emergency.

. . .

(e) PENALTY; CIVIL ACTION. — Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct," and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation. . . . In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $ 5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs.


Alito thought this law constitutional. Casey V. Planned Parenthood was decided 5-4 at the Supreme Court and determined that this law was in fact, not constitutional.

There may be reasons to oppose Alito, but I don't want anyone to think that he found a notification law constitutional that had no exceptions for a battered spouse.


C/Valth

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
I am not talking about arresting people for marijuana possession. I sort of figured that one out just from reading your initial thoughts.
I am talking about the damage that hard core drugs are doing. I think stronger deterrents are needed, to dissuade people from taking up drug dealing as an easy way to make money. I just don't see the death penalty as being a plausible deterrent. Color me as being rooted in reality. The extra money spent on the death penalty could be spent on other means of making the community safer. To add, very few of the death sentences that are handed down are ever actually carried out. The death penalty does not deter people from rape, murder or even attempted murder. Throw drugs into the fray and I don't see that trend really moving in any particular direction than how it already has been going.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
The death penalty does not deter people from rape, murder or even attempted murder. Throw drugs into the fray and I don't see that trend really moving in any particular direction than how it already has been going. No one can possibly make the claim that dealing drugs is a crime of passion, first of all. Secondly, what makes you think the death penalty doesn't deter people?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
No one can possibly make the claim that dealing drugs is a crime of passion, first of all. No one can possibly make the claim that all murders are crimes of passion either.
Secondly, what makes you think the death penalty doesn't deter people? Let me rephrase. Murders, rapes and attempted murders still happen even though the death penalty is put in place to deter such acts from occuring in the first place. Self defense of course goes without saying. That better?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
No one can possibly make the claim that all murders are crimes of passion either.The point is, only a crime of passion occurs without reflection beforehand. Not taking the death penalty into consideration can only occur if reflection does not occur beforehand, therefore the death penalty will always matter except for those who commit crimes of passion.
Murders, rapes and attempted murders still happen even though the death penalty is put in place to deter such acts from occuring in the first place.Nobody's saying the threat of the death penalty absolutely abolishes murder. However, it would be downright irresponsible to flatly say the death penalty does not deter people from X crime without some kind of statistical or psychological backup.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The point is, only a crime of passion occurs without reflection beforehand. Not taking the death penalty into consideration can only occur if reflection does not occur beforehand, therefore the death penalty will always matter except for those who commit crimes of passion.That is neither here nor there. It may be a deterant but there are always ways to circumvent the system. I'm not going to sit up and here and say you are wrong because you are making a valid point. You would also have to have some deeper understanding of the mentality of a person who would deal devastating drugs to people in their own and others community. Money is money to them. That is their driving passion.
Nobody's saying the threat of the death penalty absolutely abolishes murder.Good, we are on the same page as it relates to that point.

However, it would be downright irresponsible to flatly say the death penalty does not deter people from X crime without some kind of statistical or psychological backup. True. That would also go both ways.

It brings me back to this though:
"I just don't see the death penalty as being a plausible deterrent. Color me as being rooted in reality. The extra money spent on the death penalty could be spent on other means of making the community safer. To add, very few of the death sentences that are handed down are ever actually carried out."

That is another reason for my opinion regarding capital punishment for drug dealing.

[Ilvane]

It made it so spouses needed to be notified, not giving any regard to whether the person was being battered.

This is my problem with the dissent..

-A

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ilvane

It made it so spouses needed to be notified, not giving any regard to whether the person was being battered.

This is my problem with the dissent..

-A

What the hell? The law was just posted and it stated exceptions for battered women. What is the problem?

[Hulkein]

Bush appointed him...

[DeV]

To be fair he also appointed Miers.

He's obviously a much better choice.

[Back]

Can O'Connor rescind her retirement? If she could, would she? And if she did, how funny would that be?

[Warriorbird]

Yes. No. Very.

[ElanthianSiren]

O'connor can rescind, but she is still a moderate with faith in the judicial process, so she will not IMO.

The problem with the ruling about spousal notification to me is that it equates women to children. "Hey honey, go get your permission slip signed, and you can have an abortion! Then, you can go to the petting zoo with your class too!" It's insulting to me personally that a grown man would even attempt to infer merit to such a relationship between an adult couple, much less make it a required facet of law in a country where men and women are supposedly equal.

My prediction is that this will probably come down to a filibuster. Reps will threaten to remove it, just like Dems thought removing it would be a great idea during the Clinton years (see Boxer's new and old views! my how they change!).

In the end, likely the ability to filibuster will not be removed because much of both parties recognize that they do not want to be in the minority without that option. At this point, however, the reps have been hanging the "we'll remove the filibuster" thing over the Dem's heads so long, I honestly do see them exercising that option, if only to show that they can (yes, whomever mentioned childishness, go you).

To the unreasonable search and seizure folks: shame on you. Generally, you are the same ones arguing that Libby/Rove is/are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty by a court of law. A drug dealer is similarly presumed innocent until proven guilty, as are his children and spouse or s/o.

I think before I form a real opinion on Alito, I need to hear or read more about his cases. I'd like to reiterate what someone else said about the idea that the concern hinges on the replacement of O'connor (viewed largely as a moderate) by a definite conservative.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Can she recind?

Bush has already accepted her resignation.. isn't it his call to make whether or not she can take it back? I had an employee once that I was eventually going to fire.. but she ended up giving notice. I guess she thought I would give her a raise or something. Well I said "We're certainly going to miss you.. buh bye". Two days later, she said she made the decision in haste and that she wanted to stay. I told her I already filled her position.

Is there any rules or laws that would govern this occurance?

[ElanthianSiren]

The appointment to the high court is a lifetime position. It's not up to the President.


-M

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
The appointment to the high court is a lifetime position. It's not up to the President.


-M

I realize it's a lifetime position.. but she's already resigned from that position. Can she simply say "I want to stay now" and there is nothing anyone can do? Is there any precedence of this happening?

[ElanthianSiren]

yes, she still can.

However, a friend of mine who is majoring in law, with the hope of judging, has studied the court and mentioned that it's incredibly unlikely (and made even more unlikely because she's resigning due to her own health issues (breast cancer) and ill health of her husband).

-M

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
O'connor can rescind, but she is still a moderate with faith in the judicial process, so she will not IMO.

The problem with the ruling about spousal notification to me is that it equates women to children. "Hey honey, go get your permission slip signed, and you can have an abortion! Then, you can go to the petting zoo with your class too!" It's insulting to me personally that a grown man would even attempt to infer merit to such a relationship between an adult couple, much less make it a required facet of law in a country where men and women are supposedly equal.


-M

notification does not equal permission

The law, whcih was found unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision, required notification. Not consent. Not premission.

Public opinion on this particular matter (spousal notification) favors Alito.

I don't think Dems will filibuster. They can win power next year just by saying 'we're not Republicans' so I think they will just lay low and let Alito in after a lot of heated debate. After all, it's not about principle in DC, it's about getting elected.

C/Valth

[Warriorbird]

Drugs like methamphetamines, crack, heroin, cocaine etc have devastating effects on society. I have spent time volunteering at rehab/treatment centres, the people there have been destroyed by drugs, their lives and the lives of their families have been ruined and are in tatters, many die, many never recover. I would love the pro-drug crowd to spend sometime in one of these centres for a week.

Funny thing. I've spent a lot longer than a week. It convinced me even further of the hypocrisy of our current standards. I also notice you not mentioning "lives destroyed by marijuana." In a family with four alcoholic grandparents, quite frankly, I've seen a lot more damage from alcohol.


People who deal drugs are the scum of the earth. I would have no hesitation in instituting capital punishment as an option for the Judge/jury to use in deciding these cases.

So are you going to start shooting ABC clerks?

[Parkbandit]

Maybe we could take the Drugs are Bad vs Drugs are not Bad discussion to it's own thread and not derail the Supreme Court appointment battle.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Drugs like methamphetamines, crack, heroin, cocaine etc have devastating effects on society. I have spent time volunteering at rehab/treatment centres, the people there have been destroyed by drugs, their lives and the lives of their families have been ruined and are in tatters, many die, many never recover. I would love the pro-drug crowd to spend sometime in one of these centres for a week.

Funny thing. I've spent a lot longer than a week. It convinced me even further of the hypocrisy of our current standards. I also notice you not mentioning "lives destroyed by marijuana." In a family with four alcoholic grandparents, quite frankly, I've seen a lot more damage from alcohol.


People who deal drugs are the scum of the earth. I would have no hesitation in instituting capital punishment as an option for the Judge/jury to use in deciding these cases.

So are you going to start shooting ABC clerks?


I have spent 13 years volunteering in rehabs/clinics everything from Sally Ann detox centres and treatment facilities for hard core drug addicts to Government run residential programs to flop houses for addicted street people. No where did I mention about Marijuana, I have taken no issue with it. The majority of arrests of drug dealers in the US are for cocaine and heroin dealers.

Your sarcasm aside hard core drugs causes more devastation than alcohol do any day of the week. While I have witnessed the devastation of alcoholism, there is no such thing as a social hard drug user.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by xtc]

[ElanthianSiren]

PB, I'm sure medicinal marijuana cases and such will come up before the court, so it is pertinent here. Basically, what happens is that in states like California, the fed government comes in and overrules the state government's authority (often using RICO, I think). It really sucks most for people that natural substances benefit, who don't want the side-effects of prescriptions.

That said, I wouldn't advocate an unrestricted right to use those substances in this country, but I do see the potential for those issues to come before the court.

-M

[Back]

Capital punishment for drug pushers is totalitarian. WB has a good point. If you want to go after the biggest drug pushers in the world go after Phillp Morris, Seagams, Anhieser Busch and Glaxo Kline.

There are people out there who are going to destroy themselves no matter what you prohibit them from doing. Why not just open everything up for everyone, make money, and tax the fuck out of it for education?

But this is all a distraction from the real intent of this post, talking about Alito, which is a distraction from the real issue, fabricated evidence to go into a needless war.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
But this is all a distraction from the real intent of this post, talking about Alito, which is a distraction from the real issue, fabricated evidence to go into a needless war.

:lol:

Yes because we really know that nominating supreme court justices are a 'wag the dog' issue anyways. You really must quit subscribing to the far left rhetoric... well, nevermind. Doing that would cease to give me something to laugh at while reading the PC.

[Warriorbird]

Eh, I'm honestly not gonna buy this as "distraction from the war." We knew that the nominations would be a problem before the election.

[Back]

“Wag the Dog”

A fine republican conspiracy. So fine Hollywood lefties made a movie out of it.