Alito Confirmation

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:55 am

Yes.... standing ovation for that one.. another reason that we should pass term limit legislation...

Course it was fun to watch Teddy boy try to get his foot outta his mouth after the Owl Club revelation...and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:14 am

greydeadhead wrote: Course it was fun to watch Teddy boy try to get his foot outta his mouth after the Owl Club revelation...and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy
I'm reminded of Jackie Gleason... "How sweeeet it is!" :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:53 pm

Confirmation vote is scheduled for 24 January.

I found an FAQ on the Supreme Court Appointment Process here.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:48 pm

And the extreme, left-wing liberal Senator from Massachusetts is still swimming. Is he swimming from the "Owl Club" or is he swimming towards the shore of Cape Cod. Hmmm.....

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:17 pm

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Democratic Associate Justice nominated by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Sworn into office on August 10, 1993.

"she refused to answer questions regarding her personal views on most issues or how she would adjudicate certain hypothetical situations as a Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 96 to 3 vote..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

In 1993, Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committe said, "the public is best served by questions that initiate dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her... Justice ginsburg declined to answer, or gave only generalized answers, to a vast number of the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearings. Despite this, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, which suggests that the senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate."

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/rbg ... onduct.pdf

Based on this precedent, we should expect a 96-3 Senate vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:20 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Democratic Associate Justice nominated by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Sworn into office on August 10, 1993.

"she refused to answer questions regarding her personal views on most issues or how she would adjudicate certain hypothetical situations as a Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 96 to 3 vote..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

In 1993, Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committe said, "the public is best served by questions that initiate dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her... Justice ginsburg declined to answer, or gave only generalized answers, to a vast number of the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearings. Despite this, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, which suggests that the senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate."

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/rbg ... onduct.pdf

Based on this precedent, we should expect a 96-3 Senate vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

and you feel good about this?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:26 pm

I'm with SCT, ( is everyone calling you "Cowboy" or "tricks" these days?)

Anyway, Supreme Court Justices wield unimaginable power in our system, and the job is for life.

Before giving anyone that kind of power, I'd like to know just about everything there is to know about them. They should be compelled to answer anything the interviewers can conceive of.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:21 pm

Then using that logic Jives, Ginsberg should never have been confirmed by such an overwhelming majority.. and Joe Biden should never have made such a broad reaching statement...Remember he is the old man of the Democratic party now that Strom has finally gone to that big election in the sky...

Anyway

I see the vote pretty much being along party lines.. maybe one or two stagglers jumping the aisle..

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:59 pm

greydeadhead wrote: Then using that logic Jives.

Makes sense to me. Seriously, can we ever be too informed as to the quality and stance of the people that will lead us? I don't think so.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:08 pm

http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:31 pm

Accountable wrote: I'm frustrated every day watching these guys bicker over issues already decided (abortion) and other minutia (sp?) while glibly signing away our freedoms.

These last two presidents seem only to have their own legacy in mind. I have faith the country is strong enough to survive, but this next president needs to be a more selfless patriot.

I agree with you. But do you see any such person among the political field that would fill this need?

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:46 pm

Bothwell wrote: Thanks Acc. One thing that I have noticed (i have commented o it here before) is how polarised US politics have now become, more so to my eyes than at any time previously, would you agree. I have no idea how I could get the stats but I would love to know how many "Middle ground" voters there are who will make up their mind depending on the policies that a particular government introduces, are there any or are you either Democrat or Republican and thats it?

It surely cannot be good for any democracy to allow it's leaders to distill government down to a couple of issues that appeal to their core voters rather than make decisons that are good for the country as a whole. We have a leader that is obsessed with his image and his place in history rather than making tough decisions

Interesting thought. It is like the different denominations of religion. Do you support what your denomination holds as true and right, or do you think for yourself about these issues. If you are at odds with your denomination, are you still a member of that denomination or a rebel?

Following politics is not easy because so much of it is not above board. The leading issues are calculated by the political machine that runs the campaign and their objective is to get everyone rallying behind it rather than focusing on matters that may split the party support. It's all a game and the winner is not alway the one who follows the rules............ More and more it is about who didn't get caught and/or who was unable to shift the blame elsewhere. It's a sad commentary on our system.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:54 pm

SOJOURNER wrote: I agree with you. But do you see any such person among the political field that would fill this need?
Of course not. :wah: That's how unknowns like Carter & Clinton get elected: better the evil you don't know than the evil you know. (yeh, I know. I reversed it on purpose)

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:00 pm

The Dems would vote against Moses or Jesus Christ as long as they were nominated by Repubs, and unfortunately, vice versa.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:02 pm

I'm beginning to see the separation into groups may not be the best thing for anyone......

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:13 pm

No, separation is a good thing, it's just not a good idea to have only two choices. We desperately need a thrid party in this country.

Not a fringer party like the Green party, nor a radical party like the Libertarians, but something moderate. Going liberal on some issues, and conservative on others.

Just the way the American people act.:rolleyes:

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:35 pm

greydeadhead wrote: Then using that logic Jives, Ginsberg should never have been confirmed by such an overwhelming majority.. and Joe Biden should never have made such a broad reaching statement...I see the vote pretty much being along party lines.. maybe one or two stagglers jumping the aisle..
The senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Mr. Alito's case to the Senate floor. Ten Republicans for and eight Democrats against. The stage has been sent for a party-line vote in the Senate, as you project. Hypocrites.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:26 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Democratic Associate Justice nominated by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Sworn into office on August 10, 1993.

"she refused to answer questions regarding her personal views on most issues or how she would adjudicate certain hypothetical situations as a Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 96 to 3 vote..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

In 1993, Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committe said, "the public is best served by questions that initiate dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her... Justice ginsburg declined to answer, or gave only generalized answers, to a vast number of the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearings. Despite this, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, which suggests that the senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate."

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/rbg ... onduct.pdf

Based on this precedent, we should expect a 96-3 Senate vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Sandra Day O'Connor

Republican Associate Justice nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan in August 1981.

"During her appointment hearings, O'Connor would not reveal how she would vote if a repeal of Row vs. Wade was put beofre her, nor would she speculate on any other issues. She was confirmed by a Judiciary Committee vote of 17 to 1 and won approval by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 99 to 0."

http://phoenix.about.com/cs/famous/a/oconnor.htm

Based on this precedent, we should expect a 99-0 Senate vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. :sneaky:

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:19 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Sandra Day O'Connor

Republican Associate Justice nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan in August 1981.

"During her appointment hearings, O'Connor would not reveal how she would vote if a repeal of Row vs. Wade was put beofre her, nor would she speculate on any other issues. She was confirmed by a Judiciary Committee vote of 17 to 1 and won approval by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 99 to 0."

http://phoenix.about.com/cs/famous/a/oconnor.htm

Based on this precedent, we should expect a 99-0 Senate vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. :sneaky:

Clarence Thomas

Republican Associate Justice nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush in July 1991.

"The Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed bythe Senate with a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991, making it the closest confirmation vote for a Justice in the 20th century. The vote was not strictly by party line; he received "yea" votes from 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats and "nay" votes from 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

Based on this precedent, we should at least expect Samuel Alito will be confirmed with something other than a party line vote and not as close as the Thomas vote.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:29 am

"Kerry Gets Cool Response to Call to Filibuster Alito" by David Kirkpatrick, 1/27/06 at http://www.nytimes.com under the "Washington" section.

Liberal Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy call for a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Of course, Kerry did it from overseas on foreign soil.

Losers. :yh_loser :yh_loser :yh_loser :yh_loser

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:40 am

This fillibuster thing has become a farce anyway. Didn't they allow breaks & such for the last one? Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose?

If the dems want to fillibuster, I say let them, but hold their feet to the fire & make the fillibuster real.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:51 am

This is a good example of why the American people need a viable alternative party so that "we the people" can have a real voice. This lame political scene of an obvious highly qualified jurist being threatened with filibuster when most reports already have the votes counted in his favor. If you review the recent record of Supreme Court nominations that I posted here, this case is full of hypocrisy and double-standards. Look at all the time, money and energy wasted on hyperbole, when our elected officials should have been moving forward to other issues.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:30 pm

The following is taken from a January 28, 2006 Roanoke Times newspaper, Page 6-A article "Liberals make late effort to muster a filibuster."

"Associated Press, Washington - "I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future. The choice is now," said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Despite a decision by Kerry, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and others to try and block a final vote, leaders of both parties agreed that Alito's confirmation was assured for Tuesday. Kerry first publicly made known his support for a last stand against Alito from Switzerland... He flew home overnight to speak on the Senate floor."

Reminds me of when he hurried home from Vietnam and testified before a Senate committee. No, he wasn't making a "political calculus" then. Loser. :yh_loser

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:36 am

Billary Clinton now, in the final hour, supports the lame Senate filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Loser. :yh_loser

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... html?s=icp

Associate Justice Abe Fortas was nominated for Chief Justice by President Johnson. Justice Fortas was the first, and only, Supreme Court nominee to face a Senate filibuster. President Johnson withdrew his nomination when the Senate failed to invoke cloture on 10/1/68.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:34 am

The Senate approved Justice Alito to the Supreme court by the same vote count as for Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, not exactly. Justice Alito has replaced Justice Thomas as the most political charged Supreme Court nomination and approval in recent history.

Justice Thomas had a final vote count of 52-48, with 11 Democrats supporting his approval. Justice Alito had the same final 52-48 vote count, with only 4 Democrats supporting his approval. This Democratic spectacle is truely petty based on Justice Alito's qualifications, in my opinion. It's just politics as usual.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:38 am

TruthSeekerToo wrote: The Senate approved Justice Alito to the Supreme court by the same vote count as for Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, not exactly. Justice Alito has replaced Justice Thomas as the most political charged Supreme Court nomination and approval in recent history.

Justice Thomas had a final vote count of 52-48, with 11 Democrats supporting his approval. Justice Alito had the same final 52-48 vote count, with only 4 Democrats supporting his approval. This Democratic spectacle is truely petty based on Justice Alito's qualifications, in my opinion. It's just politics as usual.
No doubt. :yh_frustr