Alito: Up or Down?

Published on January 29, 2006 By singrdave In US Domestic

I was reading another person's blog, The Truth is Out There, where he claimed that in order for Democrats to "take back America", apparently they have to block everything the Republicans are trying to accomplish.

Heck, read for yourself:
Regarding whether or not a filibuster is warranted in the atrocious pick of Samuel Alito.

The Democrats must grow a background [backbone?] and scrounge up the 41 votes needed to extend the debate. It is time the debate focused on all the issues facing us, and that Alito is a step in the wrong direction for America's future.

Any Democratic Presidential hopeful (Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Bayh) must stand up (Kerry already has) and support a filibuster. If they don't, they should forfeit the support of Democrats and Progressives. We need spine if we wish to take back America. We need it now.

The thing that bothers me the most about this line of reasoning is that there is no mention of Alito's accomplishments or his abilities. Just the word "atrocious". Atrocious for whom? The Supreme Court? Is he unworthy of being chosen to the high court? Atrocious to Democrats? Maybe he stands for things that are anathema to liberals everywhere. But the author doesn't expound on those. He chooses to turn the topic to the Democrats' responsibility to vote this guy down. If for no other reason than he was chosen by a Republican. He then challenges the Dems' spinal fortitude (or their dirt-digging skills, better than CAP, but I think that was a typo) by goading them into voting Alito down. Not for his own merits, but just for the fact that he was appointed by a Republican. More specifically, GWB.

What are your thoughts?

Comments

singrdave

on Jan 29, 2006

It just reminds me of the Argument Clinic from Monty Python...
An argument is not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

Francis W. Porretto

on Jan 29, 2006

Alito will be confirmed. There are already 60 committed votes for him. The filibuster attempt, if it's actually attempted, will fail.

davad70

on Jan 29, 2006

If for no other reason than he was chosen by a Republican. He then challenges the Dems' spinal fortitude (or their dirt-digging skills, better than CAP, but I think that was a typo) by goading them into voting Alito down. Not for his own merits, but just for the fact that he was appointed by a Republican. More specifically, GWB.

Is there more to the blog? I don't see him say anything about opposing Alito just because he was appointed by a Republican.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 30, 2006

A whole lot of words just to say "Anybody but Bush".

Our system of government was set up so that there is opportunity for opposition in everything. This helps to maintain order by making it so every leader can be questioned by someone in authority to do so.

The other side of the opposition coin is, sometimes those who are in authority to question their counterparts forget that there is more to opposition than mere name calling, and the responsibility is to the nation, not to the party.

So far, all the opposition is proven is that they have no real reason to vote against Judge Alito, so they have to dredge up stupidity just to appear relevant.

davad70

on Jan 30, 2006

So far, all the opposition is proven is that they have no real reason to vote against Judge Alito, so they have to dredge up stupidity just to appear relevant.

Why do you think there was minimal opposition to Roberts?

singrdave

on Jan 30, 2006

Is there more to the blog? I don't see him say anything about opposing Alito just because he was appointed by a Republican.

I posted his article in its entirety. The tenor of his post was that

We need spine if we wish to take back America.

I see that as an "anybody but Bush" attitude as to the worthiness of Samuel Alito.

HC1240

on Jan 30, 2006

So far, all the opposition is proven is that they have no real reason to vote against Judge Alito, so they have to dredge up stupidity just to appear relevant.

And they fail even at that.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 30, 2006

Why do you think there was minimal opposition to Roberts?

I think it's interesting that there was more opposition to Roberts when he was first nominated to replace Justice O'Conner than when he was nominated for the Chief Justice position.

It's obvious that the left fears another conservative on the bench much more than one in the Chief Justice seat. However, for all their bolstering about an "even" court, I can't help but laugh at even the thought that if Kerry won, he or the democrats would feel any responsibility towards an even court.

My guess is that they would find the one or two people even further to the right than the pedophile lover Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg.

Dr Guy

on Jan 30, 2006

I asked a question on my blog on what are the differences between Alito and Roberts. I got one response, and he did not answer the questioin. The Democrats still have not answered the question. They are being puppets in the hands of their radical fringe.

singrdave

on Jan 30, 2006

I can't help but laugh at even the thought that if Kerry won, he or the democrats would feel any responsibility towards an even court.

Let's just nominate Bill Clinton... after all, he is a lawyer! :

Dr Guy

on Jan 30, 2006

Let's just nominate Bill Clinton... after all, he is a lawyer!

Has he actually gotten his law license back? I know he is eligible.

singrdave

on Jan 31, 2006

Has he actually gotten his law license back? I know he is eligible.

I remember hearing buzz about Clinton getting the Chief Justice slot a couple of years ago, long before Rehnquist passed away. Obviously if that was a possibility at one point, it was no longer once reality struck.

I asked a question on my blog on what are the differences between Alito and Roberts.

Roberts was replacing Rehnquist, who was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. The Dems think Alito needs to replace O'Connor ideologically, rather than just as a butt in a seat. They wish Bush would appoint someone who will maintain the balance of the Supreme Court status quo, rather than on the strength of the appointee's personal achievements and his own ideology, happily streamlined with Bush's.

Of course, that is what GHWB thought when he appointed David Souter to the bench. Boy, was he mistaken.

singrdave

on Jan 31, 2006

Apaprently the Democrats "grew a backbone" but not a large enough one to sway Republicans over to the Nay side. Final tally: 58-42, with only one Republican, Chafee of Rhode Island breaking ranks to vote against Sam Alito.
The entire Dem party leadership, including Reid of NV, Kennedy of MA, and Clinton of NY, voted against Alito.

Dr Guy

on Jan 31, 2006

But they are not saying that. They are still pontificating (or were) based upon his rulings, which were not significantly different from Roberts. So they are either lying through their teeth, or dont know what the hell they are talking about.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!