Alito is in

**Reenk Roink** · 01-31-2006, 22:46

Since I tried already once (unsucessfully) to quit the Backroom (it's like crack man) I will hopefully try again, and go out by making a topic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/...go_su_co/alito

Personally, I think that the contreversy surrounding him was overhyped. I did some research on him, and he seems reasonable. Sure there are some things I don't agree with, but then again, most people are like that. I felt bad when his wife cryed...

**Xiahou** · 01-31-2006, 23:26

We're much better off having Alito. It's comical listening to Democratic senators calling him an extremist and saying he won't look out for the little guy considering the most liberal judge, Ginsburg has voted more to curtail personal rights than any others in recent history.

We need more justices willing to stick to the Constitution and not making it up as they go.

**Don Corleone** · 01-31-2006, 23:33

The thing the 'little guy' cares the most about is their ability to hold onto their house. Kelo v. New London is an abomination of American law, and what's more, it hits the poor the hardest. Whose houses are going to get seized to increase property value? Not much you can do to a mansion to juice up the property taxes. A small 1000 foot bungalow on the other hand... well that strip mall developer could do a lot with that piece of land...

What I don't get is why the Democrats hate Alito so much more than Roberts. They seem remarkably similar in attitude, reputation and judicial philosophy from what I've seen.

**Xiahou** · 01-31-2006, 23:46

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

What I don't get is why the Democrats hate Alito so much more than Roberts. They seem remarkably similar in attitude, reputation and judicial philosophy from what I've seen.

The difference is that Roberts replaced Renquist, so they let it slide. I mean they knew Bush would get at least 1 nominee, so if it's one judicial conservative for another they figured they'd keep their powder dry. Well, most thought that anyway... many Democrat senators got plenty of angry letters for not doing more mudslinging at Roberts I understand. But with Alito, he was to replace the more wishy washy O'Connor, so they decided to pull out all the stops.

You're point about the Kelo case only serves to reinforce my previous point. Look at the voted for the decision. It was Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas (the unholy trinity to many libs) along with O'Connor that dissented and the liberal judges all supported the decision. Unfortunately, with Alito replacing O'Connor he still wouldn't be enough to make any difference in that case. We still need one more judicial conservative on the SCOTUS to help stop travesties such as that.

**Kanamori** · 01-31-2006, 23:46

They're morons; I'm stuck w/o any political hopes for parties in the US

They had to make a filibuster for show, nothing else, and it was quite pitiful. Or at least they felt as if they had to.

The idea was to keep the status quo really. The only thing that was lost w/ the replacement of Rehnquinst w/ Roberts is a sense of humor, as far as I've seen so far.

Personally, O'connor was one of my favorites; she kept it quite strictly to precedent and the actual text (or what it has come to mean in the last 100 years), IMO.

**Xiahou** · 01-31-2006, 23:53

IMO, O'Connor was hit or miss. One of her most notable misses that comes to mind is her support for McCain-Feingold, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. She was also, apparently, a big proponent of citing foreign law in rulings- which I also think is ridiculous, for obvious reasons.

**Proletariat** · 01-31-2006, 23:56

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You're point about the Kelo case only serves to reinforce my previous point. Look at the voted for the decision. It was Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas (the unholy trinity to many libs) along with O'Connor that dissented and the liberal judges all supported the decision. Unfortunately, with Alito replacing O'Connor he still wouldn't be enough to make any difference in that case. We still need one more judicial conservative on the SCOTUS to help stop travesties such as that.

This is exactly spot on. Basically all Bush has done so far is replace a moderate for a conservative and a conservative for a conservative. I wish just one more could be replaced with even another O'Connor type. Good on conservative law, but a bit moderate on social issues.

The thing that really pisses me off is hearing the Democratic senators stating that they'dve voted for Alito, if it wasn't a swing-vote seat. Can someone tell me where the f does the Constitution stipulate a swing-vote seat has anything to do with a judges qualifications?

During the '04 elections the Democrats moaned and groaned about how important this term was because of possible seats on the SCOTUS opening up. They lost, the Republicans are putting in their guys, and they're now voting along irresponsibly ideological lines. I can't wait for it to come back and haunt them when the next Democratic pres puts up one of his/her SCOTUS nominees for a Republican Senate and it gets smacked down.

**Kanamori** · 02-01-2006, 00:12

I don't want to hijack this thread into another silly Constitutional debate thread, it's all I used to do really

, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. If it relates, what's the harm of saying, other people think this way too? AFAIK, nobody ever used court decisions from other countries as justification for rulings in this one, which would be ridiculous. Anyways after writing papers on 20+ rulings, I've come to the conclusion that I will not properly understand all of the "in's-and-out's" until I start from the very beginning and go one by one.

I'll just leave on the note that, IMHO, I've found that your favorite three make judgements based on erroneous reasoning just as often as the others, it just happens to be that the others are more progressive, which I feel can often be a flaw in SCOTUS. Unfortunately, the public usually has the notion that if it is Constitutional, it is somehow always OK to pass that law; as if the constitutionality was a justification for passing the law in the first place.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 02-01-2006, 01:46

If it relates, what's the harm of saying, other people think this way too? AFAIK, nobody ever used court decisions from other countries as justification for rulings in this one, which would be ridiculous.

Firstly they are supposed to rule based on the constitution, and secondly the justification that we should change our laws since other people are doing it is a logical fallacy. An idea is not inherently good because of how many support it.

Back on topic...

BOO-YAH! Eat it, dems!! Bwahaha!!

Crazed Rabbit

**Kanamori** · 02-01-2006, 01:56

Firstly they are supposed to rule based on the constitution

And if it's not used as a justification, citing other law only shows that others have done it too, which is just clutter IMO, but quite different than saying it is somehow unjust and forcing other laws on us.

secondly the justification that we should change our laws since other people are doing it is a logical fallacy. An idea is not inherently good because of how many support it.

Which is what I said:

AFAIK, nobody ever used court decisions from other countries as justification for rulings in [the united states], which would be ridiculous.

**Ice** · 02-01-2006, 04:44

Good. I'm glad he's a justice.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 02-01-2006, 05:21

It just kills me that the vote was very close compared to that of Ginsberg, for example. She's so far left it's sad, but she got by almost without opposition, if I recall. But a (comparitively) centrist nominee only barely makes it.

And he's from New Jersey. W00t!