January 12, 200620 yr Just wanted to see what everyone thinks about the hearings thus far. Although I consider myself slightly left of center, I think he should be confirmed unless something really bad comes out in the next day or two. He's certainly well qualified. The CAP situation is interesting, but it is not enough for him not to get confirmed.
January 12, 200620 yr He'll get confirmed. He seems right enough to appease conservatives while ambiguous enough that the Sandra Day O'Connor "wild-card" seat will be, at least in some respects, maintained.
January 12, 200620 yr I think he will get confirmed too..I think. But I don't think he will be an ambigious vote. This guy is going to be a solid rock on the right wing block of the court. At least Roberts said Roe was settled precedent. Alito didnt. Plus this is the one the right really was pleased with and was willing to take the ambiguity of Roberts for. Hopefully Roberts ends up being not too conservative(at least from my perspective). I think the court will end up on this spectrum: Solid Left: Ginsburg Stevens Breyer Swing Souter Kennedy Right Roberts Solid Right Scalia Alito Thomas
January 12, 200620 yr I think he will get confirmed too..I think. But I don't think he will be an ambigious vote. This guy is going to be a solid rock on the right wing block of the court. At least Roberts said Roe was settled precedent. Alito didnt. Plus this is the one the right really was pleased with and was willing to take the ambiguity of Roberts for. Hopefully Roberts ends up being not too conservative(at least from my perspective). I think the court will end up on this spectrum: Solid Left: Ginsburg Stevens Breyer Swing Souter Kennedy Right Roberts Solid Right Scalia Alito Thomas Good breakdown, I really like the makeup of the court now.
January 12, 200620 yr I would prefer not to see Alito get confirmed, but I don't see how he won't be.
January 12, 200620 yr Author I think he will get confirmed too..I think. But I don't think he will be an ambigious vote. This guy is going to be a solid rock on the right wing block of the court. At least Roberts said Roe was settled precedent. Alito didnt. Plus this is the one the right really was pleased with and was willing to take the ambiguity of Roberts for. Hopefully Roberts ends up being not too conservative(at least from my perspective). I think the court will end up on this spectrum: Solid Left: Ginsburg Stevens Breyer Swing Souter Kennedy Right Roberts Solid Right Scalia Alito Thomas I think that's about right, except I don't think Alito is going to be as right wing and Scalia and Thomas. If there was another category between "Right" and "Solid Right" that's where he would fit in. Another interesting thing is that Justice Kennedy started off in the "Right" category and is now a swing vote. He's become much more moderate in the last few years. Perhaps Roberts and Scalia will surprise us and end up being more moderate than we anticipated.
January 12, 200620 yr What chance does Stevens have of making it to 2008? Havent heard of too many health problems. Hopefully he makes it. Or the dems can reduce the senate lead in 06, perhaps forcing Bush to nominate a moderate in the event of Stevens' dying.
January 12, 200620 yr Author I am now opposed to confirming Judge Alito. He would not say whether a law passed by Congress and signed by the President denying citizenship to a child born to illegal immigrant parents would be unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Clearly, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass such a law. The only conceivable argument supporters of this kind of law can make is that illegal immigrants, and thus their children, are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, illegal immigrants or their children that commit a crime are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and can thus go to jail. In addition, illegal immigrants pay taxes when they work, can get sued in court, etc. I just don't see how anyone could make a reasonable argument about this.
January 13, 200620 yr This guy is an inveterate liar. He lied about Vanguard, he lied about CAP, he lied about his intentions, hell, he's probably lying about his "humble beginnings"! Not to mention that, but he was on an Appellate Court that often OPPOSED him, often responding to his rulings to the tune of "WTF?!!" Top it off with his support for a unitary executive (read: DICTATOR!) and his opposition to civil rights and rights for the disabled (IDEA, Section 504, ADA), and I'd say that if Bill Nelson confirms this piece of crap, consider my vote for him rescinded!
January 13, 200620 yr His wife obviously can't take the heat, so she got out of the kitchen and got onto the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance.
January 13, 200620 yr His wife obviously can't take the heat, so she got out of the kitchen and got onto the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance. LOL, well played! :thumbup
January 13, 200620 yr Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And obviously I know your political leanings now, now that you've used the standard vocabulary of the Fascist right.
January 13, 200620 yr Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And obviously I know your political leanings now, now that you've used the standard vocabulary of the Fascist right. It took you that long? I've made it pretty clear where I lean politically in the past, numerous times infact. Am I a fascist? No. Am I a Republican? Yes. Is Teddy a ? :mischief
January 13, 200620 yr His wife actually started crying when a Republican was vouching for Alito, for the record.
January 13, 200620 yr The word "moonbat" is a Fascist term. That's why I associate it with the Fascist Right. Do you have a guilty conscience or something? If not, then don't use it.
January 13, 200620 yr I think it's a little crazy that this guy belonged to an organization that wanted Princeton to only admit white males to the school.
January 13, 200620 yr is tony back or something with the term moonbat being used? i dont like alito anyway, so i'm pretty sure we know where i stand.
January 13, 200620 yr Moonbat!!! :lol Haven't heard that one in quite a while... Whatever happended to that guy all the Liberals ran off of here??? :mischief2
January 13, 200620 yr Author I think it's a little crazy that this guy belonged to an organization that wanted Princeton to only admit white males to the school. I don't think he actually beloned to this organization - there is no evidence he ever signed up, went to meetings, subscribed to newsletters, etc. I think he put CAP down just to get a job in the super conservative Reagan administration. I wouldn't say he's a racist. I am a little upset that Princeton got so much bad publicity in the last few days - it's progressed a lot and I would say it's a pretty welcoming campus now.
January 13, 200620 yr Moonbat!!! :lol Haven't heard that one in quite a while... Whatever happended to that guy all the Liberals ran off of here??? :mischief2 he actually ran himself off and then tried to come back and was ran off afterward due to his stupid crap the first time.
January 13, 200620 yr I am now opposed to confirming Judge Alito. He would not say whether a law passed by Congress and signed by the President denying citizenship to a child born to illegal immigrant parents would be unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Clearly, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass such a law. The only conceivable argument supporters of this kind of law can make is that illegal immigrants, and thus their children, are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, illegal immigrants or their children that commit a crime are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and can thus go to jail. In addition, illegal immigrants pay taxes when they work, can get sued in court, etc. I just don't see how anyone could make a reasonable argument about this. Yeah that anti-immigrant policy makes me want to puke. Those idiots don't realize that it's inconceivable for illegal immigrants to come here for the sole reason of having a kid who can then make them legal because he is a citizen. They have to wait 18 years to sponsor their parents, they then have to wait for their parents to actually get approval, and then their parents wont be able to come in because they were illegal before. So the law pretty much punishes people born and raised in the USA because something their parents did 18 years ago. It exposes the underlying xenophobia of a lot of people in the anti-immigrant movement.
January 13, 200620 yr Author I am now opposed to confirming Judge Alito. He would not say whether a law passed by Congress and signed by the President denying citizenship to a child born to illegal immigrant parents would be unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Clearly, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass such a law. The only conceivable argument supporters of this kind of law can make is that illegal immigrants, and thus their children, are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, illegal immigrants or their children that commit a crime are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and can thus go to jail. In addition, illegal immigrants pay taxes when they work, can get sued in court, etc. I just don't see how anyone could make a reasonable argument about this. Yeah that anti-immigrant policy makes me want to puke. Those idiots don't realize that it's inconceivable for illegal immigrants to come here for the sole reason of having a kid who can then make them legal because he is a citizen. They have to wait 18 years to sponsor their parents, they then have to wait for their parents to actually get approval, and then their parents wont be able to come in because they were illegal before. So the law pretty much punishes people born and raised in the USA because something their parents did 18 years ago. It exposes the underlying xenophobia of a lot of people in the anti-immigrant movement. Couldn't have said it any better.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.