1.22.2006

The Judge Alito Confirmation

Not being a legal expert, it is sometimes difficult to make an informed opinion on things like the Samuel Alito confirmation. I've read a variety of opinions concerning him, from a number of sources, both liberal and conservative. Being on the more moderate liberal side, there are many things I do not agree with him in terms of world view. It is safe to say he is qualified and intelligent, but I've always had a company-man impression from him (the company in this case being the Bush administration). Chief Justice Roberts, though a conservative, also seemed independent. This is not the feeling I get with Judge Alito.

Geoffrey Stone, a the UC Law Blog, makes a simple and straightforward case as to why Judge Alito should not be confirmed, and it is based on one set of criteria. Whether you agree with him or not, it will make you think, and that is never a bad thing.

2 comments:

Invasion14 said...

Judge Alito views on presidential powers mixed with the current administrations actions of attempting to reduce the powers of the other two branches of government makes me sort of anxious about the future of this country. Alito is sort of a strange paradox to me. When I hear that as a government lawyer he insisted Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law banning machine guns I am sort of outraged at the fact anyone with half a conscious could take any kind of position against the ban of machine guns (this is important) No matter what job they have or want in life. I’m 40 years old and I’ve never encountered a moment in my life when a machine gun was needed and I know for a FACT yes FACT that 99.9999% of the people living in this country are in the same boat. Here is another FACT; Machine Guns are not needed by anyone that lives as a civilian anywhere in the United States of America. That is the end of that discussion on machine guns. And why does it look as if Judge Alito always seems to favor those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Like Judge Alito’s DISSENT yes DISSENT from a ruling that an unauthorized strip-search of a 10 year old girl was unconstitutional. I will give you another FACT out of all the 10-year-old girls in this country at this very moment 100% should be protected by the constitution from an unauthorized strip-search. Yes I bet that might piss some of you off but that is a FACT. Yes I’m going out on a limb and saying every 10-year-old girl in this country at this moment is protected by the constitution I support and believe in. Yup, even the drug dealer’s daughters, that’s just an unfair advantage that the drug dealers have. I’m ok with that. Because if you think strip-searching a ten year old will help win the war on drugs, maybe flushing the Koran down the toilet will work to end the war on terror.

Anonymous said...

I watched most of judge alito's confirmation on CSPAN and unforturnately missed the machine gun and 10-year old questions. what i did hear the judge say time after time in response to questions regarding his decisions or dissents was that he looked at what the law is/was at the time, not at what being pc might have lead how one might rule. the cases involving illegal immigrants that came before him on the appeals court are excellent examples. you should read his testimony on that issue. efforts by some on the senate panel to vilify alito on that issue simply backfired because they hadn't done their homework and didn't know what the appeals court is required by law (congress's law) to do or not do.

implicit in many of judge alito's responses was the message to congress "if you don't like the law, change it, don't expect me as a judge to change it for you" of course there are many in that "illustrious body", as the chairman referred to it all to often (i don't know where he gets his information with respect to the character of congress, because the vast majority of american's think congressmen are as slimy as lawyers and rank the both of them dead last in professional integrity), who, failing to get the laws enacted they want, would like judges and regulators to interpret the law the pc way.

i have heard many congressmen, soldiers and others say, "i may not like what you say, but i'll die for your right to say it". apply that principle to the gun control issue. the 2nd amendment did not restrict gun ownership to bows and arrows. it doesn't restrict the type of firearm one can own in any manner shape or form, period. yes, there ought to be damn strict and enforced gun control laws with respect to people who are not allowed to own/possess guns. (same principle as convicted felons have lost the right to vote). the rest of us have the right, yes right, to own or not own any type of gun we want. just because i own a remington 270, have never fired it at anything other than a target, and i'll bet 99.999% of all americans don't own such a gun, means nothing about whether or not i have the absolute constitutional right to own it. the same can be said about a bow and arrow and a machine gun!