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.
Posts
1 comment:
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!
Post a Comment