No more foolin' around: Bush taps Alito

No we’ll see some real teeth-gnashing!

It’s early yet but I don’t have a huge problem with this guy. He’s clearly a conservative but doesn’t come off like a complete nutjob and has the qualifications. I won’t like how he rules, probably, in alot of cases but them’s the breaks and I hope liberal politicians point out, liberally, why the Supreme Court suddenly flipped on the public as he does so. In the meantime, unless something really loony comes out, well - them’s the breaks. If the Democrats can fight him without hurting themselves too much, fine, but this guy doesn’t seem to be a Bork as much as a better-tempered, more reasonable, Scalia whom even most Democrats will admit is a sharp jurist.

He voted for spousal notification in Casey when it was on appeal. I don’t see how the left can let him on the bench regardless of his qualifications.

Note that he wasn’t Bush’s favorite pick, it’s what he was forced to do by the radical right wing after Meirs.

He’s playing to the base, but if the dems are smart they’ll use this as an opportunity to expose the president as the puppet of a radical minority.

Alito has some very radical opinions that won’t sit well with the (truly) Libertarian crowd, unless you think that marriage allows ownership of your wife. He’s loaded with other unpopular and radical opinions.

Can Bush lose 2 in a row on the Court? I think he’s about to find out.

Scalia is a fucking half-wit. His jurisprudence is the equivalent of saying, “You didn’t say we couldn’t!” Unfortunately, the Constitution does say you can’t do anything it doesn’t say you can. If you want pithy insults, you are better to become a student of Oliver Wendel Holmes.

I dunno, my response to that is “what else have you got”? I’d really need to see a pattern of cromagnonism to assume this guy thinks “women belong to their men”. He may well think that because it takes two to tango both partners should be informed what’s going on with the shared product of said tango. I’m no legal scholar here so I’ll probably wait until I’ve read some more deconstruction of what the details are before I make a bigger fool out of myself. Still…what else have you got?

Tried to strike down the Family Medical Leave Act. Overturned by SCOTUS.

Is apparently OK with full body strip searches of mothers and daughters when the search warrant calls only for a search of the husband and his “property”.

In one opinion against a hotel chain, his ruling sure looks like it says that discrimination in hiring based on race and disabilities is fine and dandy.

trigger: Did you copy that from dailykos or are these the standard Dem talking points?

I wonder which Dems had a dossier on Alito ready to put out on the wire as soon as he got the nod?

Actually, I thought he’d be the nominee to replace Rehnquist. That’s where I learned of his minority opinion in Casey, as well as his other controversial opinions.

Nice projecting there, though.

I don’t think he’s a nut or a crazy, but I do think he’s…interestingly inconsistent.

Does he really think he can get this guy through with a 38% approval rating?

This is the guy’s RECORD, not talking points. There things he DID not opinons on them.

I’m glad you consider his RECORD a threat. We’re in total agreement on that.

Talking points are what we’re going to see coming from the right as they try to defend these positions, and stealth out his radical record acceptable to the mainstream.

See the similarities in this and your points? I’m just trying to track the flow of anti-Alito information. I’m curious, not an evil Republican. I promise.

Ok Andrew, so every Democrat on the Internet went out and researched Alito independently and came up with the same complaints in the same order at the same time?

No, but that still doesn’t make them talking points.

Exposing someone’s record isn’t an inherently partisan act. There was a time, not so long ago, when that was what the news used to do.

You can have opinions on his record, and I’ll agree with that, but facts aren’t politcal.


Whew, I feel much better now.

Seriously, I woke up this morning and wanted to know what not to like about Alito, so I checked dailykos. A few hours later I see the same list on Qt3 and I got curious. I don’t mean to say the arguments aren’t valid.

Hey spaz, one person had one similar list. BUT OMG!!!

Go check any major news site and they are highlighting the issues, no big bad conspiracy except for what meds you are off of this morning.


So the answers are “AP wire” and “Stroker’s a dickhead”. Thanks chet.

I really don’t see where you get that interpretation from what is there. Please clarify what you mean. Note: I am not arguing the merits of the case itself at this time, just questioning where you got that rather incendiary snippet from…

Can Bush lose 2 in a row on the Court? I think he’s about to find out.

Some lawyers I was speaking to were of the opinion that rather than the collosal, what-the-fuck blunder Miers appears to represent she was a useful fall…err…guy to clear the path for a less spectacular nominee. After all, Roberts is going to be a tough act to follow no matter what.

Also, Stroker, nice catch.

Me neither. His minority opinion in that case was that a wife had to get the consent of her husband before doctors could perform an abortion.

My interpretation is that he was of the opinion that mother and father have joint ownership of the fetus.

Which I don’t agree with. Until it is born, a fetus belongs to the person who has to carry it.