Oh God, it's a dream come true.  Alito, aka Scalito for being like Scalia, is the pick.

THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH!

Is your elation based on his political ideology, or his constitutional ideology?

Is your elation based on his political ideology, or his constitutional ideology?


Both.

Alito will be an original-intent type who doesn't follow the "living document" garbage.  The only way the U.S. constitution is "living" is through constitutional amendments.

the author of "the right man" was all ecstatic about this pick too. i'd never heard of the man, but yeah, based on the enthusiasm from the right, i'm scared senseless.

hell, i'd leave the country if my passport didn't have to have a chip in it!

Both.

Alito will be an original-intent type who doesn't follow the "living document" garbage.  The only way the U.S. constitution is "living" is through constitutional amendments.


I don't necessarily agree with the living document philosophy, but a lot of smart, well-educated lawyers with a lot of integrity subscribe to it, so why is it 'garbage'?

I don't necessarily agree with the living document philosophy, but a lot of smart, well-educated lawyers with a lot of integrity subscribe to it, so why is it 'garbage'?


Its either a living document or a dead one.  Although it never usees the work, it sanctioned slavery and gave slave owners extra representation for their slaves (the 3/5th rule).  Ratified in 1789, it allowed the slave trade to continue until 1807.  It allowed states to deny the vote to women until 1920.  Most important, although it spells out a series of garantees in the Bill of Rights, they conclude with the admonition that the people have other rights, not enumerated.  It is mainly for the couirts to decide what those rights are, and how far they extend.  Like the "Miranda" rights, and Roe V Wade.

i think this whole thing with intentions is one of the chief fallacies of our age. it's a real common thing to hear people say these days, with complete certitude, well, so-and-so had good intentions but... they say that all the time about the iraq war. well, bush had good intentions but... i'm like, how do you know his intentions are good? because he said so?

vis-a-vis this strict constructionism stuff, it's exactly the same problem. no one knows how the "founding fathers" would interpret certain glaring ambiguities in the constitution, it's a written text and like any other it reflects and embodies notions only imperfectly, and as time goes on it becomes less clear how to interpret it. it's that deconstruction stuff, we talked about it a lot in college and some of it's tripe but i think they're definitely right about that, divining intentions from written text is basically impossible. at least to do it perfectly, or scientifically. there's always some guessing involved.

so i think when people say "strict constructionism," they really tend to mean, "i like MY interpretation so let's pretend it's what the founding fathers meant." and yes, now I'M guessing at the intentions of the strict constructionists. i advance this as more of a hypothesis.

It allowed states to deny the vote to women until 1920.

And that was changed by.....a constitutional amendment.

The constitution means what it says.  Not what five judges at any given time think or want it to mean.  The freedom of speech parts give the people the right to free speech.  It did 200+ years ago, it does today and it always will as long as the house, senate and the states don't vote to repeal that part of the constitution.

The constitution is only changed via constitutional amendment.  It is not a living document whose words you can stretch to mean anything.

The constitution means what it says. 

yeah, but what is that, exactly? take the second amendment. some people interpret it to mean that people have the right to own guns in case the government becomes tyrannical. others say it says people have the right to own guns in case the government has to marshal a citizen's militia against some invading force. totally opposite interpretations. but if you look at the actual language of the amendment, it's almost completely ambiguous on the subject. you really can't tell WHAT it means. so people on various sides of the issue advocate for their interpretation and pretend they have some special insight into the frame of mind of the people who wrote the thing.

basically it's a living document whether the constructionists like it or not.

And that was changed by.....a constitutional amendment.

The constitution means what it says.  Not what five judges at any given time think or want it to mean.  The freedom of speech parts give the people the right to free speech.  It did 200+ years ago, it does today and it always will as long as the house, senate and the states don't vote to repeal that part of the constitution.

The constitution is only changed via constitutional amendment.  It is not a living document whose words you can stretch to mean anything.


But even if you don't 'stretch', you have to still decide what the text means.  What does it mean for Congress to "make a law establishing religion"?  What does it mean for "the people" to have a right to bear arms?  

Even if you disagree, isn't it reasonable to imagine that if what they meant was "each citizen shall have the unfettered right to accumulate whatever firearms he deems necessary for his personal safety, security and recreation" they maybe would have said that?  Even if someone wants to go "just by the text", when the text is ambiguous, you still have to use judgment to figure out what they meant.

yeah, but what is that, exactly? take the second amendment. some people interpret it to mean that people have the right to own guns in case the government becomes tyrannical. others say it says people have the right to own guns in case the government has to marshal a citizen's militia against some invading force. totally opposite interpretations. but if you look at the actual language of the amendment, it's almost completely ambiguous on the subject. you really can't tell WHAT it means. so people on various sides of the issue advocate for their interpretation and pretend they have some special insight into the frame of mind of the people who wrote the thing.

basically it's a living document whether the constructionists like it or not.


GET OUT OF MY HEAD, DAMMIT!  ::)

And that was changed by.....a constitutional amendment.

The constitution means what it says.  Not what five judges at any given time think or want it to mean.  The freedom of speech parts give the people the right to free speech.  It did 200+ years ago, it does today and it always will as long as the house, senate and the states don't vote to repeal that part of the constitution.

The constitution is only changed via constitutional amendment.  It is not a living document whose words you can stretch to mean anything.


Its not a matter of "meaning anything", and no one says it does.  The Constitution does 2 things.  First, it establishes the duties, responsibilities, and limitations of the three branches of government.  Second, it sets forth a list of specific rights reserved to the people, but explicitly states that those enumerated are not exclusive.  Except as amended (direct election of senators F E) those duties, responsibilities, and limitations have remained consistant.  It is in the area of rights that change has occured, and the tendancy has been to expand  the rights of citizens to protection from the arbitrary or capricious acts of government at all levels.  As a conservative, I would have thought that you would favor a court that expanded on individual rightsrather than one which tried to restrict them in the name of initial intent.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD, DAMMIT!   ::)


:D

basically it's a living document whether the constructionists like it or not.


So you think and want the constitution's meaning to change with each new judge?

So you think and want the constitution's meaning to change with each new judge?


it's not what i "want," i think it's an epistemological reality, there's just no way around it. as a proud and ticked-off liberal i have my own ways in which i want the court to behave -- i want to see women's freedom of choice preserved, i want to see firearms sensibly regulated, etc. -- and if i were living in the best of all my possible worlds i'd want these interpretations to be understood as being what the constitution inherently means. but that's not the case, and it's not going to be the case for the next couple of decades as the constitution is going to be interpreted in a more conservative vein. people are going to pretend that their interpretation is the invariably correct one but that isn't going to make it so.

Both.

Alito will be an original-intent type who doesn't follow the "living document" garbage.  The only way the U.S. constitution is "living" is through constitutional amendments.

The gentlemen who drafted the Constitution wore funny wigs and believed Black people were sub-human, so pardon me if I'm rather skeptical about all this "original-intent" bafflegab.  Not one of those 19th century gentlemen of privilege "intended" for women, Negroes, Jews, or Papists to serve on their court--this means you Ginsberg, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito!

It is clear as a mountain stream Bush sent Miers up there just to say he did nominate a woman, never mind how unqualified.

"Original intent" is only code for the kind jurist who will pose no threat to the consolidation of corporate power, who will not attempt to impose state control on the vagaries of capitalist corruption, who will insure the children of the rich shall not have to compete on a level field with the children of the poor, who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, who will not make a fuss about privacy for private citizens, who will not call to task America's worship of Mammon.

I see Civil Rights as a ship pulling out of the harbor, and I'm standing on the dock waving goodbye!  I can see myself setting a boquet of a dozen white roses on the grave of Civil Rights...
Civil Rights 1954--2005 R.I.P.
::)

my new #1 favorite post on this board. seriously.

I see Civil Rights as a ship pulling out of the harbor, and I'm standing on the dock waving goodbye!  I can see myself setting a boquet of a dozen white roses on the grave of Civil Rights...
Civil Rights 1954--2005 R.I.P.
::)



i've felt this too, and it makes me so sad. over the past few years i've had to question my assumption that we've been making inevitable progress toward a better society. we really seem to be moving backward, you know? and the death of rosa parks is a kind of tragic punctuation mark, a full caesura.  :\'(

my new #1 favorite post on this board. seriously.

i've felt this too, and it makes me so sad. over the past few years i've had to question my assumption that we've been making inevitable progress toward a better society. we really seem to be moving backward, you know? and the death of rosa parks is a kind of tragic punctuation mark, a full caesura.  :\'(

It's a reeeeaaallly bitter irony that Rosa Parks is lying in honor and Bush has just nominated a freeking fascist to the Supreme Court!
>:(

or Papists to serve on their court--this means you Ginsberg, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito!


That's pretty much every one of the nine memers of the U.S. supreme court.

Roberts: Catholic
Scalia: Catholic
Thomas: Catholic
O'Connor: Catholic
Kennedy: Catholic
Souter: Catholic
Stevens: Protestant
Ginsburg: Jewish
Breyer: Jewish

And Alito is Catholic too.

who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade...

Is that why Alito voted to uphold partial birth abortion?  I don't know if Alito is a partisan, but it's obvious from his rulings that he does not bring his agenda to the courts.

Civil Rights 1954--2005 R.I.P.

I'd had the eye rolling smiley too.

and the death of rosa parks is a kind of tragic punctuation mark, a full caesura

Is this Bush's fault too?  Maybe she's still be alive if the evil republicans didn't defeat Hillary care back in 1993.

Is this Bush's fault too?  Maybe she's still be alive if the evil republicans didn't defeat Hillary care back in 1993.  ::)


honestly, i don't think any of this stuff is bush's fault per se. it's really hard to look at bush on television and think that dude is actually running anything. he's so conspicuously unengaged. i think the real question is access -- he gets into office, and these other characters, rove and PNAC and rumsfeld, start working their power-aggregating-more-power agenda. and meanwhile GW himself chills out with the two-hour gym workouts and the two-month vacations in crawford.

bush to me actually seems like a pretty nice guy. an inveterate partier, basically good-natured, more-or-less apathetic to the world around him. i've known a lot of those guys throughout my life and typically find them pretty affable. but i SURE don't think he's running this little game we're seeing unfolding.

That's pretty much every one of the nine memers of the U.S. supreme court.

Roberts: Catholic
Scalia: Catholic
Thomas: Catholic
O'Connor: Catholic
Kennedy: Catholic
Souter: Catholic
Stevens: Protestant
Ginsburg: Jewish
Breyer: Jewish

And Alito is Catholic too.


And your old pal Patrick Henry is spinning is his grave!
:D

So-called "partial birth abortion" is a bogeyman.  The late-term dilation and extraction procedure the anti-choicers are flogging as "partial birth abortion" is so rarely performed the issue is negligable. 
Better access to pre-natal care, less economic stress during pregnancy, longer perinatal hospital care, and on the other side, better access to quality neonatal care would save and improve a heck of a lot of lives.  However, niggardly anti-choicers don't want to spend tax money on pregnant women and new mothers in need.  They just want to scream a lot about "save the babies!"  The point-of-view of the anti-choice movement is terribly myopic and self-serving.

So-called "partial birth abortion" is a bogeyman.  The late-term dilation and extraction procedure the anti-choicers are flogging as "partial birth abortion" is so rarely performed the issue is negligable. 


Then I'll do you one better.  Alito ruled one time that a fetus is not a human being.

Then I'll do you one better.  Alito ruled one time that a fetus is not a human being.

I saw Tony Perkins on C-Span this morning.  I mean the Family Research Council guy, not the Norman Bates guy!  Anyway, the point of view he and the Right articulate is that the courts must not be a representative legislative body, but a forum for interpreting laws passed by the legislature.  It's up to the voters in each state to decide what the laws regarding the fetus shall be.  Conservatives seem less concerned with Alito personally thinks about abortion, but that he believes the matter should be settled by state legislatures.
I find this line of reasoning persuasive.  The reason I'm nervous about it is I do not trust the Conservatives on the court NOT to become activist in favor of right-wing causes.
The eminent domain debacle this summer is a good example.  Regardless of which justices voted for it, it's an example of the court acting in a manner which makes nobody happy--nobody except some greedy private developers.  I have no confidence that a far-right court will not succomb to the pressures of big business and big politics.  Didn't you see Scalia duck-hunting with Dubya?  That ought to give pause to everybody no matter what your political persuasion is.

Then I'll do you one better.  Alito ruled one time that a fetus is not a human being.


Citation, please.

Nancy Pfotenhauer, one of those pro-lifer dipsy-doodles, describes Alito as "aggressively neutral" on abortion rights.
:D