More americans favor Alito

[alphamale]

According to a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, americans favor Alito by 49 - 29 percent. Let's face it - it's a lock. The next question is will Stevens, who is 85, croak while Bush is still in power? If he does, conservatives will have a lock on the USSC for many years.


http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You're certainly not the first fool to gloat prospectively over the Supreme Court.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

You're certainly not the first fool to gloat prospectively over the Supreme Court.

The republicans screwed up the nominations before - but not again. Watch, boy.

[Strict Separationist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The republicans screwed up the nominations before - but not again. Watch, boy.

The Republicans (and, to a lessor extent, the Democrats) have been fucking up with SCOTUS nominations for decades. I honestly do not think politicians understand anything about the Supreme Court if they seriously believe they can reduce a nominee to the sum of his/her expressed views and then accurately predict what s/he will do with legal issues that aren't even on the horizon right now. The more you tighten your litmus test, the more mod-libs will slip through your fingers.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Strict Separationist

The Republicans (and, to a lessor extent, the Democrats) have been fucking up with SCOTUS nominations for decades. I honestly do not think politicians understand anything about the Supreme Court if they seriously believe they can reduce a nominee to the sum of his/her expressed views and then accurately predict what s/he will do with legal issues that aren't even on the horizon right now. The more you tighten your litmus test, the more mod-libs will slip through your fingers.

I don't think so. With Alito, they looked carefully at his record. Look what they did before:

- O'Connor: Reagan wanted to nominate a woman, and ignored warnings of Arizona republicans.

- Souter: the stealth candidate.

- Ginsberg: Republicans rolled over and played dead.

- Harriet Miers: Rewarding a flunkie.

This really isn't quantum mechanics, and apparently republicans FINALLY have learned from the past.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

This really isn't quantum mechanics ...

That's true; more people understand quantum mechanics and are able to make reliable predictions based upon its principles.

[Strict Separationist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

O'Connor

Souter

Ginsberg

Harriet Miers

Warren. Kennedy. Blackmun. Breyer. Holmes. Brennan. White. Frankfurter.

And those are just some of the notable ones. Justices "betray" the President/party who nominated them a thousand times during their tenure. It isn't just a coincidence. It's the nature of having a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. It's the influence of colleagues' views. It's gradual evolution in legal thinking in response to the enormous responsibilities a Justice takes on. It's anything and everything, and it won't change. You can't predetermine how a judge will rule when s/he essentially leaves the constraints of the political process behind for good.

Probably after witnessing some of these disappointments as they develop, you will come to realize it's a systemic "problem," and cannot be attributed to the errors of any one President.

[alphamale]

Blackmun was a sort of stealth candidate, who was nominated after two Nixon conservative appointments were turned down. At this time, the democrats still had their lock on congress, and Nixon being a moderate, not a conservative, threw in the towel. Blackmun's record on the circuit court was mostly about tax issues - not red meat issues that are dealt with today. Although Bush too is a moderate, the republicans control congress, and this was not really a comparable situation.

Breyer was the appointee of Clinton, infamous for his liberal appointments.

Like Blackmun, Kennedy was appointed by a republican (Reagan), who had to deal with a democrat senate, after two conservative nominations had been turned down.

Brennan was a liberal democrat his whole life, and was a recess appointment by eisenhower. According to wikipedia, it was done to woo northeastern catholic democrats, critical voters in the upcoming election, for Eisenhower. This was foolish in the extreme - short term political gain for someone who would rewrite the constitution.

Eisenhower should have known better with Earl Warren. Eisenhower, as a general and president, was an administrative type person, and nominated Warren based on his record as a competent governor of california. Eisenhower apparently didn't interrogate him about his political and constitutional views, although the fact that he was on the ticket with Dewey, an eastern internationalist liberal republican in the 1948 presidential election, should have been a warning.

The idea that justices "mature" on the bench, i.e., become liberals, is a standard mantra of the liberal media (checkout http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...books&v=glance ),
but in fact the reasons republicans have ended up appointing liberals is

1. Inattention, insufficient research.
2. Short term political advantage.
3. Being forced to compromise with a militant democrat senate.
4. Adhering to the old-fashioned gentleman's notion that all that matters is "qualifications".

Bush has a lot on his plate, but none of these should apply if Bush gets a chance at another nomination.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Blackmun was a sort of stealth candidate ...

"Stealth candidate" is now the latest conservative buzzword, and calling Blackmun one does nothing to counter SS's point. His record on the circuit court was very similar to Burger's and he began his career on the Supreme Court as a conservative. He was hardly a "stealth candidate."

... who was nominated after two Nixon conservative appointments were turned down.

There's a bit more to it than that. Haynsworth was ethically challenged and Carswell was, even in the words of the Republican Senator in charge of managing his nomination, a mediocrity. Even so, SS's point stands.

Breyer was the appointee of Clinton, infamous for his liberal appointments.

This is just silly. What Clinton is "infamous" for is not supporting his liberal nominees whenever a hint of Republican opposition manifested itself.

Like Blackmun, Kennedy was appointed by a republican (Reagan), who had to deal with a democrat senate, after two conservative nominations had been turned down.

Again, so what? Is everyone that doesn't rule in accordance with the dittohead party line a "stealth candidate"? You can't effectively analyze Supreme Court dynamics in terms of your superficial politics. In addition to the factors SS enumerated, there is the question of Kennedy's concern with his own legacy, which is becoming apparent to anyone that follows the Court closely.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The idea that justices "mature" on the bench, i.e., become liberals, is a standard mantra of the liberal media (checkout http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...books&v=glance ),

In point of fact your own book contradicts you:

Blackmun embraced equal protection for women and came to reject capital punishment. A Nixon appointee, Blackmun became the Supreme Court's most liberal justice after the retirement of William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. The personality that emerges in Greenhouse's portrayal is that of a self-effacing and scholarly judge, devoid of partisanship, willing to follow his ideas wherever they led him.

but in fact the reasons republicans have ended up appointing liberals is

Simply incorrect.

The reason that Repugs have done this is because they knew that their far-right candidates didn't stand a prayer of being confirmed. So they appointed several centrist judges instead.

Their handwringing disappointment is their own fault, thought. The conservatives are so far to the right that the center looks like the left to them.

[Strict Separationist]

Scarlatti already dealt with some of your other obfuscations, but I'm afraid you missed my point entirely here:

Originally Posted by alphamale

Breyer was the appointee of Clinton, infamous for his liberal appointments.

First of all, no. Clinton disappointed liberal interest groups by appointing very moderate consensus candidates to both the circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Breyer in particular has been the quintessential pragmatist, e.g. stepping into Justice O'Connor's shoes at the end of last term and splitting the baby in the Ten Commandments cases. See McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 03-1693, in which Breyer was the deciding vote in favor of removing two Decalogue displays in front of county courthouses on the basis of the county's purpose in authorizing the displays, and Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, in which Breyer switched sides and voted to uphold a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the Texas state capitol due to the context of other exhibits at the capitol. Breyer also joined a conservative (or moderate, perhaps) bloc in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), voting with the plurality to allow for a reduced form of due process to be applied to American citizens whom the President designates as "enemy combatants."

So, my point wasn't showing how all these Justices turned out to liberals. My point was that all these Justices ended up disappointing the Presidents/parties who seated them. Your feeble rebuttals notwithstanding, the point stands--political realities or inaccurate assessments of character or evolution on the bench of whatever: something always seems to intervene to prevent the Court from swinging too far in one direction or the other. You can gloat about having reinvented the judicial nomination wheel for now, but Court watchers will be having the last laugh a couple decades down the road when conservatives are still bitching about how nothing's changed with the liberal judiciary.

Looking forward to it.

[alphamale]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sauron

In point of fact your own book contradicts you:

More uninformed, dimwitted spurting. You're regurgitating one paragraph from a review. The author is a liberal, but when you read the whole book, you'd see that her thesis is that Blackmun went from a boring run of the mill republican with traditional ideas to an EXCITING, cool, liberal who was willing to rewrite and invent constitutional law. And the idea of him being scholarly, to anyone who has read the detailed criticisms of Roe, is a laugh and a half.

The reason that Repugs have done this is because they knew that their far-right candidates didn't stand a prayer of being confirmed. So they appointed several centrist judges instead.

I guess that's how they got scalia and Thomas, huh? You're clueless.

[D. Scarlatti]

It's always good to start the day off with a laugh, in this case the suggestion that alphamale has actually read Linda Greenhouse's book or, for that matter, any opinions authored by Justice Blackmun.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

It's always good to start the day off with a laugh, in this case the suggestion that alphamale has actually read Linda Greenhouse's book or, for that matter, any opinions authored by Justice Blackmun.

So you start the day off with mental masturbation? And it's good for a laugh?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by alphamale

More uninformed, dimwitted spurting.

No, just facts. Big, honking, nasty facts. Too bad for you.

You're regurgitating one paragraph from a review. The author is a liberal, but when you read the whole book,

1. Which you've never done.

2. And of course, the reviewer for the book, being a random human being, is probably going to be a better gauge of what the book's contents actually are, than someone who, for example -- is a neo-con internet troll.

3. So I think I'll rely on the reviewer's opinion of what this book says, since your reputation -- with regards to accurately reporting what other people have said -- is a reputation that is frankly, in tatters.

I guess that's how they got scalia and Thomas, huh?

Huh? I was answering your question about how the centrist judges got onto the court, in spite of being appointed by Repug presidents.

I didn't say the Repugs were consistent in making mistakes - although that *is* an interesting argument....

[Sauron]

And apparently more Americans are catching on. Even Fake News is wising up:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fox_po...just_1220.html

Fox poll shows Alito support just 35%

A poll conducted by Fox News December 13 - 14 shows dwindling support for Bush SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito. Overall support for Alito has dropped from 46% November 8 - 9 to just 35% among registered voters. This is significantly lower than the 51% support enjoyed by confirmed Bush nominee John Roberts.

The drop in support is across with board, with just 57% of Republicans (down from 75%), 28% of Independents (down from 39%), and a mere 17% of Democrats (down from 26%) reporting that they would vote to confirm Alito, if given the opportunity.