Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court

[jacktruth]

Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court

Monday, October 31, 2005



WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday nominated Samuel Alito (search) to the Supreme Court.

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges of America and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of judicial experience," Bush said in making the announcement. "He's scholarly, fair-minded and principled and these qualities will serve him well on the highest court in the land."

The White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement. If approved, Alito — considered a conservative federal judge — will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), a moderate.

The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

A senior GOP leadership aide said leading lawmakers are pushing for hearings and a final vote on the Senate floor by the Christmas holiday.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (search). But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

The White House hopes the choice mends a rift in the Republican Party caused by the failed nomination of Miers, a Bush loyalist, and puts his embattled presidency on a path to political recovery.

With the rebuke of Bush's previous nominee, Harriet Miers (search), the rising death toll in Iraq, his slow-footed response to Katrina and last Friday's indictment of top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Bush's approval ratings are at the lowest ebb of his presidency.

Polls show Democrats and most independents don't approve of his job performance, leaving the conservative wing of his party the only thing keeping Bush afloat politically.

Miers bowed out last Thursday after three weeks of bruising criticism from members of Bush's own party who argued that the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidant had thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.

Conservatives cheered at the decision, even if they perceived her reasoning to be a pretext. They said Miers was given a graceful out because she was not qualified to sit on the nation's highest court.

"We were not happy [with the Miers nomination[, and there was concern among senators in the Senate, Republicans and some Democrats, about the qualifications of this nominee. I'm sure she's a fine lady and a good lawyer in many respects. But there was concern about, you know, the qualifications for the Supreme Court, so it was putting a cloud over things," Sen. Trent Lott R-Miss., told "FOX News Sunday."

If he is confirmed by the Senate, Alito would join another Bush pick on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts (search). O'Connor has been a decisive swing vote in a host of affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases.

Bush administration officials said Alito was virtually certain from the start to get the nod from the moment Miers backed out. The 55-year-old jurist was Bush's favorite choice of the judges in the last set of deliberations but he settled instead on someone outside what he calls the "judicial monastery," the officials said.

Bush believes that Alito has not only the right experience and conservative ideology for the job, but also has a temperament suited to building consensus on the court. A former prosecutor, Alito has experience off the bench that factored into Bush's thinking, the officials said.

"The president has made an excellent choice today which reflects his commitment to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas," said Kay Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

"It's a pretty predictable move from a politically crippled president," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan. "Toss out a judicial extremist to pacify his base and provoke a fight that he hopes changes the subject away from indictments and Iraq and Katrina and a soft economy."

While Alito is expected to win praise from Bush's allies on the right, Democrats have served notice they will fight it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems."

Unlike Miers, who has never been a judge, Alito, a jurist from New Jersey, has been a strong conservative voice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, seated him there in 1990.

Judicial conservatives praise Alito's 15 years on the Philadelphia-based court, a tenure that gives him more appellate experience than almost any previous Supreme Court nominee. They say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced. They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Alito was nominated by the first President Bush to serve on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. A former deputy assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese in the mid-1980s, he also worked in President Reagan's solicitor general office.

He is known for being quiet, reserved and well-versed in constitutional law, and has a record that should please many conservatives. However, that record could also work against him.

Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift said Alito's role as the sole dissenter on the 3rd Circuit court in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women to inform their husbands before they got an abortion, could cause Democratic objections. The circuit court's decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"That (case) certainly would come up. I think we know the least about him. There is a fight no matter what. It depends on how big a fight the White House wants and how big a fight the Democrats dare weigh depending on the credentials of the nominee," Clift told FOX News.


Liberal groups, on the other hand, note Alito's moniker and say his nomination raises troubling concerns, especially when it comes to his record on civil rights and reproductive rights. Alito is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.

In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," Alito wrote.

The case ended up at the Supreme Court where the justices, in a 6-3 decision struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cited Alito's reasoning in his own dissent.

Alito, an Italian-American who grew up in Trenton, N.J., has a resume filled with stepping stones to the high court. He was educated at Princeton University and earned a law degree from Yale University, the president's alma mater.

FOXNews.com's Sharon Kehnemui Liss and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

---------------------------

You know that when you piss off Harry Reid, it's a great day for conservatives. Happy halloween to the democratic party!!

[Drbio]

Judge Samuel Alito
Born 1950
Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Nominated by former President Bush in 1990
Former U.S. attorney; some liberals have dubbed him "Scalito" or "Scalia lite" for his similarly conservative views and pointedly written rulings. Women's rights groups point to a Pennsylvania law he voted to uphold requiring women to tell their husbands before having an abortion. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1992.

[Drbio]

The line is drawn...prepare for a nasty confirmation hearing.

[kg_veteran]

Sounds like Bush is saying, "Okay, conservatives, you wanted it, you got it."

[Mavdog]

There will be no fireworks, Alito is very much like Roberts and IMHO the Alito confirmation hearings will be just about as non-eventful as the Roberts hearings were.

Alito is a well educated jurist who appears to have the utmost in professionalism and integrity. He has the resume (unlike Miers) that speaks to his qualifications. He may be conservative, but it seems he is not locked into any ideology.

[chumdawg]

True, true. Politics can be such a fun sport to watch sometimes. This should be one of those times!

Guy sounds really solid to me, what from little I've read.

[kg_veteran]

He seems very solid to me. I probably would have preferred a woman to replace O'Connor, but I'm actually very pleased with this pick. Probably should have been the pick in the first place.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
There will be no fireworks, Alito is very much like Roberts and IMHO the Alito confirmation hearings will be just about as non-eventful as the Roberts hearings were.

I hope you are correct. The people of the United States deserve that.

Alito is a well educated jurist who appears to have the utmost in professionalism and integrity. He has the resume (unlike Miers) that speaks to his qualifications. He may be conservative, but it seems he is not locked into any ideology.

You just can't help yourself can you? You inject negativity (the Miers comment) into every thread. It added nothing to the topic at hand but only was injected as a self-serving injection of crap.

Anyways.... Alito is conservative and a damn fine jurist. I am happy with this pick.

[jacktruth]

What is most frustrating to me is that this nominee will probably not get a vote in time to rule on the abortion cases coming up on Nov. 30.

Bush should have put Alito first.

[reeds]

A woman would have been a nice choice..perhaps a Hispanic in the supreme court would have been a nice addition...instead, its the good old boys club..yuk yuk yuk

[kg_veteran]

I think the guy's qualifications speak for themselves.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: reeds
A woman would have been a nice choice..perhaps a Hispanic in the supreme court would have been a nice addition...instead, its the good old boys club..yuk yuk yuk

That's pretty retarded even for you reeds. And the yuk yuk yuk thing is just gay gay gay.

God forbid this man's outstanding qualifications would count for anything.

[FishForLunch]

Bush should have selected a Black Hispanic Woman who is a lesbian.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio

You just can't help yourself can you? You inject negativity (the Miers comment) into every thread. It added nothing to the topic at hand but only was injected as a self-serving injection of crap.

Anyways.... Alito is conservative and a damn fine jurist. I am happy with this pick.

apparently the miers affair was THAT embarrassing, especially to those who praised the choice. to mention it is called "negativity" (yeah, I'd say it was a NEGATIVE!) and also it is deemed "crap".

too funny.

[Drbio]

The dreaded double post. It just bears stating twice how stuck on stupid you actually are.

*sigh*

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
There will be no fireworks, Alito is very much like Roberts and IMHO the Alito confirmation hearings will be just about as non-eventful as the Roberts hearings were.

Once again....a mavdog post is dead ass wrong. All of the upper echelon dims are lining up to rip Alito and are dropping the old filibuster line all over town. So much for no fireworks.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio

Once again....a mavdog post is dead ass wrong. All of the upper echelon dims are lining up to rip Alito and are dropping the old filibuster line all over town. So much for no fireworks.

wow, now your embarassment of being a Miers enthusiast is leading you to immolation.
once again you're incorrect.
how about this quote:

[quote]
after a flurry of filibuster talk immediately following Alito's nomination, Senate Democrats now are taking a wait-and-see stance.

"I don't know a single Democrat who is saying that it's time for a filibuster, that we should really consider it," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, after meeting with Alito on Wednesday. "It's way too early."

Nelson said Alito had assured him "that he wants to go to the bench without a political agenda, that he is not bringing a hammer and chisel to hammer away and chisel away on existing law."

Durbin said the judge never refused to answer any of his questions — as Miers and John Roberts had during their private interviews — and that Alito told him he saw a right to privacy in the Constitution, one of the building blocks of the court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision.

Alito said that when it came to his dissent on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses, that "he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge," Durbin recounted.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - You said there would be no "fireworks". Citing the fact that the Democrats may not use the filibuster doesn't mean that this won't be a grueling confirmation process. All chest-beating and bravado aside, I think you're absolutely wrong. There will be "fireworks". There's going to be a ton of posturing and accusatory interrogation. The Democrats may not ultimately use the filibuster, but if they don't it will be because they don't want it to blow up in their face.

This nomination will be hotly contested. Believe that.

[Drbio]

Mavdog being deadass wrong is a given. Once again he backtracks away from a seminal post in a thread.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - You said there would be no "fireworks". Citing the fact that the Democrats may not use the filibuster doesn't mean that this won't be a grueling confirmation process. All chest-beating and bravado aside, I think you're absolutely wrong. There will be "fireworks". There's going to be a ton of posturing and accusatory interrogation. The Democrats may not ultimately use the filibuster, but if they don't it will be because they don't want it to blow up in their face.

This nomination will be hotly contested. Believe that.

my view of what "fireworks" entails would be a filibuster, or at the very least strong condemnation of the nomination by democratic leadership. what I posted were laudatory expressions by the democratic leadership. Alito has emerged from every one on one meeting with expressions of praise from the senators.

as you were correct in stating kg, we are at the beginning of the hearings, first base so to speak and there's still much to be seen and heard. perhaps there will be, perhaps there won't. but so far you must agree, there has been no fireworks. none.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Mavdog being deadass wrong is a given. Once again he backtracks away from a seminal post in a thread.

actually, the given is your childish posts, and the flat out lies by you that should be embarassing to you but appears not to be.

but then, that in itself explains a lot.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Alito has emerged from every one on one meeting with expressions of praise from the senators.

And at the same time, we have seen the published statements from folks like Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, etc. indicating that they intend to run the guy through the ringer before they'll consider voting yes.

To me, the signs of "fireworks" are there, whether a filibuster is used or not.

as you were correct in stating kg, we are at the beginning of the hearings, first base so to speak and there's still much to be seen and heard. perhaps there will be, perhaps there won't. but so far you must agree, there has been no fireworks. none.

Sure, I agree there haven't been any yet, but now you're changing the tense of the verb. The discussion was about whether there WILL BE "fireworks". We'll have to wait and see on that, but again I think all of the signs are there that this will be a very contentious confirmation process -- complete with "fireworks".

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

And at the same time, we have seen the published statements from folks like Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, etc. indicating that they intend to run the guy through the ringer before they'll consider voting yes.

To me, the signs of "fireworks" are there, whether a filibuster is used or not.

comments made by those are "fireworks"? kennedy? come on.

as you were correct in stating kg, we are at the beginning of the hearings, first base so to speak and there's still much to be seen and heard. perhaps there will be, perhaps there won't. but so far you must agree, there has been no fireworks. none.

Sure, I agree there haven't been any yet but now you're changing the tense of the verb. The discussion was about whether there WILL BE "fireworks". We'll have to wait and see on that, but again I think all of the signs are there that this will be a very contentious confirmation process -- complete with "fireworks".[/quote]

no, I am restating exactly what I said above- there will be no fireworks. when you can show some exploding, let me know.
bio says the fireworks have already started.
he's wrong.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
comments made by those are "fireworks"? kennedy? come on.

That's not what I said. I said that this WILL BE a hotly contested confirmation proceeding. I never said that Kennedy's comments (or the comments of Schumer, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, et al) themselves were the fireworks.

no, I am restating exactly what I said above- there will be no fireworks. when you can show some exploding, let me know.

Okay, so you say there WILL NOT be, and I say there WILL be. At least we agree on what we disagree about.

bio says the fireworks have already started.
he's wrong.

Setting aside the adolescent squabbling between the two of you, this is factually incorrect. Doc never said that fireworks have already started.

Never implied it either.

[Drbio]

kg- mavdog only operates on his perceptions. God forbid the facts would mean anything to him. All he is left with is the liar-liar-pants-on-fire defense to cover up his latest backtrack.

[Drbio]

I'm still waiting for the post that shows where I said the fireworks have started.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I'm still waiting for the post that shows where I said the fireworks have started.

the only way for me to be "wrong" is if fireworks happen.
they haven't.
get back to me when they do. until then, stick it.

[Drbio]

I knew you had nothing to back up your weak ass retort.

[Drbio]

This should be fun.....

That in no way supports your latest incredibly weak error. You are wrong so much.

Let's review....


Mavdog said:

"Originally posted by: Mavdog
There will be no fireworks, Alito is very much like Roberts and IMHO the Alito confirmation hearings will be just about as non-eventful as the Roberts hearings were."

Then Mavdog highlights in bold in another post :

"I don't know a single Democrat who is saying that it's time for a filibuster, that we should really consider it," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, after meeting with Alito on Wednesday. "It's way too early."

Several dims in the press were threatening (and continue to threaten) to filibuster. Mavdog says there will be no fireworks. Durbin says they aren't sure. Most talking dims are saying this will be a long drawn out contentious hearing. The dims are so discombobulated that they don't know what they think. In this case they say they will filibuster, there is then national negative buzz about the filibuster and they backtrack and cower. At a mnimum, they are in full dissention mode. Some say they will filibuster...some say they aren't sure. None are saying that they won't.

Then I posted:

Originally posted by: Drbio
You see....that is the problem with dimwitocrats. They say one thing, beat their chests and then cower like little bitches to the republican machine.

Either (A) your party sucks to the core, or (B) you are dead ass wrong again.

I pick (C) Both. The facts are overwhelming.

What's really funny is the fact that mavdog backtracked and created a weak definition of "fireworks" to assist in the backtrack. I can't stop laughing.


So do tell mavdog how in the world that post contradicts kg accurate statement that I never said nor implied fireworks were ongoing? Oh yeah....it does not. Mavdog never lets facts or being stuck on stupid get in his way.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
This should be fun.....

That in no way supports your latest incredibly weak error. You are wrong so much.

Let's review....


Mavdog said:

Then Mavdog highlights in bold in another post :

Several dims in the press were threatening (and continue to threaten) to filibuster. Mavdog says there will be no fireworks. Durbin says they aren't sure. Most talking dims are saying this will be a long drawn out contentious hearing. The dims are so discombobulated that they don't know what they think. In this case they say they will filibuster, there is then national negative buzz about the filibuster and they backtrack and cower. At a mnimum, they are in full dissention mode. Some say they will filibuster...some say they aren't sure. None are saying that they won't.

Then I posted:

What's really funny is the fact that mavdog backtracked and created a weak definition of "fireworks" to assist in the backtrack. I can't stop laughing.


So do tell mavdog how in the world that post contradicts kg accurate statement that I never said nor implied fireworks were ongoing? Oh yeah....it does not. Mavdog never lets facts or being stuck on stupid get in his way.

Bio dances and does a fine example of what he calls "backtrack".
good job, you do it so well. must be the vast experience.

like I said, there have ben no fireworks. but bio said I am wrong, hence bio says there <u>have</u> been fireworks.
get back to me when you can provide some examples.

[Drbio]

Man you can read but you clearly do not ever comprehend. At least you are consistently vacuous.

[MavKikiNYC]

FWIW, Biden says filibuster unlikely. Not that you can trust him.

Biden: Alito Filibuster Seems Unlikely
Nov 6, 10:27 AM EST
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes Samuel Alito will get an up-or-down vote on his Supreme Court bid.

"We should commit," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., minimizing prospects of a Senate filibuster that would prevent final action on President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I think the probability is that will happen," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."

Bush last week selected Alito, a former Reagan administration lawyer who is currently a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination amid withering criticism from conservatives.

Alito's confirmation hearings begin in the committee on Jan. 9. Some Democrats have raised the prospect of a filibuster until they get a fuller sense of his views on abortion and other social issues on which O'Connor has been a swing vote.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., another Judiciary Committee member, said he was not hearing his Democratic colleagues discussing the filibuster option.

Kennedy said he had an open mind about Alito's nomination, although he was concerned about the judge's rulings on privacy rights and rights of the disabled.

Alito wrote a 1991 dissent in a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses. O'Connor was an author of the Supreme Court ruling that found the notification unconstitutional.

"The people that were so enthusiastic about knocking down Miers are so enthusiastic about this nominee. We have to find out why are they so enthusiastic this time and what do they know that we don't know," Kennedy said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of 14 centrists who averted a Senate breakdown over judicial nominees last spring, said most members of the centrist group including himself are "favorably disposed" toward Alito.

The Democrats "are making up their minds and waiting for the hearings which is entirely appropriate, ... but so far I have not seen any significant concern that might lead to the filibuster," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he will support Alito based on his conservative philosophy as well as his credentials as a former government lawyer and prosecutor.

"I think he represents the best of judicial prudence, style and qualifications," Hagel said.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Purchase this AP story for reprint.

[Jeremiah]

...