« We Want More Picard!!! |
Main
| You're In My Blind Spot!!!! »
If a man is well qualified to be on the bench of the Supreme Court, then why are Democrats against him? Maybe it's because this is the only branch of government that the left can push their agenda through, and America is fighting back against the rule of the minority.
Sandra Day O'Connor was the supposed "swing vote" on the court. Now, if anyone can tell me where in the constitution it says that there must be an allocation of justices to each political ideology, by no means point it out and let me know where my mistake is.
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Yep, I don't see any place in that section where it says that a certain number of liberal justices, a certain number of conservative justices, or another ideology had to be placed on the court. Now, when President Clinton nominated former ACLU chair Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they did not filibuster or obstruct her confirmation; she was confirmed as she was supposed to be because she was qualified to be on the court.
Finally, why is abortion a live or die issue for liberals? I personally don't believe that abortion is right, but it does not matter to me if Roe v. Wade is overturned or not (more than likely it will not). Anyway, its sad when Senators, mainly Democrats, make a nominee's wife cry.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/28743
Comments
Kinda' makes you wonder what Sen. Graham (R-SC) was saying? I heard him talking like alito was god's gift to humankind and mrs.alito runs out crying?
Gotta wonder?!?
Best regards
Posted by: glen at January 15, 2006 08:37 PM
Glen is right. Sen. Lindsay Graham- a Repub from S.C. - caused Mrs. Alito to run out of the room crying.
Samuel Alito has demonstrated a record of big government and big corporation, why would you want a justice who sides with big government over an individual, Nathan?
This isn't about a women's right to chose. That has been decided many times at the SCOTUS. Abortion is just something to divert and divide so people won't look further into this guy's record.
His record is a dismal one: if the police are in yours or my neighborhood and arrest someone, they can take an innocent bystander and strip search them- and in this case innocent meant 10 year old girl. A chemical company makes a whole town sick with its toxins and he casts the stand alone dissent in favor of the chemical company; what is just about these cases? Nothing.
Yes, they will now have the power to change Roe v. Wade, but first the court has to get a case concerning it. No doubt the right-wing evangelicals will find something to bring before the court, it will be interestig to see if the court accepts the case. See, I think the Republicans don't care at all about abortion one way or the other, they just see it as a powerful tool to use to get people who are not like them and are not served by them to vote for them.
Issues such as executive power and the overreaching by the President are what matters to the GOP. They need a guy on the court to help them ruin our 3 branches of government.
Posted by: sandy at January 16, 2006 07:54 AM
"why would you want a justice who sides with big government"
Wait a minute. As I recall, the liberal wing of the SCOTUS has caused our individual property rights to be in jeopardy. About strip searching the 10-year old girl. The police obtained a warrant that said to search "all occupants".
From FactCheck.org:
Police argued that they had applied for a warrant to search "all occupants" of the house, based on a tip from an informant claiming to have bought drugs at the house, and that they believed that the warrant permitted a search of the girl even if "occupants" weren't specifically mentioned.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the lawsuit to go forward – with Alito filing a dissenting opinion. He said that even though he had a "visceral dislike" of such intrusive searches, a "commonsense and realistic" reading of the warrant and the application gave the officers the impression that "all occupants" of the home were to be searched, and that they were acting within their professional duties in searching the wife and girl.
If the warrant said search everybody, guess what, everybody will be searched! Sometimes drug dealers try to hide their warez on children. Sad, but it does happen.
"See, I think the Republicans don't care at all about abortion one way or the other, they just see it as a powerful tool to use to get people who are not like them and are not served by them to vote for them."
Still don't understand why abortion is a live or die issue. If Republicans don't care, why are you worried? I really don't think that it will be overturned.
Posted by: Nathan at January 16, 2006 09:26 AM
Nathan,
You are only reporting part of the facts in Doe v. Groody. The Supremes said he ignored fixed law. Not that it matters, but give the whole story. alito was wrong. The police must respect the law like everyone else. You only site what the police said in arguement. The court said they violated established law, alito is not qualified to be a supreme.
The greens are definately on the conservative side of the property rights issue. Check out our national website, we condemned the courts taking of personal property in Kelo v.NewLondon.
Posted by: glen at January 16, 2006 11:32 AM
Post a comment
