Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Samuel Alilto to the Supreme Court. All 10 Republican committee members are supporting his nomination; the eight Democrats cannot prevent the Committee from moving the nomination to the Senate floor. According to CNN, slightly more than half of the country believe Alito should be confirmed — approximately the same percentage that voted for President Bush in 2004. This is less support than Americans demonstrated for Chief Justice Roberts or even Clarence Thomas, who started the proceedings with a 63 percent approval rating.
There has been a shift in public opinion about how candidates should be evaulated, according to a July CBS poll. In both 1987 (Bork - failed nomination) and 1991 (Thomas), 39 percent of the public thought the Senate should consider "legal qualifications only." For Roberts, that percentage had jumped to 45.
There has been a corresponding drop in the percentage of Americans who believe "positions on the issues" should also be considered: from 52 percent (1987) to 49 percent (1991) to 47 percent (2005).
Editorial response to the nomination has been mixed, although almost universally, Alito is cited as a technically competent jurist. But is he "an empathetic justice who will maintain the vital protections the Founders and the court have accorded individual Americans - and the constitutional balance of power among the president, Congress and the courts," asks USA Today. Citing last week's decision regarding Oregon's death with dignity act, the paper's editorial board writes:
Obfuscating answers — and avoidance of answers — have been the habit of all recent nominees, making it impossible to say with certainty where a nominee will take the court. But a case decided by the court just last week hints at Alito's potential impact.In dissent, three justices argued that the attorney general was free to punish physicians who might help terminally ill patients in pain end their lives, even under state regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts, Bush's first choice for a court vacancy, was one. Thomas and Antonin Scalia were the others.
Article comments
1 - RedTard
It's time that we got back to a strict interpreatation of the constitution. If that means Bush's domestic spying is outed, great. If that means that the tough decisions are pushed back to the people's representatives then that is OK too.
For too long the courts have overstepped their bounds into the realm of creating law rather than interpreting it. Of course, when those decisions favor your party everyone is perfectly happy.
Now that the court is shifting, the liberals are starting to see what we have known all along. An out of control judiciary is a really dangerous thing. I can only hope that these new nominees stand by their word to interpret the law as written, not to recreate the law to match their political views.
2 - Brian O'Blivion
Who cares? Alito is going to be confirmed and it doesn't make any difference because even if they vote on straight party lines all the votes will go 5-4 for the libs.
3 - Richard Brodie
The opposite of a "unitary" executive would be a "balkanized" executive. Those who are opposed to the unitary executive principle are essentially advocating a "sprawling" legislative principle.
The executive branch doesn't try and spawn agencies of it's own creation to infest the legislative branch, which it then moves to try and make independent of the Congress. On the other hand the Congress is continually setting up agencies - BATF, CIA, CFTC, EPA, FCC, FDIC, FEC, FEMA, FRS, FTC, INS, IMF, IRS, NASA, NEA, NLRB, NSF, NRC, SEC, SBA, SSA USPS, to name only a few of the better known ones - which it now seems to favor making independent of the President!
Essentially what the liberals in Congress want is to replace a three branch government, which the founders ingeniously deisgned for stability and efficiency, with a hydra-like monstrosity consisting of a huge and ever growing number of branches which, since their officers are neither installed by nor answerable to the electorate, would become little mini-kingdoms of their own.
We see this most notably right now in the FDA, which is supporting the autocratic international Codex Alimentarious Commission (which Americans have little knowledge of and no democratic input to) whose "standards" run directly counter to American law as embodied in the unanimously passed Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).
I'm afraid that THIS is what would be incompatible with our democratic/republican system of government.
4 - Richard Brodie
Well, they voted. First strictly party-line vote for a Supreme Court nominee in American history. I hope the Democrats try to filibuster, and that the Republicans nuke the son of a bitches.
5 - gonzo marx
Richard sez..
*I hope the Democrats try to filibuster, and that the Republicans nuke the son of a bitches.*
nice to see the broad brush applied when taking about the "sons of bitches"
it screams just how objective and non-partisan your viewpoint is
/end sarcasm
truthfully, you do make some decent points for Thought here, too bad you spoil it completely by the blatant partisan bullshit
it makes it very difficult to try and take your good stuff seriously
Excelsior!
6 - Richard Brodie
At one point in the questioning, speaking of Roe vs. Wade, Durbin said:
"Yesterday, Senator Specter asked you ... whether or not you accept the concept that this is somehow a precedent, that we can rely on; that is embedded in our experience; that if it were changed, it would call into question the legitimacy of the court."
The desperation is palpable. Trying to say that it is "illegitimate" to ever overturn precedent! It's fine for his Party to pack the court with activist judges who don't hesitate to overturn a certain precedent known as The Constitution. Yeah, we can't have too "originalist" an interpretation of THAT document. But we damn sure better not question one literal iota of the document known as The Roe vs. Wade Decision.
Well, at least it was encouraging to hear Durbin calling for the abolition of the IRS. He was complaining about invasion of privacy with respect to our communications AND OUR BUSINESSES. Or does he regard FINANCIAL privacy as being a category of personal affairs that are somehow exempt from being protected from the government's spying eyes?
7 - Kathy
Hello, Richard:
The huge "sprawl" you describe is executive in creation, not legislative.
the Constitution does not give the president line-item veto authority over budgets OR legislation -- yet this is *exactly* what Bush is doing (more than any president in history) when he signs a bill: I'll execute "this" part but not "that" part As I See Fit.
The sad thing is that it is taking a supreme court nomination for this egregious usurping (IMO) of legislative power to make its way into media consciousness.
Kathy