BUSH TO NOMINATE "SCALITO"

[Albin]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 6:29am

From Wikipedia:

Samuel A. Alito Jr. (born April 1, 1950) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. His ideological likeness to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has earned him the nickname "Scalito."







CNN link Updated On: 10/31/05 at 06:29 AM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 7:18am

Scary stuff. I hope the democrats finally wake up and fight this one.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:12am

I should learn to read before I go starting a thread...I'll deep six the other one.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:17am

From the other thread:

Yep, Samuel Alito. And as NPR noted, his nickname in NJ legal circles is "Scalito". Knew this was coming... My husband predicted that this is exactly what Bush would do next...nominate someone acceptable to the far right, and someone who will not be confirmed easily. It's also a message to Congress: You didn't like the first one, so here you go. If you think you can get him confirmed, knock yourself out.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:38am

To paraphrase Bette Davis, "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a BUMPY confirmation..."

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:40am

Does anyone think he WON'T be confirmed? This requires the Dems to get combative and grow brass b*lls, something they haven't displayed in a VERY long time.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:43am

Felony indictments of administration officials are sometimes motivating factors for politicians.

As are falling polls.

The thing that's exciting about this political season is that absolutely NOTHING can be predicted.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:51am

The Dems need to keep stressing and exposing the maggot infested corrupt underbelly of the Bush administration at every possible chance.

Eeew. That's an image even even more disgusting than the Zit-Popping thread!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:53am

From Think Progress:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:00am

This is not good. This is what happens when idiots in Ohio vote for a jerk such as Bush.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:11am

Cheap shot at Ohio and Ohioans. Ohio didn't elect Bush...a majority of states went red; Ohio just pushed him over the top.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:13am

You know...everytime I think Bush has a chance to redeem himself he drops the ball again. Wouldn't it have been nice if instead of going to the far right Bush reached out to the middle and picked a moderate? Someone who wouldn't have either the far right or far left completely up in arms? Imagine if Bush came out, apologized for the leak scandel, and announced the nomination of a moderate supreme court justice. I guess he just doesn't have it in him.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:45am

For Bush to do that, would require him to be a thoughtful, deliberative leader. He is not. He is a reactive, gut-check leader, who does not do anything that does not "feel right."

The nominee is not surprising. Let us all hope that he is so weakened, and the far right has been exposed enough, that the Dems and moderate republicans finally get the balls to stand up to the extreme right and speak for the majority for once.


Updated On: 10/31/05 at 09:45 AM

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:49am

I am a bit suprised actually. I think it's possible that he might not be confirmed, but Bush set up it brilliantly (tough words for me to type) this morning with discussing in details the fact that this nominee has more experience than any other nominee in 70 years it's going to be hard.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:56am

Bush no more picked Alito himself than he picks out his clothes in the morning or cuts his own meat.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:59am

It was all a setup from the beginning for Bush to nominate this complete "activist judge" to the court. His confirmation will be a worst case scenario for progressive policy and civil rights.
The Democrats need to fillibuster this nomination and then when the Repugs use the "nucelar option" and rewrite the proceedural code of the senate, they need to go ballistic, I recommend a walkout like the group in Texas.

Come Senators with guts, you can sleep on my air mattress.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:39pm

The Dems need to fight this.

If Roberts turns out to be an O'Connor moderate, then this is a wash. But, If Roberts turns out to be conservative, you can kiss various rights goodbye--especially a woman's right to choose.

[Calvin]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:41pm

I need a drink. Or 12.

I miss Harriet the Sly already.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:44pm

Calvin - the country would have been better off with Miers even though I am certain there was a religious pact with the President to vote against Roe.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:51pm

Personally I would've gone with Jack Scalia

[Peter]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 2:44pm

I'm really beginning to think there's no hope for this country. As I predicted in the Cheney thread, Bush is appointing a conservative Justice. This is what is going to divert the attention away from the Libby case/indictments. Also, as I surmised, a new CNN poll today showed that only 22 percent really understand the Libby case. Another poll showed absolutely no change in Bush's approval ratings after last week's supposedly "hell" week for the White House. The fact remains that 42 percent of this country actually believe that Bush's Presidency is a "success". Absolutely mind-nubbingly shocking. The Dems will be forced to go on the offensive this time and the Republican spin machine is really good at deflecting and manipulating criticism. I don't see this at all as a slam dunk for the Democrats...in fact, this could easily backfire..people forget that Bush was reelected on a very conservative platform. And then after Bush's term is over, we can look forward to Jeb in the oval office. I'm already cringing at the thought.
Updated On: 10/31/05 at 02:44 PM

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 2:50pm

Debbie Downer

[Peter]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 2:51pm

LOL..hey its Monday!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 5:47pm

According to the Washington Post, on September 24, 1986, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sam Alito helped author a Justice Department policy that "said that discrimination based on insufficient medical knowledge was not prohibited by federal laws protecting the handicapped.

Employers, it said, may legally fire AIDS victims because of a 'fear of contagion whether reasonable or not.'" The Justice Department's position was rejected by many states, including some that reacted by barring discrimination against people with AIDS.

Alito, whose work helped foster some of the hysteria about AIDS during the Reagan era, said, "We certainly did not want to encourage irrational discrimination," but the reaction to it "hasn't shaken our belief in the rightness of our opinion."

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 6:47pm

As I hear and read more, I am more distraught by this nomination.