Originally Posted By cape cod joe Woody----I guess you didn't read my apology I am SO SORRY! What Barbara said corroborates my disdain for her. Keep up your posts Woody!
Originally Posted By JeffG Interestingly, in Alito's first vote today he voted with the majority against Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. The vote (which passed 6-3) was to uphold a stay of execution for a Missouri death row inmate pending a further appeal. -Jeff
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Very interesting-----code words and accurately Jeff for all the buffoonery exhibited on this thread. I'm saying that and I'm opposed to the decision. Fair and open minded inexorably and consistency.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Alitos first vote should have the libs and the moonbats totally confused. I thought he was a Bush puppet that was going to always vote with Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts? Teddy Kennedy was practically bawling on the senate floor about Alito getting confirmed.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe You should see Teddy when Baxters (fried clam shack on the cape) closes for the season!
Originally Posted By JeffG Supreme Court justices have long had a pesky habit of defying their nominating president by having a mind of their own. There are a lot of politics at play during the confirmation process, and I certainly think it is worthwhile to pretty thoroughly explore someone's credentials before a lifetime appointment, but ultimately I just can't get too worried about someone with the overall qualifications and experience that Alito has. Certainly, his stated views in the past are further to the right than my own tend to be. For that reason, I would have bene happier with someone with a history that lined up a bit more closely to my own views. Regardless, I just don't see it as any kind of major disaster that someone with this level of experience is now on the Supreme Court. The guy clearly understands the law well and I think it is likely he will apply it intelligently. -Jeff
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Alitos first vote should have the libs and the moonbats totally confused.<< And I'm sure it has your side furious and apoplectic with murderous rage. How DARE anyone question a death penalty case for any reason.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Cmpaley, as long as the constitution is followed, there will be no " rage ".
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I've maintained all along that not only was Alito qualified and should be confirmed, he might not be the conservative lock the far right thinks he'll be. In other words, I'd hold off on the back slapping if I were Hannity or Limbaugh, et al, which thankfully I'm not. Here's a snip from a post I made in this thread about 200 posts ago. The link is still good. "But back to Alito. While on Drudge, I found this link. It's possible Alito isn't quite the lock on abortion his mother thinks he is." <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/</a> 1102/p01s04-usju.html
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Alito said in the hearings how he would handle death penalty situations and he did just that in this instance. Either way, the left have got to be wondering what the heck is going on with Alito and maybe.... maybe... he is a liberal after all!!! LOL, no..
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Cmpaley, as long as the constitution is followed, there will be no " rage ".<< ROFLMAO!!!! That's funny!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 K2: <<Have you seen this study, Douglas?>> DD: <Yes.> K2:<<So it seems both sides are quite capable of ruling from emotion, not strictly "the law.">> DD: <Of course. It's still my opinion that liberals tend to do it more.> K2: <Naturally. According to that study: "Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate."> LOL, 2oony! Also, in the specific case of the supreme court, there's also THIS study that questions who the "activists" really are: <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/614/yls_article.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.yale.edu/outsid e/html/Public_Affairs/614/yls_article.htm</a> "We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below. Thomas 65.63 % Kennedy 64.06 % Scalia 56.25 % Rehnquist 46.88 % O'Connor 46.77 % Souter 42.19 % Stevens 39.34 % Ginsburg 39.06 % Breyer 28.13 % One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh An activist judge is one who bases his rulings on his or her own beliefs on right and wrong, rather than a faithful reading of the law. For example, the way the Florida Supreme Court decided to extend the deadline for counting the votes in 2000 election, even though there was no provision in Florida law for a new deadline, was an activist decision.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <An activist judge is one who bases his rulings on his or her own beliefs on right and wrong, rather than a faithful reading of the law.> That's one definition. Another I often hear is judges who overrule decisions made by legislatures. In fact, any time a court decides against a legislature on certain matters, for instance abortion (against restrictions) or gay rights (pro, as in the recent supreme court decision that ruled that sodomy laws could not be enforced against homosexuals if they were not also enforced against heterosexuals), you can count on hearing right-wingers describe the judges involved as "activist." Often in a breathless phrase such as "activist judges undoing the will of the people's representatives!!!!" Of course, when conservative judges overrule legislative decisions in a way that is to the liking of right-wingers, they don't say a word. As so often, how an "activist" is defined often has more to do with whose ox is being gored than anything else.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's one definition.> It's the most common one. <Another I often hear is judges who overrule decisions made by legislatures.> Only if they do it by a very liberal interpretation of previous rulings or Constitutions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That's one definition.>> <It's the most common one.> And you're basing that statement on...? A poll? What you hear from your friends? What? <<Another I often hear is judges who overrule decisions made by legislatures.>> <Only if they do it by a very liberal interpretation of previous rulings or Constitutions.> A bit of a Freudian slip on your part, but absolutely correct. If they overrule a legislative decision via (what you deem as) liberal interpretation, they're "activist." If they overrule a decision via (capital c) Conservative interpretation, they're not. Thanks for admitting it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And you're basing that statement on...? A poll? What you hear from your friends? What?> Reading lots of commentary on the issue. <A bit of a Freudian slip on your part, but absolutely correct. If they overrule a legislative decision via (what you deem as) liberal interpretation, they're "activist."> That's liberal with a small l, not a capital.
