« My favorite quote of the day |
| Confirming Alito »
Today's NY Times editorial says the Democrats need to grow a new pair and Filibuster Alito. I wholeheartedly agree. If there were any nominee that represents extreme views and is worthy of a major fight, Samuel Alito would be it.
Thanks to The Agonist.
January 26, 2006 in SCOTUS | Permalink
Once again the NYT and it's writers show how out of touch they are with the American public with this editorial calling for the filibuster of Alito.
On your little island in New York, you think you understand the everyday American, but you are distancing yourself from us with every keystroke.
Didn't the last election teach you guys anything?
Brian Britton |
January 26, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Yeah, Bush won on the basis of 20 electoral votes in Ohio, where the vote was split only by a hair's breadth.
I guess its been a while since you left Wyoming and visited the 'little islands' of NY, New England and CA.
January 26, 2006 at 09:30 AM
"Out of touch," Brian? Alito holds views that are clearly unconstitutional, ignoring the separation of powers painstakingly worked out during the 1787 constitutional convention. He believes that the executive branch is somehow "more equal than the others." His farcical boosterism of "presidential signing statements" is part of this.
This isn't an issue of popular preference. There are things the Constitution just does not allow. Alito fully deserves to be filibustered because his unconstitutional views make him unfit to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tin Man |
January 26, 2006 at 09:59 AM
The elite, are only concerned with their own liberties.
The argument is that conservitaves are eroding our civil liberties but, as the middle class we only have the rite to do what we can afford.
Try utilizing your rites to walk on the beach in Malibu and you will see large walls, erected by elites blocking your way.
Thay are taking more from us than Justice Alito ever will.
January 26, 2006 at 10:39 AM
It is most interesting to hear the bleating about Judge Alito and his ignoring the separation of powers so carefully crafted at the Constitutional Convention. The real separation of powers was between the states and the federal government. Has anyone read the 10th amendment lately? Has anyone read the commerce clause, on which so much federal (read Congressional) power is based, in the circumstances in which written? A reading of the Constitution leads one to conclude the founding fathers had in mind a much more limited central government than we have and certainly one that would not have interfered in medical decisions the way this government has. To be consistent - never a feature of the Times - they must decry the usurpation of all power not belonging to the federal government and decry the endless intrusion into our lives by a central government left to decide its own limits on its powers - that is to say none. Judge Alito is not so dangerous as remaining silent on the issue of central government powers.
On another issue - if the branches are co-equal, then why must the President defer to one or another or both? If the President adopts a position not clearly contravening the Constitution, then why must he defer to Congress or the Courts? The branches are co-equal and one is not subservient to the other, that is why Article III courts have lifetime tenure - to be able to be equal to the executive that appoints them.
Morris Hamm |
January 26, 2006 at 11:16 AM
A NO without a Veto* is a YES vote for Alito
*in this case a filibuster , but veto rhymed better with alito.
Chuck WOrtman |
January 26, 2006 at 03:50 PM
Brian I do believe that you suffer from Anal Sphincter Syndrome
Bob Cipoletti |
January 27, 2006 at 08:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.