January 4, 2006
"Well qualified."
The ABA committee on the federal judiciary voted unanimously to give Samuel Alito its highest rating. Quite appropriately. I hope the hearings next week will be civil and that this clear signal from the ABA will create something of a sense of resignation about the outcome and allow the Senators to use the occasion fruitfully to debate about the legal issues that will face the Supreme Court in the coming years. Alito's opponents shouldn't think so much about defeating him. They should speak to us in a way that gives life to the alternate interpretations of constitutional law that they would like to see embodied in some future Supreme Court nominee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
Okay... who thinks that Mary's response above is a troll?
Hands please?
I'm honestly not sure, but something about it just rubs wrong.
Will we be spared all the vomit-inducing crap about Alito's "heart" and Alito "the man"? The only heart talk I'd accept is a health report from a cardiologist. Will Ted Kennedy have a petit mal seizure like he did during Roberts' hearings? Remember how weird and angry and incoherent he seemed? Will Feinstein grace us with another Eastern European travelogue? Now that Katrina's faded a bit from the political radar, what tragedy will the Senators drag into the hearings to make political points at Alito (I'm guessing the mine disaster in W VA)? Which Senator(s) will cry?
I can't wait for the simulblogging and podcasts about these hearings!
jeff: The comment is supposed to rub you wrong (that's the new definition of "liberal" in some circles). Mary's just part of the liberal "conscience" here, contracted by Gaia and the spirit of William O. Douglas to insert sarcastic sour comments into any post about political matters. I guess Agent Quxxo is off tonight.
"I beg your pardon? Those of us who are utterly opposed to Alito's confirmation should stand quietly by and surrender because Ms. Althouse requires it?"
Why are you utterly opposed to Alito's confirmation? Specific examples, please.
I rather suspect that many people who are "utterly opposed" to Judge Alito's confirmation would be "utterly opposed" to any nominee that was put forward by this particular president.
Well if you're "frightened nigh into stupified horror" then maybe you should've worked harder to get Kerry elected. Elections have consequences, you know.
Henry, but what if it's a really, really scary strawman? What if you make believe it made you cry and stole your lunch money? These are very serious concerns. You can't just laugh them off.
Delete? I'd have to understand it first.... Wha?
Henry restated my point accurately.
Those of you who think I'm giving bad advice to the Democrats: I say I'm not. Your preference for a hysterical freak-out is ridiculous. Liberals must present a sound counterargument to conservative jurisprudence, not just gasp and accuse conservatives of being bad people. Really: shape up! Right now, this President has the appointment power. Deal with it. It's part of the constitutional law you need to make us believe you are grounded in.
"Right now, this President has the appointment power. Deal with it. It's part of the constitutional law you need to make us believe you are grounded in."
Yeah right, Ann.
And right now, the Democratic senators are in a position to vote no. Deal with it. Confirmation is not a rubber stamp. Moreover, the minority has some power that you need to make us believe that you respect.
The problem I see for the Democrats is that the only reason that they have left for opposing Judge Alito is political. They can't really claim now that he is incompetent.
The problem with opposing him politically is first that the Republicans didn't oppose Justice Ginsberg when she was nominated, despite being arguably much further out of the mainstream in the opposite direction. Opposing Alito on political grounds would truly open up payback, should they ever reclaim the presidency.
None of this is of course going to matter for Democrats from heavily Blue states, like Teddy Kennedy. I expect another petit mal seizure from him. But it probably will matter at the margins, for Democratic Senators from Red states who will lack the cover of being able to claim lack of competency.
Mark,
On the other hand, a lot of Republicans are just itching for a fillibuster, so that they can invoke the nuclear option, and get it out of the way, once and for all. This would be the prime time for it - thwarting the president for a well qualified pick to the Supreme Court. And after the Nuclear Option is triggered, say bye-bye to semi-moderate appeals court judges until the next Democrat gets elected president.
Remember, the Republicans only need to keep from losing 6 of their own to pass the Nuclear Option, and without the cover of incompetence, it is going to be hard for that many of them to defect.
"...Politically, nuclear option is a loser for Republicans, especially in the election year...."
You have to be kidding? The Nuclear Option will most certainly pass under a filibuster. Remember, the "gang of 14" agreed that a filibuster was only allowed in instances of "extraordinary" circumstances. You only need 2 out of the 14 (two Republicans) to agree that no such circumstances exist. Both Dewine and Graham have already stated that ideolgy is not grounds for extraordinary circumstances and would go "nuclear" for any filibuster of a candidate that was similar to Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. Alito is no more conservative than those two judges.
ugh, I like the fact that there are differing opinions on this blog, and I like that Ann is not quick to delete comments. But some of them on this thread are just dumb and depressing. Did somebody really just call someone else a "fag"?
Re: fag. Didn't someone just post about keeping things like they were in 1979?
I'm curious though -- given that Alito is a replacement for Miers, whom the Republicans scuttled, how could Republicans complain if Democrats scuttle Alito. FWIW, I don't think they will, and it would be a mistake to do so.
Someone will probably opine that Alito is more qualified. By whose standards? Not the ones of the person making the appointment, apparently.
Knoxgirl: I'm quick to delete when I'm on line. I shut off the computer early last night. You're right. There was some childish stuff written here while I was away. I left in one that didn't refer to any of the commenters. Writing crap like that reads (to me) as a concession that you have no substantive arguments. You disqualify your own voice. But you also waste our time. By deleting your work, I can make your time writing it wasted, which you richly deserve.
It's especially telling when supposed liberals taunt by calling someone a "fag." (Or similarly, sexist comments they've aimed at me.) It's just a huge admission that you are partisan and not principled. Why should we care what you have to say?
There's especially a trend of people jumping on and wagging their finger about what you should post, as a blogger, as a law professor, blah blah. It gets really old. The whole "I'm disappointed in you, Ann..." line. barf.
Again, I like the diversity of opinion here, and I respect and am glad for the presence of people I sometimes disagree with but who are always thoughtful and respectful: Elizabeth, Eli and Mark come to mind, and I'm sure there are others I can't think of right now.
But the others need to stop wasting your and the rest of your loyal commenters' time. As you are wont to put it: "shape up!" and stop being boring. Especially the ones who think they're being funny or ironic with comments like "fag."
"Reactionary" is certainly the most apt description of the hissy fit on the left over Alito.
Kennedy will surely drag out his well-worn anti-conservative phrasebook, to speak of hangars and hatred and the hoofbeats of apocalypse. (When describing the End of Times resulting from veering starboard, these are a few of his favorite things.)
And cold pillow, why would you think a mostly conservative president, who has appointed a conservative Chief Justice would not appoint another conservative justice? That is, why would he or should he be non-partisan in that choice?
MadisonMan: The problem with Miers was that she was conspicuously unqualified to sit on the Court. Alito is well qualified.
Knoxgirl: I think Goober believes he's created a comic persona. That could be acceptable in the comments, but he needs to do it better. Sexist and homophobic taunts are not working in the way you might think they do. "South Park" is the work of comic geniuses. Just adopting a "South Park" element does not make you funny.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Was this reported in the MSM? It seems to me that they would have been slobbering over this tidbit........
Mary: Did you even notice the word "supposed" before liberals? Jeez!
mary appears to believe that a blog is discredited when deleting, ignoring, or ridiculing comments that are argumentative, insulting, or juvenile.
I disagree. It seems to me that mary wants to believe that liberty is equivalent to libertinism, when clearly they are not the same thing, but very nearly opposites. Civility enforces the civic. Libertines enforce anarchy.
Fighting fair, in mary's world, means permitting abusive behavior, and responding to idiotic arguments like "is so!" with detailed ripostes. Feh.
Verification word ~ ridcwyhb: the awful but unshakeable feeling that one is arguing with spambot.
"Verification word ~ ridcwyhb"
Isn't that Welsh?
bearbee,
I think the Welsh invented everything.
I missed the "fag" post. Sounds like somethign Jon Stewart would say.
"....diverse student body, open to all qualified candidates who have competed to get in...."
You have to be kidding me? You think a law school classroom is full of students who are all "qualified" to be there and who have all competed to get in. That does not sound like reality to me.
Re: "Fighting dirty, like a girlie some cultures would say, is when you delete a terse insult, then CONCLUDE a person's political ideology by the rude insult."
1. Saying "some cultures would say" does not minimize your choice of the phrase "Fighting dirty, like a girlie ". In fact it is the very same thing you supposedly deride in that same sentence, ascribing an insult to some other folk, but using it. It permits one to be abusive while simultaneously disavowing that abuse.
2. It's not a giant leap of logic to suggest that someone slinging insults or nonsense like Mr Goober on this blog is probably opposed to Ms. Althouse, and therefore more port than starboard. It's a judgement call, and likely a very good guess. You want courtroom DNA proof? Feh.
Re: "When discourse falls to the level of entertainment news or cartoons, we are in trouble."
When discourse requires one to follow some ludicrous guidelines invented by an anonymous poster, we are in trouble. Your rules have no basis in argument that I know of.
"....What about these comments would lead you to believe 1) the person is serious, or 2) they are a "supposed" liberal?..."
It's clearly a "supposed liberal" mocking Christianity. How could you see it any differently?
How come liberal artists don't make fun of the prophet Mohammed. Showing Jesus with a bong or Mary fornicating is cliche these days. In contrast, attacking Mohammed would take real guts and real artistic challenge.....hmmm perhaps Christians aren't so bad after all.
"mary said...
By selectively deleting posts, you manipulate the argument."
One of the ones I took down said something nasty about YOU!
Cold Pillow: "Why exactly are they a 'supposed liberal'?"
I wrote that because the person was so nasty from the liberal pose that I had some suspicion that it was someone trying to make liberals look bad.
And what the hell? What's with all the anger abou my deleting posts where a commenter calls another commenter a "fag."
Really, now people are just junking up the comments with long, self-serving rants. You're wasting our time. I'm warning you that I'm going to delete anything repetitive or too long now. This whole thread was hijacked in the first comment. That's unfair to those of us who actually want to talk about the Alito nomination and not a lot of jabbering about my comments policy. If you don't like it: get your own blog. See if anyone wants to read you there.
Let's talk about the original post now.
Okay, that last one of Mary's came in after I wrote I was going to start deleting things like that, so I won't delete it. But that's it for things like that.
"Enforce the rules equally is all we ask. Don't give one "side" special spin or advantage."
I think Althouse equallly removes disgusting posts. Althouse can and should remove any post she wants.
On the other hand, this is just a blog. If Althouse deletes one of my posts I would not feel as if my rights were violated. Instead, I should perhaps re-examine my discourse in the probable chance that Althouse deleted the post for a good reason.
Mary, I did have a discussion on this board last week with goober_snatcher (unfortunately it's fallen off this page so I can't find it for you). He noted he felt the wiretaps (as well as most other actions by the Bush adminstration) were motivated to enrich oil companies. His positions were decidedly liberal at that point anyway.
I do agree with you that his comments were designed primarily to get a rise out of people, but based on my conversations with him he has a decidedly liberal bent and characterizing him as a liberal is accurate. I think most people looking at the totality of his posts would agree.
"...Just don't try to sell yourself as a principled thinker, allowing free discourse, and encouraging competing views...."
Frankly, I don't understand where this view comes from. I don't recall arguing anywhere that I oppose free discourse. Nor does anyone on this board make such an argument. That is pure nonsense.
There are plenty of people on this board that argue that other outlets such as the NY Times or the MSM or Bush/Cheney oppose free discourse....but that is part of our own free discourse.
I need to find my little red book.
Thanks Coco... my point is that there are some people in law school who are not qualified to be there and did not "compete" to get in...yet they are there anyways....why?
Btw, this fact has nothing to do with how the professors. I am sure Althouse can attest to reading horrible exams and papers and wondering why some people are in her class or even in the law school.
Sloan: I disagree with that characterization of the Law School's approach to admissions. Academic credentials count for everyone, even when we do give a lot of attention to other factors. We are trying to assemble an interesting group of students, so we don't just take the students with the highest GPA/LSAT numbers. It would be a very different, less vibrant place if we did.
Mary: You were on notice that I would delete your repetitive comments that selfishly made this thread about you instead of the original post. You are abusing this forum and need to stop.
Althouse: Do you think it was better long ago when they used to let more people into law school but it was harder to stay in. Perhaps that was a better system...
Post a Comment