Posted on 11/01/2005 5:22:43 AM PST by RWR8189
The nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court raises a lot of questions about the judge's attitudes toward federalism, privacy and civil rights. But it has already answered one big question about President Bush. Anyone wondering whether the almost endless setbacks and embarrassments the White House has suffered over the last year would cause Mr. Bush to fix his style of governing should realize that the answer is: no.
As a political candidate, Mr. Bush had an extremely useful ability to repeat the same few simple themes over and over. As president, he has been cramped by the same habit. The solution to almost every problem seems to be either to rely on a close personal associate or to pander to his right wing. When the first tactic failed to work with the Harriet Miers nomination, Mr. Bush resorted to the second. The Alito nomination has thrilled social conservatives, who regard the judge to be a surefire vote against abortion rights.
Judge Alito is clearly a smart and experienced jurist, with 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The nominee should be given a serious hearing. The need for a close and careful review of Judge Alito's record is all the more crucial because he will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been the swing vote of moderation on so many issues.
The concerns about this particular nominee go beyond his apparent hostility to abortion, which was most graphically demonstrated in 1992 when his court ruled on what became known in the Supreme Court as the Casey decision. Judge Alito was the sole judge on his court who took the extreme position that all of Pennsylvania's limitations on abortion were constitutional, including the outrageous requirement that a woman show that
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Years from now when some Dem President is nominating people to the SC, will the NYT's worry that a "conservative white male" seat should be filled with another "conservative white male"? Hell would freeze over first. The NYT's isn't stating principle, they're seeking liberal advantage.
Damn. He's consistent, then? That must drive you punks at the Slimes crazy!
Can you imagine all the libs reading this editorial this morning and crying into their coffee?
My sister is a committed NY leftist, and never fails to read the Times. She always has a rough time during family gatherings - she gets the Times every morning and the rest of us sit and read the NY Post.
This kills her. We are so uncouth.
Did the Times advocate replacing Harry Blackmun, Republican nominated by Nixon, with a conservative or were they happy when Clinton replaced him with Democrat Breyer?
All of their editorials are unsigned.
"to pander to his right wing"
We ELECTED him to "pander" to us. We, the majority of voters in the last election voted for him because he said he would do what we wanted, that he would steer the country in the direciton we approved of. This is what we wanted; this is what we voted for. If this is pandering- bring it on!
The NY Slimes would make a boatload of money if they killed their entire editorial staff, got rid of the AP stories and basically trashed the paper.
Just print the crosswords and the NY Slimes would be the highest selling newspaper in the country.
....the almost endless setbacks and embarrassments the White House has suffered over the last year .....
The propaganda effort is failing. No one thinks there have been endless setbacks and embarassment.
These conditions have prevailed at the OGW but not at the White House.
What is "outrageous" about that?
Presumably, the conception of a child within a marriage is a joint activity and the husband should have some rights in any decision to pervert the outcome.
I bet 33% of voters believe it was a "outrageous requirement" - the rat base and they alone.
A hit dog howls...so GOOD to hear the Old Gray Whore's anguish over the coming loss of the SCOTUS for the libs. It was their hideout over the long years when they were losing everything else. Gullible Republican presidents and the senate gave us the liberal SCOTUS that the libs have been legislating with for the past 3 decades. That time is over and the Left knows it.
Next, conservatives are coming for the universities and churches. We will reclaim our culture one liberal fortress at a time, and we will be relentless. It's for our children.
this did not even imply consent. Just notification. Maybe he could grieve or pray. The law was denying even this.
I love the howls of whining from the old grey bitch in the morning!
Alito was ruling that Bob Casey, the DEMOCRAT governor of PA - acted constitutionally in signing the Penn. Abortion Control Act into law.
Some extremist that Alito.
Priceless, isn't it? if you thin this article was a good whine check out the DUmmies.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2202281#2202311
What a crack up!
The NYT is committed to Marxism, socialism and communism. It loves European "isms." The paper should change its name to the Newism Yorkism Timesism.
This is the first NY Times editorial I've read in a long time. Substance aside, I was shocked by the mediocre quality of the writing itself. Standards at the Times have evidently declined.
As to the substance, I note this line:
"Alito . . . took the extreme position that . . . the outrageous requirement that a woman show that she had notified her spouse" was constitutional.
This is typical results-oriented liberal-think on the constitution.
If you don't like a law, if you think it's "outrageous," why then, it should be overturned. Note that the Times doesn't offer any substantive argument demonstrating the law's unconstitutionality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.