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 ...
Bump. Whine louder, grey lady, it's music to my ears.
Damn, then why did the Senate vote for him previously ........... 99-0?
Sweet.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
"The nominee should be given a serious hearing."
There we go, that's the NY Times endorsement right there.
I forget ... did this sentence get published in the Editorial for Harriet?
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
"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."
One paragraph later:
"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 she had notified her spouse."
According to today's John Podhoretz column, Alito based that decision on the opinions of one Sandra Day O'Connor. Does the NY Times even employ any fact checkers anymore?
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
That can't be a serious question. Since when did the NYT bother with facts?
Thw NYT has simply become a parody of itself.
"... his apparent hostility to abortion"
What a choice of words. Oh, yeah, and it's outrageous that a woman has to notify her husband before trying to murder his unborn kid.
Tremendous choice, Mr. President!
Cannot help but wonder, that after Alito's confirmation to the 'Bench'. . .what then do these Lefties have in mind for Bush. . .
What is next in their playbook of political scandals from which these 'embarassing attacks' are calculated, orchestrated and generated. . .designed as they are to bring down President Bush and his second term, to a level of damning irrelevancy. . .
I wonder if any of the good Leftists at the 'NYTimes' has read that far. . .
They do serve a useful puropose though: just think and do the exact opposite of what they say and you will always be right.
so, in the future let's hypothetically say dems regain control of the white house at some point... further let's hypothetically say scalia is mortal... are the dems going to be as concerned as they are now about replacing justices with like minded justices?
if so why not just write it into law: the court is comprised of two lefty libs, two righty tighties, two leftward leaning centrists, two rightward leaning centrists, and one wild card.
now, how in the world do we agree on how to label candidates...?
rediculous... the courts are 50-75% of the reason for winning the white house. duh. bush certainly wasn't re-elected for his fiscal constraint, or for his veto pen usage, or for his smaller-government agenda. geez, get with the program demDUms.
This is actually more measured from the Times than I expected.
Okay, this has always frosted me. Since when did the doctrine of replacing a "moderate" with a moderate become a dictate? Only in a liberals mind! You mean to tell me that if Rehnquist had died during the Clinton Administration that the NYSlimes would be calling on Clinton to replace that position with a conservative??
Once again, more disingenousness and sheer hypocrisy from the old gray whore.
LOL!!The Old Grey Lady can't stand it because she can't 'influence' the President, even though she's been trying hard with all her doom and gloom reporting about him this last year.
The MSM will NEVER learn that this President doesn't govern by poll like his predecessor did.
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.