Posted on 01/19/2006 8:20:11 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Sen. Leahy opposes Alito nomination
8 minutes ago
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his opposition on Thursday to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
Leahy charged that President George W. Bush's 55-year-old conservative candidate failed to demonstrate at last week's confirmation hearing that he would bring a needed independence to the nation's highest court.
"At a time when the president is seizing unprecedented power, the Supreme Court needs to act as a check and to provide balance," Leahy said in a speech prepared for delivery at Georgetown University Law Center.
"I have no confidence that Judge Alito would provide that check and balance," Leahy said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Snort.
I have no confidence Leahy could find his own behind with both hands.
*yawn*
Listen you moron jerk, Leahy. It is not about checks and balances. It is about right and wrong.
Something you Democrats no NOTHING about.
Well if you really feel that way senator then why don't you filibuster?
Who cares loser. You do not have the votes now that several Dems have gone soft on you. Alito is SO confirmed.
Who in the he!! gives a sh!t?
Pull this post for being irrelevant and totally unworthy of electron use.
no =know. grrr
I have every confidence Barney Frank would lend a hand.
This is news? News would have been if he supported the nomination -- that would have been "stop the presses" type of moment. This is more of the same from the obnoxious RATs.
Oh, he found his behind. It was leaking the same stuff as his mouth.
And a roadmap.
And in other news, the sky is blue.....
We don't need someone to "act as a check and provide balance." We need someone to interpret laws in the light of the US Constitution.
If there actually was a need for balance, it would be a requirement that activist judges be overruled when they overstep their commission.
surprise, surprise...
and the sun is gonna set today. LOL
The dem concerns about presidential powers are short-sighted. What about when there's a dem. president?
Who cares...he's a LIAR...Alito should have been voted on yesterday...he lied to Specter...never intended to stand by his word...his word is worthless....he's a big time sleaze ball...Alito doesn't need this sleaze ball's vote...it's dirty...
Senator from the pedophile friendly state of vermont.
The idea that the Supreme Court should be equally representative of the liberal, moderate and conservative parties in the United States is ridiculous. This concept has only been brought to the forefront of the controversy because the Democrats are on the losing end of the political battle. This rhetoric was never applicable in the Clinton presidency, nor in the preceding presidencies. Once again, we see the Democrats grasping at straws--they are truly desperate for something...anything...to happen.
I have been checking in at AirAmerika....and they have been getting bombarded with callers saying that if the dems don't filibuster Alito...they will regret it in the next elections...LOL
It's no news to us, but they are playing their games.
Arlen Specter announced at the critical moment that he supports Alito. Now Leahy, after delaying the vote, announces that he opposes Alito.
The left-wing press gets to say that Leahy is a really important Senator, the senior member of his party on the Judiciary Committee, so his opinion is important.
I don't think it will fly, however. They have not succeeded in proving that Alito is an extremist or out of the mainstream. The evidently don't DARE say that Alito should be defeated because he opposes abortion. So they have to dream up a convenient reason: Alito might help the tyrant Hitler Bush eavesdrop on our phone conversations and our library borrowings.
What made him change his mind? /sarcasm
If only euthanasia were legal.
Translation: I have no confidence that Judge Alito is a liberal...
Grab his own ears?
Yep. It's a hopeless attempt at water torture by the scumbags.
In the end, the joke is always on them.
Anyway, they are aware that their efforts are hopeless and that even if Alito somehow did get torpedoed, Bush would only respond by sending up the rats' worst nightmare, JRB. Yes, the joke is ALWAYS on the scumbag Democrats.
Why don't these cowards just come out with it:
"WE WON'T OK ANY PRO-LIFE JUSTICE. PERIOD."
Quick, check his copy of the Constitution. I think somebody's playing a practical joke on him.
in the case of Bush, and the war on terror.....
lets hope you are right Senator.
I HAVE confidence that Leahy will continue to leak classified information.
I vote Nea on Leahy.
This American citizen opposes leaky leahy
>>Listen you moron jerk, Leahy. It is not about checks and balances. It is about right and wrong.
>>Something you Democrats no NOTHING about.
I disagree, they know all about wrong.
You are a better person then me. How you can listen to that hated filled garbage and not projectile vomit is beyond me. Glad to know they have their own cadre of 100%ers. Unlike ours, THEY have no principals other then rabid hate for their political foes. They will show up to vote for the Dem not matter what the Dems do.
This supposed "seizing" of executive power relies on the ignorance of American citizens of even our recent past, when President Clinton's Executive Order count represented a real seize of power.
All we need are a few Supreme Court justices who will faithfully interpret our written Constitution; for it is that document, not men in black robes bent on using their rulings to exert power, that the Founders intended to be the protection of our liberty.
If there is any doubt as to how they should interpret it, Thomas Jefferson provided a standard that would not fail, even in the 21st Century:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
The Far Left agenda relies on a court that will find "emanations and penumbra" in the words of the Constitution, and Leahy and his cronies are frustrated that a "constructionist" may tend more toward Jefferson's method. Jefferson may have had such "emanations and penumbra" in mind when he wrote:
""Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
Sigh....someone has to go into the "fiery pit" once in a while to see how the crazies are acting....
The commercial for Ed Schultz's show later today was all about how the Republicans and "their" media are coming at Clinton....to take her down!!!
For once I agree with something I heard on Air Amerika.
Leahy criticized the existence of the Independent counsel in 1998, but last week he took Alito to task for criticizing the Independent Counsel statute in 2000
"been corrupted and no longer serves its intended purpose"
LEAHY: Judge, that's an answer -- substance of what you said is something, obviously, I would like. But I'm still troubled by it, because in November of 2000, right after the presidential election, ...you criticized the Supreme Court's upholding the independent counsel statute, among other things.
Leahy was never going to vote for Alito anyway. I can't stand hearing the junk that comes out of his mouth. I'm at the point I don't even want to talk to democrats anymore.
I seem to recall that Congress is supposed to provide that check and balance, and the Supreme Court only gets involved as judge of one against the other, or of the people against both. Leahy ignores the possibility of Congress overstepping its mandate.
Leaky Leahy, just another scum sucking bottom dweller deMARXocrat. Can't expect him to 'vote' for what is right and good.
If Leahy wants a good example of "no confidence" he should run on a national ticket and see what people really think of him rather than the socialists in Vermont.
I'm guessing that he will have at least 62 votes.
No doubt Leahy would approve of JUDGE CASHMAN!
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.