| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:08 pm Alito Gets Partisan Thumbs Up From Senate Judiciary Committe |
|
| Quote: | Alito Gets Partisan Thumbs Up From Senate Judiciary Committee
WASHINGTON � In a party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday recommended that Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court be sent to the full Senate for approval. The Senate is next to take up debate, beginning Wednesday.
Most, if not all, of the full Senate's 55 Republicans are expected to support Alito and most of the 44 Democrats to oppose him. Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont has not said how he will vote.
Only Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine; and Ted Stevens of Alaska have not yet publicly committed to vote for Alito. With Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska's support, 51 senators, a simple majority, have said they are on board in support of Alito.
Twenty Democrats have publicly stated opposition to Alito while the other 23 are still publicly undecided or refuse to say how they will vote.
Committee Republicans had warned against a party-line vote, saying it will set a harmful precedent in opposing a judicial nominee strictly on how he or she may decide certain cases.
"I think it is, unfortunately, it is so partisan," Committee Chairman Arlen Specter told FOX News after the panel approved Alito. "I think it is not a good sign for the country to have the appearance for a party-line vote but senators vote as they choose. We really need to have the party-line straightjacket taken off."
But committee Democrats said they had no intention of voting for the 3rd Circuit Court judge, whom they described repeatedly as beholden to presidential power and against abortion rights.
"The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "He is a longstanding advocate for expanding executive power, even at the expense of core individual liberties. In contrast to Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Alito's record and testimony clearly reveal a willingness to grant the president a far greater role than is currently recognized by the Supreme Court."
"I, for one, really believe that there comes a time that you just have to stand up especially when you truly believe that the majority of people in America believe what you do," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., referring to public opinion supporting abortion rights.
Specter said he was disappointed that all eight panel Democrats were opposing Alito, who was not present but planned to visit some Republican senators later in the day. Specter noted that the nominee answered as thoroughly as he could on issues such as abortion and executive power, without inappropriately showing how he would rule on such cases. All 10 Republicans on the committee will vote for Alito.
"I'm personally sorry to see a party-line vote out of this committee and very close to a party line vote out of the full Senate but we all have our points of view. I hope Judge Alito would consider himself confirmed by all the people if indeed he is confirmed," the Pennsylvania Republican said in opening the hearing on whether to send Alito's nomination to the full Senate for consideration.
"I fear a very bad precedent is being set today, a precedent that a unanimous minority will oppose a nominee on political grounds not because the nominee is in any way unqualified," added Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Judge Alito deserves a 'yes' vote from everyone on this committee."
Democrats say they have great concerns about Alito, who, if confirmed, will replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. They say they worry Alito, 55, will do nothing to curb what they consider an overreaching of presidential power, and specifically cite Bush's direction to the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on phone and e-mail conversations of people inside the United States if they send or receive communications from overseas Al Qaeda suspects.
Click here to read more about Alito's cases and background (pdf).
The panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said Alito's nomination "threatens the fundamental rights and liberties" of all Americans.
"I wish we could have somebody who would have the support of all Americans," Leahy said of the court nominee. "There are many, many, many people in this country who would have had 90 to 100 votes in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans would have joined eagerly to support them."
Committee Democrats who opposed Alito are Leahy, Kennedy, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Charles Schumer of New York.
Republican Committee members who supported Alito were Sens. Specter, Kyl, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
A full vote from the Senate may not come until next Tuesday, the day of President Bush's State of the Union address. Senate debate begins Wednesday and Republicans said they hoped for a confirmation vote by Friday, though Democrats have declined to guarantee one.
Republicans say the delay is the result of Democrats hoping to prevent a victory for the president before his address, but one aide to a Democratic Judiciary Committee member said he thought Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist may be holding off because some Republicans will be in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum.
Alito protesters have events planned all week. On Tuesday, groups holding "Oppose Alito, Save Roe" and "Stop Alito" signs lined up outside the U.S. Capitol.
Jockeying for the Next Election?
Only one Democrat so far is supporting Alito, Nebraska's Nelson. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts won the votes of 22 Democrats last year. Eleven Democrats broke with their party and voted for Clarence Thomas, a nominee of President George H.W. Bush in 1991.
"I am disappointed that the Democratic leader Harry Reid has apparently urged his colleagues to vote no on this nomination. � I think it may affect votes on the floor to make this a leadership issue," Sessions said.
"From what I can see, the Democrats are going to make a cause celebre out of this, even though Judge Alito is more than qualified," Hatch told FOX News on Tuesday before the vote, adding that Democrats are making abortion the big issue on which to oppose Alito. "I'm afraid they're making a political fiasco out of this," he added.
During a press conference later Tuesday afternoon, Reid of Nevada announced he would vote "no" when Alito's nomination came to the full Senate. He said the issue of executive power was the largest one that concerned him regarding Alito; the nominee repeatedly said during his confirmation hearing that no one was above the law, not even the president.
"I have no confidence he will serve as a real check on abuse of power so expansive with this administration," said Reid, who is an ex-officio member of the Judiciary Committee. "President Bush continues to believe he is above the law ... No one is above the law and we need a strong federal judiciary to protect against this abuse."
During the hearing, Hatch noted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with a vote of 96 to 3, while Justice Stephen Breyer was approved 87 to 9 � both were Clinton administration nominees; Ginsburg was previously a lawyer for the ACLU.
"We all knew they were social liberals ... yet we voted for them because they were qualified and they were put forth by the president of the United States. �Where were the filibusters, where were the litmus tests and the scorecards?" Hatch said. "We acknowledged their obvious qualifications and judicial temperament and we gave the then-president the deference to the separation of powers � Judge Alito should receive at least as much support as they did."
Republicans said Democrats knew Bush would nominate a conservative, but that doesn't mean that the former federal prosecutor and lawyer for the Reagan administration will change the direction of the court.
"What did you expect President Bush to do when he won?" asked Graham, echoing Hatch's points about how Republicans still approved Breyer and Ginsburg despite their reservations.
"What's changed? It's not the quality of the nominees, it's the qualities of the process," Graham said. "I really do worry that we're going to take the Supreme Court nomination process and boil it down to abortion. That won't be good for the country."
Graham also took a shot at Democrats who say Alito is out of the mainstream and are opposing him so that they can use objectionable Supreme Court decisions as an issue in the upcoming election.
"We'll welcome that debate on our side, we'll clean your clock ... Judge Alito is closer to the mainstream of America than People for the American Way" Graham said, referring to one of the may liberal interest groups who have been lobbying against Alito. Republicans argue they are objecting to the nominee because they can't get their initiatives passed in Congress or the states and so are resorting to the courts.
"We're no longer advising and consenting, we're jockeying for the next election," Graham continued.
Senate Confirmation Likely
In recent judicial battles, a 10 to 8 party line vote would be the first sign of the possibility of a Democratic-led filibuster. But Democrats are not expected to try that with Alito, who countered sharp Democratic attacks on his judicial record and personal credibility without a major stumble during his confirmation hearings earlier this month.
Democrats like Kennedy essentially tried to paint Alito as an unethical bigot by continuously pressing him on his college involvement with the controversial Concerned Alumni of Princeton group, as well as his ruling on a case involving Vanguard mutual fund company even as he had holdings invested with the company.
"Given Judge Alito's refusal to answer many important questions, given that he's out of the mainstream on too many issues and would move the country backward and given the pledges that following precedent would give little consolation ... I have no choice but to vote 'nay' and urge my colleagues to do the same," Schumer said.
Republicans, in turn, complained that Democrats couldn't find anything substantive to oppose Alito on in regards to his legal record, so they turned to personal attacks.
"In addition to his impeccable qualifications, the people who know him and his work the best have told the committee that he is a fair and even-handed jurist. His colleagues on the 3rd Circuit and his former law clerks � liberal and conservative alike � report that he is a jurist who keeps an open mind and does not try to impose an ideological agenda from the bench," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Tuesday. "These reports from the people who know him the best-including those who do not share his political views are far more credible than the distortions we have heard from his detractors."
Bush, speaking about the War on Terror and other topics in Kansas on Monday, heaped praise on Alito and pointed out that the American Bar Association unanimously gave Alito the highest possible rating.
"You don't have to worry about him in the committee," Bush told an audience at Kansas State University. He called Alito "a very, very smart, capable man. When you talk to Sam Alito, you think, 'smart judge.'"
The president is aware that some Democrats like Schumer have hinted they may filibuster the nomination but he pointed out that the so-called "Gang of 14" � seven moderate members from both political parties � have vowed to try to prevent a filibuster unless "extraordinary" circumstances arise.
"There has been no sign of any extraordinary circumstance, except for this extraordinary thing � he's extraordinarily capable to serve on the Supreme Court," Bush said Monday.
FOX News Supreme Court analyst Tim O'Brien agreed that as of now, nothing in sight could derail the nomination.
"If there are any rabbits in the hat, we don't know about them. It is possible Democrats could continue to debate this and delay until Tuesday � [but] it seems most unlikely," he said. "This could be the closest vote since Clarence Thomas" in 1991, when that nominee was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48, the closest margin of success for a Supreme Court justice in a century.
FOX News' Kelly Wright contributed to this report.
Source |
Good for Alito, Bush, and America! Too bad it had to go right down along partisan lines...That's just sad...
I expect he'll get through the whole Senate, and I hope he does! Too bad he'll be facing some unnecessary troubles as the process goes, and lets hope the Dems don't slow things up.
It's really too bad, and rather sad, that, unlike the Republicans with Ginsberg, the Dems are voting along ideological lines. We just can't give Republican choice the up, when he's a bit conservative, now can we? And yet we can give a far-left liberal judge the up. Hmmm... 
And I, for one, am somewhat shocked (as well as unhappy) that my Democratic senator, Salazar, says he's going to vote no, especially considering he campaigned as a moderate (and seemed that way). I thought he might be a good senator, but lately I've been seeing the opposite so.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:08 am |
|
Let's make Bush happy.  Way to go on letting Alito pass.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:16 am |
|
Well, I would hope that would be fair and give Alito the position. He's overly qualified and everything.
So, yes, make Bush happy. Do what they should do and approve the nominee. Just as the Republicans did Ginsberg--the unanimous vote of approval (96-0) in '93 or '94.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:20 am |
|
I agree give him the job if he's quallified but don't give it to him to make any one person happy. Do what's best for American not just for me or any joe schmoe.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 am |
|
I agree that they shouldn't do it just to make him happy, and nor are they, but it is the president's perogative, and the nominee is highly qualified, and therefore Alito should be confirmed, and quickly as well.
Oh, and btw. Having Alito on the court is best for America. He's highly qualified and proven to be fair, and therefore will be a good justice and help America.
And a majority of Americans--one that has grown since the hearings, as a matter of fact--believe that he should be confirmed as well.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:32 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I agree that they shouldn't do it just to make him happy, and nor are they, but it is the president's perogative, and the nominee is highly qualified, and therefore Alito should be confirmed, and quickly as well.
Oh, and btw. Having Alito on the court is best for America. He's highly qualified and proven to be fair, and therefore will be a good justice and help America.
And a majority of Americans--one that has grown since the hearings, as a matter of fact--believe that he should be confirmed as well. |
Anyone who spends hundreds of billions of dollars haphazardly and wastefully doesn't deserve to be apeased in any manner anyway. And do you seriously believe that the president's perogative means anything to anyone after members of his administration have been indicted, he's been recently critisized for eavesdropping on people (which last I checked was illegal), and misled the American people into a bloody war?
Sure Mr. Alito is qualified to be a judge, but people are going to be questioning the president's choices because of his record.
He really is too conservative. The imbalance is going to continue to grow I suppose...
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:35 pm |
|
Or lessoning, I would say...
Anyways, no one is saying that he should be approved simply because it's the President's perogative, and nor should they. But the fact is, it is the President's perogative, and if he chooses a highly qualified nominee that is conservativem, yet fair, then okay. Approve him. There's no reason not to approve him.
Now, as to people questioning the President's judgment: Yes, people are, and in greater numbers than, say, two years ago. But the numbers have shrinked over the last several months, and the majority of Americans trust the President on this matter--they approve of Samuel Alito, as numerous polls have showed.
However, the American people aren't nearly, overall, at the same time, as cynical or what have you as you are. Keep that in mind. 
But besides, those "things" don't even matter to this. It's the President's choice and he's abundently qualified. Therefore, President's perogative, extremely qualified...Sounds like the right person to be approved, just as Ginsberg was (and she is far more liberal than Alito ).
But lol, it's so funny watching a liberal critique the President for spending horribly...lol. Should be the other way around--which it is, but only the other way around.  But, again, that's irrelivant in this matter. Other problems of the Administration need not be taken into account for something like this. (And, and btw: the President has the inherent Constitutional authority--just as Clinton and his administration argued when they did it--to do what he did, and, in case you haven't checked, most Americans actually support the Patriot Act and the NSA terrorist survailance program, if it will protect us from the terrorists, so you can flow that argument and all related arguments over to my side. )
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:56 pm |
|
I think this is good news. As long as the judge is disinterested and well qualified, it shouldn't exactly matter which end of the political spectrum they rest upon.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:21 pm |
|
What's really annoying news, however, is how former Presidential candidate John Kerry is calling for a filibuster of Alito. Yeah, that's right. I guess that's what he would want from the Republicans, too, were he elected.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:37 pm |
|
He did say he was going to do that back in 2003
| Quote: | "I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties and on the laws protecting workers and the environment."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), quoted by the AP, June 20, 2003. |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:02 pm |
|
He did, yes, but that's not the case here, however.
And not only that, but if he were president, would he want this to happen to his nominee? I don't think so.
But lol, for once he's consistent. Too bad it's horribly wrong, and backward.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:48 pm |
|
I agree with Sean Hannity when he says to the Democrats, "Keep this up! Keep up your unhinging and filibuster! Yes, not only threaten a filibuster, but carry one out!"
They're digging themselves into a deeper hole now, with all that they've been doing since '04--and this only adds to it.
Seriously. Most Americans support Alito and think that if the nominee is intelligent, judicious, qualified, etc., he should be qualified. In overwhelming numbers polls show this, and what the Democrats are doing--what with this filibuster and making Mrs. Alito cry and all thse attacks on him, and their disgusting actions during the hearings--is only hurting them and helping the Republicans.
Keep on at it!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:03 am |
|
| oberon wrote: | | eavesdropping on people (which last I checked was illegal) |
Check again. You love to make idiot's comments without any facts behind them, don't you?
Eavesdropping on foreign terrorists is a perfectly legal presidential authority. It's been used by every modern era president, and will continue to be.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:26 am |
|
I'm sure the "idiot's comments" comment was directed at the statement itself, and not the person who stated it, right? Anyway, so we don't have to clarify again, let's just keep it more... civil. Thanks.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:32 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | oberon wrote: | | eavesdropping on people (which last I checked was illegal) |
Check again. You love to make idiot's comments without any facts behind them, don't you?
Eavesdropping on foreign terrorists is a perfectly legal presidential authority. It's been used by every modern era president, and will continue to be. |
But the fact remains that it was used to eavesdrop on citizens as well.
Of course I love to make idiot's comments because for whom do I type?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:13 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: |
Of course I love to make idiot's comments because for whom do I type? |
I CLEARLY just told him to stop, did you think that that meant you could continue it? You thought wrong. You are warned.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:06 pm |
|
Anyways, on topic, it looks like Kerry and Kennedy don't have enough votes to maintain a filibuster.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:13 pm |
|
| Quote: | Alito Filibuster Fails, Confirmation Vote Expected Tuesday
WASHINGTON � More than a dozen Senate Democrats supported ending debate on Samuel Alito Monday, setting up a final confirmation vote for the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday morning.
On a 72-25 vote, senators succeeded in passing the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster and allow a simple majority vote Tuesday. Seventeen Democrats joined Republicans to end debate, though many of them oppose Alito's nomination. At least 57 senators have said publicly they will vote for the nominee.
Alito could be sworn in as early as noon Tuesday, in time for a formal introduction to the nation by President Bush during his State of the Union address Tuesday night. Alito will become the 110th Supreme Court justice, replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
�Today, a bipartisan majority of senators embraced the principle of a fair, up-or-down vote for judicial nominees and rejected partisan obstruction. This vote marks another step forward in restoring fairness to the judicial nominations process," Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said in a written statement after the vote.
Efforts to filibuster Alito began last week when both Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry announced they would try to lead the charge against Alito. Their efforts won the support of several liberal Democratic senators, including some who had initially opposed a filibuster. Ultimately, though, the senators could not put the brakes on a final confirmation vote.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who began wrapping up the debate before final confirmation, said after the cloture vote that she was proud to have put up a fight against Alito.
"We fell short of the 41 votes we needed to send this nomination back, yet still I am pleased" with the effort, she said, because the Supreme Court "is the people's court."
Prior to the vote, Sen. Arlen Specter, a pro-choice Republican and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hailed Alito as an "A-plus" candidate for the nation's highest court who was "well qualified" to be confirmed by the Senate.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee on Monday was the first Senate Republican to announce his opposition to Alito's nomination to the high court. He said he was concerned about what he perceived as Alito's sympathetic stance on executive power in light of the administration's recently uncovered warrantless wiretapping program
Chafee, who is running for re-election this year and faces a more conservative Republican primary opponent, added that he feared Alito would be an enemy of reproductive freedom and the environment, and called himself a "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican."
Though Democrats who strongly oppose Alito's confirmation to the high court may have been cheered by Chafee's support, he said Democrats could not count on his help in blocking a vote.
"How are we going to get anything done if we can't work together?" Chafee asked after saying he would vote against a filibuster, a procedural move designed to prevent a vote on a nomination.
Chafee is one of the members of the so-called Gang of 14 that unanimously supported ending debate on Alito. The gang was formed by senators seeking middle ground on judiciary nominees. A ground rule for allowing filibusters is whether "extraordinary circumstances" surround the nominee. While the gang has never explicitly defined what an extraordinary circumstance would be, members privately said there were none regarding Alito, who has sat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years.
Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, wasn't the only senator to cross party lines on Alito. Four Democrats � Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Robert Byrd of West Virginia � have announced they would support Alito's nomination. All four supported ending the filibuster.
"Judge Alito looked me in the eye and told me that he will not conduct himself based on an ideological agenda. He promised me that he would judge each case based on its merits and protect and defend the liberties set out in the Constitution," Conrad said Monday, explaining, in part, his support for Alito.
Last week, Byrd decried the highly partisan tone of Alito's confirmation hearing, held three weeks ago, saying "something is wrong with our judicial nominations process, and we in the Senate have the power to fix it."
The West Virginia lawmaker admonished his colleagues from the Senate floor, telling them their votes should be based on Alito's qualifications not their party affiliation.
"I believe strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to provide its advice and consent with respect to a particular nominee based on the merits or demerits of that nominee � not on focus groups, celebrity endorsements, binders filled with innuendo and slanted analysis, or White House photo opportunities," the 88-year-old Democratic senator said.
Both Democratic senators from New Jersey, Alito's home state, announced Monday they would oppose Alito's nomination. Democrat Frank Lautenberg said he would vote against Alito despite having introduced him to the Senate Judiciary Committee at the opening of the confirmation hearing, and Robert Menendez announced his opposition in his first-ever floor speech as a senator. Menendez was sworn in less than two weeks ago to replace former Sen. Jon Corzine, who was elected governor of the state in November.
One of the Republicans expected to help end the debate and support Alito's confirmation was not able to attend Monday's Senate session. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., was in a car accident Monday morning on the way to the airport to return to Washington, D.C. Hospitalized for "bumps and bruises," he was to miss the Monday afternoon cloture vote to end debate. Republican Alito supporters said their numbers were sufficient without Ensign's vote.
If confirmed, it would be logical to see Bush introduce Alito to the nation at his State of the Union address. Typically, all nine justices are invited each year to the president's State of the Union address, but only Justice Stephen Breyer has gone in recent years. The Supreme Court did not say on Monday whether O'Connor, whose last day on the court would be Tuesday if Alito is sworn in immediately after a final vote, would attend the State of the Union.
Asked if the court had any going-away ceremonies or send-offs planned for O'Connor if Alito is confirmed Tuesday, a spokesman said no, the court has not historically held formal farewells for justices.
FOX News' Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source |
Darn it! I was hoping for the Democrats to do the filibuster! I wanted to see them dig themselves even deeper!  
lol, no, otherwise, this is good, though. He deserves an up-or-down vote.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:30 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine |
They said yes. Silly Aaron, New York and Hillary, you poor thing, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:26 pm |
|
The Democrats really should be ashamed of themselves after this fiasco.
The Republicans never threw such a hissy-fit when Clinton nominated that superliberal wench, Ginsburg.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:08 pm |
|
| Quote: | Alito Sworn In as Nation's 110th Supreme Court Justice
Samuel Alito was sworn in as the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, less than two hours after the Senate voted 58-42 to confirm him to the nation's highest court.
"Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench. He is a man of deep character and integrity, and he will make all Americans proud as a justice on our highest court," President Bush said in a statement after the confirmation vote.
Chief Justice John Roberts administered the judicial oath and constitutional oath, by which Alito pledged equal justice for the rich and the poor, and to uphold the Constitution. Roberts, new to the Supreme Court himself, administered the oaths to an associate justice for the first time.
Alito and his wife, Martha, had watched the Senate floor vote with President Bush in the White House. After Alito had earned enough votes to be confirmed, Bush and his staff, including former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, congratulated the newest justice. Bush then left to host a luncheon of the top news anchors from the networks and cable TV channels for an off-the-record preview discussion of his Tuesday night State of the Union speech.
Accompanied by his wife, Alito headed over to the Supreme Court building for his investiture. He and Roberts, both Bush nominees, are expected to attend Tuesday night's address.
The Senate vote put to bed the most partisan Supreme Court nomination since Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation in 1991. Four Democrats joined 54 Republicans in support of Alito. Thomas received a slimmer margin of victory, 52-48, but at the time received the votes of 11 Democrats who broke from party ranks.
"I'm concerned about his philosophy of the Constitution, his great effort of many years to expand presidential power at a time when there are real serious questions about the powers the president has," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who voted against Alito's confirmation.
Reed added that he feared Alito's addition to the bench would mean more decisions restricting Congress' power to legislate.
Sen. Arlen Specter, a pro-choice Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he based his affirmative vote on Alito's credentials, not speculation about the future.
"And we have seen, in the long history of the court, that there's no way to determine in advance how a nominee is going to vote," Specter said. "We have the three authors of the opinion in [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey] on a woman's right to choose, who had been very much against a woman's right to choose before they got to the court. When they looked at the precedents, when they looked at the tradition, when they looked at the reliance, they supported that principle."
Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a pro-choice Republican, was the final holdout in her party on Alito's nomination. But Tuesday morning she announced she would vote for Alito, joining fellow pro-choice Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Pro-Alito interest groups had infused the state with ads and activists, anticipating a fight for the Mainers' votes. Collins announced her support for Alito only last week.
Alito replaces the court's first woman justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative Reagan nominee and key swing vote on such high-profile issues as abortion, church-state separation and affirmative action. O'Connor has also in recent opinions demonstrated skepticism of President Bush's executive power claims in prosecuting the War on Terror. Democrats suspected that Alito will be friendlier to presidential power arguments.
The vast majority of Democrats, one Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and the Senate's lone Independent, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, protested Alito's nomination primarily over issues such as abortion rights and executive power. A last-ditch effort to filibuster the nomination failed on Monday, when the Senate voted 72-25 to end debate and allow a simple majority vote.
"I think this vote is part of a long practice, ever since the confirmation battle over Justice Rehnquist to become chief justice, where Republican nominees have been treated in a despicable fashion," said Orrin Hatch, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted in favor of Alito.
But Reed and other Democrats have been quick to point out that conservative Republicans sabotaged Miers, Bush's second choice to replace O'Connor.
"It's a funny degree of rancor," Reed said, acknowledging that the battle over Alito's nomination had taken some nasty turns. "Just a few weeks ago we were considering Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee, but ... because of opposition in the Republican Party something very, very rancorous drove her out."
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., blamed the hostilities on Democrats.
"Frankly, I think things have been spiraling down on the judicial nominations in the Senate ever since the Bork vote. It really Borked the whole process," the former Majority Leader told FOX News, referring to failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
Miers, who serves as White House counsel, withdrew her nomination less than a month after Bush gave her the nod. Roberts had been the president's first choice to replace O'Connor but was re-nominated to replace William H. Rehnquist after the late chief justice died last summer.
Alito, 55, has taken a career path very similar to Roberts'. Both were rising stars in former President Reagan's Justice Department who went on to serve as judges, in Alito's case the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years. Unlike Roberts, Alito was a federal prosecutor who has never worked in the private sector.
Alito and Roberts' presence at the State of the Union address will be a boost for the president. The two newest additions to the Supreme Court represent victories for Bush in a year that has been packed with scandals and unsteady popular support. Bush promised to shift the court rightward in his 2000 and 2004 election campaigns.
While the constitutional oath is generally administered at the White House, separately from the judicial oath, Roberts administered both oaths "so that Justice Alito could begin to participate in the work of the court immediately," according to a statement from the court.
The court also announced that Alito's formal investiture would occur at a later date. Roberts' investiture took place on his first day hearing oral arguments, also the court's opening day last fall. The court is on winter break until Feb. 17, and won't be hearing oral arguments until Feb. 21.
The White House invited senators to attend a reception in Alito's honor Wednesday afternoon. President Bush on Wednesday will be in Nashville, Tenn., where he is giving the traditional post-address policy speech, and is expected to fly back in time for the reception.
While Tuesday's vote proceeded as expected, there was one near-surprise: a distracted Democratic Sen. Max Baucus mistakenly voted yes when he meant no. He blamed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who was chatting up the Montanan on a pending tax reconciliation bill. Baucus' alarmed colleagues alerted him to the error and he changed his vote back to a no.
'A National Icon'
O'Connor, who was back in her home state teaching at the University of Arizona Law School, was not present at Alito's swearing in. After Tuesday's events, her resignation, submitted last July, became official.
O'Connor's reputation as a fair-minded, pragmatic and compassionate jurist who is also a strong federalist has eclipsed her significance as the first woman on the nation's highest bench. O'Connor, who turns 76 in March, is retiring to care for her ailing husband.
"Justice O'Connor was the first woman ever to sit on the Supreme Court, and she is one of the most admired Americans of our time, or any time. Our nation is grateful to Justice O'Connor for her extraordinary and dedicated public service, and Laura and I wish her and John all the best," Bush said Tuesday.
Reid, speaking before the floor vote, attributed his vote against Alito to his respect for O'Connor, whom he called "a national icon who has been a voice of moderation and reason on the court for the last quarter of a century." Reid added that he was especially disappointed to see the court lose one of its two women, echoing sentiments from women's and civil liberties groups.
O'Connor's admirers were also troubled by the court's new makeup, less for its more lopsided gender ratio than for how it might impact decisions.
"She was the moral center of the court," observed Marci Hamilton, one of the justice's former clerks. "On contentious issues she was the swing vote, but she determined every case would be decided on the basis of that case � she was never interested in the abstract."
Hamilton also noted that the court was losing the experience and insight of its sole onetime legislator. O'Connor served in the Arizona state Senate from 1969 to 1975, and became the first female Republican majority leader in the country.
"It is a huge loss in the sense that when the government comes in and makes its arguments, it's easy to discount them when you don't understand how the system works," Hamilton, a professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, told FOXNews.com. "She was always looking to the whole meaning of the statute and the pragmatic effect of the statute."
Even those who might have been disappointed by O'Connor's decisions on social wedge issues like abortion had the highest praise for her as a jurist.
"[Alito's confirmation] marks the end of the public service of a great American and public servant from my state of Arizona, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who served on the court for over a quarter of a century," said Republican John Kyl, who called Tuesday a "bittersweet" day.
"I do also want us to remember Sandra O'Connor for the service that she has provided to our country as an associate justice on the Supreme Court and, really, all of the public service during her career in Arizona as well. She will be missed," he said.
Those who watched Alito's confirmation hearing were quick to note the lack of crackle and pop in his personality, and Hamilton predicted O'Connor's departure would sap the court of some of its congeniality.
"She was the social glue that held them together. ... Even as she was being attacked by other justices, she never succumbed to language in an opinion that she would come to regret. Her responses were always professional, cool and evenhanded. It set the tone for everyone else," Hamilton said.
"Even if they all vehemently disagreed, that night they would go to dinner together. Neither Alito nor Roberts would fill that role."
FOX News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
Source |
Excellent news! He's been confirmed and sworn in with an up-or-down vote, just as he should have been!
Congrats to him, Bush, the Court, and America!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Monster
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 337
Location: The Great Plains
|
| Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:48 pm |
|
Hooray Alito!!!
I watched the confirmation with my brother on CSPAN2.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
