Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The Next Antonin Scalia

By Mary Lynn F. Jones, AlterNet. Posted October 31, 2005.


Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is a doggie treat to the rabid conservative base of the Republican party. Now, the real fight begins.
The Next Antonin Scalia
The Next Antonin Scalia
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Anxious to regain some of the political footing he lost last week, President Bush nominated conservative Appellate Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court Monday morning.

In naming the 55-year-old Alito, Bush called him "one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America" who "understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people." Bush also called on the Senate to vote on Alito's nomination before the end of the year.

Alito has the professional credibility that both Republicans and Democrats indicated was lacking in White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who withdrew her name from consideration last week to succeed retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Alito has served as an appellate judge, argued cases before the Supreme Court, worked in the Reagan administration and served as editor of his law school journal.

His 15-year conservative record as an appellate judge meant that even before the nomination became official, Alito -- nicknamed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" for his conservative opinions -- was drawing fire from Democrats on Sunday political talk shows; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told CNN that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems." But it also pleased conservatives who helped to bring down Miers, such as Concerned Women for America, an anti-abortion group with whom the White House consulted this weekend.

Alito's nomination comes as Bush tries to recover from arguably his worst week as president. Along with Miers' withdrawal, the number of U.S. deaths in Iraq passed the 2,000 mark and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby resigned after being indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and giving false statements. Naming Alito to the court allows Bush to try to change the conversation in Washington as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald continues to determine whether Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove should be indicted.

It's also a way to shore up support among his base at a time when Bush's public approval numbers are at their lowest in his presidency. Because of Bush's weakness, Democrats find themselves in a stronger position to oppose Alito than Roberts, who the Senate confirmed with 78 votes.

Despite Bush's request for speedy action by the Senate, the timetable for Alito's confirmation is in question for several reasons. The first is that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has said he would like the chamber to recess for the year by Thanksgiving, an already tight deadline given the Senate's legislative agenda. Given that it took about two months for the relatively smooth nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts to make its way through the Senate, seating Alito on the court by the end of the year could be difficult. O'Connor has offered to stay on the court until her successor is confirmed, diminishing the need for a quick confirmation.

On Monday, Frist said he would consult on scheduling with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., noting, "If it's possible to act, I will call the Senate back in to vote, up or down, on the Alito nomination." But Specter noted Monday that Alito has taken part in about 3,500 cases and 300 opinions, which will likely take awhile for the committee to wade through.

Republicans would like to push the nomination through quickly in part to give Democrats less time to build opposition and in part to replace O'Connor, the critical swing seat on the court. The longer O'Connor remains on the court, the more cases she will hear and potentially be able to cast the deciding vote.

The second factor is whether Democrats will filibuster Alito's nomination. Unlike the Roberts or Miers nominations, the White House did not talk with a large number of senators beforehand in order to name Alito quickly. On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the so-called bipartisan "Gang of 14" -- which hammered out an agreement not to filibuster any nominee who does not trip the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of its agreement -- ruled out the possibility of filibustering Alito's nomination, saying it would "not stand." The group is likely to meet this week to discuss Alito. But Specter admitted on Sunday he is "very worried" about a filibuster showdown, which could stall Senate business for weeks.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Mary Lynn F. Jones is a Washington D.C.-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
As long as
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 31, 2005 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he gets the endorsement of the EWMD (economic weapons of mass destruction) groups like Wall Street and U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with the rest of mal-corporate America and the RWMD (religious weapons of mass destruction) allies like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, etc ... along with the rest of the social konservative interests, he'll be given the green light along with the corporate press to bill him as a moderate if he tries to hide his shady rightwing lunacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: As long as Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: As long as Posted by: Lincoln fan
Step right up ladies and gentlemen......
Posted by: Michiganman on Oct 31, 2005 7:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see the fantastic supreme court nomination battle, greatest in this century. That's right direct your attention away from any other festering wounds and marvel at the open heart surgery taking place on the country known as the US of A. Thrill at the dips and dives, your full attention will be required. Pay no attention to any other of our sideshows for this will be the main attraction!.......pitiful

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AGREE 10000% Scripted Posted by: Michiganman
The left will feign outrage.
Posted by: kittynboi on Oct 31, 2005 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But over half fo the left don't find this objectionable. If he were to say he opposes NAFTA or the WTO or any other such thing, then he could overturn roe vs. wade, throw gays in to death camps, make house to house searches for "obscene" art mandatory, and the left wouldn't mind a bit as long as they can smash the corporate state. The left in general has only one ambition; to untie with the kkk, the neo nazis, and the militias, sing kumbaya, and smash capitalism. They want to do it on the corpses of women, gays, and social liberals.

Fear the economic left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The left will feign outrage. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The left will feign outrage. Posted by: betterfuture
» Logical fallacies Posted by: gp
Damage
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 1, 2005 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's more proof (as if any were needed) that the damage that George W. Bush has done to this once-great country will be with us for generations to come. 'Nuf said.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Damage Posted by: cyclone
I think I'm confuzzled....
Posted by: churchofone on Nov 1, 2005 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If polls show that more than half of Americans support the right to choose an abortion, why this pandering to a smaller segment that wants Roe v Wade overturned? Maybe I'm simplifying here, but it seems that it is merely a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease, when a SCOTUS nominee is selected to appeal to the social conservative 'base'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're going to party like it's 1899
Posted by: I_Love_NY on Nov 1, 2005 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This confirms that conservatives are the same no matter where you go. This guy would make a good judge in Saudi Arabia. Look future majority opinions stating the Constitution supports a mans right to make his wife walk ten paces behind him.

Making conservatives cringe since 1977

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets take advantage
Posted by: portly on Nov 1, 2005 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This seems to be the point at which the Progressive side of the ledger should be out in FORCE pointing out to all those Sheeple we saw vote for Chimpy in the last two elections that THIS is what you get when you vote against your own self interests. The ways that decisions of the Supreme Court effect us ALL in our daily lives need to be put in front of these people NOW! No more Medical Leave Act! Don't let anybody in your family get sick...let 'em search and seize without any good reason? Don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time! Wanna talk abortion for your daughter? Don't even go there, you'll get to bring up the little Nipper on your poverty level wages from those two jobs you work. This is what happens when you listen to the Happy Talk of Conservatards during election cycles. At least them damn gays can't get hitched, right! Wake UP people! Texas? Florida? Ohio? Are you listening? Start paying attention! Start getting ready for the '06 elections NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets take advantage Posted by: betterfuture
Totalitarianism or Bust
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Nov 1, 2005 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Totalitarianism or Bust

The Rabid Right has a huge psychological advantage over democrats which they wield like a club to beat democratic politicians into submission: it’s called Mutually Assured Destruction. Rather than risk civil strife, much less civil war, democrats will capitulate to totalitarianism to keep the peace.

If democrats don’t filibuster Alito, the Rabid Right will have achieved their goal of Totalitarianism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gotta start winning elections
Posted by: gerdhansel on Nov 1, 2005 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honestly, the left has got to start relying less on the courts to press their agenda and more on winning elections.

Nine unelected lawyers appointed for life can always die and be replaced by people who will vote for things you don't agree with. And you have no recourse, none whatsoever.

Start thinking realistically about how to win elections and win them convincingly. Learn to talk to rednecks without being condescending and insulting their culture and their intlligence.

Don't nominate any more New England twits for President. Put a Bubba on the ticket like Bill Clinton, somebody the rednecks will vote for.

Repeat after me, moderate Southern governors, moderate Southern governors.

And accept the fact that you can't win without redneck votes. Face reality.

Find common ground with the rednecks, and a few more of them might just vote for your guy. They're just as worried about their economic plight as most of you are.

Try harder to convince the rednecks that the Republicans are just blowing smoke up their dress with all this propaganda about God, Guns and Gays. They're playing a shell game with the religious redneck world, convincing these people to vote against their economic self-interest.

It would greatly help your cause if the Bill Mahers of the world immediately stop calling religious people stupid. Get over your bias against people of faith, because you cannot win elections without their votes.

Ridiculing Southern Evangelical Christians may be good sport for many progressives, but if you don't put a sock in it you're going to keep losing, losing, losing.

Win elections, repeat after me, win elections.

You vote for somebody and he doesn't represent your values, then vote for somebody else the next time. You rely on nine lawyers in black robes to save your hiney, better get ready to kiss that bad boy good-bye.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gotta start winning elections Posted by: Troglodyke
Scaryto: Sloppy--and vicious thinking about "undue burden"
Posted by: Shadow on Nov 1, 2005 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our "brilliant" new candidate for the Supreme Court interprets Sandra Day O'Connor's stipulation that state laws regarding abortion must not create an "undue burden or barrier to abortion" as meaning that if the law "only" applies to a minority of women, then there is no "undue burden." This type of vicious and sloppy thinking is totally unacceptable for a SC candidate. What if Scalito's daughter was raped by her estranged psychotic husband and wanted an abortion. "No," Father Scalito would say, "there is no undue burden for the class of alll women that they talk to their husbands about this, so there is no undue burden for you either, Honey. Sorry, Daughter that I love." This is not just Justice "Scalito" that we're dealing with, but Justice "Scaryto."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

basiclex
Posted by: basiclex on Nov 1, 2005 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been saying since the Reagan admin. that it's crucial to vote because if you don't, you get the Republicans in. Then if the president is a Republican, he'll put conservatives on the federal bench. If the Congress is Republican, they'll just go along with the prez. Even reasonable, moderate Republicans tend to vote with the party on judicial nominees, I think.

When dealing with Republicans, it's sad to say, you must expect tricks and dirty dealings. I say this because I'm reviewing judicial nominations through theClinton and the Bush, Jr. years. The Republican Senate wouldn't go along with Clinton's judicial nominees. Then once Bush Jr gets in, the Senate's attitude is "Defer to the President," and "Every nominee deserves a vote." The truth is that when a Republican does it (lie, cheat, etc.) it's ok. When a Dem does, it's impeachable.

So how do we deal with this? I say don't fight dirty, fight clean. Don't tell lies. Just tell the truth. The truth is that the conservative Republicans (with the complicity/apathy of more moderate reasonable ones) will do anything to rule this country. We need to make people understand this--that when Bush et al. start up on freedom and America and freedom, they are talking about their own freedom to do what they want and be as rich as possible. They don't care about democracy (not really--if they did there wouldn't be a K Street project). They don't care about social responsibility. The only people they care about are the ones like them. They abhor civil rights. No government interference with business, please, but let the government into the bedroom cause we wanna make sure that everyone is toeing the line.
So the moral is -- don't vote for Republicans!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Court is political, politics should be in the confirmation process
Posted by: lamar on Nov 1, 2005 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scalia himself told the Wall Street Journal Report (Oct. 10) that the court decides political issues, and that's why Senators look at the politics of judges. Scalia was lamenting the Court's determination of "political issues", but his point is true: the Court does decide political issues. The confirmation process needs to be updated to reflect this reality. Deference should no longer be due to the president because his pick hinges on furthering a political agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OF COURSE THE COURT IS POLITICAL!
Posted by: krose on Nov 1, 2005 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THEY PICKED OUR CURRENT SO-CALLED "PRESIDENT!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You want to appoint a Supreme Court justice? Win an election.
Posted by: Gun Bunny on Nov 1, 2005 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just remember: Ruth Ginsgurg had been General Counsel for the ACLU, and was about as pink as anybody could be, and we all knew it. She was confirmed 96 - 3.

I'm pro abortion, pro death penalty and believe that gun control is being able to put a second bullet into the guy who's trying to rape my daughter before he hits the floor because of the first bullet (the ole double tap). I'd be happier if he was pro abortion, but my calculus is that two outta three ain't bad.

gun bunny

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Catholic Court
Posted by: Shadow on Nov 1, 2005 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Question: What does it mean that, counting Alito, we now have a majority of members of the SC that believe that they will burn in hell for eternity if they do anything that their Church deems supportive of Roe v Wade? Is there a "conflict of interest" here? Just a question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More information about this nominee and his pro-mal-business judgement record
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 1, 2005 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alito's Made Some Good, Some Bad
Posted by: combatboots84 on Nov 1, 2005 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alito has made some decisions in favor of Big Government, but he's also made some decisions in favor of the people over BG. The NY Times editorial/op-ed article (from Nov 1), "Separated at the Bench," provides examples of his decisions in favor of the people. I'd rather have a judge who's made ZERO decisions in favor of BG, but do we need to lighten up and realize that people make mistakes, or should we expect perfection from those who get appointed to the highest court in our land?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Astrology of Sam "Veto" Alito
Posted by: Meremark on Nov 2, 2005 2:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So sorry, I offer this pro bono as professional astrology casework for studying the subject's personality and destiny. Using date: April 1, 1950; place: NJ; time: unknown; estimate sundown so Libra rising, based on facial appearance in Alternet's photo.

Astrologizing public figures seems novel in political talk, perhaps put-offish, yet offers a low-budget investigation with X-ray eyes that see through publicity stonewalls or false claims. IF using the actual birth data and supposing that.

Alito is Aries, fiery, dagger-talking, judges spontaneously, makes impromptu judgements related to petty incidentals, such as a posture, a remark, a gesture, as occur in a case; opportunistic; ruling without reference to or comprehension of legal history or tradition; seeks justice in one-liners, said and done and gone, and likely would rule differently in the same-found case on a different day, depending on his quick-witty and quick-shifty mood, not his body of thought. For him the winning argument is the shortest path to settlement. Impatient, dispenses justice before noon, so there's time in the day for self. Writes short sentences. Viscious, brisk and capital.

Various degrees of the above apply as well for any Aries who is a judge, which supposedly means one-twelfth of judges. Among the signs, Aries is maybe least the judicial temperment, takes sides rashly, being without capacity to suspend judgement ... which missing component of personality may gnaw to find it, and (?) explain why judges are disproportionately Aries. (Most judicious temperment is opposite, Libra, in October, with a reverse complex -- indecision in taking sides, and seeking justice through formula, model, mechanism, procedure, precedent.)

Continuing second to speak specially of the Aries of April 1, 1950:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Astrology for Alito
Posted by: Meremark on Nov 2, 2005 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Continuing second to speak specially for the Aries of April 1, 1950.

Mars is in opposition, retrograde, retreated from Libra backed into Virgo. Not normal; probablistically unique in the thousands. I've seen two such cases before, one male, one female. The tension is more difficult for men than women to endure. It's a misogyny. Appetite for 'capture restraint' sex, anti-ecdysiast. (A side set in this case may show 'exposition' as a Venus conjunction coming to Jupiter, in the final degrees of Aquarius. Let Venus show sister and Jupiter show mother and see this: antipathy for females 'being better off.' Perhaps a wealthy-set mother and that way coercion of the father into and through marriage, and favoritism for the sister.) Gastrointestinal sublimation of tension, liable to ulcers, pancreatic or prostate inflammations; however, an exceptionally viable liver and hematic purity, this a saving grace, regardless of hemeralopia.

More's the neurosis with the Moon also in Virgo, past conjunction with Saturn (in Virgo) some hours before birth and reaching conjunction with Mars some hours after birth. Here's an intricate mentality, even fragile but presenting over it a social mask of crude gothic substantiation. 'I am that I am.' In aged years a mental fatigue and senile. A cursed extreme intelligence, without athleticism for balance of chi. Tungsten brilliant, and as brittle, of mind.

Does not suffer fools or anyone else gladly. Tight-wound, self-impressed, filigree and lace mentality, tatting, tatting, insouciant, dispassionate, watching tumbrels roll, unprotesting. A destiny of the loveless -- never felt it, never had it. Brief of briefs, no duration.

Unwise hasty nomination. Dissociate of justice. Defeat in delay: postponement past Jan. 1 lapses this nomination.

[Epilog profane: When Reagan's team kept White House astrology, the search was for enemies as manifest in an assassination attempt. And they found it, as so.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dems will bend over and take it, they will
Posted by: Troglodyke on Nov 2, 2005 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Scalito nomination is a huge chance for the Dems to grow a spine and really stand up for those of us who are sick of the hard right turn this country is taking, but I predict they'll bluster a bit before cowering back into their holes. Alito will sail through the nomination process, mark my words. Could we not all see this coming? Bush throws up a nobody with no credentials just to stir the pot (did he honestly think she had a snowball's chance in hell of making it to SCOTUS?) and she conveniently steps aside so he can suck up to the fundies and nominate a right-wing love-child instead. Duh...and what are the Dems so ill about? Are they worried Scalito will further eviscerate our basic rights? Are they concerned about the Patriot Act, or the Christianizing of our secular government? NO. All anyone can piss and moan about is Roe V. Wade. The Dems need to learn that there's a hell of a lot more at stake with this administration than just abortion and the fricking war. Stop focusing on one issue and start making a difference!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hello! Is there anybody in there? Just n
Posted by: gathaiga on Nov 2, 2005 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, the Democrats. They will respond will all the power of a fart in a whirlwind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]