First of all, the question before the Senate is this:
1. Is Samuel Alito qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?
That's it. After 15 years on the federal bench, the man is qualified. he is of course, far from my first choice. But that's immaterial: he's highly qualified, according to the American Bar Association. Remember, Ginsburg and Breyer are left of the American mainstream by far, but still won confirmation by 96-3 and 89-8 respectively (there were some absent). Why? They're qualified. The GOP made a decision a long time ago, a tactical one: don't sweat Supreme Court appointments, stay focused on Congress. It's why they keep winning elections.
Read more on Alito here (Don't worry, it's Newsweek and MSNBC, not Fox news): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9939306/site/newsweek/
The liberals didn't have the votes to muster a filibuster, because it was designed tobe used only in case of some form of national emergency where a rampant Congress could ruin the common man. A single Supreme Court justice, no matter how ill, does not rise to that level.
As a by and large civil libertarian, I have my reservations about Judge Alito. I think he's too conservative. However, 4 of the 6 defenders of Roe v. Wade are GOP nominees; Stevens, Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy. So, I don't think Roe is going anywhere. And I'd be surprised if it went away at all. They may allow some states to chip away, but I don't think any judge will want to directly go against O'Connor's undue burden test.
ok...honestly right now i'm kinda sick of hearing about roe v. wade, i know what the issue is about and all, but there's a hell of a lot more in this world to worry about. and i'm sick of how abortion is the issue on which the entire country's vote seems to hinge on. I'll get into my thoughts on abortion at some point later. Not tonight.
I had a lot more written up ealier today at work that I was going to post until I reset my browser without saving. I might rewrite it in the next few days. I might not. Some other things have come up since earlier this evening that are a lot more prominent in my mind right now.
I know that you are not trying to start anyhting, but before anyone else does...I just want to state to anyone else reading this because I have friends that read on both sides of that fence...Dont turn this post into a ro-life/pro-choice battleground. When/if I decide to bring that one up, there will be a designated post.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 09:07 pm (UTC)There goes Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade?
Date: 2006-02-01 04:41 am (UTC)1. Is Samuel Alito qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?
That's it. After 15 years on the federal bench, the man is qualified. he is of course, far from my first choice. But that's immaterial: he's highly qualified, according to the American Bar Association. Remember, Ginsburg and Breyer are left of the American mainstream by far, but still won confirmation by 96-3 and 89-8 respectively (there were some absent). Why? They're qualified. The GOP made a decision a long time ago, a tactical one: don't sweat Supreme Court appointments, stay focused on Congress. It's why they keep winning elections.
Read more on Alito here (Don't worry, it's Newsweek and MSNBC, not Fox news):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9939306/site/newsweek/
The liberals didn't have the votes to muster a filibuster, because it was designed tobe used only in case of some form of national emergency where a rampant Congress could ruin the common man. A single Supreme Court justice, no matter how ill, does not rise to that level.
As a by and large civil libertarian, I have my reservations about Judge Alito. I think he's too conservative. However, 4 of the 6 defenders of Roe v. Wade are GOP nominees; Stevens, Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy. So, I don't think Roe is going anywhere. And I'd be surprised if it went away at all. They may allow some states to chip away, but I don't think any judge will want to directly go against O'Connor's undue burden test.
Re: Roe v. Wade?
Date: 2006-02-01 04:55 am (UTC)I had a lot more written up ealier today at work that I was going to post until I reset my browser without saving. I might rewrite it in the next few days. I might not. Some other things have come up since earlier this evening that are a lot more prominent in my mind right now.
I know that you are not trying to start anyhting, but before anyone else does...I just want to state to anyone else reading this because I have friends that read on both sides of that fence...Dont turn this post into a ro-life/pro-choice battleground. When/if I decide to bring that one up, there will be a designated post.
That is all.
Re: Roe v. Wade?
Date: 2006-02-02 03:29 am (UTC)