I have a couple of questions for you, Adam.
First, Ginsberg's "you already know what I believe in..." stance was only on some issues, and she ducked quite a few others. However, the Republicans in the Senate realized that she was qualified and let her through with a 96-3 vote because, though many of them disagreed with her ideology, they realized that a Democrat was in the White House and that means a Democrat gets to pick the nominee. Do you think that the Democrats in the Senate today are willing or prepared to give similar consideration to Alito?
Secondly, as a Christian and a Democrat, what is your position on Alito and, more specifically, do you have a problem with him because he may POTENTIALLY vote to overturn Roe someday?
Here is my Answer:
I honestly don't know if they're prepared to confirm Alito. Half of them confirmed Roberts, which means that at least 22 Senators are willing to see the best in the person. You are correct, they need to know that is NOT a Democrat up for nomination right now.
While I share most views and a Party with those Democrats in Congress, sometimes I think that they aren't always ready to be bi-partisen. I've noticed that Democratic Presidents are bi-partisen, while a Democratic Congress isn't. It's opposite for Republicans. Republican Congressmen CAN be bi-partisen, while Republican President aren't.
That, however, isn't ALWAYS the case.
We'll see how the Alito confirmation goes. They confirmed Roberts, who has the same chance of voting to overturn Roe as Alito does.
As far as me personally, like I said, I like politics, but I don't have the want to have watched ALL of the hearings. I have a general idea of where he stands on the bigger issues, but I couldn't name all of his decisions.
I think he'll be confirmed. But I don't care whether he is or not, because if he isn't, the President will continue to put people up just like him, so they might as well nominate him, so we don't have to go throught this again.
If he is truly a "JUDGE", then he will listen to ALL the facts, in ALL cases, and NOT throw his personal opinion into play. Abortion should be severly discouraged, but not illegal. You shouldn't FORCE a woman to have a baby if she doesn't doesn't to. True, she should have been responisible enough to have avoided this in the first place, but don't DISCRIMINATE against her because she did!
In other cases, too, I just hope that Alito, if he's confirmed, will not throw his personal views into play, like Justice Scalia, but instead be more like who he's going to replace, O'Conner.
Thanks, Mike!
3 comments:
Thanks for your reply. I enjoy our little "discussions." And, because I'm just that kind of guy, let me ask you another question:
Name one time/case/opinion in which Scalia brought his opinions into a decision, as you imply he does in your post. As far as I know, his only "personal opinion" is his strict constructionist judicial philosophy, which is neither personal nor uncommon.
Of the same token, explain to me how Ginberg and Breyer can quote international law without bringing their personal opinion into it. Here's what I mean... Breyer said that intl. law should "sometimes" be brought in, in an "advisory" role. Sometimes, but not always. In other words, it can be brought in when it meets the whims and preferences of the one bringing it in, but not if it doesn't. Before this idea was brought up, the Constitution and laws of the U.S. were the final and only standard by which cases were decided. Now, thanks to these two, cases are decided based on the ideology of the court and backed up by whatever international law they can find to support it.
I anxiously await your response!
Sorry about the delay...
Supreme Court Justices don't need to "announce" when their personal views are injected into their rulings. They ALL do it. Even O'Conner, but she's mainly an exception.
Scalia is known to be anchored into his views, and ONLY vote according to his ideology, more then the other eight. I don't believe he's EVER strayed from his personal views. On occasion, other justices have be known to side (partially) in another direction. Without me delving through the SCOTUS archives, I'm pretty confident that Scalia is the Conservative base on the Court.
As far as the Breyer quote, there's not enough there for me to comment on. I tried to search for it, but couldn't find anything. But I agree, depending. Just using what you provided, I agree that, in some cases, international law should be looked at in cases, depending on the circumstances. I don't know of any cases where this has happened, but depending on the case...
Referencing to the "thanks to these two..." comment, I really doubt that these recent additions to the Court introduced "Voting along your ideological lines". I'm pretty sure other SCOTUS Justices were biased, too.
If you could get me the reference to the whole quote by Breyer, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
any more posts coming ?
Post a Comment