| Author | Message | ||
     Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5547 Registered: 12-2001  |
Ok THen HAPPY BIRTHDAY ya stinkin Capricorn  | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5020 Registered: 8-2003 |
If Bush is so low in the polls and Republicans are guilty as sin over Abramoff, why aren't Democrats staying strong and going for a filibuster going into the 2006 elections? | ||
| Parkingsux Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 261 Registered: 6-2005 |
Because they are buffoons. The picture of Mrs. Alito in tears was watched by millions and millions of viewers who said to themselves, these democrats are slime lizards who deserve no respect..... Good job once again, you deaniac brainiacs..... YOU ARE NATIONALLY VIEWED AS MALCONTENT IGNORAMUSES....  | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2180 Registered: 5-2004  |
please. Mrs. Alito should not be there. How many other people take their wives to job interviews? Did she think they were going to ask him what kind of tea he likes? | ||
| Oldstone Citizen Username: Rogers4317 Post Number: 503 Registered: 6-2004  |
and repubs are nationally viewed as CONTENT ignoramuses. two way street there, parking. yeah, that's the ticket. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5023 Registered: 8-2003 |
Mrs. Alito shouldn't be there, providing support for her husband during his public hearing for a job on the US Supreme Court?? What planet are you on? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 712 Registered: 10-2004  |
Sorry, but she and the family do not belong on display before the whole country for 10 hours of the day. She is not 'providing support' but is in reality providing window dressing. When you go on a job interview to you take your wife and kids? No you dont. This is a big time job interview. The senators on the left side of the isle are the ones trying to ask the tough questions. The ones on the right are a rubber stamp. The reality is that Alito may be highly qualified and may be a great SC justice, but he is not answering questions truthfully. He is deflecting and not giving his true feelings to the panel. That is not a ringing endorsement of his character. It would have been extremely easy to explain CAP as an organization he joined in his youth that he thought was a conservative organization. He should have definitively said that he does not approve of what that organization became after he left Princeton. But he didnt. He said he could not recall. That does not ring true. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5027 Registered: 8-2003 |
How many job interviews have you gone on that are public hearings? And your summation of his comments is inaccurate. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 294 Registered: 10-2005 |
Today's NYT editorial on the Alito hearings....absolutely disgusting! Editorial Judge Alito, in His Own Words Sign In to E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Save Article Published: January 12, 2006 Some commentators are complaining that Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings have not been exciting, but they must not have been paying attention. We learned that Judge Alito had once declared that Judge Robert Bork - whose Supreme Court nomination was defeated because of his legal extremism - "was one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century. We heard Judge Alito refuse to call Roe v. Wade "settled law," as Chief Justice John Roberts did at his confirmation hearings. And we learned that Judge Alito subscribes to troubling views about presidential power. Those are just a few of the quiet bombshells that have dropped. In his deadpan bureaucrat's voice, Judge Alito has said some truly disturbing things about his view of the law. In three days of testimony, he has given the American people reasons to be worried - and senators reasons to oppose his nomination. Among those reasons are the following: EVIDENCE OF EXTREMISM Judge Alito's extraordinary praise of Judge Bork is unsettling, given that Judge Bork's radical legal views included rejecting the Supreme Court's entire line of privacy cases, even its 1965 ruling striking down a state law banning sales of contraceptives. Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton - a group whose offensive views about women, minorities and AIDS victims were discussed in greater detail at yesterday's hearing - is also deeply troubling, as is his unconvincing claim not to remember joining it. OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE In 1985, Judge Alito made it clear that he believed the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He had many chances this week to say he had changed his mind, but he refused. When offered the chance to say that Roe is a "super-precedent," entitled to special deference because it has been upheld so often, he refused that, too. As Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, noted in particularly pointed questioning, since Judge Alito was willing to say that other doctrines, like one person one vote, are settled law, his unwillingness to say the same about Roe strongly suggests that he still believes what he believed in 1985. SUPPORT FOR AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Judge Alito has backed a controversial theory known as the "unitary executive," and argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he installs illegal wiretaps. Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses. INSENSITIVITY TO ORDINARY AMERICANS' RIGHTS Time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, the nominee has taken the side of big corporations against the "little guy," supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled. The hearing shed new light on his especially troubling dissent from a ruling by two Reagan-appointed judges, who said that workers at a coal-processing site were covered by Mine Safety and Health Act protections. DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S HONESTY Judge Alito's explanation of his involvement with Concerned Alumni of Princeton is hard to believe. In a 1985 job application, he proudly pointed to his membership in the organization. Now he says he remembers nothing of it - except why he joined, which he insists had nothing to do with the group's core concerns. His explanation for why he broke his promise to Congress to recuse himself in any case involving Vanguard companies is also unpersuasive. As for his repeated claims that his past statements on subjects like abortion and Judge Bork never represented his personal views or were intended to impress prospective employers - all that did was make us wonder why we should give any credence to what he says now. The debate over Judge Alito is generally presented as one between Republicans and Democrats. But his testimony should trouble moderate Republicans, especially those who favor abortion rights or are concerned about presidential excesses. The hearings may be short on fireworks, but they have produced, through Judge Alito's words, an array of reasons to be concerned about this nomination. NYT-The paper of record-yeah right.... I really love the whole Roe V. Wade skit...he was "offered many chances to change his mind" How condescendingly arrogant can the NYT be? And what in god's name is a "super-precedent..?" "special deference????" Is Roe v. Wade completely "untouchable" now? If you are "constitutionally honest" about the matter Roe is NOT "settled law" by any means....who is being closed minded about this anyways? Those who want Alito to simply "change his mind" and declare RvW "settled law" or Alito not doing so? Sounds like a close one to me.... And who cares about a 1985 memo? In 1985 I was drawing ANARCHY symbols all over my high school notebooks...my how things change... Maybe we should ask that "little Byrd" in West Virginia what he was doing well BEFORE 1985...("ma...got any clean white sheets I borrow...?) Yeah, I know I know...that was all in the past... And I wish the media, well at least those that oppose Alito's confirmation, would be honest about this whole CAP gig. If the group/Alito had issues with Princeton dropping their admission standards for women and minorities then sign me up! They should hang a banner right across the SC building entrance: "GOT AN ISSUE WITH ABORTION...WELL DON'T BOTHER APPLYING FOR A JOB....WE DON'T NEED YOU MESSING WITH OUR "SUPER-PRECEDENTED, SPECIALLY DEFERRED SETTLED LAW" NOW.... The NYTs or the Alito hearings...I can't figure out which one is the biggest joke...well, Ted "huffy puffy" Kennedy is another contender...such a tough guy... Sammy baby, way to hang tough aginst these SJC DEM punks and start resting up your gavel arm...because if this is all they have on you then you are good as in... -SLK God, venting is sure good for the soul...happy birthday to me, happy birth...  | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 714 Registered: 10-2004 |
cjc - I think my summation was spot on. He said he could not recall. As far as public vs private, sorry I fail to see the difference. The family does not belong there. They are there purely for the publicity and to show that Alito is a 'family' man. SLK in 1985 you may have been an immature child but Alito was a 35 year old man. 20 years may seem like a long way off but its not. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4186 Registered: 5-2001 |
scrotis, if I understand you correctly you're accusing the New York Times Editorial Page of, well, editorializing. I'll let you in on a little secret: that's what editorial pages are for. As for the abortion issue, I'd like to know why conservatives have to play these games. Liberals are quite frank about the fact that this is a major issue and will vote accordingly. Conservatives dodge, weave, hedge and outright lie to hide it. Why is that? Why can't Scalito say either, "it's settled law and I would not vote to overturn it" or "it's not settled and still up for grabs, I can't guarantee I won't vote to weaken or overturn it"? It's a pretty black-and-white choice if you think about it, so why the obfuscation? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 505 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, I'll agree that the family thing is kind of weird and is for show. With that said, this is entertainment and politics. Once again, the Repubs have showed they are the masters at the game. All the bluster and momentun we were hearing about from the media and Dems has been jerked away by Alito's statue like demeanor and the wife's tears. Absolutely, brilliant political theater. Rove just earned his winter bonus! Since most of us are political junkies, can't we all agree that the Repubs handled these hearings brilliantly. We simply let Biden and Kennedy out of their cage and look what happens. So far 2006, is shaping up to be a nice year for conservatives. And the best part is, no one outside of DC cares about Abramoff. The doom and gloom scenario has passed and I love it. I just can't wait to see what political disaster you libs come up with next. I expect at least 4 more good ones before November. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11917 Registered: 1-2003  |
Honor doesn't mean much to you, Southerner, does it? I don't agree that this was brilliant. I mean, OK, it was brilliantly devious, but not admirable. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 716 Registered: 10-2004 |
Really I dont buy the whole tears thing. "your not a bigot are you? Of course your not." (to paraphrase). It just doesnt touch the senses that way. If this is all just public theatre then I must say its way off broadway. I tend to agree with you about the futility of the dems line of questioning. Then again is it because the dems arent asking the right questions or is it because the candidate is not forthcoming. I am in agreement with Sen Biden. These hearings should be stopped as they are not serving the purpose. The candidate should be debated on the floor of the senate. I would not be surprised to see a filibuster over Alito. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 295 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom- You call that mean-spirited piece editoralizing? The low grade writing made me think I was reading the NY Post for a second. It sounds like to me that the NYT EB knows Alito pulled this off so they needed to throw a couple more low blows on that last day of the hearings... Yes, I agree why can't Alito be more up front? Because he knows like the rest of us that if he even tries to criticize Roe he is history, which is complete BS. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 717 Registered: 10-2004 |
SLK if he criticizes Roe he is history? I thought the majority of the country wants Roe overturned. Oh - so maybe, just maybe the majority of the country is truly pro-choice and thats why he cant state his true position for fear of losing the position. Now I get it. Be dishonest to get what you want. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 296 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops- You are missing some major points while muddling other ones. One major point is his beliefs on an issue doesn't matter one bit. His job is to intepret the case in front of him within the confines and historical context of the Constitution-that simple. Besides silly boy, so what if Roe is overturned (even though I seriously doubt would ever happen)? This issue would go back to the states where it belongs and where all already have pro-choice laws on the books. Politically speaking, it would suicide for states to overturn their abortion laws... I am not arguing the morality behind abortion smart pants, but the constutionality of the Roe decision. I am pro-choice, somewhat reluctantly though. I can recognize a women's right to choose (with restrictions) while also seeing the unsound logic and "bad law" behind the Roe decision. If you want to stand behind your claims on other boards that Dubya did a serious abuse of executive power by ordering "illegal wiretaps", fine. But take notes class, the SC did some serious overreaching of power back in 1973, among others. The forefathers intentionally kept the SC power to a minimun because the are unelected, unaccountable officials with lifetime appointments. In short, judges INTERPRET law, not MAKE law, why is that so hard for some to understand? But hey, as long as you get what you want, right? Hoops, would you be so kind as to forward me your most recent resume? I am sure we can find at least a handful of "exggaerations" within it (like the rest of ours).... | ||
| Robert Little Citizen Username: Boblittle Post Number: 300 Registered: 4-2003 |
The Senate's getting the nominees they deserve. I think it would be helpful to have a real grilling of nominees who want life tenure but the Republicans are just playing prevent-D and the Democrats aren't laying a glove on the guy. Both spend close to three-quarters of their time talking. Alito is now off the hot seat and we're into the "geeks and freaks" part there heads of various organizations pro and con will testify, pretending they favor or oppose him on ethics when they really just agree or disagree with him. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11930 Registered: 1-2003 |
Actually, Bork isn't all bad. After he didn't make it to Supreme Court, he represented Netscape in Netscape v Microsoft in 1998, I think. I think I still have some of Bork's writing, and it was excellent, and it made my heart swell because it was anti-big-business. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 718 Registered: 10-2004 |
Idealistic and incorrect. The issue lies in his beliefs and whether he can put aside those beliefs to rule on the law. Given his previous decisions it seems he has a tough time doing this. I havent updated my resume for some time now and I would state unconditionally that any claim I have on my resume regarding organizations I belong to are 100% accurate. I cant buy exagerations or generalizations for the people who choose to be lawyers or judges. It seems to me that these people should be holding themselves to a high standard and that in doing so they show the integrity that you speak of. Conversely in not doing so they show the weakness that I refer to and that costs the country as a whole where an ideologue not a judge is granted lifetime status. please refrain from addressing me with colloquialisms like 'silly boy' and 'smart pant' . Minor insults do not enhance your arguments. | ||
| sylvester the investor Citizen Username: Mummish Post Number: 99 Registered: 6-2004 |
This confirmation hearing was the libs last shot at saving the sinking ship. The reason Teddy and Joey didn't hold back was because they have nothing to lose. Obviously, no matter what they do their idiotic constituancies are going to re-elect them, so they went after the juglar. What is it going to do though, hurt the party nationally. Knowing they have no control, and no policy to stand on, they go on smear campaign. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing what they did. Now they will pay. Although I will admit that the elctorate is generally stupid, people will see through the BS that went on here and there will be backlash against the party. Its obvious that Dean has made your party so much better. The leadership that has emerged is something to stand up and be proud of.  By the way, what alternative would all you whining libs suggest for a nominee? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14404 Registered: 10-2001  |
Duncan, Great picture! | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 297 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops- You state I am being "idealistic and incorrect" but then tell me Alito can't judge beyond his beliefs and has a history of it? One doesn't follow the other... Besides, it was a bunch of judges acting on their beliefs that brought on the success of Roe. So I guess that is ok, then? "minor insults?" no...it is harmless poking fun...grow some skin will you.... | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2005 |
A smear campaign?! Oh this was such a tough time for poor, unprepared Judge Alito and his family. Those evil liberal democrats attacked him and inquired about his background and judicial philosophy. That old inconvenient advise and consent thing. Give me a break. Harriet Miears (Sp?) was treated worse by her own party. So much for all the yelling and screaming from Republicans that Bush's nominees deserve an up or down vote. For crying out loud, the man is up for a lifetime appointment in what will be the swing vote in a deeply divided Court. The questioning should have been tougher and better, more direct, and longer. You can bet conservative Republicans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, then they won't be able to use that old chestnut come election time to whip up the masses about how moral they are in comparison to the evil, baby killing dems. Then they'll get in office and forget the issue until the next election. Backlash against the dems? For what, treating a nominee not harshly at all who ends up getting confirmed? The Republicans handled these hearings brilliantly?! No, Alito did most of it on his own. He is an extremely bright attorney, judge and Constitutional scholar. No one has ever denied that. God help him if he can't handle some questioning about the Constitution and the law from U.S. Senators. Having practiced as an attorney (litigation) for over twenty years, a little over half of that time representing large insurance companies and corporations, and the rest representing individuals and so called "little guys", I can tell you, in my opinion, the little guy gets the shaft in the legal system, especially in Federal Court. That's my biggest complaint with Alito. He spent most of his time doing government work and then became a judge, probably never having represented a "real client", i.e., someone laid off for discriminatory reasons, a poor person dealing with a scummy landlord, someone totally disabled and trying to prevail on an ERISA claim against an insurance company, a victim of sexual harrassment, a person badly inured by a defective drug or product. I believe it is in his philosophy that the government is right and the big corporation should win, and his judicial philosophy will bend that way. It would have to ge a truly egregious situation for him to think otherwise. He said he has no agenda and I hope that is true. But sometimes, with some judges I've seen, their agendas can almost be a subconscious thing, having been formed through their work experience even though they may not know it. His primary experience as an attorney has been defending the government. I fear he is a judge who reads only the lyrics but may not hear the music. Great judges do both. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 506 Registered: 2-2004 |
Reingold, Come on man. I hope you really don't dislike me that much. I thought we were just having some political fun. I've grown to enjoy your posts and respect your political thought. Where did I say it was admirable? Basically, we agree then that it was brilliant. I kind of agree it was deviously brilliant. Listen, we are not that far apart. I wish I had the power to go back in time and change the way these guys behave, all of them. None of us have that power although I admit you are much more idealistic than I am about positive change, which is a great quality. As for this topic, the lines were drawn a long time back. Everyone knew the Dems would attack and have a closed mind. Everyone knew the Repubs would admire and throw soft lobs. Therefore, the entire exercise is one of theater and who comes out looking better. There was no substance so we can't judge the substance. I blame the Senators and past confirmation hearings on teaching these nominees a learned behavior. That behavior is don't say anything. Now is it the nominees fault for not being forthcoming or is it the Senators fault creating this environment of mistrust? It is in the eye of the beholder. When a Dem Pres makes a nomination, the roles will be reversed and you will be lauding your nominee for not giving those neocons any meat. I will be disgruntled about a nominee who is an empty suit (actually, I won't be because I know the name of the game). As far as Bork, I have no idea. I didn't follow his hearings or politics very closely then. From what I see and hear, he actually gave opinions and got torn apart. Those days of legitimate hearings are over. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5556 Registered: 12-2001 |
sylvester...whining??? sheesh you read these threads through very cynical glasses. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4189 Registered: 5-2001 |
Of course his beliefs matter. If he believes that we should kill all the jews, well that would be important wouldn't it? As for interpeting the case within the confines and historical context, that is anything but simple; it's the whole problem with judicial appointments -- where do the confines lie and what is the historical context? Does it stop at the Federalist papers? What role does stare decis play? It's the whole question. Totally false. There are a number of states which actually have "trigger laws" that will ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. You can't be serious. Is that your fantasy? Or do you think it reflects some kind of reality? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11938 Registered: 1-2003 |
Southerner, I guess I'm just getting bored of this. You use words like "good" to mean effective at whatever goal there is, whereas I like to look at whether the effect is good or not. If I rob a bank without anyone catching me or learning my identity, I'm a "good" bank robber, but that's not good. You cheer on those who are "good" but don't tell us why you think they're good except that they're "good" at winning. If a football player gets through a block by kicking his opponent in the groin and the referees don't happen to notice, does that mean he's a good football player? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 299 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom- If Alito believes that we should kill all jews what does that even have to do with his capacity as a SC judge? Please give me legitimate proof of these "trigger states?" Because this is the first time I ever heard of such a term. And even so, if one needing an abortion lives in such a state it is due to the will of the legislative body... US Government 101 Review/Reality check for Tom: There a three branches in the US Govt: 1. The LEGISLATIVE Branch MAKES law. 2. The Executive Branch ENFORCES the law 3. THe JUDICIAL branch INTEPRETS the law Tom, we learned this basic stuff in 12th grade-seems like you were skipping alot... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 510 Registered: 2-2004 |
Tom, We are getting closer to understanding. Good examples you provide. If we were discussing the world of bank robbers and a robber made off without getting caught, I would indeed call him good or effective and I would laud him on his trade. I am not judging the result (which is bad) only the act (which is good if we are discussing bank robbers). I get your point. When I say good I do mean effective. I don't agree with all the Republican moves but I do agree that they are effective. Thanks for helping me make it more clear. I think both sides on Alito were horrible in their actions. But looking at the down and dirty political side, the Republicans were more effective in accomplishing their goal. Your football analogy is very good. Yes, that player who kicks the guy is very effective in achieving his teams ultimate goal. Is he a good person? No. But is he an effective football player? Yes. The same for politicians. I can't stand most of them. With that said, I agree with the conservative philosophy and you agree with the liberal philosophy (and we both have overlap). Most of my comments are not intended to say the Republicans are good, as in good people. Instead, my comments simply point out their effectiveness as politicians (like the football player). If I believed for a minute that by voting Democratic I could actually get a good person with good results then I'd jump ship tomorrow. But all these guys on both sides are corrupt and power hungry. So we are left with a choice between two evils and we both lean to the ones we at least kind of agree with. I know I am very cynical which is a bad quality, but in my opinion, the good guys and gals don't run for public office. They are the ones actually making the country tick while these losers in DC waste our time and money. Sorry to ramble. But I do appreciate the help. I will use the term "effective" more so I don't leave you with the impression that I truly like these politicians. And lastly, I do look at the results like you do but we simply disagree on them so why continue to discuss something we both have different opinions on. I do like Bush and believe the results of his actions are good for this country. Whether it's the Iraq war, the NSA wiretaps, the privatizatio of SS, and many more issues. I'm not trying to change minds as I respect your opinion and trust you came to your own informed decision on the results. Keep up the good work as I enjoy seeing different opinions. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5032 Registered: 8-2003 |
bettyd - nice to know a corporation isn't a 'real client.' Your sweeping analysis of Alito's beliefs that "corporations should win" as well as your statements about what conservatives really want (and I say this as a 'real' conservative) mark you as at least as unqualified to be a judge as you allege Alito to be. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 927 Registered: 6-2001 |
bettyd, What is the basis for your opinion that "...the little guy gets the shaft in the legal system, especially in Federal Court." TomR | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4190 Registered: 5-2001 |
South Dakota, Illinois, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and Montana. It's a grey area what the repercussions would be because in some cases the state legislatures did sloppy jobs. But Google ""trigger law" abortion" and you'll get more info. OK, then what if he believed that the government should be able to nationalize industries when the president saw fit, and that Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer should be overturned? Would you conservatives be OK with that, too? As for your civics 101 mini-lesson, thanks. So if that's the case, what's all the fracas about "judges legislating from the bench"? Obviously they don't. When Bush complains about it is he mistaken? | ||
| Steve R Jones Citizen Username: Sjthinker Post Number: 58 Registered: 2-2005 |
Alito is in, so stop the whining already | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 720 Registered: 10-2004 |
SLK - Is this the type of response you are looking for? I would suggest that you are using circular reasoning, similar reasoning could be provided by any dim bulb. Perhaps that is a symptom of a low IQ or maybe just immaturity. You see its not up to me to grow a thicker skin, its up to you to make your arguments pertinent to the point you are making. Anyone can toss a derogatory comment or two around but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It certainly takes away from the tone of your argument and causes you to be taken as a joke. Try discussing the merits of what is being posted, not the poster. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5561 Registered: 12-2001 |
See I don't read any Whining here. I read people debating (sometimes arguing) their points. If you read whining like Sylvester then take off those cynical glasses. This is a LIFETIME appointment and should be open to vigorous debate. The whining I have heard came from the republicans on the SJC. With a little from Biden as well. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2005 |
Tom R I've found, through my 20 years of experience, that the Federal Courts can be quite inhospitable to individuals with injuries, discrimination claimants, ERISA complainants, etc. When I did corporate and insurance defense work, I loved having a case in Federal Court or transferring one there. The judges tend to be more conservative and lean towards insurance companies and large corporations. Not all the judges and not in all cases but in a majority of them. I have had cases dismissed on summary judgment in federal court (a way to get rid of cases before a trial) when I thought there may indeed have been fact issues that warranted submission to a jury. Since I was an advocate and came out on top for my insurance company or corporate client, that was fine with me. Maybe "getting the shaft" wasn't the correct term. Let's just say I feel (and I believe many attorneys in NY and NJ would agree) that individual plaintiffs should avoid federal court if possible and seek other venues. Sometimes that is unavoidable, such as with an ERISA case or parties from different states. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 23 Registered: 12-2005 |
cjc, Of course a corporation is a real client, that is why I put quotes around the term. I was merely pointing out that there are many types of clients: government agencies, homeless people, poor people, rich people, General Electric and IBM, small corporations, Mom and Pop stores, landlords and tenants, people terminated for their religous beliefs or sexual orientation, people hurt in fender benders, people killed or paralyzed in industrial accidents, and on and on. Judge Alito has work experience representing the U.S. Government and not much else. Does that make him unqualified? No. I'm just saying that having that backgound possibly makes him lean in favor of the government when a person with a more varied background may see it differently. A perfect judge to me would be one who was a prosecutor and a public defender; one who represented injured plaintiffs and defended insurance companies; one who represented the government but also did legal aid. There are a few like that, but not many. My experience is judges who have been in the so called "trenches" know what it is like on both sides, and have understanding and compassion for both sides which they apply to the facts and the law. I'm not sure Judge Alito does. My belief that Judge Alito favors the government and corporations comes from reading his opinions and knowing something about him. A frequent comment around the office the past nine years has been "can you believe Alito's dissent?" I think I said above "I believe" it is his philosphy that the corporation should, for the most part, prevail. That is my belief, I believe backed up by his decisions and record. But, unlike many on this board, I do not claim the primacy of my opinions. I just give them and hope for a good discussion. Maybe I am as unqualified to be a judge as Alito. But I'm not applying for such a position. However, if I were and I was asked about Roe v. Wade I would say I believe it is the settled law of the land and I would vote to uphold it. | ||
| Robert Little Citizen Username: Boblittle Post Number: 301 Registered: 4-2003 |
One thing to add to Bettyd's excellent distinctions between state and federal court: In federal court, your jury pool stretches farther out geographically from Newark than does Essex County, so you draw in a more conservative mix. | ||
| Robert Little Citizen Username: Boblittle Post Number: 302 Registered: 4-2003 |
Regardless of your views on Judge Alito, we've been ill-served by the Senate Judiciary Committee. They're good at giving speeches but poor at questioning. They should hire experienced trial lawyers to conduct the questioning, as the joint Congressional committee on Iran-Contra did. Then we'd have a very good idea about the nominee. |
