In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Alito confirmed...
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
it's a good day for America.[8D]
Comments
This is the first step in reversing almost 50 years liberal pussification of the United States.
If the Republicans can win another presidential election they have the opportunity to install another conservative members of the court and really turn this country around.
I'm happy!
CBS interviewed Teddy K today, bringing out the heavyweight wooses on Alito vote and State of the Union day. Teddy admitted it was too late for his cause against Alito, had that regretful "too late" look he must have had, standing with police on the bridge at Chappaquidick.
It's a GREAT day for America. Forget all that all that stuff about Alito being a fair and balanced jurist. He's a conservative, we can say it out loud and those liberal busturds can't do a thing about it.
He *IS* a fair and balanced jurist. That's EXACTLY why the extreme leftist liberals hate him.
Not incidentally, all that stuff about a Conservative court endangering civil liberaties is a load of horse excrement.
In recent history it has been the CONSERVATIVE judges, not the liberal ones, that have had the most respect for Consititutional safeguards like freedom of press, speech, association, etc.
Its the liberal (ie activist) justices who make up new principles from scratch, and who tend to find "exceptions" to freedoms of speech, press, etc.
Well, we all get the government we deserve....
Why are all the neo con's so chuffed about this guy? All he's going to do is sign on to opinion after opinion that will erode YOUR RIGHTS. With him on the bench, we're well on our way to "one nation, under Wal Mart, with liberty and justice to Allstate...."
Well, we all get the government we deserve....
72
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
It's a GREAT day for America. Forget all that all that stuff about Alito being a fair and balanced jurist. He's a conservative, we can say it out loud and those liberal busturds can't do a thing about it.
He *IS* a fair and balanced jurist. That's EXACTLY why the extreme leftist liberals hate him.
Not incidentally, all that stuff about a Conservative court endangering civil liberaties is a load of horse excrement.
In recent history it has been the CONSERVATIVE judges, not the liberal ones, that have had the most respect for Consititutional safeguards like freedom of press, speech, association, etc.
Its the liberal (ie activist) justices who make up new principles from scratch, and who tend to find "exceptions" to freedoms of speech, press, etc.
beantown,
I wasn't trying to say that Alito is not a fair and balanced jurist. What i meant was that conservatives have been afraid to use the term conservative in reference to Alito, and now they can use the term freely cause he's in for life.
I agree that conservative is not just a label but actually represents a set of strong values and logical thought processes about individual freedoms that are the hallmark of all great jurists.
Why are all the neo con's so chuffed about this guy?
"...neo cons..."
Did you learn any OTHER new words from Chris Matthews or Bill Maher?
Why are all the neo con's so chuffed about this guy? All he's going to do is sign on to opinion after opinion that will erode YOUR RIGHTS. With him on the bench, we're well on our way to "one nation, under Wal Mart, with liberty and justice to Allstate...."
Well, we all get the government we deserve....
Wake up...you really need to come back to this side of reality. We need justices that are strict constructionists...and that is exactly what this man is.
Marajuana will be legal, at least in states that don't have laws making it illegal, because congress never was given the authority to pass such a ban in the constitution
95% of state gun laws will be declared unconstitutional.
State wide abortion bans will be upheld in court, but nation wide ones will not, as once again, congress is not given the authority to pass such bans in the constitution.
If he really adheres to the constitution, and can get enough votes to follow him, he can gut the power of the federal government.... which is something i think we would all like to see, right?
I wasn't trying to say that Alito is not a fair and balanced jurist. What i meant was that conservatives have been afraid to use the term conservative in reference to Alito, and now they can use the term freely cause he's in for life.
I agree that conservative is not just a label but actually represents a set of strong values and logical thought processes about individual freedoms that are the hallmark of all great jurists.
I know.
I just wanted to make it clear that all the attack rhetoric against Alito is completely misplaced. This "he's going to erode all our civil rights" stuff is just nonsense. If anything, he's going to protect your rights a lot more than, say Ginsburg will, and that ESPECIALLY includes your RKBA.
The guy simply *IS NOT* the kind of right wing ideologue that the leftist element of the Democrat party tried to portray him as. He is a fair and impartial jurist with impeccable credentials.
And yes, he is conservative.
Great, now if he does strictly adhere to the constitution like you all claim.
Marajuana will be legal, at least in states that don't have laws making it illegal, because congress never was given the authority to pass such a ban in the constitution
I believe Marijuana is currently illegal in 50/50 states, though a few (ie maybe 2 or 3) have exceptions where people can legally possess small amounts under certain circumstances. But the marijuana argument is more complicated than that (I won't rehash it here). The FDA does have the right to regulate drugs, provided by Congressional mandate.
quote:
95% of state gun laws will be declared unconstitutional.
If so, good, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
quote:
State wide abortion bans will be upheld in court, but nation wide ones will not, as once again, congress is not given the authority to pass such bans in the constitution.
That's actually NOT a foregone conclusion, but even if it does happen, it just goes back to the individual states to decide. Abortion will still be legal in the majority of states.
quote:
If he really adheres to the constitution, and can get enough votes to follow him, he can gut the power of the federal government.... which is something i think we would all like to see, right?
Look, he's ONE Justice out of 9, and all he can do is make decisions on appeals that get to him. He doesn't have the power to change the constitution, and he probably isn't even interested in doing so.
95% of state gun laws will be declared unconstitutional.
If he really adheres to the constitution, and can get enough votes to follow him, he can gut the power of the federal government.... which is something i think we would all like to see, right?
ROGER THAT!!!!!
The man will be strictly a BUSH yes man. This country is being ran by the Bible ( the #1 work of fiction). I am a adamant 2nd admendment supporter but this will be the end of Roe v. Wade and the start of a lot of women and girls dying at the hands of backroom clinics performing abortions. There are 2 rights i would give my life for the right to bear arms and the rights of HUMANS to do what they want with there OWN BODIES and lifes.
It's obvious that you consider those two rights far more valuable than the right to a passable education.
The man will be strictly a BUSH yes man. This country is being ran by the Bible ( the #1 work of fiction). I am a adamant 2nd admendment supporter but this will be the end of Roe v. Wade and the start of a lot of women and girls dying at the hands of backroom clinics performing abortions. There are 2 rights i would give my life for the right to bear arms and the rights of HUMANS to do what they want with there OWN BODIES and lifes.
Bush won't be around for more than more two years. How amny casaes do you think bush will be able to personally put before the Supreme court in that time? Do you suppose the fact that Alito is in for life might mean he wont be a Bush Yes Man?
Even more odd is the reasoning to make abortion legal was to save the lives of women. However, studies have shown that since Roe vs Wade, millions of young girls have been murdered (boys too but they dont count)
I did not realize that this was a forum for personal attacks. I thought that this forum was for general discussions and expressing those items. As for attacking my education, you are doing what the antigun lobby wants us to look like. - I bunch of ignorant rednecks. My neck may be red, but I damn sure am not ignorant. I have a masters in general pychology and a damn good pratice, at that. There are states that bring up the abortion issue to the Supreme court all the time. All they have to do is get the swing vote away that Sandra Day O' Conner had and they can make abortion illegal. I realize that most of the hardcore 2nd amendment defenders are republicans and they are against abortion, so these thoughts may fall on deaf ears.
Notwithstanding your inflammatory and ignorant remarks throughout this thread, I have colorized (in red for your errors and in green for things you erroneously left out) the parts of this post that make me doubt that you passed enough classes in the English language to attain a master's degree in anything at all.
You come here and your very first post is as follows:
quote:The man will be strictly a BUSH yes man. This country is being ran by the Bible ( the #1 work of fiction). I am a adamant 2nd admendment supporter but this will be the end of Roe v. Wade and the start of a lot of women and girls dying at the hands of backroom clinics performing abortions. There are 2 rights i would give my life for the right to bear arms and the rights of HUMANS to do what they want with there OWN BODIES and lifes.
Let's break this down a bit. Your assertions are numbered below.
1. Justice Alito will be strictly a Bush "yes" man.
As others have pointed out, Bush will not be in office after early 2009. Moreover, even if we take your assertion to be that Alito will always vote in favor of Republican values, you have provided nothing to support the assertion that Alito will obey anything but the rule of law in making decisions.
2. This country is being run by the Bible.
Can you provide some evidence that shows the country is being run in a way any more in accord with the Bible than it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago? I can back up the assertion that we are a more secular nation than we were 200 years ago, such as the fact that most, if not all, states had established religions in the early years of the Union.
3. The Bible is the #1 work of fiction.
This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but if you want to say things like this then you should back them up.
4. You are an adamant Second Amendment supporter.
Who cares?
5. This will be the end of Roe v. Wade.
Will it, really? Do you even know what Roe v. Wade says? Do you even know what will really happen if it is overturned in its entirety? Roe isn't about abortion, and it isn't about liberty. It's about states' rights and it's about constitutional interpretation. Roe basically says "the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does, no matter what twisting of words it takes and no matter that it consolidates power in the federal government in precisely the way the Constitution was supposed to prevent."
6. This will be the start of a lot of women and girls dying at the hands of backroom clinics performing abortions.
First off, do you have any evidence that such things actually happened with any greater frequency in 1970 than they do today? It seems to me that Dirty Dancing came out in 1987 and took place in its own present times, and featured a "backroom" abortion.
Second, this entire assertion assumes that abortion will be illegal nationwide the instant that Alito takes the bench tomorrow morning. That simply is not the case. Many states will continue to allow abortion, while others will regulate or restrict it. This is not a bad thing. It allows the states to experiment with which abortion laws actually protect people and which are too restrictive. That's the way it was meant to be with all state laws that do not violate a provision of the Constitution.
7. You would give your life for the right to bear arms and the right of people to do what they want with their own bodies and lives.
I respect that, but you need to realize a few things. If you think Roe v. Wade is a valid constitutional principle, then you essentially believe that the words of the Constitution mean nothing at all beyond what 5 retired lawyers in Washington, D.C., say they do. Therefore, the Second Amendment means nothing specific unless 5 retired lawyers say it does.
For the second half, I agree fully. People have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies and lives, subject to state regulation as permitted by the Constitution. (You can't cut out your own kidneys and sell them on the black market, for instance; and suicide is generally illegal because we value human life in this country and want to get you help if you try to go down that road. The Constitution does not require either law, but it permits them both.)
8. Abortion is an act involving only the mother's body and life.
This is patently false. Abortion involves the body and life of a developing fetus, as well. At some point in the growth process, after conception and before the age of 18 years, that fetus becomes a human being and its body and life are its own - they no longer belong to the mother.
Exactly when between conception and the age of 18 years this transformation happens is open to debate. On this issue, I, for one, trust the responsiveness, inquiry, debate, public and political accountability, and common sense of my elected state legislature far more than I do the one-time judgment of 5 retired lawyers in Washington.
Thank you Zerodin for pointing out my typing errors. I am not a perfect person as you seem to be. So based on the typing errors I made you draw the conclusion that I am not educated? As for your post you make some very valid points and I find myself pondering those points as i type.
Typing errors and English errors are not the same thing. Some of your mistakes can be attributed to poor typing skills, but most of them speak more to a lack of English fluency. I look forward to your responses.
Give the dork five years, then make a judgment.To bad they can't be kicked out after five years if thier real dorks.Just think, if a federal offical didn't get at least a 51 % for vote from us he would be replaced. Maybe make so that we could vote every five years to see if any of them stuck around.
Bad idea. The Constitution does it a different way for a reason. [:)]
I believe, as I've said before, that it was merely put in place without much thought due to the fact that male life expectancy back then was 50 something, give or take. I doubt the framers ever considered medical advancements that would allow a possible 50+ year position on the highest court.
5 years is certainly too short, but I'd be in favor of 20 and out.
quote:The want of a provision for removing the judges on account of inability has been a subject of complaint. But all considerate men will be sensible that such a provision would either not be practiced upon or would be more liable to abuse than calculated to answer any good purpose. The mensuration of the faculties of the mind has, I believe, no place in the catalogue of known arts. An attempt to fix the boundary between the regions of ability and inability, would much oftener give scope to personal and party attachments and enmities than advance the interests of justice or the public good. The result, except in the case of insanity, must for the most part be arbitrary; and insanity, without any formal or express provision, may be safely pronounced to be a virtual disqualification.
The constitution of New York, to avoid investigations that must forever be vague and dangerous, has taken a particular age as the criterion of inability. No man can be a judge beyond sixty. I believe there are few at present who do not disapprove of this provision. There is no station, in relation to which it is less proper than to that of a judge. The deliberating and comparing faculties generally preserve their strength much beyond that period in men who survive it; and when, in addition to this circumstance, we consider how few there are who outlive the season of intellectual vigor, and how improbable it is that any considerable portion of the bench, whether more or less numerous, should be in such a situation at the same time, we shall be ready to conclude that limitations of this sort have little to recommend them. In a republic, where fortunes are not affluent, and pensions not expedient, the dismission of men from stations in which they have served their country long and usefully, on which they depend for subsistence, and from which it will be too late to resort to any other occupation for a livelihood, ought to have some better apology to humanity than is to be found in the imaginary danger of a superannuated bench.
-- from The Federalist, #79 (Hamilton)
Especially considering that some fairly young men were appointed to the Supreme Court in the Union's early years, it is clear that much thought was put into doing it this way.
The idea of the lifetime appointment was to keep the courts from being stacked by any political party in a short period of time in order to get Constitutional interpretations that suited their particular views. The Senate has staggered terms for the same reason - give people time to calm down and think instead of flying off the handle with knee jerk reactions.
FDR tried to "pack" the Court once by expanding the number of justices so that he could simply appoint men who would rubber stamp his "Depression Era" legislation since several of his pieces of legislation had been shot down by the existing Court. He would have totally controlled all branches of the government and could have done just about anything he wanted. Fortunately, there was a major political backlash, even among his supporters, and the attempt failed.
Judges appointed by long past administrations provide a leavening effect upon the decisions made at any given moment in time and help keep radical concepts from becoming law. The Liberals on the current bench will help keep anything too far outside the bounds of reason from getting through, just as the current appointees will help contain the Liberals in the future when they get back in power. They will, you know.
There was always an expectation, and a desire, that the Justices would serve for a long period of time in order to provide some level of continuity of law from one generation to the next and not just react to the latest political breeze. It works because we can't change them on a whim, but only over long periods of time.
A judge in his 80's may have more on the ball than one in his 40's, agreed. I'm not concerned with anything over than the length of tenure here. We used to allow Presidents to serve as long as they were voted in. That changed. The other two branches should serve under term limits as well.
I'm not arguing in light of the recent appointees. I have faith that Alito and Roberts can do what is required of them dispassionately.
Just my thoughts, and you can relax...it's got about as much chance of becoming reality as congressional term limits.
Nice discussion. No anger, name calling, or accusations about sexual preference - good to have one of those once in awhile.
quote:Dirty Dancing came out in 1987 and took place in its own present times, and featured a "backroom" abortion.Dirty Dancing was set in the 1960s, at a resort in the Catskills
I stand corrected. [:)]
With 20-year appointments, I think that the President could still game the system just enough to make me angry. The President and Congress are politically accountable. The Supreme Court's lifetime appointments ensures that its decisions do not succumb to political pressure (some exceptions apply, but O'Connor as of yesterday afternoon is retired) and helps to give continuity to the interpretation of the law. Normally, only one seat needs to be filled at a time, and there's only so much damage that one new guy can do on his own.
I really don't see the disadvantage to lifetime appointments. If someone gets really out of line, he can be impeached and removed from the Court. In fact, if someone does something that everyone in the country hates, even if it's a correct decision under the law, Congress can impeach him anyhow and vote him off the island for it. (Maybe they can't under the Constitution, but the only people who can stop them are on the Supreme Court, which doesn't interfere with impeachment proceedings.)
I fully agree that the lifetime appointment is the best solution. In my last post, I merely agreed with morsecode that it would probably not make too much difference for practical purposes if the limit were 20 years instead of life. I like the idea of the longest possible time for the removal of the Jurists from the influence of politics upon their decisions. You and I are in complete agreement about the term, and the reasons for it.[:)]