Alito is confirmed without a hitch.
Tired...
Alito is confirmed without a hitch.
Tired...
Alito ends testimony, appears headed to approval
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...s/politicsNews
Thu Jan 12, 2006 01:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito completed his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday after frustrated Democrats took a final crack at getting more definitive answers from the 55-year-old conservative.
President George W. Bush's nominee appeared headed toward confirmation later this month by the full Republican-led Senate, but more than half the Democrats were expected to oppose him.
Following three days of questioning of Alito, the Senate Judiciary Committee was to hear from outside witnesses, including some of Alito's colleagues on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Of course they're frustrated, they don't have anything on Alito. He's clean.
Tired...
It is not his credentials I'm concered about. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a non-partisan group of people. People who interpret the law of the land in a way that best serves the people. If the Supreme Court is more right-wing partisan than left-wing partisan, or vice versa, it destroys that balance of power, and gives the President carte blanche. Moreso than he's already had. We were not meant to be ruled by kings.
Unless you somehow can find someone in America who both a) wants to be a judge (which means they're generally first a lawyer), and b) is completely imparial, you're just going to have to make due with what you've got appointed. Alito is remarkably reasonable compared to what you might expect Bush to appoint, and he has a lot of leeway in his appointies with the state of affairs in congress.
There have been plenty of rediculus judges in the past that managed not to fuck up the country too much. Sandra Day O'Connor thought rape was a property crime, for christ's sake.
Tired...
Do you have a source for that? Regarding the property crime statement. I looked, and I can't find one.Originally Posted by jetsetlemming
I found this article... http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/brzonkala.html
It quotes the 14th Amendment...
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'll have to find it again. In her defence, she thought it was a crime to the woman's property, not her husband or father or anything. Like thats a defence. Anywho, what person that has a chance of Bush nominating them would you prefer as a judge, Gold?
no, shut up and find the link!!!! you lying shit!!!!
Go fuck yourself. I'll do it when I have time, it wasn't online.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote