THREE DEMOCRATS SUPPORTING ALITO
Senators Robert Byrd, (D WV), Ben Nelson, (D NB), and Tim Johnson (D SD) have announced that they will support the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. 52 Republicans have announced their support and the usual culprits, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee and Ted Stevens have yet to announce preventing at this time unanimous GOP consent. Byrd stated that he was satisfied with Alito's record, the answers that Alito gave to his questions and his intelligence and sincerity. As of today Alito has 55 votes for confirmation which is a majority giving the filibuster threat as the only way that Democrats have to stop the confirmation. Senators John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer have indicated that they are considering using the filibuster to stop the confirmation despite the disapproval of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Majority Leader Bill Frist is pushing for a vote by Tuesday to coincide with the President's State of the Union Address. Why Senate liberals want to continue to play political games to prevent a floor vote for Alito is beyond me. He has proven his impeccable qualifications and showed tremendous patience despite disgusting accusations and character assassinations by liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I realize that many of you on the left believe that his confirmation will set back liberal advances in the courts and you believe that his conservative personal views will reverse controversial rulings such as Roe vs Wade, affirmative action and everything dealing with the poor while helping big business and giving sweeping Executive powers. Of course nobody has any prior knowledge as to what cases that will come before the High Court during Alito's tenure but the above filibuster threatening Senators and most liberals have already made up their mind as to how he will judge a case. With that in mind let me remind you who think that his, "big business, anti poor, anti individual, " attitude will make sweeping changes in the court to remember in July of last year the most blatant ruling against the individual and in favor of big business in recent years was given by a liberal leaning court. That being the ruling in favor of New London, Conn. which has been used countless times since to take homes and properties from poor and middle class individuals for the sake of development to increase tax revenues. Let me also remind you two of the Justices who voted in favor of this were appointed by Republican President's and had a more conservative record prior to their appointment to the High Court. My point here is this. Liberals legislate and rule against the individual as well as some conservatives. In addition this also proves that one CANNOT know in advance how ANY justice will rule in ANY case regardless of past records. This bickering by much of the left over Alito is political grandstanding at its worst and delaying the vote further with a filibuster as is being threatened is a grave injustice to the confirmation process, the Constitution and the American people.
Ken Taylor
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 7:42 PM
13 Comments:
Heh, just when I thought I had already seen the stupidest blog ever, I come across this. Great job.
Your logic is incredibly odd. Basically, you seem to believe that the body of work Alito has accumulated over his career does not tell us how he will rule in the future. Ridiculous.
How are you even sure the sun will ever rise again? Past experience does not predict the future.
You actually think Bush and Rove have not vetted Alito very carefully? Of course Bush was only going to put up an advocate for expanded Executive powers on the bench? If that is true then Bush is an even bigger idiot than I thought. He is very likely to face a Supreme Court challenge to his illegal spying. Stacking the deck is the only way Bush can ensure staying out of trouble.
Wow! Why are you all of a sudden attracting the moonbats? LOL!
I was surprised to see Byrd say he would vote for Alito. I actually like the old boy and not because he is on the right side this time. I just like him. There will be no filibuaster, and if there is the nuclear option will be put into effect. Alito is a lock. Let's hope he and Roberts work to overturn Roe v Wade.
Don't worry Mark, Alito will be confirmed and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
I am curious, do you support giving the President expanded powers? There is almost certainly going to be a Supreme Court challenge to the President's illegal spying program. If so, then Alito is definitely your guy.
I'm sick of the "Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade" crap.
Alito may rule against Roe (or he may not), but if it is overturned it will come from at least 4 other justices.
Either way, abortion isn't even close to our biggest issue......National defense is, and yes I am for giving the president more powers. Even though this will be extended to future Democrat presidents.
You don't care if the President taps your phone? How about looks into your bank records, tax filings, emails? Where would you draw the line?
FISA allows the President to do everything he says he was doing with his illegal wiretapping. Say what you want, but FISA is the law and he circumvented it. If he wanted a change in the law why not go to Congress and make the case?
What was so important that he had to break the law? I just don't get it, but I do believe that the system of checks and balances is what keeps us from having an imperial president. Without that, there is no rule of law.
I am about to lose my mind with comments such as "Are you willing to give the President exnapnded powers?" The Constitution grants EQUAL powers to the three branches of government...thats the whole point in having three branches of government. Believe it or not, Congress isn't supposed to approve everything that happens in this country, particularly when the President is acting within his authority.
http://conservativeobservations.blogspot.com/
I am giving you a specific example of Bush breaking the law. There is no question that he did not meet the requirements of FISA when he spied on Americans. He admitted as much in his press conference this week.
How are the other Branches equal if Bush can do whatever he wants even when it is against the law? Don't speak in generalities or spout off Rove's talking points, please be specific.
How about specific?
Specifics? There was no legal violation. Did you know anything about the FISA law before the dems started spewing about it? Do you really undestand the FISA statute and how it relates with the 4th Amendment? There is only a 4th Amendment viollation if there is an accompanying criminal charge. The NSA doesn't give a hoot about your personal phone calls, and if there is a terrorist operating in this country then we ned to know about it.
I would not allow constitutional infringements wihtout reason. I could care less if the NSA listens to my phone calls. The FISa coust requires probable cause to issue a warrant. If there is a phone call and there is not time to get a warrant first....and then the phone call turns out to be nothing after all..(setting aside the fact that we should be grateful that there was nothing to it) then the court would not grant a warrant. What's the point? how are we to track and deter terrorism if we are handcuffed from finding out who the terrorists are? After 9/11, Bush didnt do enough to fight these terrorists. now he is doing too much. Can you possibly see how left field your position is, and why the dems won;t control this government in the foreseeable future?
I cannot tell whether you don't know what you are talking about or just cannot express a clear argument.
Under FISA, the President and the Justice Department can submit retroactive search warrant requests up to 72 hours after they begin surveilling someone. They do NOT have to wait until they have a warrant to wiretap a suspect. The threshold for getting a warrant under FISA is extremely low. In normal federal criminal investigations, the government must show probable cause that the suspect is involved in criminal activity. That is not the case under FISA. Under FISA, the government need only show the secret Court that issues warrants that a person is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization.
Clearly you have no idea what the FISA statute is. Please educate yourself rather than guessing or spouting off Republican Talking Points.
If Bush still felt that getting a retroactive warrant was too cumbersome then he should have worked with Congress to change the law. It is a Republican Congress and if his request was reasonable then some changes could have been made. Rather he decided to ignore the law. That my friend is illegal.
I wouldn't believe a word Robert Byrd had to say about voting for Alito. I'll wait and see...
Wait, I take it back...didn't Byrd once say about blacks in the army:
"I vow never to fight with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand deaths and to have old glory trampled into the ground, never to rise again, than to have this beloved land of ours degrated by mongrels, throwbacks to the blackest specimens in the wild?" What does Byrd know about character? In fact, what does Byrd know about anything, except being liberal?
Sir, my point is that while the burden of proof is low in a FISA warrant, there are occasions in surveillance when there is nothing there. I am aware of the basics of the law, I am also aware that there is no law requiring the government to obtain a warrant while listening to conversations involving foreign terrorists.
If they listened to deomestic calls about drug trafficking? how about a domestic call about child porn? That would be a constitutional violation, and I would howl about it as loudly as the rest. This isnt domestic crime, and it isn't penny-ante material. This is serious national security, and involves (could involve) radiological material being released in the NYC subway system. If we arrested a terrorist with that intent, would you release him because there was no warrant?
Post a Comment
<< Home