Entries in the Category "Supreme Court"
Kennedy guilty of McCarthyism
Senator Kennedy is guilty of McCarthyism says Pat Buchanan. This article is an interesting read and it outlines how ridiculous Kennedy's allegations were.
It was during the second day of questioning that Sam Alito's wife broke down, wept and left the room after hearing Sen. Kennedy imply that her husband was a bigot.What was Kennedy's evidence?
In 1985, Sam Alito belonged to Concerned Alumni of Princeton. He had joined to protest the ouster of ROTC from campus. Alito was neither an officer nor active, but like future Sen. Bill Bradley, he joined.
On dems Kennedy's terms... Senator Kennedy is a chauvinist
He better be careful how he is making associations.
Conservative activists are eager to point out that Sen Ted Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing the Judge Alito of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions, the WASHINGTON TIMES is fronting on Thursday.The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper.
Alito attacks fail
It turns out those documents that Kennedy wanted SO bad actually did not contain Alito's name ANYWHERE within them. Sorry dems... another failed scandal creation.
Senate lawyers came up empty handed early this morning after reviewing four boxes of materials pertaining to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy demanded be subpoenaed before proceeding with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Samuel A. Alito Jr.
"Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who managed to secure access to the documents at the Library of Congress without any subpoena. The search, conducted by a bipartisan group of Senate lawyers, dealt a blow to some of the final Democratic opposition to Judge Alito.
Democrats, led by the Massachusetts Democrat, have questioned Judge Alito's commitment to civil rights and equality for women because he said he belonged to the group on a 1985 job application. Democrats say the group is racist and anti-woman for its opposition to coeducation at Princeton University and essays that appeared in its magazine, Prospect.
Judge Alito disavowed the magazine and said he doesn't recall every associating with the group. He said he assumes he must have joined the group because it also objected to the expulsion of the ROTC program from Princeton's campus.
The CAP records contained cancelled checks for subscriptions to the group's magazine, but none from Judge Alito. It also contained lists of board directors and contributors.
"The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984, just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings," Mr. Specter said. "He's not even mentioned in the minutes."
Alito is Going to Start a Senate Battle
Well... we said we wanted a battle over the supreme court. Well... get ready for one. The appointement of Alito is sure to drive the democrats up a wall. We'll see how the "Gang of 14" reacts to this! With the conservative movement fueled by the Miers nomination, I don't think the McCains of the Senate have a choice. If they want to keep there jobs, they have to support this nominee! Prepare for a battle... this is going to be sweet! George W. Bush could not have picked a better judge.
Here's a link to the Confirm Judge Alito Coalition main page
Was the Whole Harriet Miers Thing More Karl Rove Genius?
We all know that the mastermind that is Karl Rove is one of the sharpest strategists that have ever walked this earth. It was his keen intellect that got President George W. Bush into the white house for two terms. His plan is not often clear until one steps back and looks at the whole picture. It is my belief that the Harriet Miers nomination was all part of another one of those plans. The president’s agenda was in jeopardy from growing criticism of the war and numerous media attacks. The congress was just riding the wagons trying to make everyone happy. The Republican Party was in need of a wake up. They needed to convert from being the minority voice to the majority. By nominating a Souter-esque nominee, this has been obtained.
This past year, many of the true conservatives donated their time and efforts to getting George W. Bush into office. He has had many brilliant conservative ideas; however, the Republicans in congress had not fully supported him. The party soon got very quiet. This is where Rove made his decision, nominate a Souter nominee. This instantly united the base. As radio genius Rush Limbaugh has been saying, “This has led to a conservative crackdown, not a crack-up.” This is exactly what has been accomplished. The conservatives all over the country united against Harriet Miers. Even the strongest of Bush supporters, myself included, had concerns.
The lobbying of congress and the public expression of opinion that followed Miers’s nomination was absolutely amazing. This showed our congressmen that the people that elected them will not take moderate governing. We want a conservative political agenda. We want it to be passed through congress and signed into law by the President. We want strict constitutionalists put on the bench that will return integrity to the Supreme Court.
This unity that has been obtained from what was likely another Karl Rove plan will be needed in the coming months. As elections approach, the conservative agenda must be advanced. To do so, a strict conservative will be nominated to the Supreme Court. A massive political battle will ensue. However, because of the unity of the party, even the John McCain Republicans in the Senate will have to go to battle for a conservative nominee if they want to get re-elected. A similar battle will ensue for Bush’s Social Security Plan and other things on the Republican agenda.
The unity that has been obtained by what would seem to be the worst thing to happen to a president has turned out to be the source of a boost to the conservative movement in America. This unity will prove to act as a mandate for advancing the president’s agenda. Whether this was Karl Rove genius or just a bit of luck, in 2006 and 2008, the conservatives of America will be able to look back at advance of the conservative movement that they have worked so hard for.
Miers Withdraws From Confirmation Process
Half the senate Republicans doubt Miers
"Bork calls Miers nomination a 'disaster' "
"Bush is guilty of CRONYISM!!!"-The Left
By selecting Miers as the next nominee to the United States Supreme Court, George W. Bush is guilty of "cronyism" as the left has consistently portrayed. However, this practice of “cronyism” is a practice that has gone since 1828! This is nothing new. This is something that has gone on to some degree in every presidential administration. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the very party who is criticizing it today (the Democrats), created a system similar to this in 1828. This system, “The Spoils System,” is quite simple. The President appoints his highest donors to high positions. As Andrew Jackson would say, "To the victor, goes the spoils.” As the Democrats try to jump all over our President for picking a “crony,” he is merely rewarding loyalty, similar to the system that was pioneered by the criticizer’s party! Bush's implimentation of this is not necessarily a bad thing either. "Cronyism" generally is reserved for the most loyal of friends. This loyalty can often prove to be a strong quality in any position.
One thing you have to keep in mind too is that this is far better than the spoils system. The spoils system was where unqualified donors were appointed to almost all the governmental positions. However, in this case qualification is not an issue. She has held presigious positions within lawfirms and the Texas State Bar.
One should also note that the President knows the personality of his loyal friend more than someone with a conservative court record. While I believe that there were other better choices that could have been made, I can't really say that with conviction since I do not know Miers. No one in the media knows either, but they are reporting their famous doom and gloom. That being said, while I do not think she was the best choice, the charge of "cronyism" does not mean anything.
This is one loyal person that he has appointed to the supreme court. You may call that "cronyism," but that is his right as president. The only reason the left is using this weak arguement to discredit her is because there is nothing for them to critisize since she has no judicial record. They have to go with the trend of the past 5 years of being anti-whatever the republicans do. This is is an excuse for their actions not a reason.
Dates were pulled from http://www.u-s-history.com
Miers... a weak pick: Not the Scalia that was promised
Harriet Miers is a poor choice for nomination. It’s not because of the cronyism that the left keeps whining about… it’s not because she was never a judge… it’s not even because of her stance on any social issues. She is a weak pick for four reasons: she has little public record, she may rule differently on the bench than people percieve, she does not make the democrats cringe enough, and she may not be the judge bush promised us in the campaign last year.
It has been said that the confirmation hearings are going to be crucial in this nomination because there is no paper trail indicating her judicial style. However, I strongly disagree. One can rarely find out much about a candidate by what they say, and they can find out even less under the restrictions of these hearings. Sure, they ask all the “right” questions like “What would you decide if Roe v. Wade showed up again,” and “What is your stance on gay marriage?” However, they cannot even answer those questions! If they were to answer, they would be forced to remove themselves from that case if it ever reached the court. We can all say that the only important thing is that they will strictly interpret the constitution. However, it is not possible to do so without at least a bit of partisanship. We need to get a conservative on the court so that the liberals lose their final bastion in the federal government. Without any public record, one cannot be sure that she is that conservative we need.
The most important thing that many are overlooking is the fact that she may rule against her own views on bench if she interprets the constitution to mean something different than what she feels on the inside. Just because she is likely a pro life, evangelical Christian person, does not mean she is a pro life judge. It is very possible, and maybe even likely that she is from the same mold as Justice Scalia. However, we cannot be sure! There are just as many signs pointing towards her being in that mold as the contrary. For example, she was seen at pro life fundraisers. However, she did give money to the 1988 Al Gore campaign and she did indicate on a form that she is for full gay rights. While the first may indicate that she is a conservative, the later two would indicate she is a liberal. Let me remind you of Justice David Souter. This associate justice has a similar resume to Miers. David Souter is the poster child for exactly what we are trying to avoid. He was appointed by George HW Bush in 1990. The press used the term "stealth justice" to describe Souter. He appeared conservative, but his views were not evident from public record. While Bush Sr. thought that he was a conservative, it turned out he would take on the roll of the most liberal justice on the court. The press is using the same exact terminology for Miers. We cannot afford for this to happen again! We have the religious base rallying around the Republican Party. We must make sure we maintain that by moving the court to the right.
We can talk about how we need to bridge the gap between the Republicans and Democrats, however, lets face reality. That doesn’t happen in real life. The left and the right have constantly have been at war since 1776. While the values have changed, the names have changed, and the times have changed, the battle has always been present. Right now, for the first time in many years, the Republican party has a majority in the House and the Senate while a Republican is president. It is not just a 51% majority. They have a significant majority. What is really needed is a proven conservative justice. This justice should be so conservative that the Democrats cringe at the mere sound of his or her name. One may ask why the Republicans would want to stir such a controversy. They would want to because it would cause the democrats to come out and stand for what they believe in. By forcing them to do that, they cannot hide behind the shroud of deception that they currently hold in front of them. This would perhaps make at least a small percentage of “democrats” realize that while they may not be crazy about the President, they do not agree with what the democrats stand for either. I believe that there are these closet Democrat voting Republicans because of this past election’s political buzz word campaign. It was the trendy thing to hate Bush. The entire election their platform was “Bush sucks. Bush is Stupid.” Their real agenda being exposed to the uninformed who fell victim to this trap of deception will likely cause some to defect from the party.
The absolute most important reason why Miers was not a good pick is that SHE IS NOT THE JUDGE GEORGE BUSH PROMISED TO HIS BASE. No matter how people try to spin it, the religious conservatives won the election for President Bush in 2004. The main reason that was the case was because the President made it clear that he would put judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia on the bench. Thomas and Scalia were both proven conservatives on all issues. Most importantly, both voted pro life and were against gay marriage. It IS possible that Miers could be out of the same mold. However, why take that chance? If the court moves to the left, it is likely that the Republican Party will lose its religious conservative base. They would have to build the trust of that demographic all over again. It is possible that with the loss of that base, the next president could be a Democrat. More than likely 1-2 judges will retire in the next term. That would mean that the court would be pretty much set in stone as liberal for 20-30 years. If Miers were to be a liberal, the courts would lean left for a very long time. We have the chance to move the court to the right after 30 years of work by the Republicans. We should capitalize on that and nominate someone who has proven that they are a conservative judge to prevent any reoccurring Souters.
It is evident that much is at stake here. We really need to move the court to the right. The fate of the conservative movement could depend on it. I don’t know about you… but I do not want to hear the phrase “President Hillary” ever in my life. Choosing a new pick would make the probability of that far lower.
Should she step aside?
FLASH: Bill Kristol/FOXNEWS on Harriet Miers: 'I'm not convinced she's going to make it, honestly... Maybe she would do the president a favor by stepping aside'... This is taken from www.drudgereport.com
Should she step aside? I will address this issue further this evening.
What is your opinion?
Harriet Miers
I will comment on this later on today. This blog is going to be one that strongly encourages reader involvement. For now, I would like to get your opinions on her nomination. This is a canidate that appears to be recieving mixed response from sides of the aisle. What is your take?