They still can't let it go..

[FromTexas]

Asked repeatedly about whether the Supreme Court should have decided Bush v. Gore, the case that settled the 2000 election, Alito declined to answer, saying he hadn't studied the case.

 

[SamSpade]

Some of their questions are idiotic, and reveal mostly about the one asking than the answer would. A good judge makes his decisions based on the law, precedent, the Constitution and the details of the case in question.

One of the things I like about "C.S.I." is Grissom's frequent mantra and underlying philosophy which is shared in the other two shows - "people lie, but the evidence *never* does". Other shows, the same thing - "I'm a scientist/anthropologist/profiler/biologist/coroner etc... I don't care if he is found guilty or innocent....all I'm concerned with are the facts I find". A good judge could give a crap about politics - OR his own personal opinion.

For reasons I can't grasp, this essential fact is either dismissed by the politicians or just not believed. And the *reason* I can't fully grasp why they don't get it, is because most of them were lawyers once, and should know all about letting your personal opinion to rest when making your case in court. Their questions are like asking a mechanic how much it's going to cost to fix the car before he's even looked at it. Their ethical dilemmas are worse - they're like asking a doctor if he would operate on a serial murderer.

Of course, I still laugh every time I hear that bit of Kennedy calling him "Aleoto".

 

[FromTexas]

I think the politicans know better, but they are hoping they can get public opinion on their side. If the dems get public opinion seeing him in a certain light, then they can shoot him down and appear justified whether there is merit or not.

The best part (or worst depending on your point of view) is no one is really paying attention. Amercians paid pretty good attention for Roberts, then they had *the woman he didn't work* (and that is all you will hear from people.. not even a name), and now its .... what? Supreme Court? I could care less about that! Hasn't it taken enough time out of our sports, entertainment news, etc.... ?!?!

Remember, during Roberts they were already moving news of what happened down the page, to after the sports news, etc... This is *two* nominees later.

With the way he is answering, I think the dems are sunk on sinking him because other than some radicals on the far left and the usual interested groups who stay informed for their own sake... no one is paying attention.

My personal opinion is he definitely more conservative than most. I love it, and he is going to make it right through. It really makes me wonder if Harriet Miers really wasn't a willing lamb to the slaughter knowing that it would be much harder to fight the nominee Bush wanted if Harriet was sunk in a play of drama that finished off any caring the average American had in who goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[Lenny]

I think the politicans know better, but they are hoping they can get public opinion on their side. If the dems get public opinion seeing him in a certain light, then they can shoot him down and appear justified whether there is merit or not.

The best part (or worst depending on your point of view) is no one is really paying attention. Amercians paid pretty good attention for Roberts, then they had *the woman he didn't work* (and that is all you will hear from people.. not even a name), and now its .... what? Supreme Court? I could care less about that! Hasn't it taken enough time out of our sports, entertainment news, etc.... ?!?!

Remember, during Roberts they were already moving news of what happened down the page, to after the sports news, etc... This is *two* nominees later.

With the way he is answering, I think the dems are sunk on sinking him because other than some radicals on the far left and the usual interested groups who stay informed for their own sake... no one is paying attention.

My personal opinion is he definitely more conservative than most. I love it, and he is going to make it right through. It really makes me wonder if Harriet Miers really wasn't a willing lamb to the slaughter knowing that it would be much harder to fight the nominee Bush wanted if Harriet was sunk in a play of drama that finished off any caring the average American had in who goes to the Supreme Court.

If one had to sum it all up for a bumper sticker it would say "There's A Mid-Term Election This Year! VOTE for Me Because...."

 

[2ndAmendment]

... A good judge makes his decisions based on the law, precedent, the Constitution and the details of the case in question. ...

True. But I would change the order to the Constitution, the law, and leave out precedent.

Precedent, when not covered by the Constitution or law, is legislating from the bench which should never, ever happen. If the law does not address something or is unclear, a judge should dismiss the case. It is in the "law does not address or is unclear" cases were bench legislation happens and precedent is set.

 

[vraiblonde]

Watching Durbin question Alito made me want to gouge my eyes out. If Alito can sit through that nonsense without saying, "Hello, windbag - is there a question in my future???" then he's more than qualified by vitrue of his patience and composure alone.

EVERYTHING is about abortion. Everything. "Do you believe that the Constitution does not support a mother's right to 'choose'?" At that point I'd have whipped out a copy of it and said, "Show me where in the Constitution it says a woman has a 'right' to kill her unborn child?"

 

[sleuth]

It really makes me wonder if Harriet Miers really wasn't a willing lamb to the slaughter knowing that it would be much harder to fight the nominee Bush wanted if Harriet was sunk in a play of drama that finished off any caring the average American had in who goes to the Supreme Court.

To this day, I think that's what happened.
I'll betcha it was planned all along.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sammy...

for reasons I can't grasp, this essential fact is either dismissed by the politicians or just not believed. And the *reason* I can't fully grasp why they don't get it, is because most of them were lawyers once, and should know all about letting your personal opinion to rest when making your case in court.

I think it is clear that they are operating in the interest of their 'client'; the far left. No one on the planet is as stupid as their questions and presistence reveal. They probably don't have a thing in the world against Bush having his own nominees but, again, they have a job to do; put on a show.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's why Bork...

Watching Durbin question Alito made me want to gouge my eyes out. If Alito can sit through that nonsense without saying, "Hello, windbag - is there a question in my future???" then he's more than qualified by vitrue of his patience and composure alone.

EVERYTHING is about abortion. Everything. "Do you believe that the Constitution does not support a mother's right to 'choose'?" At that point I'd have whipped out a copy of it and said, "Show me where in the Constitution it says a woman has a 'right' to kill her unborn child?"

...was defeated; he had had enough and started treating the various Senators in the fashion that their questions warranted; like little, spoiled children.

The Dems then used his 'lack of self control' as a pretext, as cover for voting against him. This nation truly suffered from NOT having a brilliant legal mind and scholar like Judge Bork on the court.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yep...

True. But I would change the order to the Constitution, the law, and leave out precedent.

Precedent, when not covered by the Constitution or law, is legislating from the bench which should never, ever happen. If the law does not address something or is unclear, a judge should dismiss the case. It is in the "law does not address or is unclear" cases were bench legislation happens and precedent is set.

...that's the fundamental isssue.