-- He backs a controversial theory known as the "unitary executive," which amounts to an imperial presidency with greater power than Congress or the judiciary. If anything, this sounds suspiciously unconstitutional, in that it undermines the US democratic system of "checks and balances" so finely tuned by our country's founders.
As Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) testified yesterday, ''The Bush administration has repeatedly cited this theory to justify its most controversial policies in the war on terrorism."
I wonder if conservatives would support the "unitary executive" theory if the president was a Democrat.----------
-- As the Times says, " Time again, as a lawyer and a judge, the nominee has taken the side of big corporations against the 'little guy,' supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled."
Also, Larry West, About.com's Guide to Environmental Issues points out that "A coalition of leading environmental groups has declared strong opposition to Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in his bid to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. This is the first time in nearly 20 years that the environmental community has opposed confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. The last time was when Judge Robert Bork was nominated in 1987. "
----------
-- Judge Alito has clearly been less than forthright in many of his answers....especially about his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) , a group proud of its "offensive views about women, minorities and AIDS victims," per the Times. CAP was an "extremely conservative" group that actively fought the admittance of women and use of affirmative action programs at Princeton.
----------
So Alito is pro-corporate, anti-environment, gives a cold judicial shoulder to women, minorities and the disenfranchised, and responds to US senators with intransparent, slippery answers? And, of course, Alito is ferociously anti-choice on abortion. Perfect fit for the Bush Administration.
But is this what our country needs on the Supreme Court? Another cold-blooded Bushite? Is this what the United States needs anywhere at all?
On the other hand, as About.com's new Guide to US Conservatives, Amy Hess, reported last week, "The American Bar Association called Judge Samuel Alito 'well-qualified' on Wednesday, the ABA's top rating. Fifteen legal experts did some intense peer-review of Alito to come to their conclusion...
----------
Senate Democrats on the Judiciary committee were probing and thorough in their questioning of Judge Alito, and were dissatisfied with his vague, legalistic answers.
And yet, they seem strangely reticent to pursue the filibuster. Blogger Tanya at DailyKos reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) indicates that filibuster is unlikely, and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) said that he has "seen nothing that would disqualify the nominee."
Then again, blogger Kim at My Left Nutmeg reports that "Senator Lieberman said that a filibuster was on the table for him ."
"Officially, Democrats have not taken a position on filibustering the nominee ," reports Raw Story. Senate Democrats meet next week to discuss the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. to be on the Supreme Court.
From what I've heard thusfar, I cast a NAY vote, and urge Democrats to team with moderate pro-choice Republicans, such as the two senators from Maine and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, to filibuster this nomination into defeat.
Of course I could be wildly incorrect, but it doesn't appear that Alito would muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.
------------------------------
Related Article - Profile of US Senator Dianne Feinstein of California
------------------------------
Technorati Profile
Comments