Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito lacks support (411 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You missed his point (none)
    No one should even need to write a memo asking or answering the question "what if the president and congress disagree as to the meaning of a law?" - it's blatantly obvious congress' interpretation of what THEY wrote should win.

    So by even asking the question, Alito is adding legitimacy to the very idea.  Just like the very fact that many people are debating whether Bush should be impeached shows that the idea is not ridiculous.

    I am against the teaching of evolution in schools. I am also against widespread literacy and the refrigeration of food.

    by Scientician on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:02:02 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Silly me (none)
      And I thought that asking questions even ridiculous ones is the vbery nature of teh legal profession.

      I seem to recall that prior to 1972 the question of whether abortion is a constitutional right was considered silly in the extreme.  Yet people kept asking if for nothing else then the have a good mental exercise.

      •  and the people who asked (none)
        if abortion was a constitutional right despite the fact that they were thought to be "silly in the extreme" did so because they wanted that right recognized.  they wanted the law changed.  and they were persistent in their inquiries until they changed that law.

        so their questions weren't harmless little, rhetorical mishaps. they were calculated with an intent to change the current interpretation.

        which is exactly what alito was doing.

        your point is bullshit.

        and you don't need a law degree to see that.

      •  You're a lawyer... (none)
        ...and you claim to have more experience than I with legal memos, so riddle me this.  Would you ever write a memo to your boss(es) that included a series of patently absurd questions that you felt had no basis for being asked?  

        Let's suppose Alito wrote: "what if there's a disagreement?  Should the President issue letters of marque and reprisal?  Will the states then be allowed to coin money?  Is the Bill of Attainder Clause thereby effectively amended?"

        Would that make any sense at all?  Would anyone ever do something like that?  If your answer is no, then explain to me how the questions one highlights at the end of a legal memo are nothing more than fun exercises in intellectual trivia.

        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

        by Categorically Imperative on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:17:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It could if followed by (none)
          "Clearly the constitution forbids letters of marque, so that can't be it"
          •  Good luck (none)
            Try that out the first time you write a memo for your Nixon-era judge.  Inform him about totally irrelevant side points and trivialities that you can then respond to, in your mind justifying the fact that you raised the issue in the first place.  I'm sure your recommendation letter from the judge will be glowing.

            The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

            by Categorically Imperative on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:41:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  further questions about your legal career (none)
        I question your constant reference to yourself as an attorney.  You just wrote that "asking rediculous questions was the very nature of the legal profession".  You sound exactly like those "health care is skyrocketing because of frivolous lawsuits" people, you know, the amalgam of the uninformed and the intentionally misinforming.

        Your posts have gotten extremely boring and redundant.  You are anti-choice and believe that abortion should be illegal.  You are entitled to your own opinion.  Many of us disagree with your opinion.  However, if you want to be taken seriously in this Scalito discussion, you should perhaps read some law, specifically, Scalito's interpretations of said law.

        •  if you read my posts (none)
          you would know that I favor legalized abortion.  i just fail to see the constitutional requirement for this policy.  A difference that I fear you don't comprehend.
          •  Oh really? (none)
            So the 10th is toliet paper?

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

            by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:32:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The 10th (and I am tired of repeating this) (none)
              is not a secret repository of right that keeps forever expanding whenever 5 balck robed men (or women) fancy that it is a good idea to create new rights.
              •  Well, the 10th (none)
                Is a disclaimer designed to placate those who feared that the creation of a bill of rights would ultimately expand the reach of the Federal government.  

                The more interesting question would be how you think the 9th Amendment should be interpreted.  But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't have a substantive answer to that, just the slightly paraphrased line from Scalia's A Matter of Interpretation you pulled out above.  

                BTW, you should be careful with how liberally you quote from that book without crediting Nino; though it was compiled from a series of lectures at Princeton, the book is copyrighted.

                The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

                by Categorically Imperative on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:44:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (4.00)
                Tell that to Scalia as he keeps putting States rights in those words in all number of ways that are complete bullshit.

                The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                by Armando on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:55:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  he doesnt base it on the 10th, (none)
                  but on the enumerated powers of the Federal government.  Those powers are not unlimited you know.
                  •  Except the powers of the President... (none)
                    ...in war time, right?  Those are unlimited.  At least when a Republican is in office.  Right?

                    "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

                    by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 03:52:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, not right (none)
                      But if my memory serves me right, it was Truman (D) and FDR (D) who claimed unlimited power to seize property and intern minorities during wartime respectively.
                      •  And Truman was shot down (none)
                        ... and thank god he was. By an unanimous court that said he had to follow the law.  BTW, many (R)'s were rightly opposed to Truman's power grab.  But, then, he was not a (R).  No doubt the hypocritical bastards would be doing the same if it were Hillary in office right now.

                        "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

                        by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:05:06 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Indeed (none)
                          Let's wait and see until some of Bush's grabs are challenged in courts.  Hopefully he will be similarly shut down where he overreached.

                          As a side note, the Court wasnt unanimous.  It was 6-3.

                          •  Brilliant (none)
                            You're in the legal profession and you make this statement:

                            Let's wait and see until some of Bush's grabs are challenged in courts.  Hopefully he will be similarly shut down where he overreached.

                            Are you fucking kidding me?   Let's wait and see until some of Bush's grabs are challenged in courts?

                            Uhhh have you been living under a rock for the last few years?   Bush's power grabs have been challenged in courts more times than I can count and it has achieved virtually nothing....legally OR politically.  

                            George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

                            by tlh lib on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:58:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Wrong again (none)
                        FDR acted pursuant to Congressional act.

                        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                        by Armando on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:30:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Congress authorized internment? (none)
                          I don;t recall that.  I may be wrong, and will freely admit that if you cite the Act, but I don;t recall there being congressional authorization for internment.
                          •  Armando didn't say that (none)
                            He said that FDR acted pursuant to Congressional Act.

                            He is correct that FDR used that rationale for his act (albeit eerily reminiscent of another president's rationale for illegally spying on U.S. citizens).

                            EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066

                            February 19, 1942  

                            Whereas, the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises and national defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220. and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C.01 Title 50, Sec. 104):

                            link

                            George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

                            by tlh lib on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:08:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Read Korematsu (none)
                            You might learn something.

                            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                            by Armando on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:28:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  He doesn't? (none)
                    You are an idiot for saying that.

                    You simply do not know what you are talking about.

                    What a revealing statement from you. You simply are ignorant in the area of federalism jurisprudence.

                    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:15:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Have you ever read Printz? (none)

                    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:27:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Gotcha (none)
            you are for reproductive rights if your rich enough, old enough, and/or live in the right portions of the country.

            Happy New Year, Impeach Bush

            by coigue on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:38:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope (none)
              I am for reproductive rights for everyone.  Just not arrogant enough to believe that because I believe it, the Constitution says it.
              •  Clearly you are (2.50)
                arrogant enough to take a headline about a SCOTUS case out of some legal textbook and use it to make a conclusion (supporting your argument) that there is a sweeping SCOTUS decision denying the rights of individuals to be protected, when if you actually read the opinions they would show a decision VERY narrowly defined.

                You are also arrogant enough to come here and act as if you are the only one who has ever read the constitution.

                Finally (and this is the gravest and most common error among pro-choice Republicans) you are arrogant enough to think that abortion is safe, and will remain legal no matter who is in office, or who are the Justices.

                Happy New Year, Impeach Bush

                by coigue on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:51:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's nonsense (none)
                  You argued that the government has a constitutional obligation to protect you.  I cited a case to you where the court held that it didn't.  Which is more than I can say for you.  You cited nothing to me in support of your proposition that the the government is constitutionally obligated to protect people.  That you can distinguish the case I cited is not a big shock.  But at least it is analogous.  What do you have supporting your views?
                  •  So you say. (none)
                    But the case you cited was narrowly defined, and, to my eye did not definitively decide anything.

                    Happy New Year, Impeach Bush

                    by coigue on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:55:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well where is your contrary cite? n/t (none)
                      •  What were we arguing again? (none)
                        Oh yeah...my thinking was along the lines of affirmative action. That there is some govt. responsibility because of decades of neglect of attention given to clear threats to a group of people (abortion providers, in this case). This leads to a paucity of providers such that women and girls in poor, rural, or conservative areas do not have the same access. (This was a comment by the majority in Roe-the inequality of access across states)

                        My argument is that there should be some financial incentives (scholarships, etc.) to fill the need. Also, they should be protected, and threats should be taken seriously.

                        But that could be remedied legislatively. As to refering you to a case....well, I am working from a 12 year-old Con Law text, so I am a bit handicapped.

                         

                        Happy New Year, Impeach Bush

                        by coigue on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:33:10 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  And as to abortion (none)
                  The whole point is that the abortion issue should not depend on the justices.  The other office holders we can argue about, but the justices are not there to protect "safety of abortions."

                  (And funny how you can say that this is the "gravest."  I didn;t know that abortion was the end all and be all of constitutional law and societal well-being).

                •  You make only one error (none)
                  in an otherwise excellent comment.

                  I doubt "drgrishka" is pro-choice.  He is a right-wing Rethug troll in every way, and is simply trying to cover his radical extreme views with such a statement.  

                  This guy is troll, and please help troll rate him off this site.

                  •  Are you sure? (none)
                    I am not. I do know many (R)s who are pro-choice. He said in another part of diary that he would vote for a ERA to the Constitution. He makes some very valid points, once you get past the general annoying/agitating  way he has of expressing himself.

                    I was getting somewhere with him, so please don't troll rate his comments unless they are trollish. It isn't fair to me if he can't read my replies to him because someone else comes in late in the conversation and decides to end it.

                    Happy New Year, Impeach Bush

                    by coigue on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 11:31:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've really had it with him (none)
                      not only is he a right-wing wacko, but he comes and pisses on this blog by attacking and insulting people who hold the majority position of those in this blog.  This guy is also dishonest, I kept asking him whether he voted for W or not, and he kept trying to evade the question.

                      His points are invalid and trollish, they waste the energy of many of those in this blog who could be fighting Thomalito rather than responding to his bullshit, I really wish someone could ban him, as it really is a drag to deal with this kind of garbage for the most of us.

                      However in respect to your wishes, I won't troll rate any more of his posts that you respond to.

      •  He ANSWERED (none)
        a question in wildly wrong fashion.

        and the question is one NOT EVEN YOU would think to ask.

        It is unbelievable that he wrote what he wrote.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:54:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site