Judge Alito Overqualified

[MonsterMark]

October 31, 2005
Schumer: Judge Alito ‘Hopelessly Overqualified’
by Scott Ott

(2005-10-31) — Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George Bush’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is “hopelessly overqualified” for the nation’s highest court, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY.

“While average Americans had urged the president to appoint someone in the Harriet Miers tradition,” said Sen. Schumer, “Bush disappoints them by picking a Princeton and Yale graduate who’s a veteran jurist with a sharp intellect and rich legal experience. All of that ability and wisdom will be wasted at the Supreme Court, where his main job is simply to update the Constitution.”

The New York Democrat joined many of his colleagues in noting that the Supreme Court is “the people’s court” and should not be ruled by “an elite class of scholars far removed from the real world.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “The president acknowledges that his nominee is probably too brilliant for this court.”

“Judge Alito would be a better candidate for the Senate, where he could help restore intellectual balance on Capitol Hill,” said Mr. McClellan. “But when your starter gets knocked out of the game, you have to go to the bench.”

 

[MonsterMark]

November 1, 2005
Alito Name Too ‘Vowel-Heavy’, Schumer Says
by Scott Ott

(2005-11-01) — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, today questioned Judge Samuel Alito’s commitment to diversity noting that the Supreme Court nominee’s last name is 60 percent vowels and only 40 percent consonants.

In perhaps the most substantive critique of President George Bush’s nominee to date, the senator also noted that the federal appeals court judge’s full name contains every vowel, but a disproportionately small percentage of consonants.

“Not only is Judge Alito’s name too vowel-heavy for mainstream Americans,” said Sen. Schumer. “But ‘Alito’ begins and ends with vowels, suggesting that vowels are the alpha and omega of the alphabet, and clearly denigrating the contribution of consonants to our society.”

 

[Joeychgo]

<yawn>

 

[Jamler3]

October 31, 2005
Schumer: Judge Alito ‘Hopelessly Overqualified’
by Scott Ott

(2005-10-31) — Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George Bush’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is “hopelessly overqualified” for the nation’s highest court, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY. “Bush disappoints them by picking a Princeton and Yale graduate who’s a veteran jurist with a sharp intellect and rich legal experience. All of that ability and wisdom will be wasted at the Supreme Court, where his main job is simply to update the Constitution.”

Geez... Bang Bush for picking an relatively unknown woman... Now he picks an incredible, highly respected individual and they still bash... Sounds like Schumer wants a job as a comedian instead of a member of Congress!!!

 

[MonsterMark]

The things I post by Scott Ott are all satirical in nature and the quotes are not actually those of the quoted. Sorry for the confusion. I just find Ott way too funny. He hits these things right on the head.

I could really care less what the Democrats think of the nomination. When the Democrats nominated Ruth bader Ginsburg, the card carrying member of the ACLU, nobody on the right cried. Clinton got his choice. Now Bush gets his. So STFU.

I will sleep much better knowing that this country won't have a bunch of judges making crap up as they go along. We'll finally have a court that will 'interpret' the Constitution, not seek to further have our society continue its decline by having the Constitution 'evolve'.

 

[fossten]

The things I post by Scott Ott are all satirical in nature and the quotes are not actually those of the quoted. Sorry for the confusion. I just find Ott way too funny. He hits these things right on the head.

I could really care less what the Democrats think of the nomination. When the Democrats nominated Ruth bader Ginsburg, the card carrying member of the ACLU, nobody on the right cried. Clinton got his choice. Now Bush gets his. So STFU.

I will sleep much better knowing that this country won't have a bunch of judges making crap up as they go along. We'll finally have a court that will 'interpret' the Constitution, not seek to further have our society continue its decline by having the Constitution 'evolve'.

Amen brutha'.

:Beer

 

[barry2952]

I could really care less what the Democrats think

I believe you mean't to say that you couldn't care less. Somehow I don't picture you caring at all what a Democrat thinks.

 

[MonsterMark]

How about...I really could care less what the Democrats think, but I can't.

 

[Joeychgo]

I could really care less what the Democrats think of the nomination. When the Democrats nominated Ruth bader Ginsburg, the card carrying member of the ACLU, nobody on the right cried. Clinton got his choice. Now Bush gets his. So STFU.

And thats why Bush has such great job performance numbers. (41% Approval Rating according to Brian's coveted FOX news) Guess what, he's the President of the whole country, not just the right wing. But he seems to have the same attitude. Which is why the country is so divided. This is not just about Bush getting his turn. If you think its that simple then you really need to read the Constitution again and maybe study its purpose and intention a bit.

That said.

You want to talk about how benevolent the republicans were with Justice Ginsburg? Guess what - Who do you think suggested her to President Clinton?

Orin Hatch.

Ginsburg's confirmation was not simply a case of Republicans setting aside their ideological differences. Hatch wrote in his autobiography, Square Peg: Confessions of a Citizen Senator (Basic Books, 2002), that Clinton nominated Ginsburg at Hatch's suggestion. Hatch wrote that he had discouraged Clinton in 1993 from nominating then-Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to the Supreme Court, arguing that "confirmation would not be easy." Hatch then suggested a few possible nominees:

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg [sic].

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

I havent made up my mind abouf this nomination as of yet, and I wont until I know more. I said the same thing about Justice Roberts and ended up supporting him after I learned more.

Why do I feel this way? Because the Supreme Court is a long term appointment that could have significant impact upon all of our lives and such an appointment deserves and requires a more in depth decision. So far, I think he is right on some issues and left on others. He seems to be right on women's rights and left on freedom of expression. I have more to learn.

However, I didnt like Harriet Miers because she had no experience dealing with Constitutional law. For those of you who dont realize the difference, Constitutional law can be very complicated and outside of the scope of most attorney's practice. Mostly, its only Judges, Law School Professors and Criminal law attorneys that deal with Constitutional Law with any frequency. She just didnt seem qualified to me in any way.

SO, we'll see. But dont accept him out of hand just because GW appointed him. If you cant tell me all about the nominee, then you havent done your homework and you are just being partisian and participating in the division of the country.

 

[fossten]

And thats why Bush has such great job performance numbers. (41% Approval Rating according to Brian's coveted FOX news) Guess what, he's the President of the whole country, not just the right wing. But he seems to have the same attitude. Which is why the country is so divided. This is not just about Bush getting his turn. If you think its that simple then you really need to read the Constitution again and maybe study its purpose and intention a bit.

That said.

You want to talk about how benevolent the republicans were with Justice Ginsburg? Guess what - Who do you think suggested her to President Clinton?

Orin Hatch.



I havent made up my mind abouf this nomination as of yet, and I wont until I know more. I said the same thing about Justice Roberts and ended up supporting him after I learned more.

Why do I feel this way? Because the Supreme Court is a long term appointment that could have significant impact upon all of our lives and such an appointment deserves and requires a more in depth decision. So far, I think he is right on some issues and left on others. He seems to be right on women's rights and left on freedom of expression. I have more to learn.

However, I didnt like Harriet Miers because she had no experience dealing with Constitutional law. For those of you who dont realize the difference, Constitutional law can be very complicated and outside of the scope of most attorney's practice. Mostly, its only Judges, Law School Professors and Criminal law attorneys that deal with Constitutional Law with any frequency. She just didnt seem qualified to me in any way.

SO, we'll see. But dont accept him out of hand just because GW appointed him. If you cant tell me all about the nominee, then you havent done your homework and you are just being partisian and participating in the division of the country.

Joey, I agree with 95% of what you just said.

As far as Orrin Hatch - he's a mod-lib Repub and I don't like him all that much. What you said doesn't surprise me.

I disagree with you about why the country is divided. We could devote a whole thread to that.

 

[barry2952]

I would like to hear your views on this.

 

[MonsterMark]

Guess what - Who do you think suggested her to President Clinton?Orin Hatch.

And guess what? Orin was wrong! And Reagan got it wrong with Kennedy and Bush1 got it wrong with Souter. So why shouldn't we be cautious. Error on the side of conservatism so we don't wind up with another activist judge.

You talk about partisan but please explain the plethora of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions if the court is not already partisan. Liberals owned the Congress for 50 years. They have owned the judicial branch almost as long. It is time we try something else.

I'm sick of the partisan (can we all get along) line. If the Dems were in power, there would be no talk of reaching out and you know it.

 

[formerknown]

"Overqualified"; the opposite of Schumer, who being "unqualified" for his position. It seems as though Alito is prime choice for this seat. I would like to have seen Rogers-Brown nominated for the seat in the first place, though. That whole Miers thing was a bloody fiasco...

 

[MonsterMark]

Ya, Janice Rogers Brown would have been great. A black woman. Would have loved to see them (the left) tear her apart. ACLU, NAG, the whole gang. Would have been good entertainment for sure.

What would they call her, an Aunt Jemima to go along with Uncle Tom Thomas? Or would they just call to two of them 'the Jeffersons'?

 

[barry2952]

If the Dems were in power

If the Democrats were in power Saddam would still be in power brutalizing his people. So :q:q:q:qing what! We watch it happen all over the world and don't do a thing about it. Now that Saddam's no longer in control his people are brutalizing our troops to the tune of over 2,000 deaths. The real shame is not the number of dead, but the number who lived through it. The ones that are coming home with deep psycological and physical problems. It's a repeat of Viet Nam. Our society will pay a price for this action.

I read that as of 10 years ago 50% of homeless men were Viet Nam veterans. Please educate me if you know different.

 

[barry2952]

I now return you to the regularly scheduled thread.

 

[MonsterMark]

If the Democrats were in power Saddam would still be in power brutalizing his people. So what! We watch it happen all over the world and don't do a thing about it.

Since 9/11, we haven't been attacked again on our own soil. Simple coincidence? Yes or No?

 

[barry2952]

Not even a vague connection.

 

[TheDude]

Ya, Janice Rogers Brown would have been great. A black woman. Would have loved to see them (the left) tear her apart. ACLU, NAG, the whole gang. Would have been good entertainment for sure.

What would they call her, an Aunt Jemima to go along with Uncle Tom Thomas? Or would they just call to two of them 'the Jeffersons'?

I thought racist jargon was more of a conservative thing...

 

[Joeychgo]

And guess what? Orin was wrong! And Reagan got it wrong with Kennedy and Bush1 got it wrong with Souter. So why shouldn't we be cautious. Error on the side of conservatism so we don't wind up with another activist judge.

You talk about partisan but please explain the plethora of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions if the court is not already partisan. Liberals owned the Congress for 50 years. They have owned the judicial branch almost as long. It is time we try something else.

I'm sick of the partisan (can we all get along) line. If the Dems were in power, there would be no talk of reaching out and you know it.

That last statement alone is partisian. THATS my point. Did I say Republicans anywhere in what I said except in pointing out hatch? No. And how do you figure the 'Dems' have owned the judiciary? I got news. Most of the people on the federal bench (not just the Sup CT) were appointed by Republicans. 24 of the last 32 years had a republican in the White house.

I dont want an activist either, from EITHER direction. That means I favor a moderate. Im not sure if this nominee is moderate or conservative. He may have moderate leanings but still be conservative, which may be ok with me. I dont want another Thomas or Scalia, nor another Ginsburg.

 

[TheDude]

Bryan (MonsterMark to the newest people),

I really don’t understand why you're suddenly dumping on Miers now. I recall a thread started by Barry that was titled 'Will Bush Ever Tell The Truth'. The premise was 'did Bush lie when he told the American people that his religious inclinations would have nothing to do when making choices for the country'. Barry brought up the point about Bush saying 'that they (Miers) sharing the same religious convictions helped him make his choice on choosing her.' At that time you were all over having her on the bench and you said something about 'it being a lateral move, a conservation for a moderate and next a conservative for a liberal to push the court to the right'.

Just curious why you're suddenly on the 'dump on Miers' bandwagon? Many people that were for her on previous threads are now saying that Bush had made a bad call but he 'fixed' it with his Alito nomination.

 

[MonsterMark]

Just curious why you're suddenly on the 'dump on Miers' bandwagon? Many people that were for her on previous threads are now saying that Bush had made a bad call but he 'fixed' it with his Alito nomination.

I believe we ended up losing that thread so I can't refer to it.

Roberts wasn't challenged because when Rheinquist died, it was viewed that Roberts would simply be a replacement, conservative=conservative. With the Miers nomination, I liked the fact that she had no 'paper trail' but I didn't like her answers to the questionairre. Her former affiliation as a democrat and her voting for Gore, along with some comments regarding conservative groups really bothered alot of people, including myself. And then her '91 speeches surfaced and that was enough for me, and it seems alot of people. The left, Democrats in particular, would never be able to do what the Right did. That is, take a look at a nominee and understand that that person did not represent the best interests of the group that elected the President. A lefty would just go for the fact that the lefty was a lefty.

There are several posts floating around where I said I didn't like Harriet after what I learned. Same may hold true for Alito but I can't see the Administration not getting it right the second time. Bush obviously thought he could put someone in under the radar like Roberts but failed to realize he needed to be responsible to the people that got him elected. When he finally realized that, there was only one choice. Jettison the Question Mark and put a true conservative up to bat. He tried to avoid a fight but there was simply no way there was not going to be a fight.

The current equation is 4 liberals = 4 conservatives with 1 in the middle. That is the story the left wants you to believe. But the reality is the equation has been 5 liberal vs 4 conservative. Now the equation is tilting to 4 vs 5 and that is where the battle is. Does not matter who the nominee is. The battle was inevitable. Bush didn't realize that trying to appease the left with Miers was not in the best interests of the country.

 

[TheDude]

I believe we ended up losing that thread so I can't refer to it.

It's on page 2 if you need to look.

 

[fossten]

I now return you to the regularly scheduled thread.

LOL - go take a throat lozenge, barry...

 

[captainalias]

I have to agree with you guys here, this Democrat reason that he overqualified is pretty stupid. better to be overqualified than under.