It’s Alito!
It’s official: Bush has picked Samuel Alito to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Ground Zero of the battle will be his dissent in the lower-court decision in Casey. I have a full analysis of that dissent here. I urge readers to read my post, become familiar with the dissent, and to counter misrepresentations of the dissent wherever you see them.
This will be quite a battle. But with the power of the blogopshere to spread truth, and to hold the media’s feet to the fire, I have confidence that we will prevail.
Mr. President, all is forgiven. We are with you all the way.
To war!
UPDATE: The Real Clear Politics blog has Sen. Schumer’s statement. I like the sound of it:
It is sad that the President felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor, who would unify us.
This controversial nominee, who would make the Court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people.
Sen. Schumer, I’ve got news for you: you will also be getting very careful scrutiny. Any distortions of this fine judge’s record will be met with the truth, courtesy of the blogopshere. Instantly. Be warned.
Patterico, in an earlier thread, commenter Ed noted that Alito was the tie-breaking vote in a 2-1 decision enjoining enforcement of a PA law requiring that women seeking Medicaid payment for abortions in cases of rape or incest report the rape or incest to appropriate authorities. He didn’t write the opinion, but his vote in that case should serve as a paper bag for the hyperventilating Dems. Should, but probably won’t. Anyway, if Specter isn’t already against him, and he’s probably not (he owes W, big time), it, along with what will undoubtedly be a stuning performance by Judge Alito in the hearings, should be enough to get Specter on board and, with him, the rest of the RINOs. He’ll get the same 22 no votes that Roberts got, of course, but hopefully not too many more.
TNugent (6128b4) — 10/31/2005 @ 6:39 amRe: Casey, I just watched the NBC “justice correspondent” declare that Alito’s opinion was that the states (roughly) ‘could impose any restriction they want’ on abortion short of outright banning.
So here we go.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/31/2005 @ 6:49 amThe wonderful thing about this choice, is that it is one that all can rally around. Bush did right with this pick.
And regardless of anyone’s opinion on Miers, there is little doubt in my mind that most if given the choice would have preferred Alito from the start over Miers.
Joel B. (568776) — 10/31/2005 @ 7:20 amOutstanding Choice!
Flap (cc77c4) — 10/31/2005 @ 7:26 am‘Looks like you took ol’ Dubya to the woodshed all right and so he’s learned his lesson. He’s learning that he isn’t so all-powerful after all.
Good!Great!I can’t figure out why Bush didn’t listen to Harry Reid this time. [grin]
Incidentally, your war analogies are so creepy. You want “war” with your fellow countrymen? How patriotic. I realize that it’s just hyperbole, but please …(“Onward Christian Soldiers” – Ugh.)
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/31/2005 @ 7:32 amJudge Alito’s service in the U.S. Army Reserve is interesting:
AB, Princeton, 1972; JD, Yale, 1975.
Served in the Army Reserves from 1972 until 1980 when he was discharged as a captain.
Alito clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit, who is now his colleague on that court, from 1976 to 1977.
From 1977-1980, Alito served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed.
So, what did he do in the U.S. Army Reserve?
Why did he join after graduating from Princeton? Was he ROTC?
The Vietnam draft was ending in June 1972, if I recall correctly.
Neil J. Lehto (77bed1) — 10/31/2005 @ 7:38 am[…] This time, I don’t think David Frum, ConfirmThemAndThisTimeWeReallyMeanIt.COM, Michelle Malkin, Patterico, Hugh Hewitt and I (and, I suspect, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and too many others to count) have anything to squabble over. Well, that’s not quite true; we probably are in for a fight, but this time it will be against the guys we’re supposed to be fighting against, and not against each other. Ain’t love grand? […]
damnum absque injuria » Reunited And it Feels so Good (38c04c) — 10/31/2005 @ 8:05 am[…] This time, I don’t think David Frum, ConfirmThemAndThisTimeWeReallyMeanIt.COM, Michelle Malkin, Patterico, Hugh Hewitt, Professor Bainbridge and I (and, I suspect, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and too many others to count) have anything to squabble over. Well, that’s not quite true; we probably are in for a fight, but this time it will be against the guys we’re supposed to be fighting against, and not against each other. Ain’t love grand? […]
damnum absque injuria » Reunited And it Feels so Good (38c04c) — 10/31/2005 @ 8:14 amYeah, to war and I think a good one. Just remember the Geneva Convention, play smart and the victory will be won.
Alito will win because he is just too smart and qualified not to with a Republican controlled Senate. Times are a changing for the better!
David Eaves (2c543e) — 10/31/2005 @ 8:18 amIt’s a great day in America! Let’s bag and tag.
Craig Hancock (0f4830) — 10/31/2005 @ 8:36 am“Sen. Schumer, I’ve got news for you: you will also be getting very careful scrutiny. Any distortions of this fine judge’s record will be met with the truth, courtesy of the blogopshere. Instantly. Be warned.”
Nice sentiment, but remember, this is *SCHUMER* you’re talking about. Being factually incorrect and being called on it is par for the course with him – and it doesn’t sway him in the slightest.
Addison (651a1b) — 10/31/2005 @ 8:38 amPerhaps an attack on Schumer should start with the obvious fact that America IS divided, bitterly, about abortion.
Anybody who thinks that any SC nominee can reconcile pro-life with pro-choice is lying, at least to themselves.
Though a reversal of Roe, allowing (blue – red) states to make it legal – illegal in those states, seems the most reasonable way to have true DIVERSITY in law.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad (831e24) — 10/31/2005 @ 9:40 amGreat Man, Front and Center,
Well, seems this nomination sure puts an end to the Stealth vs Squish debate. I like it, and GWB proves once again he’s all for unity, at least on our side of the table. But, it’s a start, and that’s a good enough.
Now, if we could only get a few dozen Dem Senators to get onboard.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/31/2005 @ 10:07 amHmm… I’m unpleasantly surprised to find out that the left is also using the “war” word too describing this Alito nomination. Maybe I’m a language purist, but war makes me think of killing, blood and guts – at least until now. I noticed that one connotation of “war” is only “to be in serious disagreement with somebody…”
But if everyone else is using caustic language, then I can’t blame you for it too Patterico – after all it is Halloween today anyway.
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/31/2005 @ 10:22 amYou better get cracking on explaining his dissent in Doe v. Groody.
Strip-searches of ten-year old girls, without a warrant, don’t strike most folks as reasonable.
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 10/31/2005 @ 11:16 amYale, Princeton, actual judicial experience — be prepared to be labeled an “Alitist.”
The Family (a4f9c3) — 10/31/2005 @ 11:36 amAlito’s also got a big exposed flank (damn there goes war again!) on the case where he struck down the FMLA.
How is that going to play out? That wasn’t an “activist judge” issue, which is how most of the public view the debate over constitutional interpretation. Rather, it was a judge standing in Congress’ way after it created a very family-oriented law.
biwah (f5ca22) — 10/31/2005 @ 11:40 amBlack Jack,
Yup, Squish or Stealth was based on a presumption that Bush no longer appears to hold.
ras (f9de13) — 10/31/2005 @ 11:51 amInteresting biwah, could you expound on that a bit for us non-attorneys?
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/31/2005 @ 11:59 amIt’s Alito
President Bush has just nominated Samuel Alito to fill the seat on the Supreme Court being vacated by Justice O’Connor:
The Glittering Eye (80002b) — 10/31/2005 @ 1:04 pmWASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush has nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O̵…
Good one #16!
perfectsense (024110) — 10/31/2005 @ 1:17 pmIt’s almost more relevant how NON-attorneys view the FMLA case because, in fairness, it’s not actually a radically conservative decision.
The case excludes state employees from the FMLA’s provision giving employees 12 weeks’ parental leave. Alito refused to read the 14th Amendment to implicate parental leave rights, and therefore denied the claim based on states’ immunity.
On reflection, Geek, esq may be right that the strip-search 4th Amendment case is more damning. But even with this case, you can see the sound bite version playing out rather harshly.
biwah (f5ca22) — 10/31/2005 @ 1:49 pmGeek – Either you haven’t read Doe v. Groody (which dealt with whether certain individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had a good faith belief that the warrant in question allowed the searches, despite Alito’s “visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter”) or you are simply commenting that it could be a problem if it is oversimplfied/distorted as you have done.
eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 10/31/2005 @ 2:32 pmBiwah, yeah, but the Rs will scoff on the strip-search issue: “Here they go being soft on crime again.” The FMLA issue sounds flatly anti-women or anti-family to me with no similar drawback.
If he ruled that way for state employees, why wouldn’t he vote the same for everyone?
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/31/2005 @ 3:10 pmeddie, the majority in Doe v. Groody took the rare step of deciding that a warrant is not whatever a law enforcement officer says/thinks it is.
Of course there is a “good faith” exception to searches that exceed the scope of a written warrant. And most of the circuits have, at different times, taken a crowbar to this exception so that cops just have to know the right way to say “whoops”, and their wilding on bystanders and mistaken targets can be swept under the rug.
and it was all good. but even a good thing has to have limits, and i guess when the cops decided to strip search a couple of nonthreatening people, including a ten year-old girl, who were not named, mentioned, or remotely alluded to in the warrant (you know, a warrant?) – then some of the judges thought this might be considered unreasonable (you know, unreasonable?).
Alito was not among them. Brave Alito! standing up to those unconscionable activist judges who thought they might salvage a little corner of the 4th Amendment. Alito, who stood with the brave drug SWATs, who only namby-pamby liberals might suggest had humiliated, violated, and scared the bejeezus out of a little girl, and then claimed that they had just done the wrong homework, could we go back and change the assignmment to fit their boo-boo?
there is nothing about conservative values that compels or even suggests such perversity. and you sure ain’t any libertarian.
biwah (f5ca22) — 10/31/2005 @ 3:17 pmI SUPPORT THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL ALITO
to the Supreme Court. After two pump fakes, the President has come through on his promise to the voters of the United States — this is a nominee in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. We’ve got a live one and it’s our job to make sure this man gets his…
PrestoPundit (d881ce) — 10/31/2005 @ 11:19 pmPatterico sez:
“To war!”
I would have thought that at least by now conservatives would have given up their adolescent romanticization of war. At a time when soldiers die daily in a real war, launched by Patterico’s favorite president, Patterico’s strutting is revolting.
m.croche (8e633e) — 11/1/2005 @ 8:27 pmThis is the kind of war I like: we win a clean victory, nobody dies, and the other side (you) is miserable. Much better than the real war, which I don’t romanticize. And if you think GWB is my favorite president, you haven’t been reading lately — or you’re doing your typical misreading. Why, I touch on that topic in a post just tonight.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/1/2005 @ 8:52 pmlow cost meridia…
…
low cost meridia (fc99cc) — 3/2/2007 @ 3:56 am