Interesting read re: Alito

[Ike]

This is an interesting article about Alito, and whether or not he would actually be a check and balance of increasing presidential power.

hard to tell (for me) what he would do in either of the hypothetical situations mentioned, but it is something to think about....

http://www.reason.com/links/links011706.shtml



The year is 2009. President Hillary Clinton introduces a nationalized healthcare package, which she assembled after conducting a dozen secret meetings in the White House with George Soros, Big Labor, and unknown representatives from industry groups who stand to make a bundle. Judicial Watch files a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the minutes of the meetings. Clinton refuses, citing her Executive Privilege to hold private and confidential conversations about most anything she chooses. The case goes to the Supreme Court.

How would Samuel Alito vote?

President Al Gore, in a major speech on "the terrorism of child pornography," orders the Attorney General to use "all the same tools of the War on Terror" in the new crackdown against online smut-peddlers. Soon after, American citizen Jose Blow is detained on "suspicion of planning a snuff film," and is held indefinitely, without charge, and without access to a lawyer. President Gore says Blow will be detained until authorities can extract all possible "information about the kiddie-porn ring." The ACLU files a challenge.

How would Alito vote?

regardless of how realistic these hypotheticals may be, the fact of the matter is that they are definate possibilities, and even mirror situations and arguments used by the current administration.

[Blue]

I thought you said this was interesting?

[usmc-sooner]

I thought you said this was interesting?

:D

[Blue]

I forgot the ;)

You know I luv u Ike. You got purty teeth.

[Ike]

I forgot the ;)

You know I luv u Ike. You got purty teeth.


its fine blue,
nobody finds interesting the things that I find interesting....;)

[KaiserSooner]

All I can say is that I agree with the guy who wrote it, that a Supreme Court deferential to an executive branch, whether headed by Cheney or Hillary, that seeks to surrepticiously evade its legal bounds is not in the best interests of the country.

[OklahomaTuba]

You know, maybe the dims should ask Alito questions like this instead of trying to make him out to be a racist bigot, or making his wife cry.

[OklahomaTuba]

And from possibly the absolute dumbest person in the US Senate, who is going to try to filibuster Alito...


"Judge Alito was extremely guarded in his answers. Judge Alito, a New Jersey native, wouldn't even say whether he was a Bruce Springsteen fan. I asked him about that, and his answer was, 'I am -- to some degree.' Now he may be one of the few people from New Jersey who has such cautious fealty to The Boss." http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-durbin20.html

This from the man who finds it difficult to distinguish between the American detention facility at Guantanamo and the Holocaust.

[crawfish]

You lost me at "President Hillary"...

[Hatfield]

Alito is pro gov't; pro big business and anti common folk he has made not hidden his stance on that.

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.infojet.cz/security/Images/Department_of_Precrime.jpg

[BoomerJack]

The first question I have is, just who exactly is President in 2009? Hillary Clinton or Al Gore, Jr.???

Regarding the first instance, I believe Ms. Clinton and Pres. Clinton did almost the same thing in the first year of Clinton's presidency in 1993. They held closed door meetings about prospective changes to healthcare in the U.S., how it would be paid for, participants, etc. without any input from Congress as to who should participate or hearing or whatever. They were villified politically for it. I believe the current administration, under the direct involvement of VP Cheney, did about the same thing with energy policy in the first year or two of its term. Cheney-Bush cited executive privelege. I don't recall what the Clinton used to justify its actions. The big difference between the two is that Cheney-Bush refuse to even say who they spoke to or received advice from. I believe the Clinton administration was more forthcoming about who was involved in the health care discussions. I think Alito would not find anything illegal about these two instances and I would agree with him.

The second instance, in which Al Gore is battling "porno-terroists", this appears to be just the same as what the current adminstration is doing now. Essentially, circumventing FISA (I think its called) to allow for more rapid wire tapping of telephone conversations, e-mails, etc. WITHOUT obtaining judicial approval required by the law. Alito would support the executive in this case. I would disagree with him.

[SCOUT]

I find these nominations extremely interesting Ike so you have at least on other person in your corner.

I would say that Alito would find no fault with citing executive privilege for her private information gathering sessions. I believe she did this very thing (different people of course) when she was co-President.

The second one, I believe, is an attempt to make a corollary to the NSA wire taps. I would say that Alito would not agree unless it could be demonstrated that child pornography was a clear and present danger to the US. If the Congress and POTUS feel that child pornography is such a threat then I suppose he would support it. After all, the role of the Judge is to interpret the law written by the lawmakers, nothing more nothing less.

I love how some people (not necessarily in this thread just a general term) are getting all upset because the court is starting to lean in a conservative direction. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. If the general populace elects a conservative POTUS and Congress then the judiciary will lean that way too. It is the will of the voters. If a liberal leaning populace elected in the other direction then the judiciary would lean that direction.

It just seems that the party out of power likes to cry and moan about far reaching hypotheticals because they are not able to control the nomination process.

[yermom]

i just can't follow #2

we all know Al Gore is Pro-Pr0n

[Okla-homey]

Checks and balances? FWIW, before FDR died in 1945, he had appointed every single member of the Court, the last of whom retired in 1975.

[yermom]

that's an interesting case for Presidential term limits

[SoonerProphet]

I find it increasingly unnerving that the courts and the legislative branch are willfully handing over powers to the executive. The mere thought of Hillary becoming the POTUS with a court that is so willing to cede its powers is frightening.

Good read too, plenty of stuff on Lew Rockwell's site about this very issue as well.