• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Alito: Conservative or Liberal. It doesn't matter.

Dancing David

Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
39,700
Location
central Illinois
I like the process of the Constitution, there are areas where our government can do better but the process seems to be the working well.

It does make me laugh to hear some justices reffered to as 'liberal', judges are by and large conservatives, and the Supremes are the arch conservatives. The reason people get placed on the court is because the are conservatives,, it makes me laugh that Regan appointees are called liberal. Ginsberg is a conservative.

The thing that is importants, and why Bork got bounced , is judicial temperment, I am not sure how Thomas got through. Alito could be an arch conservative out to rework the court. It doesn't matter, because if it is his tempermant to follow the law and work within the boundaries of the case before the court, then his personal opinion may be used as a rationale for the outcome, but it shouldn't effect the outcome itself.
So I present that the bias of a justice does not matter as long as they act in good faith.
 
And much of testimony I heard from witnesses indicates that Sam Alito is a guy who always acts in "good faith" -- his law clerks presented their statements to that effect yesterday, and they sure convinced me.

Of all the direct answers provided by Judge Alito himself, this exchange stands out in my mind:
  • When I became a judge, I stopped being a practicing attorney. And that was a big change in role.

    The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn't have a client.

    The judge's only obligation -- and it's a solemn obligation -- is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.

    Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One of those habits of mind is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered.

    Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read, or the next argument that's made by an attorney who's appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case when the judges privately discuss the case.

That is what Sam Alito is all about.
I am grateful that he will be a Supreme Court Justice during the remainder of my lifetime.
 
Samuel Alito said:
...The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn't have a client...
Click to expand...
Saying he/she "can't" doesn't mean he/she "won't."

While Judge Alito may very well feel this way, these are just words. (Like he's going to suggest the opposite?) Furthermore, to believe "a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case" seems wholly naive, never mind we have the record of judges to demonstrate their adherence to a particular belief system.

For instance, as Bush v. Gore clearly demonstrated, even a Supreme judge can have an agenda.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Saying he/she "can't" doesn't mean he/she "won't."

While Judge Alito may very well feel this way, these are just words. (Like he's going to suggest the opposite?) Furthermore, to believe "a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case" seems wholly naive, never mind we have the record of judges to demonstrate their adherence to a particular belief system.
Click to expand...
Alito posted here? What a great board this is! :p

For instance, as Bush v. Gore clearly demonstrated, even a Supreme judge can have an agenda.
Click to expand...
One could say the same of the 7 Florida Democrat SC judges who sided w/ Gore.
 
Dancing David said:
It does make me laugh to hear some justices reffered to as 'liberal', judges are by and large conservatives, and the Supremes are the arch conservatives. The reason people get placed on the court is because the are conservatives,, it makes me laugh that Regan appointees are called liberal. Ginsberg is a conservative.
Click to expand...
Could you explain? "Arch conservatives"? Rarely am I so blindsided by a statement. How were so many landmark cases decided to the approval of liberals and opposed by conservatives? Civil rights, abortion, free speech, etc., dediced by arch conservatives? Even accounting for different definitions of the word "liberal" I don't think I understand.
 
RandFan said:
Could you explain? "Arch conservatives"? Rarely am I so blindsided by a statement. How were so many landmark cases decided to the approval of liberals and opposed by conservatives? Civil rights, abortion, free speech, etc., dediced by arch conservatives? Even accounting for different definitions of the word "liberal" I don't think I understand.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because of judicial temperment, those cases were decided on merit rather than on the political stance of the justices. I hope so anyway.
 
fishbob said:
Perhaps because of judicial temperment, those cases were decided on merit rather than on the political stance of the justices. I hope so anyway.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. I just don't understand how you conclude that the justices are arch conservative.
 
WildCat said:
One could say the same of the 7 Florida Democrat SC judges who sided w/ Gore.
Click to expand...
One could - and isn't it just proving Regnad's point that to believe "a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case" seems wholly naive ...?
 
Dancing David said:
I like the process of the Constitution, there are areas where our government can do better but the process seems to be the working well.

It does make me laugh to hear some justices reffered to as 'liberal', judges are by and large conservatives, and the Supremes are the arch conservatives. The reason people get placed on the court is because the are conservatives,, it makes me laugh that Regan appointees are called liberal. Ginsberg is a conservative.

The thing that is importants, and why Bork got bounced , is judicial temperment, I am not sure how Thomas got through. Alito could be an arch conservative out to rework the court. It doesn't matter, because if it is his tempermant to follow the law and work within the boundaries of the case before the court, then his personal opinion may be used as a rationale for the outcome, but it shouldn't effect the outcome itself.
So I present that the bias of a justice does not matter as long as they act in good faith.
Click to expand...


Then let Bush nominate someone from the extreme Left.
 
Mark said:
Then let Bush nominate someone from the extreme Left.
Click to expand...
The Pinko-Commie dog won't hunt 'round here, didn't you know that? Besides, Jesus didn't tell Bush to nominate and extreme leftist!
 
LeFevre said:
The Pinko-Commie dog won't hunt 'round here, didn't you know that? Besides, Jesus didn't tell Bush to nominate and extreme leftist!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I have it on good authority that it doesn't make any difference anyway! ;)
 
Regnad Kcin said:
... For instance, as Bush v. Gore clearly demonstrated, even a Supreme judge can have an agenda.
Click to expand...
In that case they decided their agenda should be to force FL to follow existing laws that governed election procedures, rather than re-writing laws to change procedures after-the-fact.
 
Bjorn said:
One could - and isn't it just proving Regnad's point that to believe "a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case" seems wholly naive ...?
Click to expand...
Of course not, it proves that conservative judges decide on the merits of the case while liberal judges rule according to politics. ;)
 
WildCat said:
Of course not, it proves that conservative judges decide on the merits of the case while liberal judges rule according to politics. ;)
Click to expand...
Ooops - my bad, I thought it was the other way around ... :(
 
The "adherence to the rule of law" thing sounds great - until you realize that, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, one of his primary functions is determining what the laws actually mean. As such, not only will be he obligated to define the laws, he will interpret which laws conflict with each other and the Constitution - and which should take precedence over the other.

Since writing clear, concise, and easily-interpretable law is beyond the best efforts of lawyers, we have a group of people who are essentially given the power to decide what law is. When those people aren't honest, impartial, and reasonable, we have problems.

We have problems.
 
You judge a judge by judging their judgments.

:confused:

Anyway, Alito has twice been given the highest rating from the American Bar Association.
 
hammegk said:
In that case they decided their agenda should be to force FL to follow existing laws that governed election procedures, rather than re-writing laws to change procedures after-the-fact.
Click to expand...
It's so cute when someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

By the way, still yearning for certain of your fellow countrymen to come to their end by means of a nuclear explosion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom