Confirm Samuel Alito (Washington Post) - Most Idiotic Editorial Ever

[kurth]

Washington Post
Editorial
Confirm Samuel Alito
Sunday, January 15, 2006; Page B06

THE SENATE'S decision concerning the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito Jr. is harder than the case last year of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Judge Alito's record raises concerns across a range of areas. His replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could alter -- for the worse, from our point of view -- the Supreme Court's delicate balance in important areas of constitutional law. He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.

Though some attacks on him by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups have misrepresented his jurisprudence, Judge Alito's record is troubling in areas. His generally laudable tendency to defer to elected representatives at the state and federal levels sometimes goes too far -- giving rise to concerns that he will prove too tolerant of claims of executive power in the war on terror. He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason to worry that he would curtail abortion rights. And his approach to the balance of power between the federal government and the states, while murky, seems unpromising. Judge Alito's record is complicated, and one can therefore argue against imputing to him any of these tendencies. Yet he is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see.

Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference -- the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president... No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[baby_bear]

1. The WP seems to be overlooking some important points

The new but still outstanding issue as to whether Bush has criminally broken FISA requirements in the NSA domestic spying scandal is reason enough - and totally separate from any issues involved with his election to office.

Contrary to being owed deference, the people are owed the truth, certainly before allowing Bush to name a justice who well may be the deciding vote in his guilt or innocence in this matter.

It's just common sense. Set aside the Alito issue until the legal issue is resolved.

b_b

[Meeker Morgan]

2. It may be "idiotic", but I fear ...

... this is the emerging DNC party line. :grr:

[Eric J in MN]

3. A corrupt liar is not qualifed for the Supreme Court.

A man with a broader view of presidential power than the US Constituion and a narrow view of privacy rights is not qualified.

http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/2006/01/08/samuel-alito-does-not-belong-on-the-supreme-court/

[Romulus]

4. another crappy editorial?

Just proves again that the Wash(com)Post ed board is FOS . ..

[applegrove]

5. But Bush didn't win in 2000. And then in 2004 he won because he went

to war on false premises.

Just because he used some cagey language buried deep in the elections - doesn't mean he has a mandate. He has the power. He made sure of that.

But saying he would go after "activist judges" when voters didn't know what "activist" meant at the time (it means non-right-wing cons) - and they voted on that. Well - the President knows full well he is going against the wishes of the country. And he either doesn't care of he enjoys it.

So quit with the election as an excuse. His handlers made sure he was in a long term war for the 2004 elections. They sat on their asses and arrived with two few troops in 2003. And they had the war they needed for the 2004 elections. When they could say whatever they wanted about judges when people were concerned more about war & security - and were afraid that that weak man Kerry (a war hero) would get into power.