Alito sworn in as nation's 110th Supreme Court justice
Senate confirms nominee 58-42 after filibuster fails

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Samuel Alito was sworn in as the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice Tuesday after being confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 58-42.

The vote was the closest confirmation for a nominee since Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48 in 1991.

The confirmation vote came a day after an attempt by some Democratic senators to block his nomination fizzled.

Alito was sworn in at the Supreme Court, just hours before President Bush's State of the Union address. He will join Chief Justice John Roberts in the House chamber for Tuesday night's speech.

Judge Alito will be ceremonially sworn into office Wednesday in the East Room of the White House.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read the rest here. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/index.html)

Originally posted by Evakian
Alito sworn in.......

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-014.gif

Good news - he'll be an excellent justice.

I just hope he is enough of a religious fucktard that he feels compelled to help overturn Roe v Wade.

He won't overturn it. It's akin to committing political suicide, and he knows it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
He won't overturn it. It's akin to committing political suicide, and he knows it.

Why would a judge with a lifetime appointment worry about committing political suicide? That's the whole point of the lifetime appointment.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Why would a judge with a lifetime appointment worry about committing political suicide? That's the whole point of the lifetime appointment.
Nice point Lionel...lol.

Ummmm! Yay for progress in America? haha.

Overturn Roe! I dare you!

Lionel, question:

In the Oregon assisted suicide case the majority ruled that the issue rightly belonged to the states. Can't that same reasoning be applied to Roe? And did the dissenters who favored the Federal prerogative paint themselves into a legal corner? Your thoughts, please.

He won't overturn it. It's akin to committing political suicide, and he knows it.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Why would a judge with a lifetime appointment worry about committing political suicide? That's the whole point of the lifetime appointment.

Alito is aligned with and deeply committed to the ideals and agenda of the Reagan/Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Perle/Krystal/Wolfowitz/Strauss/Rove wing of the PNAC ConservaFascists.

IF he has the foresight and intelligence (which, given his rightwing mindset, hopefully he does not) to realize that overturning Roe V Wade would be the death of the Republican Party, he might refrain from trying to overturn it.

Even if Roe gets turned over, its not going to be as drastic as all the extremists make it out to be. It'll probably be a "states rights" issue.... geez lately ive been VERY behind states rights. I think states should get some of their power back big time.

Originally posted by Decka
Even if Roe gets turned over, its not going to be as drastic as all the extremists make it out to be. It'll probably be a "states rights" issue.... geez lately ive been VERY behind states rights. I think states should get some of their power back big time. So now you support the Oregon decision?

ones mans progress is another mans....

Originally posted by Freethinker
Alito is aligned with and deeply committed to the ideals and agenda of the Reagan/Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Perle/Krystal/Wolfowitz/Strauss/Rove wing of the PNAC ConservaFascists.

The guy is conservative sure - but how do you know what you post above?

Originally posted by sedan
Lionel, question:

In the Oregon assisted suicide case the majority ruled that the issue rightly belonged to the states. Can't that same reasoning be applied to Roe? And did the dissenters who favored the Federal prerogative paint themselves into a legal corner? Your thoughts, please.

Here's something we agree on. If they were to ever overturn rvw i think it would merely revert back to the individual states. I think someone else once mentioned that that was where the situation was when the SC took on rvw.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Why would a judge with a lifetime appointment worry about committing political suicide? That's the whole point of the lifetime appointment.
You don't think he answers to people? You do what's good for the party unless you want to disappear on a permanent basis. Why wouldn't this administration dump him in a river if he went rogue? The democrats would make perfect scapegoats.

One of the interesting questions coming out of the alito episode is the limits of the loony fringe of the democratic party. Clearly moderates and conservatives of both groups significantly outnumbered the loony left. Yet to listen to them bluster on you'd think it was all a conspiracy.

Despite all the huffing and puffing from groups like naral and pfaw and moveon.... and the du and cozkids. They could barely get the 25 to support the filibuster attempt. And about a third of those are presidential hopefuls who can't afford to alienate 'the base'.

AS long as the loons can't see the forest for the trees the dems will be in trouble for most senate races and all presidential elections.

Originally posted by sedan
In the Oregon assisted suicide case the majority ruled that the issue rightly belonged to the states. Can't that same reasoning be applied to Roe? And did the dissenters who favored the Federal prerogative paint themselves into a legal corner? Your thoughts, please.

You can pretty much apply that logic anywhere. And I agree with your point, because usually it's the conservatives that lean towards the state rights argument and the liberals that believe more in the power of the federal government. That being said, there are other considerations, and given that the federal government arguably has the right to regulate drugs, and that's what this case hinged on, the dissent isn't completely incompatible with a generally state-rights-oriented point of view.

Originally posted by Decka
Even if Roe gets turned over, its not going to be as drastic as all the extremists make it out to be. It'll probably be a "states rights" issue.... geez lately ive been VERY behind states rights. I think states should get some of their power back big time.

I agree with states getting back some of their power.

I have to claim ignorance on this particular issue, though - pre-Roe was abortion banned outright or was it state-by-state?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You don't think he answers to people? You do what's good for the party unless you want to disappear on a permanent basis. Why wouldn't this administration dump him in a river if he went rogue? The democrats would make perfect scapegoats.

No, I don't think he answers to people. Or at least doesn't have to. It's even harder to get rid of a court appointee than it is to get one there in the first place. Two of the liberals on the Court were Republican nominees gone wrong (from the Republican point of view) and they're still there.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No, I don't think he answers to people. Or at least doesn't have to. It's even harder to get rid of a court appointee than it is to get one there in the first place. Two of the liberals on the Court were Republican nominees gone wrong (from the Republican point of view) and they're still there.
Okay, fair enough, but this is an issue in which probably 70% of the republican camp favors abortion (under certain circumstances) and 95% of the democrats do as well. Do you think he'll overturn it? I seriously doubt it.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
That being said, there are other considerations, and given that the federal government arguably has the right to regulate drugs, and that's what this case hinged on, the dissent isn't completely incompatible with a generally state-rights-oriented point of view.That's right, I knew I was missing something. The dissenters want to uphold the right of the feds to control substances, which in turn has implications for the medical marijuana issue. Makes me wonder how the court would have ruled if the Oregon law was about a procedure (say, inserting a shunt into a vein), instead of administering a drug (9-0?). Probably moot as such a law is unlikely to ever pass and a host of other objections could be raised, but still .....

I really doubt Roe will even come before the court. There has been less than 50 challeges and even then Certerori has to be granted, which I dont think they will grant. We as conservatives have a good chance on the court, that I will admit, but there are still 5 moderate or liberal justices.

Let's just see how he does.

Originally posted by sedan
So now you support the Oregon decision?

I dont "agree" with it, but hey if oregon wants it then let em have it. I said that in the other thread.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Okay, fair enough, but this is an issue in which probably 70% of the republican camp favors abortion (under certain circumstances) and 95% of the democrats do as well. Do you think he'll overturn it? I seriously doubt it.

5 out of 9 justices are now Catholic, keep that in mind.

Originally posted by Evakian
5 out of 9 justices are now Catholic, keep that in mind.
8 out of 9 of my friends are Catholic. The question is are they driven by their so-called faith in god, or are they driven by their interpretation of the law? My guess is the latter.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
My guess is the latter.

As is mine. Besides, of all of the Catholics I know, very few of them seem to actually buy into most of the church doctrine. John Kerry is Catholic after all.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Besides, of all of the Catholics I know, very few of them seem to actually buy into most of the church doctrine.

Then they aren't Catholic, like John Kerry for instance.

8 out of 9 of my friends are Catholic. The question is are they driven by their so-called faith in god, or are they driven by their interpretation of the law? My guess is the latter. total BS Prae, no way you have 9 friendsThen they aren't Catholic, like John Kerry for instance. ...or like many of their priests.

Q: what does K-mart have in common with most priests?
A: Boy's underwear half off

Originally posted by fluffernutter
total BS Prae, no way you have 9 friends...

Q: what does K-mart have in common with most priests?
A: Boy's underwear half off
Hey, Fluffer, you got a chuckle out of me, and low and behold, I think it was intentional....:eek:

You know, your posts may very well be improving after all. :)

Originally posted by Evakian
Then they aren't Catholic, like John Kerry for instance.

Fine, but we don't know whether the supposedly Catholic Supreme Court justices are real Catholics either.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Hey, Fluffer, you got a chuckle out of me, and low and behold, I think it was intentional....:eek:

Just to be picky :D The phrase is 'lo and behold', to remember: lo(ok) and behold (see).

As for Fluffer, I wished I had beaten you to that quote, oh well. :(

Thanks, Evak.