Monday, October 31, 2005
Supreme Court Pick Today
The Associated Press is reporting that Preznit Bush is going to pick Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court:
NEWSWEEK columnist Jonathan Alter just said on IMUS in the Morning on MSNBC that Alito is such a wing-nut that he upheld a Pennsylvania law that required a woman to get her husband's approval before getting an abortion.
Harry Reid said yesterday that Alito would be unacceptable to Senate Democrats and was guaranteed to bring a fight between left and right over the nomination.
So Preznit Bush has gone back to his old "Divide and Conquer" playbook to save his failing presidency. I guess he (and Rove) figure they can circle the wagons for the next three years of scandals, throw red meat to the base (thus shoring up the flagging loyalty of the wingnuttery), and give the proverbial finger to the middle and the left.
Will the preznit and the GOP have the political juice to ram Alito through the Senate? Will Senate Democrats, emboldened by all of the Bush failures/scandals in the last three months, beat back this nomination, even if it requires a nuclear option showdown? And how will the American people feel about a wingnut judge who believes a woman has to get her husband's approval before getting an abortion?
Lots of questions, few answers. But at least we know what Preznit Bush's comback strategy is going to be in the wake of all the failures and scandals plaguing his administration: Feed the base and fuck everybody else.
WASHINGTON - President Bush is nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, The Associated Press has learned, choosing a long-time federal judge embraced by judicial conservatives to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Bush plans to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. ET, the officials said.
The choice likely will mend a rift in the Republican Party caused by his failed nomination of Harriet Miers.
Miers bowed out last Thursday after three weeks of bruising criticism from members of Bush's own party who argued that the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidant had thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.
NEWSWEEK columnist Jonathan Alter just said on IMUS in the Morning on MSNBC that Alito is such a wing-nut that he upheld a Pennsylvania law that required a woman to get her husband's approval before getting an abortion.
Harry Reid said yesterday that Alito would be unacceptable to Senate Democrats and was guaranteed to bring a fight between left and right over the nomination.
So Preznit Bush has gone back to his old "Divide and Conquer" playbook to save his failing presidency. I guess he (and Rove) figure they can circle the wagons for the next three years of scandals, throw red meat to the base (thus shoring up the flagging loyalty of the wingnuttery), and give the proverbial finger to the middle and the left.
Will the preznit and the GOP have the political juice to ram Alito through the Senate? Will Senate Democrats, emboldened by all of the Bush failures/scandals in the last three months, beat back this nomination, even if it requires a nuclear option showdown? And how will the American people feel about a wingnut judge who believes a woman has to get her husband's approval before getting an abortion?
Lots of questions, few answers. But at least we know what Preznit Bush's comback strategy is going to be in the wake of all the failures and scandals plaguing his administration: Feed the base and fuck everybody else.
Comments:
<< Home
I guess i need to spoon-feed you a little bit of reality here.
Was it you who made the mistake, or was it Alter -- the statute that Alito supported was a spousal NOTIFICATION provision, not a consent provision. It also contained about a half-dozen exceptions to the provisio, including ones protecting victims of domestic abouse and spousal sexual assault, as well as a medical necessity provision. And what is more interesting is that his main sources of support for upholding the provision were the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor relating to parental notification lawa!
Now I will concede that O'Connor later came down on the other side of the issue -- but absent any prior precedent on spousal notification laws, it was not unreasonable to analogize from the parental notification cases and to apply the tests set forth by O'Connor.
Post a Comment
Was it you who made the mistake, or was it Alter -- the statute that Alito supported was a spousal NOTIFICATION provision, not a consent provision. It also contained about a half-dozen exceptions to the provisio, including ones protecting victims of domestic abouse and spousal sexual assault, as well as a medical necessity provision. And what is more interesting is that his main sources of support for upholding the provision were the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor relating to parental notification lawa!
Now I will concede that O'Connor later came down on the other side of the issue -- but absent any prior precedent on spousal notification laws, it was not unreasonable to analogize from the parental notification cases and to apply the tests set forth by O'Connor.
# posted by 
: 6:17 AM
: 6:17 AM << Home
