Quote:
|
Quote by: Protostar Zealot, what the hell is the point of this thread? |
Republicans are trying to intimidate people who believe potential Supreme Court justices should be throughly questioned publicly before being approved for office.
There's been a campaign to make it seem as though it's somehow unjust to expect a potential new judge being able to freely and summarily speak their mind on issues.
Some people believe this is a partisan issue but Republicans should be questioning him just as hard. Haven't Republicans been bitten before by bad justices? Yet they control Congress now and have plenty of opportunities to scrutinize a candidate yet discourage it now .... simply because Bush recommended the guy?
Anyway, that's the way I see it. It's hypocracy from Republicans.
Sure, the Democrats want to point out that he's not a socialist ... fine. Or that he doesn't support gun control laws, as is right, he's supposed to recognize things like the 2nd Amendment because that's his job. Or that he supports overturning Roe vs. Wade. They might try to paint a bad picture of him for those on the left, but who cares, these are constitutional issues and he's suppose to have stances on these. Alito should come out strong and say no he doesn't approve of government controlling the economy or regulating personal firearms etc.
On the other hand, there have been claims that Alito was part of those pushing for greater unrestrained executive power under Reagan and he's made comments that seem to leave this issue still questionably open. Now this could be a big black mark because he was selected by Bush, and if he supported even greater unrestrained executive powers that could mean a further withering of constitutionally limited government. And even those who might think Bush is the perfect president, consider that if there's a backlash from the left, those same powers will lead to even more problems in the future ... what goes around, comes around.
It seems like the questioning of judges should be a nonpartisan issue and that both political parties should encourage a thorough understanding of what a potential judge 'is all about' before approving him. Republicans have control of things anyway, so it would seem obviously in their interest to take advantage of this because Republicans are going to be the ones deciding whether or not he's appointed, yet we hear complaints about this instead (at least that seems to be the media portrayal of things ... who knows what biases or filters this information has gone through though). But this begs the question of whether or not there's something to hide. (I believe it's at least currently over whether or not Alito would support or oppose things like this NSA spying or legal provisions for torture by a president and the only news I've heard seems to imply he could likely support these). Either way, questioning about these things is entirely appropriate, as they will be the types of decisions he's expected to rule on for likely many decades.