Prep for Wednesday's Symposium
In addition to the prompts, the Post-Bulletin article that were given to you in class today, and the voting record I gave you on Judge Alito last week, here are some news articles that should provide some more insight into Judge Alito, the hearing, and the future composition of the Supreme Court. Please feel free to read some or all of the follwoing to help you make informed, educated comments.
As for scoring the symposium, since it is our last discussion I am allowing 10 points for participation in the symposium. However I will be scoring it on a 0-10 scale and not on a 5-10 scale as has been done in the past. You may blog your comments after Wednesday's class but it will be for only half credit at that time.
Alito on Day 1, 'A Judge Can't Have an Agenda' (an article about the 1st day of the hearing)
Despite Advocacy, Alito is not on the Public's Radar Screen (does the public care about this nomination?)
Alito Groomed for the Court: Proving his Mettle in the Reagan Justice Department
Sitting Judges to Speak on Alito's Behalf
A Search for Order, an Answer in the Law
Alito Advocacy Fills Air of Swing States
I look forward to an enlightening discussion in truly historic days for the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 1:40 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
One of the requests for change in the Court is the increase of justices. According to our textbooks, a president will almost always appoint a justice who is in the same party as him. Currently, there are 2 democracks and 7 republicans in the Court. Thus, it's clear that the Court will favor conservative views. The members of the republican-dominated Supreme Court do not change often. Thus, this is a heavy liability to the other major party. The more justices serving in the Court, the more likely vacancies will occur. This will enable the Court to frequently change and adapt to today's unpredictable world, while hopefully allowing both parties to take control alternately.
Though the Supreme Court is appointed and essentially tried before the nominating commission, but after that, the justices really aren't tested. They are obviously under public and Congressional scrutiny, but the intense interrogation of the nominating commission isn't ever repeated.
To ensure that the justices aren't becoming "senile" or "mentally handicapped" or perhaps, the more logical, becoming swayed by public opinion, I suggest a periodic question and review session. It would remove the pressure to campaign that term limits would bring and gives the ignorant public a little more opportunity to see what's really going on.
Alyssa-who-can't-get-a-word-in-edgewise
First of all Kevin, I don't know if your facts are accurate, but we would have 2 liberals and 7 conservatives on the court because Mr. T told us that judges aren't considered to be affiliated with any parties.
Also, I think the way our court system is set up is perfect. We need the President to nominate a competent person to fill the position (yes, the person will have the same ideologies as the President but the people chose the President so obviously we agree with that ideology at that time), the Senate will approve the person if he/she is qualified. Then we can leave the justices to do their job. They are very busy people and I don't think we should add any unnecessary stress of work to their already difficult job. We should allot them as much time as they need to do the job they've been assigned.
Sandra Day O'Connor served as the 'swing vote' throughout the last few years on the supreme court, and now Alito is taking her spot. My question is, how will this effect the courts decisions?
Personally I think that since the main goal of the court is to interpret the constitution and that as good justices there should really be no personal opinions shown in the decisions. From what the media has said of Alito being fair and looking at each case individualy, it would seem that he would be a good successor. (hopefully)
Breann to the bender
I missed most of the lovely symposium today, so this is my makeup for that.
I have a quote from Alito in the first article Mr. T. posted:
"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."
This is one of the quotes that made people question whether Alito was "decisive" or "opinionated" enough during his hearings the other day. I guess I agree with it to some extent. I can see both sides though. A judge needs to be able to make decisions without delay. But I don't even think this quote is saying that Alito is indecisive. Judges shouldn't be so hard-headed as to only think about their own opinions and only rule the case to their personal political views. I don't think its as important to have strong political views as it is to understand and apply the constitution. Like Breann already said, a good justice will not allow personal opinions to get in the way of doing his job which is ruling cases according to the constitution. A good judge will take into consideration all aspects of a case and then make a decision. Its just saying that a
What do you all think of this quote?
I strongly agree with that quote. That is how a good judge should act. They should make their decisions based on the constitution with the context of our society today because things are always changing, but I have nothing against the way our judges and court system are today. I believe that all our judges are capable of doing that. People didn't get nominated and approved to be judges by being stupid. With that, I don't think Alito is indecisive at all. His quote was vauge, but that is because during this time he is being judged by everyone. He is just trying his best not to give anyone any misunderstandings and that is very smart.
“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."
I very much agree with judge Alito's quote because in a case it is hard to decided on a ruling with only some of the information and the more information a judge gets on a case the more capable he is of reaching a good ruling. Being open to new and different information is a characteristic of a good judge because that way all sides of the story are heard and the case can't be ruled unfair to either side. I agree with everyone who said that Alito’s is not indecisive because being open to new ideas is no way at all being an indecisive judge in my point of view. As long as Alito makes his rulings according to the constitution and does what's morally right i will compleatly support his decisions.
An update on the Alito confirmation hearings from WWW.foxnews.com says that the potential judge is finally coming under some serious fire for his pro-monarchic veiws on the executive branch. There were several legal experts who testified that "Samuel Alito's record shows that he defers too much to the executive branch and may be somewhat of a "rubber stamp" for the president if confirmed to the Supreme Court."
We'll see if this effects his nomination.
--kirin
It's hard to determine what will actually affect Alito's nomination and what's simply partisan political banter. To me it seems like it's all just classical political banter: his friends praise him for his character and loyalty to the law, and his enemies attack him for just the opposite. Therefore the facts don't seem to matter; the politicians will make their dicisions based on what will advance their political careers.
Goldmine of Alito in the news!
The Post Bulletin had three articles in Saturday's paper...
the first was an editorial with basically the same info. we already know, and supported Eric's idea that it makes sense for the judge to be conservative because our President is conservative and people elected him (and a republican congress), so it works well. "Unless a nominee is...out of step with mainstream America, the Senate should approve a President's nominees...President Bush ran for re-election promising he would (nominate a conservative to the court)...and he won the electin handily."
David Broder of the Washington Post wrote the second article which echoed the editorial's comments: "Alito...is the perfect company man, who is likely to deliver exactly the kind of conversative rulings Bush prefers"
The third article is courtesy of the New York Times and David Kirkpatrick which headlines: "Alito's confirmation all but certain." The article mostly offers incite into the Judiciary Committee which is made up of 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats.
So it looks like Bush's nominee, Samuel Alito, will be confirmed, and we'll just have to wait and see whether that will really change the court as much as people think it will.
I agree with Breann and her comments about how a Judge should interpret the constitution without personal opinions involved. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Alito "can look like a flaming liberal or he can look like an arch conservative," depending on which case you look at.
Although he personally believes that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, Judge Alito has voted with abortion advocates in three of his four cases. This shows us that even though he personally disagrees with the issue he doesn’t let that take account into his rulings. When asked if he would fill the same role as O’Connor he said, “We all have to proceed in accordance with our own abilities and our own outlook.”
This is the web site that has the four abortion cases and a little bit about each of them.. http://www.slate.com/id/2130296
Sibley
I think Joanna made a very good point. O'Connor was the swing vote because she looked at how the law would affect society. She did bring opinions to the courtroom, but it was to help her interpret the law to better society, not to interpret the law based on her political stance. Alito does not share her views on society, nor will he share her role as the swing vote. Alito has voted almost completely by party lines, and, in disagreement with Eric, I do not think this is a good thing. Yes, America's majority may be conservative, but not in the ratios that will be in the Supreme Court if/when Alito is confirmed. I agree that the courts and Congress should reflect the opinions of the people, but the opinions of the people are not 7 to 2 in favor of conservatives. It's more like 5 to 4.
I hope I’m not too late for all of this, but here goes:
Considering the large influx of new conservative justices, and the loss of the common "swing" vote of Sandra Day O'Connor, I expect the new supreme court to start chipping away at some of the more liberal decisions made in the past. Roe v. Wade is almost definately going to be targeted, and I expect decisions on the topic of abortion to swing toward the pro-life side, possibly even banning third trimester abortion. I also expect the court to start cracking down on immigration. However, I expect the court will be less conservative on the Patriot Act, and all the issues streaming from there. The public obviously has an opinion on those issues, and although the court is not supposed to be pressured by the public, I think in this case the public and the media will have at least some sway. At least part, if not all the of the Patriot Act will be targeted by the Supreme Court.
Mike McMahon
One one hand, I find it ironic that the public is often the most oblivious to the political decisions that will affect them the most. Yes, the election of a president is high-profile, but they're only in power for eight years at most. Judges can be in power for more than twenty years and their decisions can make drastic changes. For example, think of how Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education affected average Americans! On the other hand, as a citizen, even if you don't like Alito, it isn't really in your hands. It's the president's choice and the Senate's vote.
Elizabeth Sullivan
Here's an interesting jounalism note. Look at the picture they used for "Alito on End of Life Issues." How do you think the message would've changed if they used the picture of Alito they have above. Even if the media doesn't deliberately stretch the truth, it does slant it.
Oh, and that's the story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601727.html
Elizabeth Sullivan
Post a Comment
<< Home