home

WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow

By TChris, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 06:35:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

"Republicans close to the White House" tell the Washington Post that President Bush is "poised" to announce tomorrow the candidate who will replace Harriet Miers as the candidate to replace Justice O'Connor. Quick action, calculated to distract the news media from the Plame investigation, may also be calculated to consolidate the Republican Party behind a nominee who is trusted to advance a conservative agenda.

The Post article and this NY Times article short list the usual suspects. Both place Samuel Alito Jr. at the top of the list. From Wikipedia:

His ideological likeness to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has earned him the nickname "Scalito."

If Bush does announce a name tomorrow, will it supplant the Plame story, or (with the encouragement of bloggers) will the media be motivated to cover both stories with equal vigor?

< Cheney's July 12th Plane Ride to Norfolk | Cheney, Addington and Libby: Part Two >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    It will only supplant the Plame story if the democrats once again fail to have an ounce of imagination or creativity. Bush is a walking dead man. He is a punching bag. The Dems need to keep punching and move their agenda, force their agenda, into the ring. And that agenda should have already included their own suggested nominee, with a quick and heavy PR blitz behind them. That hasn't happened, so one would hope they're ready to fight and hard. I'm worried they're leaving the ball entirely in Bush's court, which in the sports world is called playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    Alito: A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning. link [Ed. links must be in html format or they skew the site, we fixed this one. Instructions are in comment box.]

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    I have known Sam Alito for 33 years; we were law school classmates. He is surely very conservative. He is also very bright, very fairminded, and very honest, and demands the same in others. No one who knows him thinks the expression "Scalito" is anything but a journalistic gimmick; it's not his nickname. He is his own man intellectually; he's no clone of Scalia or of anyone else. Still, I will be very surprised if the President were to appoint a second Italian-American male from Trenton NJ to the Supreme Court at the same time. It's a big country full of qualified candidates; wouldn't that be going rather far in the non-diversity direction? I'm still expecting a woman or a Hispanic from the Southeast or Texas.

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    alito it is, one of the brightest legal minds, of the 12th century. i'm old enough to remember my mom, at the time taking contuing education classes to maintain her teaching certificate, having to get my father's "permission", in order to enroll at state schools. these same schools also sent her report card, not to her, but to my father. this was in the mid 60's, not 1260's mind you, but the 1960's. judge alito seems to feel that the government should be legislating communication between husband and wife. that's not to suggest that such communication is a bad thing, just not the government's job to facilitate by legislative fiat.

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    dadler writes:
    The Dems need to keep punching and move their agenda, force their agenda, into the ring. And that agenda should have already included their own suggested nominee, with a quick and heavy PR blitz behind them
    Hey guy, this is your second time around on this. What is it about having to be the President to be able to nominate someone? ...."suggested nominee" doesn't count.

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#7)
    by joejoejoe on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    1987-1989, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey
    How many times did Samuel Alito prosecute obstruction of justice and perjury as U.S. Attorney? Let's kill the "those aren't real crimes" spin ASAP and link the Libby and Alito stories in the process.

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    joejoejoe - Would you like to know what Justice Ginsburg said? I mean since she is such a conservative.....
    Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion in the 1996 Supreme Court case Brogan v. United States, in which she warned of "the sweeping generality" of Section 1001's language. She wrote, "The prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator - aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case - will create a crime by surprising the suspect, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial." She wrote, "the Department of Justice has long noted its reluctance to approve S1001 indictments for simple false denials made to investigators."
    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    jim, it would appear that DOJ was not reluctant in the case of mr. libby. given that he is a well educated attorney, i think it's fair to assume that he wasn't "ambushed" by mr. fitzgerald. it will be interesting to see how this plays out. of course, since mr. wilson never actually contradicted the president's "16 words", this was an inordinatally stupid and venal act to begin with, completely unnecessary. sadly, it is totally in line with this administration's history though.

    Re: WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    ppj-hijacking threads again? Read the indictment and press conference instead of repeating RNC talking points.

    WaPo: Supreme Court Announcement Tomorrow | 9 comments (9 topical)