Quick Thoughts on the Alito Nomination:
I'm very pleased. This was a smart pick by Bush. It will take a few weeks for Senate Democrats to get comfortable with Alito, I think; given the "Scalito" nickname often used to describe him, many initially will fear that Bush has nominated some kind of Scalia clone. In time, though, I think we'll see that Alito is more like John Roberts than Antonin Scalia. Like Roberts, Alito is an institutionalist who spent his career working in government at a very high level (including at the Solicitor General's Office). Like Roberts, Alito is a very likable person. In light of his similarites to Roberts, I expect that Alito will be confirmed without a filibuster.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Quick Thoughts on the Alito Nomination:
- Will It Be Sam Alito?:
I was thinking about it today, I don't smoke weed, don't own any highly sort after land, not a big firebrand speaker, but I do watch an awful large amount of porn. So in a way that's one of my top issues for me.
I know Scalia has said we have to "tolerate" porn, but IIRC he ruled against the ACLU in COPA.
Not that Scalia isn't likeable...
In light of his similarites to Roberts, I expect that Alito will be confirmed without a filibuster.
I'm not so sure. Assuming he's going to be a vote for wholesale rollback of Roe v. Wade are the Democrats going to regard him as the critical 5th vote?
Personally I don't think that's an issue Democrats should filibuster on since it just makes them look result oriented.
Oh, joy. Whoopee. Another SCOTUS judge that will enlarge the executive.
God, get a grip.
Try to tell me that the internet isn't for wankers. Go ahead and f-ing try.
Good point, too.
God, get a grip.
Wait, are you recommending this course of action because you believe there's a time-limitation on the continuing availability of porn?
Even if Alito were against Roe, he won't be the "critical fifth vote" to overturn it. He may not even be the fourth, depending on how Roberts would vote. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy form a solid pro-Roe bloc. Stenberg v. Carhart on the other hand, that's another matter.
Re: the likelihood of filibuster, I'm not seeing it, and if it does happen it will fail. Republicans only need two members of the Gang of 14 to break any filibuster, and Lindsay Graham has already said he won't let one against Alito stand. I can't see Mike DeWine, John Warner, or Ben Nelson taking a different position.
Conservatives who claim otherwise are simply dishonest.
Liberals like me who aren't knee-jerk opponents of every conservative Bush picks, but who want to be reassured he's not a wacko, would doubtless benefit from refutations of said points. Surely there's some Alitophile at the VC with time on his hands to generate what would surely be a much-linked post?
If it's some comfort to you, it is highly unlikely that Alito would ever find that the Constitution forbids abortion. The right-wing "wacko" equivalent to Roe v. Wade is the argument that abortion is forbidden by the Consititution because it violates the fetus's right to life. Alito believes, as do most honest lawyers, that the Constitution says nothing at all, one way or the other, about abortion.
That aside, the fourth ammendment protected against "unreasonable searches", this search was entirely reasonable regardless of what the warrant stated.
Anyone who fillibusters Judge Alito is a fool. The man is: (a) eminently qualified and (b) upstanding character.
He should get 100 votes. He'll likely get only 65-70.
Any rule that police can (1) ask to search EVERYTHING in the affidavit, (2) get restricted by the magistrate to only SOME things, and then (3) search everything anyway, saying "oh, but look at our affidavit!" seems "dangerously close to displacing the critical role of the independent magistrate," like Chertoff wrote.
I would think the civil libertarian types at the VC would be all over this. Maybe a police state is okay, if it's good for big business? General Motors, the country, all that.
Though you may not be a knee-jerk opposer of all nominations starting with the words "I [President Bush] nominate . . . ," many of the folk reading the blog you linked are. I can't say that I support dividing the country into two Americas [you know the 'sh*tholes,' the Red States, vs. all the rest of intelligent people]. And I also say that I cannot see a Senate fillibuster of Alito. Too qualified, too un-Miers, too much wasted political capital by Dems to get to this point.
The fourth ammendment has two major clauses; people are protected against unreasonable searches and warrants require probably cause. It seems to me if you do obtain a warrant then it must be based on probable cause but it does not preclude a reasonable search (and/or seizure) under other circumstances. Or does it?
There are permissible searches without a warrant certainly, and at times even without PC. However, they are few. Police may stop and frisk with reasonable articulable suspicion (less than PC). Anyone can consent to be searched at any time. If something is in plain view, police can look, and if it is outside in public, or abandoned, police may examine. These are probably the most notable exceptions to the Probable Cause requirement.
Exigent circumstances (emergency like seeing a gunman flee) will also always justify a seizure/search, but I would consider PC to always attach to this situation (certainly law enforcement have PC to arrest, or at least investigate alarming or very suspicious behavior).
JoeW, all I know about criminal procedure I forgot in law school, but I thought the whole point of having to get a warrant is to ensure that the search is reasonable. There are exceptions (like exigent circumstances), but Chertoff considered them in the case I discussed &found none to be applicable.
No. Very much no. Read the 4th Amendment again; it's not so complicated. A warrant issued upon probable cause is required in order to conduct unreasonable searches; hence, for reasonable searches you don't need a warrant, or probable cause.
I don't think that's quite right. There are two clauses: one forbidding "unreasonable searches and seizures" ("the right ... shall not be violated"), and one prescribing the requirements for Warrants to issue. A warrant does not permit unreasonable searches. Practically speaking, to get a warrant and conduct a search the officers must demonstrate (usually by affidavit) that it is in fact reasonable. They then must conduct their search in conformance with the warrant, which defines the scope of what is reasonable. (Sometimes something outside the scope of the warrant will turn out to also be subject to search and/or seizure; i.e. things lying in plain sight.)
In the strip-search case, Alito makes a plausible argument that I ultimately find uncompelling. The officers themselves wrote up the warrant as well as the affidavit, and they ran out of room on the face of the warrant to include additional persons to be searched. Alito's interpretation of this is sensible.
Agreed. I sincerely doubt that a court has ever blessed a patently unreasonable search as legitimate b/c a warrant obviated the reasonableness requirement. The Court at times has done a bad job in this area. Sometimes Justices including Scalia and Thomas write without ample explanation about the "reasonableness requirement."
[/snark]
Besides, as mentioned supra, Scalia and Thomas are two of the justices that readily write a reasonableness requirement into their 4th Amendment jurisprudence. The example couldn't be less apposite.
I feel better already.