Alito is Number One . . . Ten:
Congratulations to Samuel Alito, who was confirmed by the Senate to the position of Associate Justice by a vote of 58-42. Alito becomes the 110th Justice in the history of the United States.
Less obviously, congratulations are in order to Justice Stephen Breyer, who is no longer the junior-most Associate Justice and will no longer have to get the door at the Justices' confererences. Eleven years is a very long time to serve as the most junior Justice, and now he can pass on those duties to Alito.
When the Court is next in session, the Justices will sit on the bench in this order, from left to right:
SGB CT AMK JPS JGR AS DHS RBG SAA
Less obviously, congratulations are in order to Justice Stephen Breyer, who is no longer the junior-most Associate Justice and will no longer have to get the door at the Justices' confererences. Eleven years is a very long time to serve as the most junior Justice, and now he can pass on those duties to Alito.
When the Court is next in session, the Justices will sit on the bench in this order, from left to right:
I agree that the nastiness directed at SOC was beneath this blog.
On the other hand, wholesale cutting and pasting of Mark Steyn columns while turning off comments is something of a step down for the VC as well.
I suppose that this is all irrelevant, and is just a question of style regarding how the transition was handled. Once he gets started in his new job, he'll be Justice Alito, and not "Bush's Justice" any more than Justice Stevens is "Ford's Justice."
But the White House's role leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it's all pretense to say that the confirmation vote was about neutral qualifications more than "us against them," and that there's nothing wrong with Alito watching the vote from the White House or attending the State of the Union Address.
I don't know if this is Denniston being catty or if it's legitimate criticism.
Doesn't this look like a Kevan Choset post waiting to happen?
On the one hand, he was the self-made torchbearer in the filibuster attempt. He failed to garner anywhere close to 40 votes against cloture, yet there were clearly 42 Senators who were against Alito. It is easy to make the case that Kerry simply can't lead effectively. I think this argument goes far in right of center camps, and potentially for centrists as well.
On the other hand, you can spin Kerry as a man of principle in the face of certain defeat. 17 others took the easy way out, voting against Alito while voting for cloture. 20 or so more voted against cloture but did so without attempting to enlist others. Kerry, on the other hand, did the "right thing" and voted his conscience, and tried -- against all hope -- to get others to do the same. This is a winning argument for those who are left of center.
I think the interesting thing here is that, cynically assuming that Kerry is thinking about the Dem nomination in '08, he's assuming that he'll have to run to the left to get the nod. Very PoliSci 101. On the other hand, he ran to the right in '04 to beat out Dean and Clarke. It's a reversal of roles which may actually suit him nicely.
Bingo.
Chief is first among equals. "Most junior" refers to associate justices. The Chief Justice is always the most junior chief justice, as there is only one at a time.
And to respond to Orin,
According to that same Times story, this is the second longest tenure as junior justice in history; if the Democrats could have just filibustered until March 1, he would have broken Joseph Story's all-time
major leagueSupreme Court record.There was nothing unhinged or even illegitimate about the complaints about O'Conner, but they were out of line in a post thanking her for her life's service. You'll have to look elsewhere for comparisons to Michelle Malkin's hate mail pile.
Ditto.
There was nothing unhinged or even illegitimate about the complaints about O'Conner, but they were out of line in a post thanking her for her life's service.
Gee, it wasn't clear, or stated up front, that you were only allowed to comment if you had nice things to say. Seems to me inviting comments means all kinds of comments, critical as well as adulatory, are permissible.
Deleting the whole comment section was pathetic.
Plase scroll down and read our comment policy, Jeek.
Deleting the whole comment section was pathetic.
I agree completely. Seems to me to be perfectly acceptable to criticize O'Connor's decisions upon her retirement. Her death would be a different matter, but retirement shouldn't exempt you from criticism.
If Orin had something else in mind, he should have said so.
Ditto again. This seems common from the person in question (who laughably claims to be nonpartisan moreover). Moreover, the cut-and-paste jobs are always from the most unimpressive of conservatives -- such as PowerLine posts about how everyone to the left of Cheney are all traitors, and now a Mark Steyn column that was full of such inciteful lies as "John Kerry pledged that, under his leadership, 'America will rejoin the community of nations"--by which he meant Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, the Belgian guy . . .'"
Concur. But then, I think John Yoo should be caged in Gitmo until he can recite every word of Youngstown, concurrences included of course.
Prof. Kerr's pique re: the voided thread may've been overkill, but is it really too much to expect a little class from people now &then?
I didn't see any comments after maybe 11:30am EST, but at that time there were no rants, invective, substantial exaggerations, profanity, personal insults directed at O'Connor, or anything else that would justify deleting the entire thread. I did not feel that thanking her for her career precluded reasoned commentary on some of her "bad" decisions. These are substantive posts by any stretch of the imagination.
But whatever, I concede moderator's privilege.
Well, before this action I think his chances of ever becoming president was 0%. Now I think he has at least doubled, maybe even tripled his chances.
"There was nothing unhinged or even illegitimate about the complaints about O'Conner, but they were out of line in a post thanking her for her life's service."
So, to give a completely and intentionally outrageous example, if Stalin had retiired instead of dying, the Russian people should have had "class" and "thanked him for his life's service"?
How bad does a justice have to be before we don't "thank them for their service"? How much do we have to think what they did was not remotely "service" at all before we don't have to "thank them for their service"?
I would be happy to thank a justice for their service whom I thought was run of the mill, neutral, boring, never did much'a nothin', etc. I would even be willing to thank a justice just like that whose only other contribution was some incorrect decisions on mild and rare occassions.
But I will not thank a criminal for their "service" when they retire from crime, thank you very much.
Even if you say I have no "class".
What a thorougly private person Deoxy is, as Bernard Shaw put it.
Listen up VRWC, this means we gotta stop ringing that doorbell and running away, now. Fun's over.
An appropriate gift for the most of the sitting Justices would be Article III of the United States Constitution and a copy of the book Humility.
Ah! So that's what you call an Associate Justice that overturns their own precedece.
Just because one disagrees with another person, does not mean that the other person is a criminal. And the amount of actual venom is striking. Isn't this exercise about the exchange of ideas? Or is it simply about making oneself feel good by creating paper monsters?
It is hard to respect any person who discount the entire service of a good person based upon ideological differences.
AS and CT as the most prinicpled justices? Give me a break.
ROTFLMAO!!
>An appropriate gift for the most of the sitting Justices would be Article III of the United States Constitution and a copy of the book Humility.<
Are you saying they need to find Jesus?
Aw....miffed because your Ruthie &David didn't get that nod? Here's your break....now get over it.