Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Wednesday, November 22, 2017 5:15 pm
Latest:
March 2, 2006

Alito will shift the Supreme Court to extreme right

by Jordan Fein, Print Ombudsman
Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative, replaced moderate Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Jan. 31. In his career as a judge, Alito's radical ideology has fueled an archaic, reactionary interpretation of the Constitution that he seems to value over the common good of the American people.

O'Connor was the "swing vote" and could side with either the four reliably conservative justices or the four consistently liberal justices in contentious cases. O'Connor was often in the majority in decisions with a one-vote margin and provided the tie-breaking vote in rulings affirming a woman's legal right to an abortion, upholding campaign finance laws limiting "soft money" contributions to political campaigns, allowing affirmative action in colleges and protecting the rights of the disabled. If newly confirmed Justice John Roberts proves to be as conservative as his late predecessor, William Rehnquist, Alito will occupy this position of extraordinary power. But, even if Roberts is more moderate, Alito will be a major force on the Court.

Alito's dissents on Third Circuit rulings give insight into his views and how he will rule on the Supreme Court. In the 1996 Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company case, Alito was the only justice of 11 to rule against a woman claiming she was forced to quit her job after a sexual harassment complaint. Alito demonstrated his aversion to punishing discriminatory companies once more in 1997, when he found that a woman claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury. Yet again, no other judge joined him.

On the Third Circuit, Alito consistently ruled in favor of companies subverting environmental laws and edicts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In an open letter to U.S. senators, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) described a decision in which Alito upheld industrial pollution of the environment. According to the NRDC, in 2001, Alito allowed W.R. Grace, a Michigan company, to circumvent an EPA plan to eliminate toxic pollutants from a Lansing, Michigan, aquifer. Rulings like these prompted many environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Environmental Trust, Earthjustice and Friends of the Earth to vigorously oppose Alito's confirmation in order to ensure the continued protection of the environment.

Pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood also took issue with Alito's confirmation because he has stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In his Senate confirmation hearings, Alito denied that Roe is "settled law," directly contradicting Chief Justice John Roberts and other pro-life conservatives who have stated that they cannot ignore the judicial precedent supporting Roe. In a 1985 memo, Alito discussed "the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade and mitigating its effects," and went on to suggest convincing circuit courts that abortion restrictions they had struck down were, in fact, reasonable. Considering this, it seems very likely that Alito will use his newfound power on the Supreme Court to work towards weakening a woman's right to choose.

While Alito's dedicated opposition of abortion may be alarming, his most disturbing position came in the 2004 Doe v. Groody case, in which he ignored the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Alito ruled that the police could strip-search a 10-year-old girl, stating that, even though their warrant did not name her, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so." Thankfully, the Third Circuit as a whole disagreed with Alito.

Alito's record makes it clear that he has little respect for checks on executive power, either. According to The New Republic, in a 1986 Justice Department memo, Alito endorsed presidential signing statements, which allow the president to influence interpretation of a law by adding his own opinion to legislation he has signed.

Traditionally used as a tool for presidents to give their take on specific sections of a bill without issuing line-item or complete vetoes signing statements are being used by President Bush to "effectively nullify laws as they relate to the executive branch," according to former Presidential Counsel John W. Dean. The New Republic reported that Bush issued a signing statement smugly stating that he could ignore the law banning torture of enemy combatants. Even when presented with this example of Bush's misuse of signing statements in the Senate Confirmation Hearings, Alito refused to back down from his 1986 position. Alito's continued support of signing statements proves that he is not committed to the principle of checks and balances

Some may argue that the non-partisan American Bar Association (ABA) has given Alito its highest rating. But this rating only takes into account legal ability and the extent of judicial experience, both of which Alito has in abundance. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, the ABA stated that they did not investigate Alito's judicial philosophy, his ideology or how he may rule on certain cases. If the ABA had investigated how Alito's interpretation of the constitution is antithetical to the interest of Americans, the "well-qualified" rating would be difficult to justify.

Those opposing Roberts's confirmation had little to criticize because he had less judicial experience. As a result, Roberts won the support of many democratic senators and was confirmed by a 56-vote margin. In contrast, only four Democrats backed Alito, and one Republican voted against him. Those opposing Alito cited many cases that reveal him to be out of the mainstream ó a radical who often finds himself without the support of even his fellow conservative judges.

Alito is not dangerous because he is a Republican nominated by a Republican president. He presents a threat because he has consistently ruled to the right of even conservatives against the environment, constitutional privacy guarantees and individuals subjected to discrimination. Alito now occupies a position of power and will shift the Supreme Court far to the right with his radically conservative ideology. His confirmation was an important victory for President Bush and Republican senators ó but a devastating loss for the American people.



Share on Tumblr

Discuss this Article

Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.
 

  • ClosetRepublican on March 2, 2006 at 8:39 AM
    Hooray. Isnt this great?
  • Dave Thomas (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 10:17 AM
    I guess the idea that a constitutional amendment is needed instead of poorly written congressional legislation that attempts to protect the environment in violation of the Constitution never crossed the author's mind.

    The Constitution was written by men who respected property rights to an extreme and didn't give environmental considerations much of a thought. The author needs to put blame where it lies, with Congress. If you the people of America want the environment sacrosanct then they need to pay attention to what the Supreme Court and Judges like Justice Alito say, your current attempts violate the Constitution.

    Amend the Constitution to make the actions and powers you desire legal and quit attacking what you label as "conservative" justices who interpret the law properly as it is written in the Constitution and poorly written by Congress.

    The same thing is true of Roe v. Wade. I support a women's right to privacy and right to choose, but the legal basis for this right in the Constitution is vague to say the least. The legal premise of Roe v. Wade is weak to almost every legal mind. Why not amend the Constitution to put Roe on rock solid legal footing? Do we lack the political will and courage to do so? Is it easier to try to circumvent the Constitution that democratically change it? Is it easier to scapegoat the Supreme Court? Apparently so.

    Best, Dave
  • a. johnston (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 12:45 PM
    this seems just a bit "reactionary" since fellow republican as well as democracts that he has worked with find him more than well qualified....besides, this is old news
  • N Miller (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 3:43 PM
    "The same thing is true of Roe v. Wade. I support a women's right to privacy and right to choose, but the legal basis for this right in the Constitution is vague to say the least. The legal premise of Roe v. Wade is weak to almost every legal mind."

    Just for fun, and I apologize from straying off topic, but I will point out the legal basis for wiretapping american's (even if you call them terrorists) without warrants within the framework of the authorization to use force is not only vague, but is contrary to specific law preventing the President from doing that, to every legal mind.

    The authorization to use force as you know did not specifically say wiretapping without warrants. It is an ambiguous reading of that authorization that also renders it authorization to wiretap without a warrant. And, whenever there is ambiguity, then existing specific laws take precedent. FISA is a comprehensive law that specifically regulates electronic surveillance and in doing so uses very specific language for itís application during a time of war. Therefore FISA prevails over the, in this case, vague Congressional Authorization to use Military Force under any reasonable reading of the laws and statutes. The precedent exists in Morales v. TWA, Inc., (quoting International Paper Co. v. Ouelette) which say specific and "carefully drawn" statutes (such as FISA) prevail over general statutes where there is a conflict. As Justice Frankfurter stated in rejecting a similar argument by President Truman when he sought to defend the seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War on the basis of implied congressional authorization:

    It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation. It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, to find secreted in the interstices of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld. To find authority so explicitly withheld is...to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 609 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

    Interesting as well, is that the Bush administration is using this fundamental argument about specifically drawn statutes prevailing over more vague statutes in their push for a federal ban on partial birth abortions. Their argument is that the federal law is more precisely drawn than a Nebraska statute that was struck down and that the courts must defer to Congress' findings regarding the medical necessity of the procedure. So not only did the President legislate from the Oval Office and in doing so broke the law, we also have a bit of hypocrisy in his arguments.
  • norm (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 3:49 PM
    OUTSTANDING!!!
    What you're calling "extreme right" is actually "just left of center". The SCOTUS' job is determining whether the laws passed by congress meet the standard set by the Constitution. If changes are needed, there is a built-in mechanism to change the Constution. It's called a Constitutional Ameendment. Ignoring the constitution or "re-interpreting" it are not legal options. Every congressmen takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, though many totally ignore it.
  • david (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 3:50 PM
    this is interesting food for thought
  • Sarah Weisman (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 7:18 PM
    Jordan Fein's article on Samuel Alito came up on my Google News Page and I was so impressed by his research, writing, and critical thinking that I felt it prudent to compliment him on his fine editorial. Bravo, Jordan! I'm relieved to know that we're sending such an intelligent and feeling individual out into the adult world.

    Sarah Weisman
    St. Albans, Vermont
  • Libertarian (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 9:30 PM
    I will comment more later, but I would like to comment on the lack of research here. Did you just listen to Air America for a few minutes and copy everythingg? His stances on Presidential checks is frightening, but for now I will simply only comment on this statement:

    "Alito ruled that the police could strip-search a 10-year-old girl, stating that, even though their warrant did not name her, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so." Thankfully, the Third Circuit as a whole disagreed with Alito. "

    This is simply false. He ruled that the state could make a law allowing this. He didn't say they could do it. This is a state's right under the Constitution. Take a look at Amendment IX. From what I've read, he does a pretty good job of interpreting the Constitution as written. I think his first case he voted against the death penalty for someone.

    Oh and for the liberals who will cry about the 4th amendment, this applied to the federal government, and this was the state police. If you want to say that the bill of rights applies automatically to the states, what about the second? By that amendment, no single law limiting gun rights (including requiring a liscence, not allowing felons to buy them, and even banning nuclear bombs for the general population) would be Constitutional.

    Maybe a quick read of the Constitution would help if you want to comment on a nominee to interpret that document.

    On abortion:
    I believe Alito has commented that he will keep an open mind. But pretty clearly if we follow the Constitution the federal government has no power to ban abortion. This is a state's rights issue. Now I am pro-choice, and I hope most states see reason and allow abortion, but this is a decision that should be made on the state level.

    Honestly though, George Bush is the President. He was elected by the country, he got the right to nominate a SC justice, were you expecting a liberal? For conservative justices, I feel we could do a LOT worse.

    The problem is many liberals seem to believe it's ok if the Supreme Court makes rulings that are what they think is "good" instead of following the Constitution. The Republicans have followed that and decided to try to gain power in the court. It's happened now and I can only hope that the Republicans have the decency to not do what the Liberals did, because if they do, it could get ugly fast.

    Let me put this on the table, I don't like Bush or what he's doing generally. I don't support this war. I am pro-choice. I am for passing laws to protect the environment. I am generally a liberal (although I am very small-government, the only thing they should do is prevent force such as assault, etc. and murder, as well as theft. They should educate the population and protect the environment. Other than that, I don't trust a federal politician to do). But from President Bush, Alito is one of the best I could see. First liberals tried to pull some BS about a good old boys club with another white. Justices should be nominated based on their ability, NOT color of their skin. Now you're crying apocolypse? If anything the court will shift more towards the Constitution.

    I highly doubt a lot of your commentary on some of the cases. I will be looking at the rulings on the cases you have provided (thank you for providing specific cases, at least you did SOME research) and will comment at a later time.
  • Jim (View Email) on March 2, 2006 at 10:59 PM
    To Jordan Fein:
    You have excellent writing skills, but you write from a LIBERAL, FAR LEFT perspective that I find alarming at your young age.

    Probably the best thing that could happen to you is that you spend 2-4 years in the Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, Army, Public Health Service, or Marines to see what serving your country really is like.

    I know, and it changed me from a gangly kid to a more mature adult, with a broader perspective on life, America, and the world.
  • Anarchist on March 3, 2006 at 1:22 AM
    Wholly ****! There's someone else on this forum who already said more or less what I was going to! Whoa!

    And, no, I didn't post as Libertarian.
  • Jim Jones (View Email) on March 3, 2006 at 1:24 AM
    If Justice Alito takes the nation on a hard right turn and runs hell bent for leather for the next thirty years he will just restore center on American beliefs and politics. I fear the radical secular humanist left far more than the crazies on the far right.
  • Captain Compassion (View Email) on March 3, 2006 at 10:38 AM
    Why is it that when a conservative is elected by a majority of the population and the conservative pics a conservative supreme court justice you call this "A devastating loss for the American People". We got what we voted for. It strikes me as hugely pompous and condescending to presume that you speak for the American people. I think Alito is great and I think he will be even better if he does the things you fear that he will do. Face it liberals, your not in the majority anymore! Muwhahahaha!
  • Jordan Fein (View Email) on March 4, 2006 at 2:02 PM
    I appreciate all of your comments, and will try to address many of them here. First off, addressing "Captain Compassion," who himself seems to recognize the irony inherent in the phrase "compassionate conservative," the majority of Americans, if presented with the facts as I have done in this piece, would not approve of Alito. On the third circuit, he has jeopoardized the environment, privacy rights and fourth amendment rights as well as many more. That you should say that Americans got what was coming to them is also condescending considering that even those who voted for Bush would probably like to keep their constitutional rights.

    As for Mr. Jones, the "radical secular humanist left," which was represented rather well in the Warren Court, made huge progress, de-segregating schools, requiring Miranda rights for the accused and giving Mexican-Americans the right to serve on juries. I have a feeling that Americans would be thankful for a similar court today. Mr. Jones, I struggle to believe that you would truly prefer that the Warren Court progress was not made.

    Libertarian, I appreciate your interest but not your condescencion. I encourage you to read Alito's dissent in Doe v Groody as I have (http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=Alito_Opinions.ask&dn=Doe%20v.%20Groody). It is possible that then you would understand that Alito's dissent focused specifically on how, while the warrant only gave officers the right to search John Doe, a known drug dealer, the affadavit gave probable cause for searching the residence and all its inhabitants and therefore the officers were justified in doing so. It is possible that John Doe had concealed drugs on the ten-year old girl or her mother, but because the warrant DID NOT name them, t hfact.shtml).
    If a precedent is set stating that it if warrants simply imply that a person should be searched while not stating it explicitly, this dangerous infringment of fourth amendment rights would continue. And, in case you were wondering, constitutional rights apply to all persons, even those whose rights were violated by state police. The founders made the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures a constitutional right precisely so they could apply to EVERY american citizen, as much as conservatives would wish otherwise. As for the second amendment, it applies to militias, which were deemed necessary for the public defense, and while I wouldn't make guns illegal, I think that since there are no longer militias, a reasonable person would be justified in mandating gun control laws. So, before you insult my "lack of research" or condescendingly advise me to have a "quick read of the Constitution," how about making sure your own arguments are straight and not embarrasing yourself?

    In regard to Norm, I expected a wacko conservative or two to post on this forum, and I think he is a good example. Stating that Alito would shift the Court a little left of center is ridiculous. Now, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are reliably conservative, which means the court is right-leaning. Norm also seems to be confused about signing statements, which Alito supports because they allow the President power to disregard portions of laws he disagrees with without issuing a veto that could possibly be overridden. When I emailed Norm about this, he called me a "Hate Bush" anti-everything idiot." This goes to show what conservatives are reduced to when they are faced with the facts.

    That's it for now. Thanks for commenting.
  • 2007 on March 4, 2006 at 10:54 PM
    wow...

    i thought some of these other posters were pompous and arrogant, but i have never seen a SCO writer embarass themself by stooping to their level in what is by far the most absurd post i have ever read in my three years of reading sco.

    1st paragraph: as someone said earlier, who deemed you spokesman for the American people? and what arrogance to assume that only you are capable of "presenting the facts". and lastly, nobody said that "americans got what was coming to them". the point i believe was that because the American people elected Bush (twice!) it is most likely that the majority of the country think similarly to him. therefore, because he will pick someone who thinks like him, the American people will presumably also think like this person.

    2nd paragraph: again, you talk for the american people. thank you for telling me the kind of court i would be thankful for! perhaps people would be thankful for a court that represents the same ideology that they have been voting for.

    3rd paragraph: ok, you don't think it is a reasonable for police to be able to "strip search" (oh wait, they were only made to go down to their underwear in a private room with an officer of the same sex, but i guess 'strip search' does carry a worse undertone. much easier to use inflammatory wording to explain what happened in the case!) the family members, who were in the same house as a drug dealer who knew the cops were coming? would it not make sense for him to hide illegal things on them, and therefore would it not make sense to search those people? it is not ridiculous that because of the high probability of him hiding material on them that they could be associated as part of his person.

    paragraph 4: yes, norm is a little off his rocker. i agree that the alito won't shift the court 'left of center'. however, you are equally as absurd with this statement: "This goes to show what conservatives are reduced to when they are faced with the facts." I guess a man you earlier identified as a "wacko" is a good representative of all conservatives. and lastly, what arrogance to describe claim that your viewpoint is "the facts".

    Thats all for now.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on March 5, 2006 at 11:00 AM
    "I appreciate all of your comments, and will try to address many of them here. First off, addressing "Captain Compassion," who himself seems to recognize the irony inherent in the phrase "compassionate conservative," the majority of Americans, if presented with the facts as I have done in this piece, would not approve of Alito." That is nothing but your opinion, I would hope this article would encourage them to look at the facts and make an informed decision. In my case, I approve of Alito. "On the third circuit, he has jeopoardized the environment, privacy rights and fourth amendment rights as well as many more. That you should say that Americans got what was coming to them is also condescending considering that even those who voted for Bush would probably like to keep their constitutional rights." I would assume his opinion didn't say that people lose their Constitutional rights, he just had a different opinion on what was a Constitutional right. Maybe these people do too. "As for Mr. Jones, the "radical secular humanist left," which was represented rather well in the Warren Court, made huge progress, de-segregating schools, requiring Miranda rights for the accused and giving Mexican-Americans the right to serve on juries. I have a feeling that Americans would be thankful for a similar court today. Mr. Jones, I struggle to believe that you would truly prefer that the Warren Court progress was not made." Good, what's to say Alito wouldn't have also done this? Do you really think he would vote to keep segregation in schools? "Libertarian, I appreciate your interest but not your condescencion. I encourage you to read Alito's dissent in Doe v Groody as I have (http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=Alito_Opinions.ask&dn=Doe%20v.%20Groody). It is possible that then you would understand that Alito's dissent focused specifically on how, while the warrant only gave officers the right to search John Doe, a known drug dealer, the affadavit gave probable cause for searching the residence and all its inhabitants and therefore the officers were justified in doing so. It is possible that John Doe had concealed drugs on the ten-year old girl or her mother, but because the warrant DID NOT name them, t hfact.shtml)." ah, finally a comment to me. "If a precedent is set stating that it if warrants simply imply that a person should be searched while not stating it explicitly, this dangerous infringment of fourth amendment rights would continue. And, in case you were wondering, constitutional rights apply to all persons, even those whose rights were violated by state police." Do you understand what the Constitution is? It is the set of powers/restrictions for running the federal government, and these laws only apply to the federal government. Note the difference in Amendment XIII ("...shall exist WITHIN the United States or ANY PLACE subject to their jurisdiction"). "The founders made the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures a constitutional right precisely so they could apply to EVERY american citizen, as much as conservatives would wish otherwise." Of course they apply to every American citizen, against the federal government. Ever read writings by the founders? Ever wonder why they started with the articles of Confederation? They were cautious against a strong federal government and trusted more local and state governments having more control. They realized that originally they gave the federal government too little control, but still strove to give the state governments strong power as well, especially with the 9th and 10th amendments. "As for the second amendment, it applies to militias, which were deemed necessary for the public defense, and while I wouldn't make guns illegal, I think that since there are no longer militias, a reasonable person would be justified in mandating gun control laws." Sorry, apparently you now don't understand sentence construction? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the dependent clause. It is giving the reason for the following, but the following stands alone, and is the actual restriction on the FEDERAL government in the amendment. It gives the reason and then the actual statement of law: "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be INFRINGED". Care for a definition of infringed? I didn't think so. "So, before you insult my "lack of research" or condescendingly advise me to have a "quick read of the Constitution," how about making sure your own arguments are straight and not embarrasing yourself?" I did that. I have done my research, read the Constitution (many times), and I agree with my arguments. It is also obvious that many here do also as I got a comment: "Wholly ****! There's someone else on this forum who already said more or less what I was going to! Whoa! And, no, I didn't post as Libertarian.". "In regard to Norm, I expected a wacko conservative or two to post on this forum, and I think he is a good example. Stating that Alito would shift the Court a little left of center is ridiculous. Now, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are ito_Opinions.ask&dn=Doe%20v.%20Groody). It is possible that then you would understand that Alito's dissent focused specifically on how, while the warrant only gave officers the right to search John Doe, a known drug dealer, the affadavit gave probable cause for searching the residence and all its inhabitants and therefore the officers were justified in doing so. It is possible that John Doe had concealed drugs on the ten-year old girl or her mother, but because the warrant DID NOT name them, t hfact.shtml)." ah, finally a comment to me. "If a precedent is set stating that it if warrants simply imply that a person should be searched while not stating it explicitly, this dangerous infringment of fourth amendment rights would continue. And, in case you were wondering, constitutional rights apply to all persons, even those whose rights were violated by state police." Do you understand what the Constitution is? It is the set of powers/restrictions for running the federal government, and these laws only apply to the federal government. Note the difference in Amendment XIII ("...shall exist WITHIN the United States or ANY PLACE subject to their jurisdiction"). "The founders made the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures a constitutional right precisely so they could apply to EVERY american citizen, as much as conservatives would wish otherwise." Of course they apply to every American citizen, against the federal government. Ever read writings by the founders? Ever wonder why they started with the articles of Confederation? They were cautious against a strong federal government and trusted more local and state governments having more control. They realized that originally they gave the federal government too little control, but still strove to give the state governments strong power as well, especially with the 9th and 10th amendments. "As for the second amendment, it applies to militias, which were deemed necessary for the public defense, and while I wouldn't make guns illegal, I think that since there are no longer militias, a reasonable person would be justified in mandating gun control laws." Sorry, apparently you now don't understand sentence construction? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the dependent clause. It is giving the reason for the following, but the following stands alone, and is the actual restriction on the FEDERAL government in the amendment. It gives the reason and then the actual statement of law: "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be INFRINGED". Care for a definition of infringed? I didn't think so. "So, before you insult my "lack of research" or condescendingly advise me to have a "quick read of the Constitution," how about making sure your own arguments are straight and not embarrasing yourself?" I did that. I have done my research, read the Constitution (many times), and I agree with my arguments. It is also obvious that many here do also as I got a comment: "Wholly ****! There's someone else on this forum who already said more or less what I was going to! Whoa! And, no, I didn't post as Libertarian.". "In regard to Norm, I expected a wacko conservative or two to post on this forum, and I think he is a good example. Stating that Alito would shift the Court a little left of center is ridiculous. Now, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are reliably conservative, which means the court is right-leaning. Norm also seems to be confused about signing statements, which Alito supports because they allow the President power to disregard portions of laws he disagrees with without issuing a veto that could possibly be overridden. When I emailed Norm about this, he called me a "Hate Bush" anti-everything idiot." This goes to show what conservatives are reduced to when they are faced with the facts." I think he was referring to in general, but no matter, he is wrong. The United States is probably the most Conservative country in the world. But this isn't about right or left. You don't seem to grasp this simply fact. We pick a person based on their qualifications as a justice to interpret the Constitution. Now I'm sure you'll praise the justices who ruled on Roe v. Wade, but please show me where in the Constitution the FEDERAL government has the power to do that. This is a state's issue. You seem to be an example of every Liberal who knows exactly what is right for America and will do anything, including fighting for justices who will do what you think is right, rather than follow the Constitution. Sort of like Bush going into Iraq and giving them his version of right (a democracy). His "right" didn't seem to be working and I don't like the sounds of your "right". Bush was elected, along with being elected President, you get the power to appoint a Supreme Court justice. Again, were you expecting a tree-hugging, pro-choice, anti-gun liberal? Why? "That's it for now. Thanks for commenting." And thank you for answering, even though it may not sound like it, I do enjoy reading other opinions, and it's nice you have taken the time to answer comments in your article.
  • 2007 on March 6, 2006 at 3:43 PM
    yo when you say "for now" that implies you will respond again sometime in the future. you scared?
  • Jordan Fein (View Email) on March 6, 2006 at 6:38 PM
    As much as you wish I would fire back an insult at you, 2007, I don't wish to add fuel to the fire. Instead, I will write a reasoned response and present it to you when it is ready. This is a forum for debate and should be treated as such.
  • 2007 on March 6, 2006 at 9:01 PM
    excellent. I eagerly anticipate your response. I am sorry if you feel my post was an "insult". I had (and have) full intentions of keeping this a forum for debate, and was merely inquiring as to whether or not a response was on the way. perhaps i let my emotions get the best of me with "you scared?" but other than that I don't see how anything I have written can be viewed as an insult, or how I am not treating this as a "forum for debate".
  • Voice of Reason on March 6, 2006 at 9:09 PM
    People, people...let us not let this forum descend into Crossfire-like name-calling and recriminations. Libertarian/2007, tone it down. Jordan, show some tact.

    And both of you...grow up. This is an internet forum. If you're looking for class, or respect, or any such nonsense you've probably come to the wrong place.

    Now let's keep it to the issues, kids.
  • Libertarian (View Email) on March 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM
    "As much as you wish I would fire back an insult at you, 2007, I don't wish to add fuel to the fire. Instead, I will write a reasoned response and present it to you when it is ready. This is a forum for debate and should be treated as such."

    it's been almost 2 weeks since this comment, does it really take that long to get an argument ready? Good thing you don't really debate.

    Also, can Silver Chips or Jordan explain why my last post was not posted, I didn't see anything wrong with it. I didn't agree with the author of this article but I didn't do anything that would warrant it not being posted, can someone please explain?
  • 2007 on March 13, 2006 at 3:46 PM
    i think at this point we can safely assume that this will be one hell of a response.
  • Jordan Fein (View Email) on March 15, 2006 at 6:33 AM
    I am currently working on my story for the next cycle of Silver Chips and have an otherwise packed schedule. However, I will try to post a response this weekend.
  • 2007 on March 21, 2006 at 6:48 PM
    the weekend has come and gone...
  • 2007 on March 27, 2006 at 2:26 PM
    another weekend has come and gone...
  • (View Email) on April 2, 2006 at 2:41 PM
    Yes this will be one outstanding reply.
  • 2007 on April 12, 2006 at 6:32 PM
    it has now been over one month since Mr. Fein said he would post a reply.
  • (View Email) on April 13, 2006 at 1:16 PM
    "I will try to post a response this weekend." - Jordan Fein

    hmm, that was 3/15, it is now 4/13, almost a month.
  • 2007 on April 15, 2006 at 9:40 PM
    UN-BE-LIEVABLE!!!

    It has now been...

    One month and ten days since: "As much as you wish I would fire back an insult at you, 2007, I don't wish to add fuel to the fire. Instead, I will write a reasoned response and present it to you when it is ready"

    And one month exactly since a post was supposed to appear "this weekend".

    I wish this surprised me. :(
  • 2007 on April 30, 2006 at 9:49 PM
    just checkin back, still no reply.
  • chill yo face on May 5, 2006 at 10:09 AM
    guys chill it's just jordan's op/ed of the month...
  • 2007 on May 6, 2006 at 11:54 AM
    i understand that, but if he says he is going to respond I think he should. But there should be at least some reply before two months have passed since "I will write a response and present it to you when ready".
  • 2007 on May 14, 2006 at 12:12 PM
    to Mr. Fein -

    By not responding in any way to the criticism against you, you have been exposed for the ideologically bankrupt person you are. This is the last time I will post on this article unless there is some sort of reply.

    2007
  • fed up on May 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM
    it doesn't matter if what jordan wrote in the article is his opinion, its in the opinions section. if you have a problem with his opinion, good for you, but it doesn't matter if sc printed it, its not like their being biased, its the onpinions page, he can say whatever he wants
  • to fed up (View Email) on May 18, 2006 at 6:20 PM
    I'll admit I like that at least he responded to the comments, he had no duty to do that and many people don't. BUT... when he posts something like this:

    "I am currently working on my story for the next cycle of Silver Chips and have an otherwise packed schedule. However, I will try to post a response this weekend."

    Most people would expect a response or else a comment that he won't post. By the way that was over 2 months ago.
  • 2007 on May 21, 2006 at 2:18 PM
    i guess opinions cannot be questioned? I'm not complaining that it is opinion, as it is clearly in the "Opinion" section. I am merely challenging his opinion. I have no qualms with SCO printing the article, and do not doubt that he can say whatever he wants. I happen to disagree on his stance on this issue. Next time Bush issues a controversial policy, I'll remember that people have no business to question it, because it merely represents opinion. If you had actually read any of my posts, you would realize that yes, I do have a problem with his opinion. Good for me? Absolutely its good for me. Fein disagreed with Bush's opinion that Alito would be a good SC justice. Amazingly, you aren't "fed up" with his opinions, and don't dismiss his thoughts with a condescending "good for you".
Jump to first comment