Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Alito Votes 9

Journal by pudge

So far 83 Senators have announced their voting intentions in regard to Judge Alito. He has 54 affirmative votes locked up already, with 24 votes against. There's only three "crossover" votes: three Democrats -- Nelson of Nebraksa, Johnson of South Dakota, and Byrd of West Virginia -- have announced an intention to vote for Alito.

(Jeffords of Vermont is also voting no, but he's a essentially a Democrat now; since he is an Independent, he has to obey the Democratic caucus on some issues, else he is shunned entirely.)

I'm waiting for the Democrats to come out and say, "yeah well, Byrd's just a racist anyway."

Watching Byrd now on C-SPAN, making the case I made earlier, that there is no rational reason whatsoever to assert that Alito is in favor of the President having a broader scope of power than the Constitution grants (which is the main reason most prominent Democrats give for being against him).

Update: Heh, now Salazar says he is voting against Alito in part because he thinks we should have had a woman instead. He is "saddened" that in the 21st century, we don't have a quota system for the Supreme Court. And then he repeats the lie that Alito is in favor of enlarging the scope of executive authority (supporting the notion only with quotes he wrote while employed by the executive branch and ordered to do so, and his own incorrect interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory). And then he gets to abortion, which is really what this whole thing, entirely, is about.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alito Votes More

Alito Votes

Comments Filter:
  • this had something to do with it. [slashdot.org]

    Really. The level of civil discourse is appalling. I complain about it to the left, I get "The right is doing it!" or "they started it". I get the same when I complain about it to the right.

    At some point, SOMEONE needs to be the parent and say "I don't care WHO stared it. The next one who does it is getting a time out!" Sadly, I dont see that happening. We get the government we vote for. And I see this as a direct result of not emphasizing critical thinking at at earl
    • As you know, I've come down on both liberals and conservatives in this journal forum, when they've gotten out of line. I see the lack of civility all the time, on both sides.

      I do see more civility on the right, but that may be because they are in power: we'll see how they do the next time they are out of power. Although here in WA, the GOP is more civil than the Dems, and the Dems are in power, so ...

      Regardless, I hope the GOP continues its trend toward civility when it is out of power, maybe the Dems wil
      • I agree, right now it appears far more on the left than on the right. And perhaps it is due to, as you suggest, the right being in power. I saw a lot of rabid Clinton hatred on the right during the 90s -- some of it justified, but most of it was the same type of irrational hatred of the man by opposing party. We see the same thing now on the left towards Bush.

        But the "hatred" didn't spill over to dramatically effect how our government works until recently. The democrats should be ashamed of how Alito an
        • I think part of the reason that the extreme radical left is getting more angry is that they feel like the Right is really taking a more total form of control. The typical logic is this:
          1. Clinton was more of a centrist than a leftist (compared to the loonies, perhaps, or to Europe)
          2. The Right screamed insanely about him anyway.
          Therefore, The Right is trying to paint a centrist as a leftist in an effort to move the center to the right.
          3. The Right's screaming fits seemed to accomplish things at a national
          • 1. Clinton was more of a centrist than a leftist (compared to the loonies, perhaps, or to Europe)

            Yes, but what they don't understand is that Bush is more of a centrist than a conservative.

            2. The Right screamed insanely about him anyway.
            Therefore, The Right is trying to paint a centrist as a leftist in an effort to move the center to the right.

            Which is, of course, what the left is doing.

            And I disagree with what the Right did (and said so while Clinton was still President, even though I was a part of the din
      • I've always felt as though the right was more honest than the left. Don't always agree with the right, but at least I know where they stand on an issue. I never really feel like I know the left's REAL agenda.

        When you're honest about your agenda, you are comfortable with what you're doing and can afford to be civil. If you're being shifty and dishonest, well, there's a saying I recall vividly from the Paranoia rulebook that I think sums it up: Traitors have nothing to lose by committing treason.
        (not that
        • I think to an extent this is something that shifts historically--look at Nixon for a comparatively recent example of blatant dishonesty on the right.

          It seems like the extreme Left's been feeling increasingly marginalized since as far back as the 1930s (depending on who you think our most progressive president was, FDR seems to be a hero to most of these folks) and that it's driven less by dishonesty than desperation--I see political dishonesty from both sides of the spectrum about equally from where I sit,
          • The right may cover up the details of how they implement their agenda, but you still know the agenda. That's important when it comes to deciding who to vote for - most people vote for agendas, not implementation details. The left covers up everything.

            If the progressives have been marginalized over the past century, that's come primarily from the democrats, who have controlled the house, the senate and the presidency vastly more often than the republicans (see here [slashdot.org]) and thus were able to shape US politics
          • I think to an extent this is something that shifts historically--look at Nixon for a comparatively recent example of blatant dishonesty on the right.

            Well, I'd call it more corruption than dishonesty, but regardless: yes, but note that he was the first real Republican to be elected President in 40 years (Eisenhower was a Republican sure, but not a very committed one, and he was only elected because he was a war hero). How did Nixon get elected? In large part, by playing dirty, which he learned after decade

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close