Need a list of reasons not to approve Alito - if you have, please provide!

[shance]

Thanks.

[babylonsister]

1. Here's a link from Truthout:

http://www.truthout.org/Alito.shtml

[raysr]

2. If it's for your Rep.

"Block Alito or lose my vote" is all the reason I'd give.

[shance]

12. Thanks Babylon*** I missed this one.

n/t

[lonestarnot]

24. downturned lips bad sign... no straight answers... wheedling around

with the balance of power, cartwheeling for a dictator, fiefdom, looking at that wife for the next 30 years...

[Crazy Dave]

3. He was was already approved before the hearings even started.

Nothing but another dog and pony show with tax payer money in Washington, DC.
I laugh because the democratic leaders said there was "going to be a fight" and "filibuster".
He'll be confirmed before the end of next week.

Let's see, our good old dem leaders, they've bent over and grabbed their ankles for two stolen elections, did the same for a fake war on terrorism, and now again for two right wing, lifetime appointed judges, yep business as usual.

[Ladyhawk]

5. Sigh...I think you're right.

Makes you wonder what we're supposed to do. Maybe we should just all vote Republican. We get screwed regardless. :shrug: Maybe things have to get really bad before change can happen, but I really hate that idea. I'd be one of the first to suffer.

[Crazy Dave]

9. But this time I'd love to be wrong Ladyhawk

But some things never change and it appears people like it just the way it is. They would rather have presidents and judges who tell them what to do and what rights they should and shouldn't have rather than having to put any effort into enjoying, protecting and keeping those rights.
Pretty sad as so many Americans used to think civil rights were important. Back then they thought they were even worth risking their lives for during the civil rights movement.

[Ladyhawk]

10. I'd love for us both to be wrong, but more and more the Dem Party

looks like it's just there for show and possibly to be a whipping boy. I'm getting so cynical I wonder how many Dems are in on the whole damn thing. Yeah, crown me with a tinfoil hat, but it looks pretty bleak from here.

[Crazy Dave]

18. If the writers of South Park can even figure it out....

Remember when Cartman got bumped in the head and went back in time? He asked out forefathers, "why is there democrats and republicans?", the answer was, "so we can say one thing but do another".

[Wordie]

22. It's not over 'til it's over! EMAIL them; FAX them; CALL them!!!!!

Let's not give up until it is over. Who knows what Reid may have up his sleeve. reid is one wily guy. Dems stopped the Patriot Act reauthorization, remember.

[Crazy Dave]

26. And how many times do you think I've been doing just that?

I truly believe my Senator, Bill Nelson outsources his mail as with some of the scripted/canned replies I've gotten over the past five years. A good one was back in 2002 when I wrote him about my strong opposition to an Iraq invasion and about two weeks later I got a fake letter saying that he agreed with my position and would do everything in his power to prevent an invasion of a sovereign nation.
Just for the hell of it, about three months before the invasion I sent another letter to his office saying how I didn't feel safe, that I was scared of terrorism and that he should be behind our president who was trying to protect me and my family. It took over a month and a half for a reply and you know what his fake letter said this time? It even mentioned me by name and told me and my family not to worry, that we were safe, that he was behind George Bush 100% and that he would not let me and my family down.

Emails are even less effective so you can waste your time and paper your choice.
I fight back in the primaries.

[shance]

11. With attitudes like that Dave, they will keep winning. Its your choice.

We have Democratic Senators who are NOT bending over and they need our support, defense and voices so they can do their job. They are being threatened and intimidated by the thuggish Neocons, who are not Republicans but bullies, and we need to stand up and get off of the sidelines.

You can do whatever you wish. If we don't fight for our country and sit back and criticize like you seem to be doing, when the vote is a week away, then its as much fault as it is anyone elses. We can either be part of a solution or part of a problem. Whatever choice you make is what you have to live with.

[Crazy Dave]

19. And with blindly obedient people like you shance...

who don't demand that democratic leaders do their job, then they don't.
We've been supporting these idiots for too long, that's why they're not doing their jobs because they've got people with attitudes like you. Blindly obedient, trust us, support us and stand behind us no matter what, just like the way neocons follow king George as no matter what he does, he can do no wrong.
Standing behind a coward that is to afraid that FOX News might say something bad about them isn't my idea of being a liberal democrat, maybe it's yours but hey, it's a free country for now. We need leaders and leaders have to fight, not say they will and they don't.

[carolinalady]

4. Presidential signing statements and the 1980's plan devised

by none other than (Sc)Alito

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

[shance]

13. THAT'S what I was trying to remember yesterday! Thanks Carolina**

n/t

[Wordie]

20. Here's a WaPo article re: his ideas about signing statements & prez power

Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.

In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.

Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."

Many constitutional scholars believe this use of signing statements to be unconstitutional, as they are roughly akin to the line item veto.

He also made these statements regarding the reaction of legislators:
"The novelty of the procedure and the potential increase of presidential power are two factors that may account for this anticipated reaction," he wrote. "In addition, and perhaps most important, Congress is likely to resent the fact that the president will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

[LynneSin]

6. Vague & non-responsive answers

That's what they went after Miguel Estrada for the filibuster. Estrada sat there and refused to answer the questions or even worst gave vague answers that really didn't provide any insight.

[Skidmore]

7. He lies.

[shance]

16. Yes he does doesnt he?

He doesn't even do it well either.

[bonito]

8. Just because pnac appointed him. n/t

[shance]

14. PNAC appointed him? Is there proof?

n/t

[dogday]

15. He has been against civil rights 85% of the time

this figure was cited many times during the hearing. This alone is enough reason not to vote for Alito....

[shance]

17. Great point. Thanks.

n/t

[makeanoise22]

21. The Death Penalty is one....

His record proves he would never overturn any death sentence, even when presented with the facts...

[newyawker99]

25. Hi makeanoise22!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Wordie]

23. 1. His views make it unlikely he would rein in presidential powers.

...and that is a danger to our nation. (See threads on the unitary executive and signing statements.)

2. Roe would be at risk. He refused to state that Roe is settled precedent. Alito says he will have an "open mind" on abortion, but that is the same phrase Clarence Thomas used, before he became a justice, and Thomas has since consistently engaged in efforts to overturn Roe.

3. There are still unanswered questions regarding his membership in an extremist university group. Why did he use the group's name as late as the mid-80s on an app for a job in the Reagan WH?

3. His nomination would result in a highly unbalanced RW court, the composition of which would not represent America.

4. His decisions favor the interests of the government, of corporations and of wealth over those of the little guy.

[bettyellen]

27. go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x25890

[derby378]

28. Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc.

Discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2352250

BTW, did a single Democratic Senator bring this case up at all during the confirmation hearings this week? If not, shame.

[shance]

31. Funny you asked Derby. I asked that question too and Sen. Kennedy

did in fact bring this case up.

So if you call (and I hope you will), call Senator Kennedy and thank him for addressing this indefensible conclusion that Alito came to. It makes no logical sense. He by the way was the only one who ruled in favor of the defendant.

[B Calm]

29. Fascist Corporatist that will erode workers rights and has a dysfunctional

unstable wife!

[Justice Is Comin]

30. Because Bush said he wasn't the most

qualified person to be on the court. Harriet Miers was the most qualified person he knew.

Following that, the number of times he was overruled or majority opinions dissented that his ruling stood right at the base of threatening the tenets of the constitution was astounding.