Alito Confirmation Questionaire
I've started listening to NPR in the morning for lack of any decent music stations in the Lafayette area and am actually finding some interesting stuff. This morning, they were carping on about Alito, Roe v Wade etc blah, blah, blah. In the midst of this endless and rather repetitious discussion, it was mentioned that the questionaire Alito filled out for congress was posted online. Having a natural curiosity, and time in which to indulge it during 115 lecture, I naturally found it and skimmed over it. Most of it was really of no interest to me except out of pure nosiness. You'll be happy to know that you too can know the breakdown of the net worth of the possible next member of the Supreme Court. Also, apparently Alito belongs to his neighborhood tennis association. Doesn't that sound dangerous.
However, at the tail end, on pages 60-62, a section is given over to the subject of judicial activism. I was all prepared for something interesting, but his response seems to be just a lecture about separation of powers amoung the branches of the government. How disappointing! So what's the point of these questionaires anyway? Could a reasonably intelligent congressperson (let's not be sexist here) actually discern anything important from them? Or is this whole process just another chance to glorify one's own party (superheros with capes) while vilifying the other (drooling morons whose sole goal is life is to take food from the mouths' of children and feed it to their pet dogs)?
So, maybe I'm just really cynical about politics, but really, what's the point of this confirmation kerfuffle anyway? Republicans appoint conservatives, Demecrats appoint liberals, end of story. That's what happens, let's move on and talk about something important.
Read the questionaire here.
Read carping about Roe v Wade here.
However, at the tail end, on pages 60-62, a section is given over to the subject of judicial activism. I was all prepared for something interesting, but his response seems to be just a lecture about separation of powers amoung the branches of the government. How disappointing! So what's the point of these questionaires anyway? Could a reasonably intelligent congressperson (let's not be sexist here) actually discern anything important from them? Or is this whole process just another chance to glorify one's own party (superheros with capes) while vilifying the other (drooling morons whose sole goal is life is to take food from the mouths' of children and feed it to their pet dogs)?
So, maybe I'm just really cynical about politics, but really, what's the point of this confirmation kerfuffle anyway? Republicans appoint conservatives, Demecrats appoint liberals, end of story. That's what happens, let's move on and talk about something important.
Read the questionaire here.
Read carping about Roe v Wade here.
posted by Victoria at 8:35 AM
3 Comments:
It's so interesting how people don't want justices on the Court to disagree with each other or with previous decisions. You wonder if these people ever actually read Supreme Court opinions. For example, here's my favorite opinion break-down from Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):
O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Part V-E, in which STEVENS, J., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV, V-B, and V-D. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which WHITE, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
I'm counting at least 7 opinions, plus lots of joining and not joining. For a group of 9 justices, that seems like a lot. Guess what? The Court isn't always unanimous. In fact, it's usually not unanimous. My point is, multiple justices disagree with a lot of the Court's decisions, so I don't see why it's a big deal if the new guy might disagree with some of them too. Would these people like it better if we kicked justices off the Court every time they dissented? That WOULD be odd jurisprudence.
Oh, and Victoria, in response to your question, "Could a reasonably intelligent congressperson actually discern anything important from [these questionaires]?" I guess I would ask whether you think many members of Congress are good at discerning what's important as a general matter (see Christmas tree discussion). ;)
Well I'm glad to know that the trend of viewing dissenting opinions as bad isn't localized anywhere particular. Seriously though, with all the lip service to cultural diversity, you'd think a bit would spill over into opinions and thoughts. I'm glad you're in law school and can tell us all this neat stuff Joni. :-)
And Andy, I wasn't aware that we were talking about feminism. But I generally try to refrain of posting when I can't come up with anything reasonably intelligent to say. Keeps me from sounding stupid so often. :-)
So let's talk about something more important: like the fact that my purple, fuzzy slipper is stuck under the lift in the MCA. And yes, it's only one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home