Supreme Court Nominee Alito and The Power of the President
This week, confirmation hearings will be held regarding Samuel Alito and his capacity to hold one of the highest positions on the highest court of this nation. Both sides are geared up for a battle, but will this battle be one regarding political party, agenda or presidential power.
According to the Los Angeles Times, in 1986 Samuel Alito wrote that the president's understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of Congress. If these words are taken to their logical conclusion, the President would actually have more power under the Constitution.
We have heard Bush recently regarding the torture ban, and the issue of wiretapping claim that he would back or bar something provided he had the constitutional authority to do so. These statements by Bush actually raise some eyebrows, especially among those of us who believe in the checks and balance system of this country.
Taken to its logical extreme, one could conclude that Bush himself does not believe in any checks on the presidential power. That in fact, it is absolute. Just last week, we saw how Bush stood firm on how he believed that his ability to wiretap Americans was within his Constitutional authority, even though the law requires that a warrant must be obtained after 72 hours have passed.
Does Bush believe that he stands above Congress and the U.S. Courts? Do we not forget how in the Terri Shiavo case, Bush tried to pass a 'special' bill to allow Schiavo's parents to intervene?
Since Bush seems to be defiant of Congress and the US Constitution, do we really want a Supreme Court Justice who will increase that defiance and powers of the President?
What makes us a true democracy is that we have a checks and balance system in the form of Congress and the U.S. courts. When our president thinks he is 'above the law,' we as a nation are in big trouble, and are heading towards a political form of leadership other than Democracy.
Alito is a competent jurist. The American Bar has given him an excellent rating. There is no doubt in my mind that he has the credentials and mind to be a Justice. But will Mr. Alito be an ideologue, a tool for increasing presidential power, or will he follow the law as it exists?
Thank you for your minds.
According to the Los Angeles Times, in 1986 Samuel Alito wrote that the president's understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of Congress. If these words are taken to their logical conclusion, the President would actually have more power under the Constitution.
We have heard Bush recently regarding the torture ban, and the issue of wiretapping claim that he would back or bar something provided he had the constitutional authority to do so. These statements by Bush actually raise some eyebrows, especially among those of us who believe in the checks and balance system of this country.
Taken to its logical extreme, one could conclude that Bush himself does not believe in any checks on the presidential power. That in fact, it is absolute. Just last week, we saw how Bush stood firm on how he believed that his ability to wiretap Americans was within his Constitutional authority, even though the law requires that a warrant must be obtained after 72 hours have passed.
Does Bush believe that he stands above Congress and the U.S. Courts? Do we not forget how in the Terri Shiavo case, Bush tried to pass a 'special' bill to allow Schiavo's parents to intervene?
Since Bush seems to be defiant of Congress and the US Constitution, do we really want a Supreme Court Justice who will increase that defiance and powers of the President?
What makes us a true democracy is that we have a checks and balance system in the form of Congress and the U.S. courts. When our president thinks he is 'above the law,' we as a nation are in big trouble, and are heading towards a political form of leadership other than Democracy.
Alito is a competent jurist. The American Bar has given him an excellent rating. There is no doubt in my mind that he has the credentials and mind to be a Justice. But will Mr. Alito be an ideologue, a tool for increasing presidential power, or will he follow the law as it exists?
Thank you for your minds.
17 Comments:
Supreme Court justices are always a surprise. Earl Warren being a prime example. I am concerned that this President seems to view "protect and defend the constitution" as secondary to promoting his own ideology. He certainly is not his Dad
I am suspect of anyone on whom George W. Bush puts his hands.
You are completely correct. I could not agree more. If we are not careful, we could end up with a fascist government...very easily. And certainly granting the President more powers than the original founders set forth would be one more step toward democracy's demise. But just please remember that Bush and his cronies are neo-cons, and not the classic Reagan Republicans, which believed in the separation of church and state, a system of checks and balances, and a literal interpretation of the constitution as a historical and unchanging document. I realize you disagree with the last, but probably agree with the remainder.
You do know Alito is anti-abortion, anti-postive discrimination and likes to rule on cases companies he invests in are involved in?
anti abortion is a bad thing? hmm..
and what exactly is anti positive discrimination... oh, is that that movement that wants to discriminate against the most qualified to appease past disciminations?
I think the law should be supreme even when it might serve some benefits were it to be broken. If breaking the law is tolerated to a certain point, the law eventually changes. Jurists shouldn't be concerned about moral guilt or emotional conviction, (that's not to say they should be amoral) they may have their own private value systems but they shouldn't give certain people or cases special status, because then it mucks up the law, and innocent people cannot then use the same rationales behind them. The problem with this case is that Bush might try to justify his breach of the law and the constitution as an international issue, whereby a constitution could be viewed as subordinate, in which case he would pretty much be justifying his actions as some manifestation of martial law (even though he never publicly disclosed that).
I haven't really followed this Alito guy and haven't heard of anti positive discrimination until now so I'll have to look up those things before I say anything about them.
Basically, I agree with you that it's a dangerous situation when government, especially a government of a so called democratic country, believes that his responsibility to a 'country' surpasses his responsibility to represent it and the views therein.
And don't mean to be a jerk but I feel like there should be a question mark in the first paragraph.
I'm with Mallory up there. There have been many surprises. Unless he says something incredibly stupid, he will probably the next person to serve on the Court.
After that, time will tell.
I hope for the best.
Bush has got extreme powers over & above god himself these days as he shows!! why would he even bother to fight it over!? :-S
I am with Fred; Mallory hit the nail on the head.
But Bush has already proven that he does not care about the Constitution, by his example. What surprises me is that Bush is still in office. The republicans would impeach a democratic president was doing what Bush is doing.
I know this much, I am glad to be old and way pass the bullshit, but I feel sorry for my children and grandchildren. They will have to live with the injustice this administration is bringing down on our heads, more so then I will.
As much as I don't like Alito, I find it strange that people think a President has to replace an outgoing Justice with one who is ideologically similar. Since WHEN?
I want my liberal Presidents to replace conservative Justices with liberal ones; therefore, I have to "suck it up" when a conservative President appoints a Justice who thinks like him.
It is up to us to make sure that the Justice is competent, AND TO VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO WILL PICK THE PEOPLE WE WANT on the Court!
The people elected Bush. Why, I don't know. But now we have to live with it, and elect someone better next time.
The issue of how much authority should reside in the executive branch is not new and is not going to go away any time soon.
There is an enormous amount of power and influence there and there should always be people watching how it is being wielded.
So much of this is perception. There are many who think that Bush is doing quite well and is entitled to act as he does and many who feel the exact opposite.
Part of the rub is establishing a basis for measuring things and then making determinations from there.
Due to the fact that he was recommended by GWB, I fear he will be a vehicle for Satan.
Cheers,
Mr. H.K.
Postcards from Hell's
Kitchen
And I Quote Blog
My hope is that he follows the law and sticks to the Constitution powers. He's got to be better than Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She wasn't grilled anywhere near as much as Alito. I honestly think he will stick by the Constitution. We don't need a judge legislating from the bench.
I am very uneasy about Alito. Do not like most of what I've read about where he stands on issues important to me. :(
I have been listening to the confirmation hearings on my drive to and from work each morning.
Judge Alito describes himself as one who will follow precedent, and will be the type of jurist as he was in the Federal Appellate Courts. He seems to be very qualified, articulate (although at times, has had his tongue tied).
My biggest problem is that he was selected by Bush, whom we know to have an agenda. It is my feeling that everyone who Bush selects must, at least to a large extent share his ideology on many ideas, and if asked to follow the law, will construe it according to that particular mind-set.
one should pay little attention to the LA times -it is a rag hardly worthy of the name newspaper. its falling readership indicates its increasing irrelevance
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home