As the Samuel Alito nomination heads to the full Senate on Wednesday, all but a few senators have said how they will vote.
According to USA Today, Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine (all of whom support Roe v. Wade) have not said publicly if they will support Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Likewise, a few "Democratic centrists," including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, have not said how they will vote, USA Today reported.
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, announced on Tuesday that he will oppose Alito because he believes the judge would "tilt the scales of justice in favor of big government over the average person.''
(Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only Democrat so far to say he will vote for Alito.)
"We need to have a judiciary that judges, not [one] that legislates," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on Wednesday.
Brownback, in an interview on Fox & Friends, predicted that Alito has enough votes to be confirmed. And he said it would be a bad idea for Democrats to filibuster, something they have not ruled out.
Brownback said he's also concerned about the Democrats' effort to make this a partisan vote. "Because the next time, if there's a Democrat president, the shoe will be on the other foot, and then the Republicans will say, 'Well, this is a partisan vote,' and that's not the way we ought to be going with the judiciary."
Brownback said a nominee's qualifications and judicial temperament should determine whether he or she makes it to the Supreme Court.
The full Senate is expected to vote on Alito's nomination before President Bush delivers his State of the Union Address on Jan. 31.
Thats what it's all about.. Each president whats to leave his legacy around for a long time, what a better way than to put the justice that reflects your own ideology and pursuing that agenda.
I agree... that everything has become so political, and bias.
Alito should be confirmed. He meets the qualification requirements, has the experience & temperment to be a great justice. Those who will vote no vote on assumed philosophical differences, which is not what they are charged to do. They should vote on merit, & those who do not show themselves to be the partisan hacks "we" say we don't like.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose philosophy is much farther to the left than Alito is to the right, was voted in based on experience& merit. I would think that if some Republicans then wanted to bash her for her views - like changing the age for sexual consent to 12 - she may not have been confirmed. The democrats are showing a glaring double-standard that does not serve them well in trying to get their all-important power back...
It's funny (sad) how the fate of the Democratic party is hinged on abortion. Why is that? I've been following this Alito deal loosely on C-Span, but every time I hear anything or any dem speak, it's always about Roe V Wade. They want to take rights away but consider any alteration of RVW to be the most devistating blow to the forward progression of this country. Unreal.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
Badshotbob: RE Democrats being welded to the RVW decision.
But isn't this true about the Democrats in general, that they are locked onto specific issues in a mindless, irrational, unwavering fashion? Why are so many Democrats so utterly locked onto gun control? Why isn't there an east coast liberal or a west coast liberal who dissents from the party line and contends . . . "wait a minute! I'm for civil rights! I'm for the little guy! The little guy isn't getting protected by the police. He needs to protect himself, with a gun if need be. Owning guns and protecting oneself should not be the prorogative only of upper class rich people!"
What are the other de rigeur Democrat issues? Affirmative action. Anything which tends against affirmative action is bad. And yet some groups have their interests damaged by affirmative action. I recall a woman sued the University of Michigan Ann Arbor law school (correct me if my reference to the University is wrong) because she was denied admission due to preferring less qualified minority candidates. I think in this case the interest of the woman was in competition with the subject minority. I'm sure you can think of other Democratic hot button issues. Gay marriage comes to mind.
I speculate that this "locked on" behavior speaks to the Democrats's strategy. They win elections by assembling votes from a variety of unrelated special interest groups. To expect some kind of intellectual coherency or rational principle undergirding these disparate groups is asking for too much. Again, this is just my speculation.
I'm not analyzing the Republican party. Maybe they too have their sacred cows that they adhere to with little regard to a rationale. I leave it to others, however, to make that analysis.
ORIGINAL: Alsatian
But isn't this true about the Democrats in general, that they are locked onto specific issues in a mindless, irrational, unwavering fashion?Â*
I'm sure you can think of other Democratic hot button issues.Â*
Agreed. Point taken.
What led me to think what I said came from a Dem speaking his nay vote attributing it to one thing - RVW. He in fact said that the country would be going backward and all forward (democratic) thinking and accomplishments would be in vain. All for abortion? It just blew me away.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
Alito Nominations head to the Senate Wed.
