Worst Kept Secret

Published on January 19, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

Leaky Leahy today announced he would vote against Alito. Why?

Leahy said that during Alito's confirmation hearings last week the federal appeals court judge showed he would not serve as an effective check on presidential power

Now I fully understand that the majority of Americans are really clueless about the constitution. They live their lives in ignorant bliss and probably never really need to know about it. But a senator? How can you spend so many years in the Senate and be so ignorant of it?

By definition, there are 3 co-equal branches of the government. Co-Equal, but not the same. For only 2 of them can initiate legislation, period (or that is the way the Constitution was written, even if it is not always the case). The Legislative and the Executive. Which means the Judicial cannot initiate a law, or make one (in theory). So there is no way that the SCOTUS can ever jump up and say unilaterally that "hey! You cant do that!". They are forbidden from doing it!

The only way they can is when someone brings a case to them! But Leaky Leahy apparently does not know that, or wants that part of the constitution to disappear. He wants a SCOTUS that will decide on its own "Hey you cant do that", even tho, to date, it never has done that! So he is imposing an impossible standard on Alito. I wonder if he will apply that to the next Ruth Ginsberg?

I am sure his announcement today took many people by surprise. I am sure the White House was counting on his vote as well. And I am sure my sarcasm attempt is lame as well.

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Jan 19, 2006

What Leaky Leahy is really saying:

I can't think of a single reason why Judge Alito shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. I also have no idea what the concept of an "original thought" could possibly mean. So, I'm just going to throw out some lame statement that most people won't question or call me on anyway. After all, I'm talking to a constituency so uninformed that they would elect ME to a position of authority

Glad I could be here to help interpret. ;~D

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2006

Glad I could be here to help interpret. ;~D

He is still wrong, as I did call him on it!

BenUser

on Jan 19, 2006

Well, once again you failed to achieve a rudimentary understanding of a news article which anyone with even a basic understanding of how our government works should have been able to grasp. The issue is checks and balances. For example, if congress finds that Bush did indeed break the law and it is brought before the Supreme Court, which then overturns the ruling on partisan reasoning, our system of checks and balances has failed.

No democrat should vote for Alito. While he may be qualified, his objectivity is extremely suspect.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 19, 2006

BenUser:

No democrat should vote for Alito. While he may be qualified, his objectivity is extremely suspect.

Ok, so the pedophile lover Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg should be drawn, quartered AND thrown off the bench. She is far from qualified and her objectivity is as absent as her good looks and charm. ;~D

As for him being "an effective check on presidential power", what is Leaky Leahy worried about, he is not simply a by stander in the process, he is a United States Senator. His position gives him "check & balance" authority over the president also. However, anytime he (or many of his fellow Senators) gets corndered on an issue, all they do is point their stinky finger saying "it's Prs. Bush's fault". Apparenlty, once again, Leaky Leahy is worried that someone else might not do his job for him... the job he is too spineless to do himself.

On the other hand, Leaky Leahy does have the right to vote however he chooses when it comes to the floor vote. He doesn't even have to give a reason. So, let him vote and make statements as he chooses, let his constituents decide (at re-election time) whether they agree or disagree with his choice, and let us bloggers fight out the difference over the internet! ;~D

Chaos Manager

on Jan 19, 2006

which anyone with even a basic understanding of how our government works should have been able to grasp.

Your use of this particular turn of phrase is rather interesting when you consider the quote below (which you said shortly after this one).

For example, if congress finds that Bush did indeed break the law and it is brought before the Supreme Court, which then overturns the ruling on partisan reasoning, our system of checks and balances has failed.

See, you started off well. Congress (the House specifically) determines whether or not that there is enough evidence that Bush broke the law (very similar to a grand jury). That's where you lose touch with Constitutional procedures. See, it's not SCOTUS that determines guilt or innocence. It's the Senate. The Senate is the jury in an Impeachment.

So, if he's guilty of anything (still hasn't been proven nor has it been proven that there's enough evidence of the POSSIBILITY of wrongdoing) the Senators will say Yay or Nay. You are right there, partisan politics WOULD/COULD play into that decision.

Did Bush do something that warrants impeachment? Meh ... I don't know. I, personally, do not have enough information to make an informed decision on that one either way.

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2006

And once again you are spinning! You see your very statement indicates it is NOT up to SCOTUS to bring the charge! Congress does! Then the court will rule. Leahy did not say that.

So who is the one lacking basic understanding? I understood him clearly. You are just whirring in place. best look in the mirror when pointing fingers.

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2006

No democrat should vote for Alito. While he may be qualified, his objectivity is extremely suspect.

Ok, so the pedophile lover Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg should be drawn, quartered AND thrown off the bench. She is far from qualified and her objectivity is as absent as her good looks and charm. ;~D

Exactly Benuser! Alito is much more objective (show us in any of his rulings where he has not been) than Ruth Buzzi ever was or is! (and we got plenty of those examples!).

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2006

There is so much wrong with benusers statement, starting with his not reading what was said, to not understanding the constitution. Which is fine. That is not his job. It is Leahy's tho.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!