you got so much to say, say what you mean, mean what you're thinkin' and think anything

[primroseburrows]

I've got a question, because y'all are pretty smart people.

So this Judge Alito guy has the Left up in arms. There's even a petition from moveon.org to stop him.

My question is--is there any legal or disqualifying reason he needs to be stopped? I'm not talking about his stance on disabled/gay/womens'/workers' rights. I'm talking about any reason outside of his politics that would make him unqualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court? With Harriet Meiers, my gut feeling was that I didn't want her up there because she sounded like the president of Dubya's fan club. But I figured that was a pretty stupid reason to (pardon the pun) judge her. As I heard more about her, it became clear to me that she isn't qualified on the basis that she doesn't really understand the Constitution very well, and doesn't know much about being a judge in general. I don't think she's stupid, but she's certainly not Justice material. Lack of training, lack of experience, those seem to be pretty good reasons to me, and even the lack of experience didn't bother me that much, because freshness often adds to a person's outlook. It was just that she was incompetent as an interpreter of the Constitution. The fact that Dubya's fangirl didn't work out was a mere fringe benefit for me. I mean, come on, Dubya's not qualified to be President, after all. IMO, of course.

As for Chief Justice Roberts, I've yet to see any non-political reason he shouldn't serve, and I think we bleeding hearts just might be surprised at some of his votes.

So. This Alito guy. He'd not be my first choice politically (nor would ANYONE Dubya nominated, most likely), but. Can anyone give me a reason that's not related to how far over on what side of the aisle he sits that would make me want to sign a petition like this?

I'm not asking why I shouldn't like him or why I should. Just...is he qualified, and if he is, what's the sense of petitioning anyway?

This is a nonpartisan question, BTW. It's just a (possibly dumb) question.

And another question: Is it possible to even keep politics out of a decision like this? Maybe we shouldn't. I really don't know.

ETA: It's getting better, but at the end of the day (to use an already overused saying), the country is still primarily run by rich white guys. It's time to work harder on changing that.

Comments

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you're saying. I just don't think the Left has a legal leg to stand on, from everything I've seen. Because maybe the guy's values aren't ours, but that doesn't make a case for rejection. I don't agree with him on a whole bunch of things, but. It doesn't make him unqualified just because.

I'm a big fan of the Constitution. If Roberts or Alito or ANYONE is going to choose their own values over the Bill of Rights, etc., well. I just don't want him/her. I hope this one can see the forest for the trees.

[neonnurse.livejournal.com]

I have to agree he is qualified, technically. But so are hundreds, maybe thousands, of others. He is not the MOST and BEST qualified, and I don't think it's wrong to hold out for better. Not that it will do any good, most likely, but it's still not a wrong thing to do, standing up to say, "Nope, not that one, try again." :)

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

He is not the MOST and BEST qualified, and I don't think it's wrong to hold out for better.

Maybe not, but is it really possible to hold out, given the current state of our government? :/

[robinhoo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, neonnurse. Lots of others are just as qualified; Alito is neither the most or the best qualified.

It seems to me there's a flaw in the system of checks and balances, vis-a-vis the Supreme Court. It makes sense to me that the highest court in the land should be balanced in terms of politics. The Supreme Court is not the place where anyone, whether liberal or conservative or anything in between, wants to be worried about the balance of power between/among political party affiliation and ideology. There needs to be a balance of conservative and liberal. In a case such as the one we have now, wherein a president has the responsibility of naming two of nine justices -- who have no term limits and are in fact appointed for life -- there need to be some safeguards with regard to that nominating president's political ideology carrying undue weight. While I'd love to see a flamingly bleeding-heart-liberal Supreme Court (never gonna happen in capitalist America), I'd actually prefer to believe that the interests of the whole country -- not just 50% of it at any given time -- are being taken into consideration with every decision made by the Supreme Court justices.

I also think the justices need some dang term limits, but that's another rant.