Friday, January 13, 2006


The judges who spoke on Samuel Alito's behalf yesterday were referred to by the Democrats as being "stacked in his favor." Apparently, they cannot imagine having people, both Democrat and Republican, believe that anyone was a good and honest judge. Or that he's just being like them and trying to stack the deck in his favor.

The ABA (American Bar Association) is supposed to be a completely unbiased group and they found that he was "well qualified" to be a Supreme Court Judge, while Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he would replace, only received a "qualified" rating.

He has also had politicians from both sides of the aisle singing his praises.

Now, I'm not sure how I feel about Alito personally (he's a little off-putting to me), but I cannot say the guy isn't qualified for the job. And from everything that's been said (by those other than Democrats on the Judiciary Committee that is) about his rulings, he is an unbiased judge and will not be legislating from the bench unlike some currently on the Supreme Court.

As Steve O., a commentator at The Right Place stated in regards to activist (liberal) judges and conservative judges:
Liberal appointees are universally activist, but consider what would an activist conservative resemble? Perhaps an appointee from the Christian Coalition would find it illegal for Hollywood to make R-rated movies. Can't Conservatives legislate from the bench just as Liberals do?

So why doesn't that happen? It doesn't happen because Conservatives pick judges who will be neutral, who interpret only the constitution without bias. WHY?? (forgive me for shouting here...) BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION ALREADY EMBRACES ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSERVATIVES!!
Food for thought, eh?

No comments: