Alito Hearings to begin today.

[Weeg]

The grandstanding by the dems is deplorable. But then this is an election year, so it is understandable, I suppose.

Amen to that...

Listening to losers like Schumer, Leahy and Kennedy make me want to lose my lunch.


.

 

[publius42]

From a related High Road thread:

The machine gun case was not about the 2nd amendment. Maybe it should have been, but it was not. It was about the commerce clause, and on first glance, Alito looks better than I could expect:

The activity that the Lopez Court found was not "economic"
or "connected with a commercial transaction" was a type of
intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the possession of a firearm
(including a machine gun) within a school zone. At issue here is
another type of purely intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the
purely intrastate possession of a machine gun. If the former
must be regarded as non-economic and non-commercial, why isn't
the same true of the latter? Is possession of a machine gun
inherently more "economic" or more "commercial" than possession
of other firearms? [Footnote 4] Is the possession of a firearm
within a school zone somehow less "economic" and "commercial"
than possession elsewhere--say, on one's own property? [Footnote
5] If there are distinctions of constitutional dimension here,
they are too subtle for me to grasp. It seems to me that the
most natural reading of Lopez is that the simple possession of a
firearm, without more, is not "economic" or "commercial" activity
in the same sense as the production of wheat in Wickard and that
therefore such possession cannot be regulated under the Wickard
theory.

That's good, but earlier in the same dissent, he said this:

Moreover, the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands
of the Commerce Clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional
element--a common feature of federal laws in this field and one
that has not posed any noticeable problems for federal law
enforcement. In addition, as I explain below, 18 U.S.C. section
922(o) might be sustainable in its current form if Congress made
findings that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns
has a substantial effect on interstate commerce or if Congress or
the Executive assembled empirical evidence documenting such a
link.

Anyone remember what happened after the Lopez decision? In case you don't, here's what happened: Congress passed the federal Gun Free School Zones Act once again (see 922 (q)) in 1996, this time with new language, doing just what Alito suggests above. The attached a jurisdictional element, and attached findings saying that possession of a gun near a school affects interstate commerce.

In other words, they used Lopez as a drafting guide. Now, let's see... where have I heard that phrase before?

UNITED STATES of America,

v.

Raymond RYBAR, Jr., Appellant.

No. 95-3185.

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 13, 1995.

Decided Dec. 30, 1996.

Decided Dec. 30, 1996, by which time we had a brand new Gun Free School Zones Act, complete with Congressional findings. Alito is suggesting he would uphold the new law, meaning if we get a Lopez II, he'll vote with the left wing of the Court.

 

[BIGJACK]

I would be happy to never have to see Ted Kennedys face again for the rest of my life and I think it is a disgrace that he sets were he does. Some keep referring to his aquatic quest but unless I have missed something, in this country one is innocent until proven guilty and to the best of my knowledge he has never been found guilty of anything, right or wrong.

However, one must agree that a judge setting on the Supreme Court of the United States of America-for life and handing down decisions that will affect every person in this country and in some cases have far reaching effects across the world--should be as impeccable as humanly possible. This being the case if a man cannot stand the scurtiny he should not be confirmed.

In this case I think Alito will weather the storm and be a better man for it.

 

[Weeg]

I would be happy to never have to see Ted Kennedys face again for the rest of my life and I think it is a disgrace that he sets were he does. Some keep referring to his aquatic quest but unless I have missed something, in this country one is innocent until proven guilty and to the best of my knowledge he has never been found guilty of anything, right or wrong.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrright...Just like OJ

 

[FirstFreedom]

O'Connor had and has more character in her pinkie finger than fineswine ever had or ever will have. She should be banned from commenting on O'Connor - she's not morally fit to do so, whether her comments are good or bad.

Fremmer is right - no need to watch. Just predictable grandstanding by the senators asking the questions. They'll try to nail him down - he'll dance a jig around the question if necessary. His friends will throw him thinly-veiled softballs; his enemies hardballs.

And no he's not the real constructionist we need unfortunately. Unless he's actively concealing his views. But we knew that before the hearings. He's a smidge better than Roberts, seems to me, however.

Revenge of the Nerds? Fat Teddy is Booger, and Chumpie Chuckie is Lamar.