Thursday, January 26, 2006

Levin opposes Alito

And in other news, the Pope is still Catholic, bears dump in the woods, and the Lions aren't playing in the Super Bowl.

16 comments:

Kevins said...

Good for Sen. Levin for properly representing the state and dong what we elected him to do, here in the blue state of Michigan.

Keith Richards said...

Kevins -

So you are saying that if a Dem gets elected President in '08 and the Republicans still control the Senate, that the Republicans should refuse to approve any Supreme Court candidate that the Dem President sends to them for approval, if they should happen to disagree with that candidate on a few issues? Or are you saying that Dems should be able to vote against a candidate that they don't like while Republicans should vote to approve any candidate that the Dem President sends their way?

According to tradition the role of the Senate is to make sure that a candidate is properly qualified, not to judge the candidate based on their values and political opinions. Dems are setting a bad precedent by playing politics on court appointments.

Anonymous said...

Levin's decision is an example of how the "us" versus "them" mentality is perpetuated with no purpose served. Just once I'd like to see someone say, "I don't like the guy and think he will make decisions that society will come to regret, but the President has the right to make appointments to the Court and the guy is qualified to serve. I just hope that the public remembers that he was appointed by a republican president next and hold the republicans to account for the impact he has on the Court." Saying, I'm a democrat so I oppose adds nothing.

Patrick Flynn said...

At least we can expect consistency from Michigan's "Ted Kennedy."

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, we can be pretty certain that the next time a Democrat gets to make an appointment the Republicans will oppose it, using the same language. Did you hear the comments made after Granholm's speech on Wednesday? Every Democrat said it was great, every Republican said it was horrible, blah, blah, blah. What happens to the intelligent, sane people we elect to represent us? Is the water that poison in Lansing or Washington?

Kevins said...

No, republicans should not refuse to approve any Supreme Court candidate that the Democratic president sends to them for approval. However, if they think his views are extreme, I guess they cannot be blamed for voting against him, or her. The traditional role is to advice and consent, and they are doing that.

Anonymous said...

You should oppose Alito also if you value your freedom.

Keith Richards said...

The biggest threat to freedom in the U.S. is the expansion of Government. Every time our government gets bigger we lose more freedom.

Consider the income tax. Every year I file a return and I have to tell the government exactly how much money I make, how I made it, and where I made it. I have to tell the government all kinds of details about all my assets and liabilities. Talk about loss of privacy!

Look at all the wonderful laws our government has created. I can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. I can get cited for not having a dog license. A friend of mine was hounded by a city government for having a classic car in his yard with an expired license plate. Yes, it sure is wonderful how government protects us.


Social Security is a great government program, or at least it was for the people who used it during the first 75 years, as they all got a lot more out of it than they paid in. For everyone else here on out, we are paying in a lot of money every year (and don't forget that your employer pays $1 on your behalf for every dollar you pay!). This will add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a lifetime for a average person, not even counting all the interest that would have been made had the money been properly invested. All that for what? A few hundred dollars per month beginning at age 67 1/2? And then the government has the nerve to say that the social security check is "taxable income"? (Thanks, Bill Clinton!)

The thing we all have to love about politicians is the way the government takes and takes and takes from us in the form of hundreds of different taxes, and then our leaders tell us to smile because of all government does for us. Yeah, right. Let me keep 1/2 of all the money that the government takes and I would be happy to do without our so called "social safety net". The government says we need them because nobody else will take care of us. Yeah, nobody else will take care of us because nobody else has enough money left after the IRS takes most of it.

The only way to keep our freedoms is to reduce the size of government, so that they are not breathing down our neck every time we do something or make a decision. Unfortunately, there seem to be few politicians left from either party these days that have not fallen in love with the seduction of bigger government.

Anonymous said...

And no one has increased the size of government the way George Bush has done. Wow, listen to yourself!
You should be against Alito! You vote against your interests everytime. I love to hear you speak your principals, sooner or later you will see they don't connect with your politics.

Republican Michigander said...

On EVERY issue I disagreed with Bush, John Kerry was as bad or worse. Patriot Act, Trade, Guns, McCain/Feingold, Prescription drugs bill, feds government sticking its nose in education, etc. John Kerry wasn't any better. He started to talk the game election year, but is 20 years showed his record.

I also see Republicans rebelling on the "big government conservatism". The democrats (and John McCain) I see complaing that it's not enough spending or government control (or it's opprotunistic partisanship in Kerry and Hillary's case). It's time for the young guns to take over. Mike Pence. Mark Sanford. The message is starting to be sent, especially with 2008 primaries on the horizon.

I see some hope for Alito based on his machine gun ban dissent, and for reason of the commerce clause. The commerce clause is the most abused section of the constitution - and is used to circumvent the 10th amendment which is supposed to leave anything not specifically mentioned in Article 1 to the states. Some things have been amendment, specifically with the 14th amendment so states can not abuse their residents.

Back to the rebelling Republicans. Club For Growth (of which I'm a member) is going on offense. Mike Pence is leading the movement in the house taking advantage of current leadership shift. We'll be back.

Anonymous said...

I will begin to listen to Repubicans when they truly are for the individual's rights. I don't see it, in fact it's stunning how many rights to privacy are being squandered for the war on terror. The terrorists are winning when we lose our freedoms no matter who it is that takes them away!
Alito will give more power to the executive ofice and you should be very afraid of that no matter which party is in office!

Anonymous said...

Club for Growth is nuts! Remember how thy went after Dean? He always had the NRA endorsement because he truly believes in the individuals rights. He had their endorsement for years of running against Republicans. Club for Growth will pander to you, take your money and do with it as they wish. Don't be a sucker for their hype.

Anonymous said...

I guess you all Alito people will fid a way to blame Bill Clinton for us becoming a police state with secret police. You guys amaze me! Either you really don't care about our privacy and freedom or you spend too much time listening to Rush.

Bachbone said...

The Club for Growth takes no position on the 2nd Amendment, so far as I have ever seen in its literature. It's primary purpose for being is to get fiscal conservatives, with a record one can look at and determine if they mean what they say, elected to Congress, regardless whether those people are liberals or conservatives. It just endorsed a Democrat from Texas, as a matter of fact. Club for Growth runs on membership dues and voluntary donations. Since its members donate directly to any candidate, not to Club for Growth, it has no control over your donations, so it can't ...take your money and do with it as [it] wish[es].... Anonymous is either confused by the Club's literature or is making claims based on what someone else said.

Anonymous said...

They must have been really confused when they went after Howard Dean who not only balanced the budget every term he was in office as Governor of Vermont but was highly criticized by Democrats for all his cuts in social programs. Remember him being touted as such an extreme liberal? READ LEARN and quit being duped! With his NRA endorsement and his fiscal conservatism, I am shocked you didn't support him? Oh I know he believes in a woman's right to see her own doctor, believes in birth control. He's not in favor of putting our women and doctors in jails. I think it's amazing your take on individuals rights.

V the K said...

I guess you all Alito people will fid a way to blame Bill Clinton for us becoming a police state with secret police.

Gee, I don't see why democrats are stereotyped as paranoid nutjobs.

I don't think anyone who's seen the recent reports on the DNC's financial condition should brag about Howard Scream's fiscal discipline.

Besides, how hard can it be to balance a budget in a state whose entire industrial base is maple syrup and Ben-and-Jerry's?