Judiciary

Congratulations to SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito

After most Senate Democrats finished making spectacles of themselves as the party of whiners, screamers and oppose-anything-Bush-does, the Senate confirmed Justice Alito by a 58-42 vote.

Congratulations to the newest member of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Samuel Alito.

From AP:

WASHINGTON – Samuel Anthony Alito Jr., the son of an Italian immigrant and a longtime lawyer, prosecutor and judge, won Senate approval Tuesday to become the nation’s 110th Supreme Court justice.

The 58-42 vote was the most partisan for a high court nominee in modern history. Alito is replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The 55-year-old U.S. appeals court judge was to be quickly sworn in before his expected appearance at President Bush’s annual State of the Union speech with the White House’s other new Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice John Roberts.

As I predicted before, SCOTUS will now tend toward the right on 5-4 split decisions, rather than to the left. I also am hopeful that Americans will remember Democrats asinine behavior when they go to the polls in November of 2006.

Democrats Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Democratic senators in liberal-infested states like California or Massachusetts don’t have much to worry about, but many Democratic senators in middle America should carefully consider supporting Judge Alito. Americans have become increasingly aware that Judge Alito is a highly-qualified candidate and think that he should be confirmed.

Our own South Bay Daily Breeze published an editorial today that joins the Washington Times in questioning the effects of a party-line vote on Judge Samuel Alito.

Party-line vote would be mistake

This week the Senate is expected to vote on the Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor and Justice Department attorney who won the American Bar Association’s highest recommendation. Months of digging by journalists, Democratic operatives and Senate investigators turned up near-uniform testimonials from people of all ages and backgrounds who swear by Alito’s brilliance, kind temperament, work ethic and devotion to the law. Attempts to smear Alito on extenuated guilt-by-association grounds and with wafer-thin conflict-of-interest allegations went nowhere.

Yet only a handful of the Senate’s 44 Democrats are expected to vote to confirm Alito. If this occurs, it will be unprecedented, outrageous and unfortunate.

It is unprecedented in that while nominees have been rejected or faced substantial opposition before, it was on grounds that they were too close to the White House, lacked a suitable temperament or background, or, in the case of Clarence Thomas, faced sexual harassment allegations. It was not because senators objected en masse to their judicial ideology. This is why Democratic President Bill Clinton’s liberal but highly qualified nominees — Ruth Bader Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3) and Stephen Breyer (confirmed 87-9) — won such easy approval.

It is outrageous because it is one more sign of the Democratic Party’s embrace of the blind anger of its activist wing against President Bush.

more . . .

SCOTUS Overturns 9th Court – Again

The Supreme Court today reinstated the death sentence for California inmate Ronald Sanders who was found guilty of murder with special circumstances. This is the latest Ninth Circuit court ruling to be overturned in what seems to be a marathon of legislation by judicial fiat from that court; repeatedly, this court has been overruled for it’s outrageous decisions that seem designed to challenge law rather than interpret it.

From AP via the Washington Times: Top court reinstates inmate’s death sentence

A divided Supreme Court reinstated a California inmate’s death sentence yesterday, the first 5-4 vote under newly installed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Justices overturned an appeals court ruling that declared Ronald Sanders’ sentence unconstitutional. Sanders was put on death row for the 1982 killing of a woman during a drug-related robbery in Bakersfield, Calif.

The case presented a technical question for the court involving jurors’ consideration of invalid aggravating factors. Two of the four special circumstances used by prosecutors in their case against Sanders — that the crime was committed during a burglary and was cruel or heinous — were later found invalid.

California argued that Sanders would have been eligible for a death sentence even without those factors. The Supreme Court’s five conservative members agreed.

“The erroneous factor could not have ‘skewed’ the sentence, and no constitutional violation occurred,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Roberts, retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “This decision is more likely to complicate than to clarify our capital sentencing jurisprudence.” He was joined in dissent by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, although their reasons varied.

Note this is the first 5 votes to 4 ruling since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court. Justice O’Connor ruled for the reinstatement and as Justice Scalia noted, it would have been the same had Judge Alito been in O’Connor’s stead.

My prediction, is this will be the first of many 5 to 4 votes with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in the majority, and Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer in dissent. The Democrats are just gonna hate that.

Here’s some more history on this case: From the Supreme Court Blog:

Friday, October 07, 2005
Cases for Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005
No. 04-980 Brown v. Sanders
In California, a jury can find that a murder conviction warrants the death penalty by finding that special circumstances make the murder particularly bad. In this case, the jury found four special circumstances specified by California law and sentenced respondent Ronald Sanders to death. On appeal, the California Supreme Court set aside two of the special circumstances, but held that the jury would have imposed the death sentence anyway.

Sanders brought a habeas corpus challenge to his death sentence and the Ninth Circuit set it aside. The court held that the California Supreme Court couldn’t know whether the jury would have imposed the death sentence if it only had found two of the special circumstances.

The resolution of this case may depend on whether California is a “weighing” state, in which case the California Supreme Court should have either reweighed the factors or held that the overturned circumstances were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. California takes the position that it doesn’t matter because the jury only needed to find one special circumstance in order to impose a death sentence.

So, just when does this Sanders guy get smoked?

Much Ado About Nothing

While Teddy Kennedy (elsewhere described as a category 5 windbag) whined about Judge Alito’s alleged affiliation with a Princeton University activist group, the record was being set straight that the Judge had little or nothing to do with the group.

From The Washington Times: Alito probe is a bust

A bipartisan group of Senate lawyers did not find any mention of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. in four boxes of materials from a Princeton alumni group Democrats have dubbed racist and misogynistic in confirmation hearings.

The search dealt a blow to some of the final Democratic opposition to Judge Alito, spearheaded by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. He demanded the papers be subpoenaed from the Library of Congress before the hearings resumed this morning.

“Judge Alito’s name never appeared in any document,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who secured access to the documents without a subpoena. Democrats have questioned Judge Alito’s commitment to civil rights and equality for women because he said he belonged to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) on a 1985 job application.

This is just another example of how desperate Democrats and the left have become. Judge Alito should be through the worst of it by now, with a split party-line vote to take place shortly. Hopefully, the Democrats won’t be stupid enough to attempt a filibuster in the full Senate confirmation (or will they?).

Blogs Influential in Miers’ Withdrawal

I saw a poll that indicated that 70 percent of conservative blogs opposed the Miers nomination. Here’s a list of some of our favorite bloggers expressing relief. Some are doing virtual backflips and whooping it up and others are just glad that she withdrew.

Ace of Spades
Blogs for Bush
Captain’s Quarters
GOP Bloggers
Junk Yard Blog
Michelle Malkin
PoliPundit
Red State
Right Thinking from the Left Coast
Right Wing News
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Wizbang

There can be little doubt that these and other bloggers who opposed Miers had a pronounced effect on this development. Now, they all hope to be united in their endorsment of the President’s new conservative nominee. We also intend to support such a nominee.

Harriet Who?

President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS associate justice is enigmatic in all respects; her qualifications, political agenda and several other important attributes are veiled in mystery. Why would the President pick someone nearing retirement age for a lifetime appointment? Where is the conservative, constitutional candidate he promised?

Michelle Malkin has a rundown of thoughts from various pundits on this nomination at UTTERLY UNDERWHELMED.

I was hoping he would choose Janice Rogers Brown. 🙁

I guess we’ll have to wait and see how this materializes . . .

Congratulations John Roberts

The Senate confirmed John Roberts today to be the Chief Justice of the United States. Congratulations to Chief Justice Roberts.

As predicted, our embarassing California Senators Boxer and Feinstein voted against the Chief Justice but not for the reasons they profess. Boxer, Feinstein and Hillary Clinton, along with 19 other abortion-lobby supported senators voted against the Chief Justice pretending that their opposition was for something other than keeping the abortions rights lobby’s monies. Tsk tsk – they are shameless liars, indeed.

Hat tip to Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush for his live-blogging coverage.