What do you think of Justice Alito's first decision in hes new appoint to the Supreme Court?
147109
Although I am fairly conservative and a death penalty supporter, I can't say that definitively that his decision was wrong.  The CNN only touches on the allegation of cruel and unusual punishment.  The decision only delays the execution to give the Court more time to decide if it is going to accept and decide whether the intended method of execute constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.\n\nAlito's vote isn't a ruling on the merits of the case.  If memory services correctly, I believe Alito will be the one to recommend to the other justices on whether or not to take the case.  If the Court ultimately decides not to take the case, the stay of execution will be lifted.
1048515
I didn't vote for him the first two times, only ones that did was the brain dead and the actual dead. That's why he had to be appointed by the supreme court.
747487
I think it is prudent - but only if the second county would let him take it. Good luck!\n\ncc
61657
And what's so interesting about that? All the currently seated Supreme Court justices had enough votes for confirmation. That's the way it works.
57404
Yes. Privacy rights should be the subject of the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I recognize, of course, that several landmark cases have made privacy a "fundamental" right under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but I do not feel safe given the progressively more conservative orientation of the Court.  If and when Judge Alito joins the Court, silenced will be the voice of Justice O'Connor, an important voice of reason on the subject of privacy.  An amendment could explicitly enumerate what privacy rights are protected and inviolable.
838942
The judge will decide.\n\nCoach
569973
The Supreme Court has ruled a related issue when Congress attempted to mandate that they use Strict Scrutiny for particular issues.\n\nThe Court in a 9-0 decision said that it was the Court's job to determine judicial matters and strongly reminded Congress of the Separation of Powers doctrine.\n\nI'd expect the outcome would be the same (though maybe 8-1 or 7-2 depending on what Scalia and Thomas do) if the Executive tried to do the same thing.\n\nMore importantly, the Executive cannot give orders to anyone except the military and foreign ministers. Executive Orders are limited to within the executive branch, and to foreign policy concerns. While Congress can make domestic laws, the Executive branch cannot. So, if Congress cannot mandate a standard fo constitutional interpretation, the Executive branch shouldn't.
53553
yes. The president can appoint judges to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch. The Senate can 'advise and consent' to the president's decision.\n*Just because the president appoints the judge, that doesn't mean his decision is final.
603382
Sandra Day Oconnor was the first women to be appointed to the supreme court.
793585
I thihk Cheney would be hard pressed to find a MORE conservative judge than Scalia, so I will go with no.  However, this was my first great chuckle of the day.  Thansks!
1165319
I think it basically means that a judge will follow precedent (judgements in former cases) rather than interpreting the law as he &#92; she sees it. It was a big point during the recent Supreme court nomination process , specifically regarding Roe vs. Wade.
72732
I don't understand how you think. You try to conect Bush with the supreme court and go on and on about bush subjugating humanity to his will. You ignore that the supreme court has MAKING laws for decades, and thats not what the founders intended it to be. This law making aspect has been used for YEARS by democracts to further their own agenda. Youre so blindly consumed with an irrational fear of Bush that you can't see the bigger picture.\n\nHere in CA we have popular votes, we have a clear majority vote, the state supreme court declares them unconstitutional. This is an overwhelmingly liberal state, with an overwhelmingly liberal court system. The democrats here have the same gripe as you when it comes to Alito but when it comes to the CA sumpreme court over throwing their vote all you hear is silence because its their own party screwing them.\n\nTo summ it up don't be so narrow in your thinking, see the forrest not just republican trees.\n\nRegards,\n\nRascal\n\nPS. you seem familiar. Didn't you work for Bill Clinton?\n\nPPS. Can I have your vote for best answer please? :)
296136
9:\n  \nSamuel Alito, Jr.     \nRuth Bader Ginsburg \nClarence Thomas   \nDavid H. Souter   \nAnthony Kennedy   \nAntonin Scalia   \nJohn Paul Stevens  \nStephen Breyer \nJohn Roberts - Chief Justice
68221
Yes, he will!! The Libs and democrats, are up to there old tricks..They are trying to make him out to be a racist, and not for the poor people. Thats all they know how to do, they never have any real issues on the table..All they ever do is attack any nominee that President Bush puts up for the supreme court..He was just mentioned as one of the best court judges, giving him the highest marks, of anyone.. The libs do not support any nominee, that the President nominates..They actually are against Bush, and not Judge Alito!! He Will be confirmed!!The American people are getting sick and tired of all the bad things, that the Libs and Democrats are saying about the President..You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time..A filibuster will make them look like they are a bunch of Bush haters..
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)
1096839
Before you go off on rants you should really read the decision. The court left open the possibility of congress enacting new law allowing tribunals.\n\nI also feel the need to point out that these are not American citizens, and as such are not subject to the same rights as American citizens. They are also not true enemy combatants which does not make them subject to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court has once again over stepped it bounds, and in essence have just ratified a treaty with terrorists which is completely outside their juristiction.\n\nDon't misunderstand I am not trying to slap you down, or denigrate your opinion, just trying to give clarification. I do not believe this decision is a good one for anyone involved. For Americans it puts our safety in jeopardy yet again. It also places the lives of the same people it is designed to help in jeopardy. Consider this, when faced with the reality that we cannot safely detain enemy non- combatants what will the result be on the battlefield? I can tell it isn't going to be altruistic in nature.\n\nDeeJay I don't remember the rights of Americans ever being an issue in this case. In fact in cases where American Citizens have been accused of the same acts they have been tried in American criminal courts with full constitutional protection.
1092291
Determined by supreme court case.