Alito Hearing Finito; We've Got a New Supreme Court Justice

As Julian Sanchez once wrote, "Sam Alito, Jump a Little Higher."

Alito has been confirmed to the Supreme Court by a 58-42 vote and what will surely be known as the era of the Trenton Court has begun (Alito shares a hometown with Antonin Scalia).

Some Reason writings about Alito here.

And back last July, we polled legal seers about who should be named to the Supreme Court (and more). The number of our crew who picked Alito as a likely--or wise--choice? Go here for the answer.

Comments

[Ed]

Whatever happened to the Big Fight, the Holocaust, the Armageddon that his nomination was to bring? It was to be a battle to end all Senate confirmation battles. But it ended in a whimper. No blood was shed. Kennedy's head did not explode. I feel gyped, and I'll never trust the pundits again.

[thoreau]

Ed-

The Senators were planning to fling some feces, but a few macaques were sent in to police them.

[Captain Holly]

The Senators were planning to fling some feces, but a few macaques were sent in to police them.

Thank you, Thoreau, for making me spit pieces of apple all over my computer screen...

[Hakluyt]

Same shit, different day.

[Ed]

HA HA HA, good stuff T.

[SR]

"(Alito shares a hometown with Antonin Scalia)."

You know, I didn't object to adding yet another Catholic to the Court, bringing it to four, IIRC (I'm Catholic myself), but really, having two guys from Joisey on it is beyond the pale.

[Prospero]

And now the rubber will meet the road. Not an hour after Alito's swearing-in, the 9th Circuit issued an opinion overturning Congress's Partial Birth Abortion ban -- and an hour after that, the 2nd Ciruit (in NY) also overturned the same law. Both are now in position for the new court to hear them (the 9th circuit a bit more clearly than the 2nd, since the 2nd technically requested further briefing).

This will be quite a ride.

[methodman]

two guys from Joisey on it is beyond the pale

I don't know about that...I'd give my right testicle for a Justice Andrew Napolitano.

[R C Dean]

Has any Circuit Court upheld the ban? Conflicts among the circuits are very difficult for the Supremes to dodge. If the only rulings are to overturn the ban, they still have some scope to deny cert.

[Pro Libertate]

Does this mean that Alito gets to not applaud at the State of the Union address? After Justice O'Connor got her robe extra blackened for the occasion? Well.

[Mike]

After seeing these last 2 comfirmations, I think the whole process is bullshit. As long as someone isn't a completely unqualified idiot (Harriet Myers, perhaps?) the confirmation is almost not necessary. The nominee can say (or not say) whatever they want during the process and once they are on the bench there's nothing to be done.

[SPD]

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that nonsense is over.

It will be interesting to see if Alito follows the trend of judges on either side of the political spectrum drifting towards the center. Considering his willingness to allow the expansion of executive authority, I certainly hope this happens.

[Dan Brown]

Is Alito Opus Dei?
http://www.counterpunch.org/carmichael01302006.html
One wonders if he wears the cilice to court.

[John]

MIke,

Yes, elections have consiquences. Clinton won two and got to put a moonbat like Ginsburg on the Court. Bush has won two and gets to put his guy on the court. As far as them being able to do anything they want, I thought we were supposed to have an independent judiciary? Every time someone in Congress talks about actually using Congress' oversight power over the courts and calling some of the crazier judges to account, the left has a fainting fit claiming it is the end of an independent judiciary. Truthfully, since Congress has the power to impeach any judge it sees fit for any reason it sees fit, we in the ultimate sense do not have an independent judiciary.

[Hakluyt]

John,

Every time someone in Congress talks about actually using Congress' oversight power over the courts and calling some of the crazier judges to account, the left has a fainting fit claiming it is the end of an independent judiciary.

Oooh, I sense much future commentary on l'affair Schiavo.

Truthfully, since Congress has the power to impeach any judge it sees fit for any reason it sees fit, we in the ultimate sense do not have an independent judiciary.

Only "good behavior" is all that is required of the members of the SCOTUS.

[John]

Hak,

No one can tell Congress what "good behavior" means. It is kind of like "high crimes and misdemenors" for the President. Ultimately, if Congress ever got pissed off enough, which is very unlikely granted, it could throw out any member of the Court it wanted to.

[Hakluyt]

John,

No one can tell Congress what "good behavior" means.

In theory the courts certainly can. A justice unconstitutionally removed from office might very well have a cause of action against his oppressors. Of course we got to that point...

[Hakluyt]

Of course once we got to that point...

[John]

Hak,

The term is not defined in the Constitution. It would come down to a power struggle between the Congress and the Courts. The Courts wouldn't stand a chance. He could sue all he wanted, but Congress could cut off funding for any court that heard his case, and impeach any judge who listened to him. Short of a military coup, there is nothing that could stand in the way of a truely determined Congress. The Courts versus Congress is kind of like that gorilla they let have a pet kitten. The kitten may scratch the gorilla and think it is in control, but ultimately, the gorilla could splat the kitten if it ever got the notion. In this case, the courts are the kitten and the Congress is the gorilla.

[Bonar Law]

"A justice unconstitutionally removed from office might very well have a cause of action against his oppressors."

A federal judge named Nixon (not the Nixon) once got impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. He took his case to the federal courts, and in 1993
the US Supreme Court said the Senate has the last word in such cases.

[Hakluyt]

Bonar Law,

I'm very familiar with the case and your analysis does not reach as far as either the majority or the concurrences. Nixon sought a dec. judgment on a specific issue regarding procedure, arguing that the requirements of the term "try" was not met by this procedure. The Court ruled on that specific question, but did not state (as the concurrences fully demonstrate) that the majority did not rule out all challenges. Only someone who has never read the case would give it such an overly broad reading.

John,

In this case, the courts are the kitten and the Congress is the gorilla.

That was the entire point of my last sentence.