<p>your new supreme court nominee.</p>
<p>aka "Scalito", he's in for a fight. JD from yale - though I don't think I'm going to brag about this one.</p>
<p>If we must still have a "diversity pick", educationally speaking, after the Southerm Methodist lady withdrew, at least he has a track record as a distinguished jurist and is suitably conservative! </p>
<p>At 54, he should be able to serve for a generation.</p>
<p>if confirmed, the court will have a catholic majority. "an extraordinary development," says one legal commentator.</p>
<p>What difference does it make? There wouldn't be a big deal if they were all atheists, what difference does it make it there is a majority that shares the same religion? </p>
<p>Besides, cathlics vary across the globe. There are MANY different kinds, for all we know it could almost be 5 different religions :p</p>
<p>Catholics are the largest religion in the world, makes sense...</p>
<p>All religion aside, he does not look like a promising candidate from the point of view of women's rights.</p>
<p>the overrepresentation of catholics is "extraordinary" because anti-catholic sentiments persisted in politics late into last century. read the post that i provided for details. also, i think that it certainly WOULD be a big deal if all nine of the justices were atheists (bc it couldn't happen). even in the new millennium, presidential hopefuls still have to pump up their religious affiliations and close their speeches with "god bless americas." see: john kerry, 2004.</p>
<p>Will we see the "Constitutional Option" / "nuclear option" or will his credentials pull him right up there for a seat by Scalia, Thomas et al. What a scarry history........inform your husband, read up on precedent....it his tool. I hope this gets fiery....makes for a good discussion. I mean at what point does Federalism make a come back? Swing to the right.</p>
<p>I looked at your website, frankly, no offense intended, it does not look like a credible place. (Yes, when doing research papers it was drilled into our heads how to determine where you will accept information from :p ) The viewpoints look very one sided...</p>
<p>Religious perspectives change all the time, but the Catholic church has maintained a pretty good group (as in, still have alot of people, still predominantly a part of the world culture). </p>
<p>The voting goes as the people go - while there are growing other factions, the fact that the majority of the Americans registered to vote is Christian. Because of that, that is who you will see representing the people.</p>
<p>Sorry, wrong word, I didn't mean atheist, arg, can't recal. Whatever that word is that's not against religions, but not a member either. My point was, if they were all whichever-that-word-is that is the way the opinion would be. And vice versa, because the majority of registered voters is Christian, etc.</p>
<p>"I looked at your website, frankly, no offense intended, it does not look like a credible place."</p>
<p>eugene volokh, who lends his name to that group blog, is a <em>brilliant</em> professor of constitutional law at UCLA, and is one of the very top public intellectuals in the country. his fellow posters, from what i gather, are all well-respected law profs as well. they may all espouse a conservative-libertarian worldview, but they're no hacks. don't take my word for it, though, just do some research. you'll see.</p>
<p><em>shrug</em> Maybe it's just the blogring set up, (don't get me wrong BTW, I do agree with them, just looking at different angles) but they don't seem to look at both sides. It's more of an opinion forum then an information place...<em>Shrugs</em> Interesting read though...</p>
<p>Back to the Princeton angle: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S13/07/69Q68/index.xml?section=announcements%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S13/07/69Q68/index.xml?section=announcements</a></p>
<p>I really think this guy is on top of his game. He's pro-family, pro-life, and quite bright. I think he's an excellent person to replace Miers, who I wasn't too keen on. (I had no idea where she stood on issues.) </p>
<p>Wow, what a week for Princeton! First, the Fed Reserve Chairman, and now "Scalito"!</p>
<p>Thank God for an undergrad degree from Harvard in one case, and a graduate degree from Yale in the other, to qualify the lads, right?</p>
<p>definitely. a degree from princeton law wouldn't have cut it with the credential-hawks. "thank god" he went to yale law, instead, giving him the enviable distinction of having attended both the #1 undergraduate university and the #1 law school in the country. #2 HLS wouldn't have done.</p>
<p>Absolutely not! How could you suggest such a thing? ;) Don't know how George Washington ever survived without his degree from Oxford...:p</p>
<p>Did you guys catch Byerly's crack at a "diversity" pick?</p>
<p>After Stanford's long reign of dominance of the distinguished SC justices, well...I suppose we can have some Yalies and Harvardians.</p>
<p>As for Alito himself, I hope Teddy Kennedy, a Harvard man himself, takes him out during the nomination process. He's not nearly as distinguished or as principled as Roberts, and I strongly advocate for a "nay" vote on this nominee. </p>
<p>Another reactionary SC justice. This is terrible.</p>
<p>nice profile by the daily princetonian:</p>
<p>Oh yes, because Teddy Kennedy is such an examplar.</p>
<p>Teddy Kennedy is a hypocrite who tried to cheat his way through Harvard and later tried to cover up his responsibility for a girl's death.</p>
<p>Hardly a role model, and not the sort who should be passing moral judgment on others.</p>
<p>By "diversity", I mean this: it is hard to deny that 6 Harvardians on the 9-member Supreme Court are sufficient.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the Court would benefit from a solid, 6-member working majority for the conservative block, and Samuel Alito, despite the limitations of his early education, is obviously a man of intellect who will make an excellent Justice and appears poised to "do the Right thing.".</p>