Gallup Tracking: Alito About As Favorable a Nominee as Miers, but on Abortion...

"If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%."

Alito's Ratings Similar to Miers', Lower Than Roberts'
Majority says Supreme Court nominee should be rejected if opposed to Roe v. Wade
Gallup News Service
November 02, 2005
by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans greet the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court with about the same degree of enthusiasm they had for Harriet Miers, but less than they had for John Roberts.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls have been conducted shortly after the announcement of all three individuals nominated by President Bush since July 19, allowing for comparisons of the initial public reaction to each. The latest poll, asking the public about Alito, was conducted Tuesday night.

About the same number of Americans rate Alito's selection either excellent or good (43%) as rate it fair or poor (39%). Miers received a similar rating, but Roberts' rating was somewhat more positive: 51% excellent or good, 34% fair or poor.

More people feel positive rather than negative about Alito personally -- 44% to 19%, respectively -- with another third offering no rating. Again, Miers' rating was similar, but a majority, 54%, gave Roberts a favorable personal rating.

About half of those interviewed Tuesday night believe Alito's views are mainstream, while a quarter think his views are too extreme, and another quarter have no opinion.

It doesn't bother most Americans (75%) that Alito is a man nominated to replace the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court. About the same percentage were not bothered when Roberts was first nominated to replace O'Connor (after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, President Bush nominated Roberts to become chief justice).

The public is evenly divided as to whether Alito probably would or would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thirty-eight percent believe he would, and an equal percentage think he would not, with the rest offering no opinion.

If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.

Gallup is the most trusted, reliable, and accurate non-partisan (to slightly right leaning) public opinion polling service in the political spectrum.

This is pretty much a gift in the "pro Alito" column given that on the single question of should Roe be overturned more like two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans give emphatic NOs. A significant majority would still oppose Alito if he "came out" with "conservative credentials" for the open ideological fight many on the far social right seek, but the nuanced considerations of a Justice appointment (that may or may not rule against the grain) seem slightly, only slightly more forgiving.

Personally I crave the "outing" of stealth conservative nominees and the public ideological fight the radical right desperately craves. They've made it clear they don't want to be hidden in the closet and winked at by Presidents anymore. They want to be introduced to America as the dominant majority (in their delusions anyway) and push their litmus tests for conservative activism on every nominee.

Bring it on. Reality is waiting.


[edit on 2-11-2005 by RANT]

I love the news when they got hold of his elderly mother and her comments on abortion and how her son hold the same opinion.

It seems like mom is a very important figure and very opinionated when it comes to the cameras and his son's appointment to the judge seat.

Should we appoint his mother instead?

Alito's mother shed some light. "Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.

www.kirotv.com...

It is possible that the elderly mother's comment has doom his chance to become a judge in the supreme court?

America may not be ready for a radical judge like Alitos when it comes to take women rights away, after all most American see themself as conservative but just in the moderate side, one thing is to think about changing laws and another to make it the whole purpose in life once on the bench.

I wonder.

Rant

It's hard to trust the American perspective on abortion, considering most people have a misconception as to what Roe v Wade actually does on the right and the left.

I wouldn't have picked Alito, but then again Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the hall.

He recieved a 100% YEA for confermation once before though, so it'll be fun watching the news for a while.

I don't recall the decision of Roe v Wade creating an amendment in the Constitution allowing abortion. From my interpretation of it, it was an interpretation of the right to privacy. An interpretation that no court in the United States, save the Supreme Court, can question. Yet, the Supreme Court can question it. The Supreme Court's function is to interpret the law; just because some politicians agree or disagree with the interpretation of one law, people aren't acceptable for the court? If you disagree with a decision the courts made years ago, you are not eligible to serve on that court?

Think about this for a second. Before you say there has to be balance on the court regarding Roe, balance for who? Right now, the balance maintains an interpretation of law that many disagree with, including judges and lawyers. Dick Durbin even came out many years ago saying Roe v. Wade was bad law. Yet, because many people like the end result, it must be maintained? Make an amendment to the constitution. If, as you said, two thirds of the people in this country feel abortion should be kept legal, you have a voting base that can pass an amendment and change the constitution. Why do we have to ensure judges will rule and interpret cases in a certain way before they're allowed to? True, you get a conservative president they're going to pick judges with a conservative interpretation record, just as a liberal would select a liberal. Yet, just one issue they have to make a decision on before even hearing a case that may change that interpretation?

The only way Roe v. Wade can be overturned is if another abortion case manages to get to the Supreme Court. If that happens, the judges, who have been placed on the Supreme Court because of their integrity and ability to interpret law based on the law, have to hear the case and weigh the evidence. Would you really want to have a case you're involved in go before a judge who had already made their decision before you even walked into court?

Today, Marg and RANT have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder and
Guilty! Oh, wait, I have to pretend to listen to the evidence. Go ahead.

I wouldn't.

junglejake

Well you have to see what is going on, the selection of judges are not selected because their accomplishes or what they may be or do in the bench once there that is a gamble that we all take even when it should be the issue.

But also to the very much controversial wade vs roe not because it should be an issue but because the religious right makes it an issue, it beat me why they want to bang it so much is women choice after all.

They care less what the American people knows about the case or what it means when it comes to the privacy of women because wade vs. roe is about women you know.

And make you wonder why the congress has never want to touch it, but rather leave it to the supreme court to keep it as an issue and the supreme court rather leave it to the individual state to deal with it.

When it comes to individual states Alito comes into question what he has done while in the bench as a circuit judge, it is amazing when you read his accomplishes in regards to the issue.

It is sad that becomes a center stage because its geared to be a center stage.

I care less if he gets appointed or not, why? because it makes not difference as what is going on in America right now, he is a diversion and the abortion issue and Alitos views, the issue that the Bush administration wants to keep in the front of the news media along with the Bird flu, another issue that I find rather amuzing.

Miers was Bush choice Alitos is the Religious rights choice get it, we should thank the christian coalition and James Dobson for it's appointment and occurs Rove in the back seat monitoring all of them.

Originally posted by RANT
"If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%."

Yep. But he has made no efforts or rulings at all in that direction
so there is no evidence that he would do such a thing. Attaching
any projections onto him that he would is just partisanship.

Alito is qualified. Some may not like his rulings, but he is qualified.
(Something that Miers wasn't!) He will get his day (or two or three...)
in confirmation hearings and then we will all know exactly how he
thinks. Well ... we will if the sens can refrain from bloviating and
playing to the camera long enough to actually ask a relative
question or two!

Originally posted by marg6043
Miers was Bush choice Alitos is the Religious rights choice get it, we should thank the christian coalition and James Dobson for it's appointment and occurs Rove in the back seat monitoring all of them.

Well, that's encouraging! I'm part of that religious right, but I thought I was just a sect of the right. From the outcry that appeared in many Republican circles, even those I thought were secular before reading your comment, it seemed like many, many people disagreed with Bush saying, "hey, I know her, just trust me." It appears, though, that the religious right, if that's the group that convinced Miers to step down, makes up the whole of the Republican party.

The irony is that, despite this, making Bush change his stance on the borders, being upset with his gross amount of spending, etc. still won't convince people that the Republican party worships Bush and he can do no wrong.

This kind of thing is very frustrating to me. Bush has made it clear that he will not overturn Roe.

It does NOT matter about any justice's ideology. The NWO wants abortion as a means of depopulation (and they promote this under the "women's rights" lie--hey it sounds good, right?), so it's not going to be overturned any time soon. I'm tired of Republicans paying lip-service to pro-life ideals and not doing a thing about it!

All it takes is for the president (or Congress or whoever) to recognize the fact that Roe is unconstitutional--and anything running contrary to the Constitution is NULL AND VOID. Abortion is still technically illegal.

It shouldn't have to take a Supreme Court majority, is what I'm saying.

Alito is getting confirmed. The republicans have a majority in the senate, and you need a majority in the senate to confirm a nominee. Republicans are okay with Alito.

There's really not much more to it than that. The Founders made it so that the peopel didn't vote for a supreme court justice because they didn't trust the people with that decision. The people today are no better or magically more special than the people back then, so I see no reason to change the constitution, over a judge.

Miers withdrew because the far right rejected her, not because the democrats rejected her. The far right will not reject Alito, and thus he will win, no matter what the democrats do, even if it means going nuclear, which it won't come down to anyway.

amethyst
Bush has made it clear that he will not overturn Roe.

Bwa ahahaha.

Look, bush can't do anything about RvW because he can't do anything about the balance of the court. Regardless, he's making sure that the balance doesn't lean towards keeping RvW.

It shouldn't have to take a Supreme Court majority, is what I'm saying.

According to the Consitution it does and should.

marg

It is possible that the elderly mother's comment has doom his chance to become a judge in the supreme court?

Rather, it has absolutely confirmed it. Miers only pulled out because the far right didn't want her, they were the deciding factor. Every democrat in the senate could be opposed to the nominee, and its meaningless, the far right made the difference because they tilted the balance, they aren't going to tilt the balance if the guys own mommy is saying 'he's opposed abortion as a matter of course.

Abortion is not illegal. RvW was about privacy, not over it being illegal, its patently legal.

from marg
It is possible that the elderly mother's comment has doom his chance to become a judge in the supreme court?

Uh-oh! Whose job was it to put grandma in the attic until the press went home?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Abortion is not illegal. RvW was about privacy, not over it being illegal, its patently legal.

Can you show me in the Constitution where you have that kind of privacy? Because I have a printed out copy nearby and I can't seem to find it anywhere. The only thing pertaining to privacy is the Fourth Amendment.

It is technically illegal. Even if you don't believe that an unborn child is a human being (which it most certainly is), you have to admit that the Roe ruling is in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Most states had laws against abortion. Roe was basically a federal power grab. It runs contrary to the Constitution, therefore it is null and void. It's an example of chipping away at the Constitution and states' rights, when you look at it from that angle. And states' rights is one of the major hurdles for a one-world government.

I will say it again--Bush has NO intention of overturning Roe. The liberals who are afraid that he will are basically sheeple spouting their party line. The conservatives who are hoping he will are in for a major letdown.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Uh-oh! Whose job was it to put grandma in the attic until the press went home?

I think that she was put in front of the cameras for a reason, and that was to reassured the religious right of her son's commitment, funny how the media is use to purse agendas.

But that should not be a surprise, grandma is still useful and available when need it.

This is the part that bothers me:

It doesn't bother most Americans (75%) that Alito is a man nominated to replace the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court.

That means that 15% of Americans are offended that he's a man replacing a woman!??!

Ridiculous. I bet that percentage would be much lower if it were a woman replacing a man. People are so P.C. these days.

Originally posted by Herman
This is the part that bothers me:

It doesn't bother most Americans (75%) that Alito is a man nominated to replace the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court.

That means that 15% of Americans are offended that he's a man replacing a woman!??!

Ridiculous. I bet that percentage would be much lower if it were a woman replacing a man. People are so P.C. these days.

25% actually, but it is a shame the court is moving backwards in it's representation of minorities now (which in the case of women is actually a majority of the population).

There's no quota or anything "PC" to it, but it does bother some people Bush can't seem to find a qualified female judge to help decide what civil liberties women have.

What should bother you though is that so many people would still object to a women on the grounds of her gender for SCOTUS or President for that matter.

Originally posted by RANT
25% actually, but it is a shame the court is moving backwards in it's representation of minorities now (which in the case of women is actually a majority of the population).

And as we all know, what's most important is diversity, not ability

See, now I'm not Italian. Alito means that over 20% of the Supreme Court is Italian! What about Australians?! What about the Danish?! What about the Brazilians! I think Bush should have nominated her. Granted, she's not qualified, but she's a she, she's australian, and she represents an industry that is not represented at all in the Supreme court! If we don't select her, we are just moving backwards into the middle ages again. What does Alito have, talent? Who the heck cares, he's too darn white, too darn male, and too darn Italian (which is already represented).

EDIT Got too hung up on that first statement, and totally missed this one:

What should bother you though is that so many people would still object to a women on the grounds of her gender for SCOTUS or President for that matter.

so many people are bothered by a woman being selected because she's a woman? Are you talking about Miers, the person no one but George Bush knew anything about? Are you claiming people's problem with her nomination is over her gender?! What would you have said about the Republican party, I wonder, if we just accepted Bush's word that she was a good choice without any information about her? Would we have been...Oh, I dunno...Bush worshippers then? So we're either sexist because we don't implictly trust Bush, or we're hacks because we believe whatever Bush tells us. Cute.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by Amethyst
Can you show me in the Constitution where you have that kind of privacy Because I have a printed out copy nearby and I can't seem to find it anywhere.

The 9th; just because its not enumerated doesn't mean its not a right and that states can over-ride it, and the 14th Ammendment's Due Process clause.

Even if you don't believe that an unborn child is a human being

You mean, like the Founders, and practically everyone in the country up until relatively recently, did? I don't recall seeing to many Miscarriage Funerals, or even miscarriage resuscitation attempts. Infact, I don't recall seeing any criminal investigations everytime there is a miscarriage, nor, even, a requirement to report it. I also don't see any law from the founders or their contemporaries, in their various capacities as state lawmakers, for the prosectution of, say, a man who kills a pregnant woman for double homocide. Nor, even, anti-abortion laws from their time, when abortions were certainly occuring. They seemed to, infact, not think about it at all as being relevant or as a fetus having constitutional protections.

It runs contrary to the Constitution

A majority of Supreme Court Justices, the people actually put into their postition by the Constitution, People, States in Congress, and President, disagree entirely, and have done so for about, what, 40 years now no?

I will say it again--Bush has NO intention of overturning Roe.

Thats why he put a guy who's wife is an anti-abortion activist and who's a staunch christian opposed to abortion into the postion of Cheif Justice, and had to pull out another person who was only perceived as possibly being in favour of some abortions sometime, eh? Give the president enough seats on the bench, and Roe v Wade will be turned over in a heartbeat.

JJ
what's most important is diversity, not ability

Bush could certainly find a woman as well qualified as Alito, heck even more qualifed. But I tend to agree, ethnic and sexual diversity isn't of itself progress, and the scotus is already politicized enough as is. Seems like, ultimately, another layer of distraction when you get down to it, not intentional like, hell the republicans were chest thumping proud over senor gonzales, so its not a leftist thing. Thang. Whatever.

BTW Rant, does the president get kudos for having a black female secretary of state? She replaced a guy, so mibbie it all evens out eh?

Originally posted by Nygdan
BTW Rant, does the president get kudos for having a black female secretary of state? She replaced a guy, so mibbie it all evens out eh?

No, no, no. She's just an Uncle Tom

EDIT: Ughhhh...My life had so much more meaning before I found this cherry of a site...

Although Bush's Black front men must be held to special account - that is, punished by any means within our power - they are but devil dogs to the Great Scoundrels they serve.
...

Lucy dismissed Bush's Black appointees as "ornaments of diversity." White House attempts to appoint right-wingers to the federal bench "confirm an unmistakable pattern of deceit and hostility toward civil rights."

[edit on 11-2-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake

What should bother you though is that so many people would still object to a women on the grounds of her gender for SCOTUS or President for that matter.

so many people are bothered by a woman being selected because she's a woman? Are you talking about Miers, the person no one but George Bush knew anything about? Are you claiming people's problem with her nomination is over her gender?! What would you have said about the Republican party, I wonder, if we just accepted Bush's word that she was a good choice without any information about her? Would we have been...Oh, I dunno...Bush worshippers then? So we're either sexist because we don't implictly trust Bush, or we're hacks because we believe whatever Bush tells us. Cute.

Climb off the cross already and quit making yourself (or your party) into a freaking martyr over every little thing. You're going to get scoliosis the way you've been bending over backwards twisting words lately. And your ventriloquism frankly sucks.

To summarize my one sentence you hyperventilated over to something even shorter I said sexism still exists and is unfortunate.

Now, if you can manage to get the sarcastic vapors over that too and find a way to still disagree just for partisan disagreement's sake you deserve a DayTime Emmy.

Yes, sexism still exists, this I agree with you about. What I don't agree with you about is the fact that you used a statement to insinuate that a majority believed Miers had to be rejected because she's a woman. I'm still waiting for something supporting the "so many" comment. Yeah, it's a subjective term, but most people equate that to the majority, or else a large minority. Does "so many" constitute a large minority, or a majority of some piddly wink town on the map that no one cares about with a population of 10?

EDIT: I do find it interesting that, when there's no or little defense, Democrats tend to attack religion and a religious belief they suspect or know a Republican has even if they never mention such a thing nor are talking about it what so ever. Do I equate the Republican party with Jesus? Uh...no. Jesus was just a little bigger than anything humanity has ever developed. Just a little.

There, now you can slam me for...oh krump...I can't think of the word...the opposite of exaggerating something...Opposite of hyperbole...Microbole? Mellowbole? Wait, let me get off of my cross and think about this. After all, someone with a different political ideology twisting information to try to make a point is akin to being nailed to a piece of wood and left there to suffocate after having had my skin ripped off with a whip embedded with metal and bone shards. That, my friend, was sarcasm.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by junglejake]

finally,

[edit on 11-3-2005 by junglejake]