« Quote Of The Day - I Am A Fashion God Edition | Main | Now With Improved Response Time! »

Judge O'Conlito?

Talking head hottie Flavia Colgan, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Pennsylvania's Lt. Governor (remember her?), warns that both sides will be disappointed with Judge Samuel Alito if he's confirmed to the Supreme Court. From her HuffPo piece:

The question people have to ask is what constitutes a link that is so invalid that it renders the whole chain weak and un-useful. The left needs to determine whether they are willing to sink a candidate for the court that has expressed pro-choice legal opinions three out of four times, because of the one time he did not. The right needs to stop smiling and think about whether the views he's expressed and the opinions of him from those who have worked with him constitute a chain as strong as they would like.

Both sides might discover, as I did, that this man is not the image they've all created: Judge "Scalito." The more I talked to people, the more I began to think that Judge Alito's last name shouldn't be merged with Justice Scalia's, but we should start calling him "O'Conlito," for the woman he's replacing. Let us not forget, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a "reliable conservative" when she was appointed, and a choice that liberals lamented while conservatives cheered. This time around, liberals, just chill out a bit. And conservatives: Caveat Emptor.

When it comes to Supreme Court nominees conservatives are used to disappointment. It's worth noting that Chief Justice Roberts's conservative bona fides were (and still are) equally in question.

Supreme Court nominations are like giant games of Three Card Monty - there's lot's of flash and activity, but it's a good bet that the game is rigged. One of the reasons liberals are so pissed about the Miers withdrawal is that they saw the dealer planting the card. Unfortunately for them conservatives did too..

Such is the gamble with life time appointments.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge O'Conlito?:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Curry: Senate has clear choice in Alito

Comments (21)

She appears to think that '... (Below threshold)

She appears to think that 'we' want a _conservative_ judge, and would feel burned by an originalist. The comments from the Democratic staffers (and a Green) in the LATimes seem to highlight this point also.

I realize there are conserv... (Below threshold)

I realize there are conservatives of all stripes, and a large number just want a judge who is a strict constructionist and doesn't legislate from the bench, at least from the conservative point of view. But I think there's no question that a large and influential part of Bush's base is focused on one thing: Roe v. Wade, and will be bitterly disappointed if it isn't overturned, no matter how much Bush's appointments rule like good conservatives.

From what I see from his op... (Below threshold)

From what I see from his opinions, Alito makes his decisions based upon common sense and the law as it was written by the legislature.

That is good enough for me.

They will never understand ... (Below threshold)

They will never understand the conservatives don't want a right wing version of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. (The White House didn't seen to realize that with the Miers nomination either)

The flap over the Meiers no... (Below threshold)

The flap over the Meiers nomination proves something about most conservatives, when they say "conservative justice", then mean someone who reads the constitution and uses an Oxford English Dictionary if the meaning of something is not clear (e.g. "congress shall make no law..."). In other words, most conservatives want a strict constructionist or orginalist (or whatever you want to call it) and not, necessarily, someone who will advance their political football. Contrast this to the Democrats who purely want an extra-legislative body to do their dirty work (see Harry Reid, "I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are (sic) very hard to dispute.").

O'Conlito is a ethnically i... (Below threshold)

O'Conlito is a ethnically insensitive name, offensive to both Italians and Irish for some reason or another! In the name of political correctness I demand that people stop combining names with other names! ;)

Chris, one of the main prob... (Below threshold)

Chris, one of the main problems with the Meiers nomination was that it treated conservatives as if Roe were the sole concern of conservatives. It was as if the White House was saying, "don't worry--she's against abortion-on-demand," and categorically dismissing all the legitimate concerns about her judicial philosophy or qualifications.

While many, if not most, conservatives believe that Roe was a poor decision by the court, we're not obsessed with it being reversed. There is a plethora of issues that are a lot more important to our day-to-day lives.

While many, if not mo... (Below threshold)

While many, if not most, conservatives believe that Roe was a poor decision by the court, we're not obsessed with it being reversed.

That's right Bo. If anyone is obsessed with Roe v. Wade its the left. Roe is the litmus test for Boxer (spit!) and Kennedy (barf!). Everyone knows that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and the Feds got out of the abortion law business, that would leave it to the States (as it should be anyway). Most States protect abortion rights, but at least its not legislated from the bench.

I made it clear that I reco... (Below threshold)

I made it clear that I recognize there are a lot of conservatives who evaluate justices on more than Roe v. Wade. I tried to be fair and not paint everyone with the same brush. So in response, I hear that liberals are the only ones who care about Roe v. Wade. Right. Rev. Dobson and the rest of what are charitably called the religious right are just as fixated on Roe v Wade as any liberal. The problem with Miers wasn't that Bush treated conservatives as though all they care about is abortion. The problem (besides the fact that she had no obvious qualifications) was that he acted as though the conservatives who are fixated on Roe v. Wade were the only constituency he had to appease. There's a difference.

Let's get back to what's re... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Let's get back to what's really important here...the very hot Ms. Colgan and whether Kevin can throw us a link to some revealing photos of her. Then we can talk about that judge-guy.

Chris, I didn't say that yo... (Below threshold)

Chris, I didn't say that you had characterized all conservatives as obsessed with Roe, I simply pointed out the error in your logic: that ruling like "good conservatives" included striking down that decision. Neither did I (or anyone else) say that "liberals are the only ones who care about Roe v. Wade.

What I pointed out was that whereas one nominee who would almost certainly vote to overturn Roe was rejected by conservatives, because we believe in judicial conservatism (read: originalist judicial philosophy) on all fronts, the liberals in Congress are currently in a tizzy over that solitary topic, with a nominee who has a mixed record of decisions on that issue.

There's a vast difference between "caring" about something and "obsessing" over something. Learn that difference before you start throwing accusations. I'd venture a guess that nearly every semi-educated individual in America "cares" about the abortion issue.

And I just love this:

Rev. Dobson and the rest of what are charitably called the religious right...

Charitably? As if "religious right" didn't usually carry the same inflection as "sonofabitch" when it's used in political discourse.

Flavia Colgan,I th... (Below threshold)

Flavia Colgan,

I think we should rename this hottie, maybe something out of Mike Myers movie, Austin Powers (2):

"Alotta Fagina"

yeah, I like it!

Liberals continue to apply ... (Below threshold)

Liberals continue to apply their rule of thumb, their standard of evaluation, to what and who a "conservative" nominee to the Supreme Court should be if that individual is to be successful AS a conservative: that they be legislators from the bench.

Only to the liberal perspective are the S.C. and nominees and those confirmed to it "successful" and credible, believable, worthy, meaningful, all of those laudibly good things, when and if they represent someone assured to be a legislator and not an impartial referee as to applying our Constitution to issues of consideration.

Granted, some conservatives think so, too, and that is that the only true conservative legislates conservative ideology -- to some degree that's accurate in that conservative ideology holds forth that the S.C. isn't a legislative process but a Constitutional-representative one -- and become irate at the idea that someone represents themselves as a conservative and yet is opposed to legislating ideology by way of the S.C.

But, to the overwhelming majority, the people who find -- and will always find -- suspicious negatives about any nominee nominated by any Reublican to the S.C., those are liberals imagining an 'arch conservative' using the S.C. to legislate what, to liberals are, arch-enemy, threatening conservative ideals.

The very idea that someone can be nominated by a conservative President (I take President Bush's word for it that he is that, despite some controversial fallout otherwise) to the S.C., can be a conservative as to their personal beliefs, moral code, goals and personal and professional conduct, the fact that such a person can be presented for consideration to the S.C. who would work with the Constitution to apply it to issues rather than amend, even rewrite, it, does not seem possible to be understood to most liberals, at least, none that I have heard, read to-date.

But, what is bothersome, Kevin, is that you're reading HuffingtonPost! They'll never get it, is my point, liberals will never, just never get that what conservatives value about the S.C. is the opportunity to support and apply the Constitution, not to use the S.C. to legislate generally liberal demands to change it.

I was never one to find Sandra Day O'Connor as a pillar of perfection for who and what a S.C. justice should be. She certainly is an honorable, commendable person of respectable intellect -- I do not disrespect her here or otherwise elsewhere -- but the idea that she should be "replaced" as in, cloned or twinned in a cookie-cutter fashion is to miss opportunities for improvement.

Chris: your comments defy ... (Below threshold)

Chris: your comments defy the very issue that motivates nearly all, if not all, Democrat candidacy and the very Senate protests themselves about who "should be" and who "should not be" confirmed to the S.C.

Roe v. Wade remains as of today, "the law of the land" in legal regard but it also remains a point of immense debate as to how just the ruling was to make it so. About that, even "Ms. Roe" has denounced Roe v. Wade from a point of morality. The legal substance -- the credibility of the ruling -- remains debatable among many legal minds far more skilled than yours and mine.

Just saying, it's controversial because it's controversial in character, the actual ruling itself of Roe v. Wade. It would not remain such an issue of debate among us laypersons (and that includes many Senators) were it not a ruling that remains suspect to many legal academics who perceive unreliability in the ruling itself. Thus, it will be, eventually, challenged and it won't be because of ideology but because of academic credibility within the context of our Constitution.

I'd rather see it questioned within the context of the Constitution than remain a miscarriage of our Constitution by way of earlier decisions amending the Constitutional principles involved inorder to proliferate ideology. In the case of Roe v. Wade, it's liberal ideology that was responsible and it remains questionable to many as to the Constutional reliability of it, supported only by a previously legislating S.C. opinion.

Rather evaluate it at some point than allow a miscarriage of the Constitution to remain, if it's established under the Constitution to be a miscarriage at some future date. As of today, it's law. Might not remain so but it isn't limited in concern to the Bush Administration or present day or the GOP whims or whatever...it's an issue that will need to be examined at some point within the context of the Constitution itself.

I find it very difficult to... (Below threshold)

I find it very difficult to disagree with Flavia even when she's lying. I really don't want to blow my chances at getting a date with her. I'm even considering goin' Democrat.

Another Kevin, must be. I ... (Below threshold)

Another Kevin, must be. I doubt the first one would throw away marriage vows for short term effects.

"In other words, most conse... (Below threshold)

"In other words, most conservatives want a strict constructionist or orginalist"

That is what I want. It really pisses me off when these "elite" people, (judges), try to make words and concepts mean something different than what they really mean. Come on now, words have meaning. It is not that difficult to understand.

The way judges and politicions twist things really chap my ass!!

Our Constitution is not that difficult to understand if you read it a few times. It is probably the one single greatest thing to have happened to this planet since our planet's existence and recorded history.

I have my gripes with both parties, but I'll tell you plainly, the republican party is much less evil than the democrat party. But that leaves me with the shitty option of voting for the lesser of two evils. I ain't happy either those option. But it is what we have, and it is better than anywhere else on the planet.

If you don't believe that, just visit another country, any country, and you will see how fortunate we who live in the US are.

Proof in the pudding of the... (Below threshold)

Proof in the pudding of the Left obsessing about Roe vs. Wade? Observe the reportage from the MSM... uteral control seems to be the only topic of interest. Is it an important social issue? Of course, but it is not the sine qua non of American jurisprudence. It would be refreshing to see an analysis that never mentions that issue. It would also probably be a first.

Well said (as usual), -S-</... (Below threshold)

Well said (as usual), -S-

The crux of the issue is that conservatives care about the end and the means. We aren't so agenda driven that we'll accept the end result (in this context, Roe being overturned) being accomplished in a way that is not consistent with the proper Constitutional means.

I'm also sick of the "uterine control" meme. I don't give a tinker's damn about what a woman does with her uterus. Take it out, play with it, put it in a jar on the mantle. I don't care. I do, however, think it's wrong to end a human life. So I'm opposed to abortion. Period. It really is that simple.

Kevin, you are a bad, bad m... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Kevin, you are a bad, bad man. Unless you post more pics of that lady.

BoDiddlyI'm afraid... (Below threshold)


I'm afraid you didn't read my post very carefully. What I said was that I recognize there are a large number of conservatives who are concerned about the overall judicial approach of a nominee. However, there's no denying that a significant number of conservatives are focused more on Roe v. Wade. Most of those people, like followers of Rev. Dobson, tend to base their politics in a large part on religious issues. I never said there wren't liberals who are single-minded about Roe (obviously there are) and I never said all conservatives are single-minded about the issue. I was speaking to the point of the post. If Alito is confirmed, he may be the strictest constructionist we've ever seen, and be considered a great pick by Bush in conservatives' eyes. But if for some reason the court doesn't overturn Roe, I think a very large segment of the religious right will consider him a failure. Again, speaking to the point that different people may be pleased or disappointed for different reasons.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy