Here's an article from the Denver Post detailing the reaction to Judge Samuel Alito's nomination from Colorado's U.S. Senators [November 1, 2005, "Salazar miffed over lack of consultation; Allard lavishes kudos on judge"]. From the article, "Democrat Ken Salazar, a member of the Senate group that forged a compromise preserving the right to filibuster court appointees, said President Bush's choice was disappointing...Salazar's Republican colleague, Sen. Wayne Allard, said he was "favorably predisposed" to Alito but would not decide whether to endorse him until after meeting with the nominee. Still, Allard lavishly praised Alito, who was nominated after Harriet Miers withdrew her name last week."
Here's the coverage from the Rocky Mountain News [November 1, 2005, "Salazar disappointed woman candidate not chosen"].
The Denver Post editorial staff reacts to Judge Alito's nomination [November 1, 2005, "Bush court nominee has a classic resume"]. They write, "In Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush has nominated a jurist whose resume speaks in volume to his preparation for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. His judicial philosophy will be put to the test in the Senate - and senators will find quite a lot to test."
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff weighs in on the Alito nomination [November 1, 2005, "Choice of Alito true to Bush pledge"]. They write, "Samuel Alito: Now that's more like it. With Alito's nomination to assume the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the nation can conduct the discussion of whether he should be confirmed on solid factual ground instead of over a swamp of guesses, inferences and third-party testimonials, as was the case with Harriet Miers."
Mike Littwin weighs in on the Alito nomination in his column in today's Rocky [November 1, 2005, "Littwin: This time, nominee merits a real battle"]. He writes, "Let's be clear on one thing: Sam Alito is not George W. Bush's lawyer. Alito is the pointy-headed, Ivy League, hard-right, intellectual type that scares Bush - and also every Democrat - to death. He is one of your turn-of-the-century (old joke alert: that's the 19th century) judicial thinkers favored by George Will, Robert Bork and John Marshall. He's the type of nominee Bush had done everything - including nominating Harriet Miers, now and forever known as poor Harriet Miers - to avoid. That was then. Faced with rebellion from his own party, Bush has now gotten up his nerve and nominated Alito, even citing (a no-joking alert) the nominee's extraordinary depth of experience. Poor, poor Harriet Miers. Now, everything becomes clear. This is the fight conservative activists and liberal activists, and their respective fundraisers, have long anticipated. This is the fight timid Senate Democrats - a significant percentage thereof - may be dragged into."
Paul Campos add his two cents to the nomination announcement in his column in today's Rocky [November 1, 2005, "Campos: The law according to Scalia"]. He writes, "Scalia argues that legal interpretation consists of figuring out what a reasonably well-informed reader of a legal text would have thought the text meant at the time of its enactment. He rejects the idea that a legal text means what its author(s) intended it to mean, or that its meaning can change over time, or that previous judicial (mis)interpretations of a text's meaning in themselves necessarily have the force of law (the legal doctrine, central to the common law system, known as stare decisis). There are a number of problems with this view. First, it's often going to be difficult to determine what Scalia's hypothetical reasonably well-informed reader would have thought a legal text meant. This will especially be true when, as in the case of the Constitution, almost all of the parts of the document that give rise to litigation are between 140 and 217 years old."
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
5:37:43 AM 
|
|
