Seems Alito did a damn good job with Feinstein. I must say he is a class act all around. Very open to discussing procedure and beliefs without coming off as an ideologue (which is what he is nowhere close to being).

I must say I'm excited about the prospect of him being confirmed. That and Sen. Sessions speaking now, cause he's the man.

That guy behind Alito with the nervous leg/foot needs to be removed..

Quoted: That guy behind Alito with the nervous leg/foot needs to be removed..

I was too busy gawking at the attractive female behind him to the right to notice that

BTT

was anyone watching when Judge Alitos wife stormed out of the hearing room? wtf are the Dumbocrats doing?

Every time Alito opens his mouth I'm more impressed.  It's like watching George Foreman go to it with a bunch of six-year olds.  The Dems are hemming and hawing, and are just reading from their scripts, and I don't think I've seen the good Judge look at a single piece of paper all day, yet every one of his answers were intelligent, concise, and absolutely nuked there arguments.

The little dustup between Specter and Kennedy was pretty interesting to watch, too.

Alito had said yesterday that mere possession of a gun had not been proven to affect interstate commerce in his view.

Quoted: States rights can either be helped or harmed by laying down an affirmative definition of what is considered "interstate"... which will more than likely follow in the next few months because of Alito's confirmation.

States don't have rights, only people do. The issue isn't really states rights, but the limits of federal power.

Quoted: Alito's confirmation is a two edged sword that most people here are not realizing. He adheres to the law in a very professional and strict manner.

As do all the judges we should want in the SCOTUS. But I don't see it as two-edged all that much, it is the other side who needs "creative" interpretations of our laws.

Quoted: If someone represents a case against the second amendment and brings up the part of  "A well regulated militia", then we could be in a world of hurt.... How would the SCOTUS determine what is considered a regulated militia, national guard ?

They already did, in US v Miller.

www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

In this case, they referenced Aymette v. State.

www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

Quoted: Quoted: If someone represents a case against the second amendment and brings up the part of  "A well regulated militia", then we could be in a world of hurt.... How would the SCOTUS determine what is considered a regulated militia, national guard ? They already did, in US v Miller. www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html In this case, they referenced Aymette v. State. www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

I know of these cases.... but they are "past tense"

If "the people" see a case that they know they can not win, regarding firearms or machine guns, they will dig into that bag of tricks again... With hope, the SCOTUS will just throw it out and say that it has no bearing on "x" case, but it will come up eventually. Especially if the commerce clause if challeneged by a defendant that is charged with a violation of interstate commerce and,or illegal weapons charges.

I also "inadvertantly" agree with you that "States don't have right" because Federal power has seen to that. Federal trumps State every time and that IS the problem.

Do people have rights... sure they do... but only as much as the Federal Government allows the people to have.

If you have been watching the hearings you will have noticed what one of the "R" Senators said.... He said that it is legal to kill an unborn child but it is not legal to take your own life ( something to that effect )  See my point ?

So I think my largest beef is that State's Rights should be restored and the people residing in said State should be governed by State Law, not Federal Law.

The great idea of a Free State is to have laws that are put into effect by the people that reside in that State.... and, if they do not like those laws they can choose to go to another State of their choosing. With the "Big" Government that we have we cannot do this because Federal Law is Supreme, so to speak, and its laws always trump State laws. When in reality, it should be the other way around.

The States should be putting the Federal branch in its place, not vice versa.

So when an interstate case comes before the SC, with Alito behind the bench, I believe that true Constitutional Justice will prevail.

The Federal Goverment has went unchecked for way too long on many issues, that is why I believe the Democrats are trying their best to stop Alito's Nomination. They fear that their hayday will soon be over.

Just my opinions though.  

I know little about the law compared to most people so I am basically thinking in an idealistic way when I state my opinions.... So don't over analyze them ok    

Quoted: I know of these cases.... but they are "past tense"

Miller is, in fact, the latest SCOTUS interpretation (i.e., that only SOME types of weapons are protected by the 2nd). However, Miller is consitent with an individual right.

Quoted: If "the people" see a case that they know they can not win, regarding firearms or machine guns, they will dig into that bag of tricks again... With hope, the SCOTUS will just throw it out and say that it has no bearing on "x" case, but it will come up eventually. Especially if the commerce clause if challeneged by a defendant that is charged with a violation of interstate commerce and,or illegal weapons charges.

I'm not sure what you are saying . . . Miller implies an individual right (good for us), but only to own weapons of value to a militia (i.e., dirks, daggers, and sawed-off shotguns are not protected). I would rather have a more expansive reading that included weapons of value for personal defense as well as militia duty, but it is still an individual right.

Further, Miller NFA '34 avoided colliding with the 10th by only imposing a TAX, not a full-on ban. That's why NFA '34 was written as a tax: to survive the 10th. Nowdays Congress doesn't even bother with that effort at making laws at least appear constitutional . . .