Alito Confirmation Hearing
 

In another SCOTUS related thread, I stated that the Dems would not be able to find any reasonable grounds to thwart Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Given the Miers fiasco, that seemed a reasonable conclusion.

I have cause to change my opinion now, based upon the wiretaping revelations of this week, and newly released documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act.

Chief Justice Roberts has already sided with unlimited military detention for "enemy combatents," without the accord of our due process laws. It is now known that nominee Alito has similar sympathies concerning the Fourth Amendment. Stacking the SCOTUS deck with judges agreeable to stretching the limits of the constitution to allow greater Executive power is something I hope our Senator's will scrutinize carefully.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122305Q.shtml

Let me get this straight...

You're expecting the loyal republican judicial committee to actually do their job and scrutinize Alito during the hearings?

I can hear it now... "I can't answer that question, senator becasue it would indicate how I would rule on a particular case." (everybody under the sun knows that this tatic works)

You think that out of some sense of morality the republican congress will think twice before blindly voting along party lines confirming Alito?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Let me tell you what will happen, Alito will be confirmed, and the results of the upcoming congressional investigation into Bush's wiretapping will eventually end up before the newly formed SCOTUS where specific judges have been placed specifically to interpret anything Bush does (legal or not) to be in accordance with the constitution. Remember, it's not about what the constitution actually says, it's about how the consertative judges (who already agree Bush's criminal actions) inteperet it.

Our democracy is now lost.

I'm counting on that wild-assed group of fourteen. :)

Ahh, you whack-job liberals need to get off the back of every nominee. Besides, have you ever tried just sayin "Alito"? It just rolls of the tongue-"A-Li-tooo". Ahh, so smooth.

i don't think you can lump arlen specter in with the rest of the republicans. and not every republican is on board with domestic spying; the washington times recently said that bush is a clear and present danger to the rule of law. as for the non-answers, so far alito has been more forthcoming than roberts. roberts said very little about anything. (not that the senators had anything substantial to trip him up.)

however, i do think this issue is more significant than anything that has been raised before by alito detractors. the media-hyped clash of parties over alito never happened because the man seems to be more or less an acceptible candidate. of course alito is conservative...bush isn't going to nominate a democrat. but now there is more to grill him about, and hopefully we will get a good idea of his judicial philosophy on this issue.

You may have read today that Bush added a presidential "statement" to McCain's anti-torture bill, reserving his right to approve torture. I thought the president could only accept or veto congressional legislation, but apparently the president can modify any bill by virture of a written statement. Below is an excerpt of an article describing it's current use by this administration.

I am adding this to my list of concerns regarding Alito.

Link

I'm going to laugh really hard when they get all this executive power in place and then a dem gets elected and undoes all of it in a matter of months. Until then, I'm going to fight people like this tooth and nail. Checks and balances is a necessary weapon against the morphing of democracy to totalitarian rule. Alito obviously doesn't understand that LEGALLY, the president is required to follow all US treaties and agreements, and he is obligated to follow the constitution, BOR, and US laws that he should be enforcing, not destroying.

You honestly believe the dems will undue this? I'd say they've been overly complacent if not complicit in all this. That's why this is so dangerous, this stuff does not simply go away when democrats get elected.

I agree, Samcol. The power hungry, whether red or blue, will be reluctant to give up the power that Bush is proclaiming for the Exective branch. It needs to be stopped now.

Sorry, I forgot the '/sarcasm' thinggy.

My fault. I totally misread your post.

Dangit! We need a sarcasm class. Only the Brits and Canukistans do this well. :)

so far he's been quite forthcoming. i have not heard him refuse to answer anything, although he claimed to forget about membership in a conservative club at Princeton. most of the senators have asked pretty good questions. biden came off kind of like a dick, claiming to be puzzled by certain rulings on discrimination cases even after hearing an explanation.

i'm still curious about his views on executive power...this is probably the only thing of interest to me that will come up. from the bits and pieces i've heard in this hearing, alito has cited limitations on the president a few times. i hope i get a chance to hear some more questions to this end. feingold (who just started talking) will hopefully go in this direction instead of slightly twisting quotes in the individual rulings of alito's past.

Confirmation hearings are so ridiculous. You know pretty much know how the judge will rule by the President nominating, by his/her past rulings and by public speeches, papers and so on they have written.

When in confirmation, they are going to say what ever the Hell they were told to say to make them look good and fair. Then once on the bench and in the robes they are going to rule however the Hell they want because they have no fear of any kind of accountability.

trickyy: "although he claimed to forget about membership in a conservative club at Princeton."

He pretty much had to "forget" as they're loonbats. They think it was a better school before the women ruined it. Honestly, he likely perjured himself with that denial.

yeah, i don't know if i'm going to watch or listen to much more of it. the hearing at its worst has the democrats talk at great length over very specific alito quotes (that they often seem to have misunderstood) and republicans not really asking anything at all (instead they tell alito how qualified he actually is).

the exception in my watching was Lindsey Graham...who made a right ass of himself, proving that presidential ambition, regardless of party makes people stupid.

he kept trying to pin alito in to saying that the military, under executive authority, had the right to keep prisoners indefinitely with no judicial review. one of the more painful exhanges so far, IMO.

yeah, no kiddng, his line of questioning yesterday was probably the least coherent. it was predicated upon clear-cut answers to initial questions that alito did not give. the rest of the questions didn't make a lot sense as a result.

i did laugh at one of the first things he said...something like if alito can forget certain things in the hearing, he should be understanding when legislators forget certain things about abramoff.

Just to get more into CAP, because you would think this was a deal breaker for a SCOTUS justice:

so in 1985, when he wanted to work for Reagan, he touted his participation in a group that lobbied to turn away women and minorities from Princeton. 20 years later, he doesn't have any recollection of even belonging.

Criminy, even Roberts didn't have racist orgs on his resume. I guess with a GOP majority, they can be true to their "colors" now, can't they?

It would be one thing entirely if Alito admitted to his fault and said he changed since then. That he no longer agrees with the position he held with CAP.

But he hasn't. He just sidesteps the issue. He's essentially treating us like idiots thinking we'd just believe him when he says "I don't recall ever doing that".

To me, that shows me he isn't sorry, maybe even still believes that minorities and women shouldn't be darkening the halls of Princeton. That kind of brazen assholishness... How can anyone support this guy?

We don't need to appoint any more bigots to the Supreme Court.

Watched and listened all day, it was half Spoiler: Republican circle jerk(censored by me because it is crude and possibly NSFW), and the other half was all Roe v. Wade. I'm sick to my stomach. He is not going to be a good Justice, pure and simple.

there is definitely too much abortion talk. he's not going to change his answers, obviously, but that doesn't stop schumer from asking long winded questions to that end. overall, there have been hours devoted to abortion and he has said essentially the same thing. it just seems like there are many other things that they could ask him about.

the CAP issue is kind of surprising too...it wouldn't be unreasonable to think he belonged to a group without fully examining/endorsing every last statement by members. i can't say i've agreed with the ideas of every person i've been associated with. it's odd that he has taken such a stance in the hearing.

I am old enough to remember and experience the years previous to Roe v. Wade. It is something that I rarely discuss because my opinion, like many others, is rooted in a value system that is not subject to change.

If Alito intends to overturn Roe v. Wade, I will grieve for those that return to the back alley butchers. Abortion has existed for hundreds of years and it will continue, whether legal or not. Shall we sharpen up the coat hangers for the desparate?

Alito's position on Executive Powers has far greater consequences to the survival of our Republic. A president without checks or balances becomes a dictatorship.

if roe v. wade is overturned, won't states have the ability to set their own laws? i don't see a lot of states reverting to the old ways (although some might). but by now the majority of people accept abortion for certain circumstances. it may not be a terrible thing to base abortion laws on legislation rather than a court case. it would probably be less divisive (and more democratic); right now one side sees the law in place only due to "judicial activism," which really pisses them off.

i don't follow the topic too closely, but here's a fairly informative article that i read a while ago. here's another one that caught my attention recently.

Yes, theoretically the states could go off in 50 different directions on the subject if Roe v. Wade gets messed up. While it's intersting to take that line of thought forward in theory, there are som real world problems that would come from that. Let's say that Tenessee says no abortions, so little suzy drives to California and gets an abortion. She comes home and suddenly Tenessee and California legislation are at odds. The parents are livid because the Californian doctor didn't call, and suddenly we've got another civil war. I dunno, maybe I;'m just tired and that made no sense, but something this polarized could cause problems. Even though I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, the precedent of Roe v. Wade should remain in place.
Excelent links!!!

Actually this type of thing is happening right now between Illinois and Missiouri over parental consent.

Good news everyone!

After those mean senators on the committee made his wife cry you could almost sense the battle was over. :)

Yeah, now he can change his CAP memberhsip to CASP. Gotta continue to keep those women and minorities down, and he's doing his part.

interesting data from my favorite site

Yay!
Good news indeed.

I was wondering how long I'd have to wait for another sexist, racist motherfucker to plop his ass into a SCOTUS seat.

That he put on his Reagan admin job application that he thought the Warren Court was awful (well known for their landmark Civil Rights rulings, including fair Voting) is just icing on the cake.

How cool is it that this SCOTUS confirmation hearing has brought out some interesting info about the Reagan administration?
That including bigotry and distaste for Civil Rights is a PLUS to getting a job in the Reagan WH!
I'm so proud of the 80's.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...ybaby_seal.jpg

I find it telling that the Democrats have no problem having a former KKK member as a long time senator, yet try to make the most tenuous ties possible with Alito being, and shall I quote 'a sexist racist motherfucker'.

Since logic no longer applies in the politics forum, I'll just work on sarcasm.

I am wondering what the difference in your posts would be? Please explain for the edification of all of those that illogically post here.

Difference being: Byrd apologized for the KKK long ago. Alito deflected and lied.

If I thought for a 10th of a second that anyone on the left would accept that sort of apology from a Republican I might concede a point, but that would be being intellectually dishonest.

Any link to Alito being a sexist racist motherfucker are so weak that apologizing for them would be lying. If he were indeed a sexist racist motherfucker (come to think of it I am a motherfucker too, since my wife is a mother, that term loses its power once you grow up a bit) and said 'sorry' there is no way in hell anyone on the left would suddenly approve his nomination.

it's interesting how some many of these thread deteriorate into the same thing.

I have to add, and just very briefly, that whatever you might think about the ethical implications of Alito being a member of CAP and touting this on a 1985 job application, all of the evidence suggests that he was never really involved in the organization.

I am amazed at the sheer, let's say ummm, ignorance, regarding this Alito situation; mostly the whole executive power thing. Does anybody here realize that the majority of the contentious Alito issues about Executive power all surround application and process for the solicitor general. Does anyone know what the solicitor general does? He represents the Executive legally. Is it any wonder that Alito working/under direction of the solicitor general defends executive power? Do you not expect defense lawyers to contend points no matter how moot or stupid/in vain it may seem, it's a matter of doing the task at hand.

People try and play Alito off as some hardcore conservative because chances are he disagrees with abortion. Funny that the man has historical been a big backer of the right to privacy, including certain laws/regulations in favor of homosexuals, bet most didn't know that.

Bottom line is, you are straight up delusional if you don't think Alito is more then qualified for the job. Furthermore you should wait and see before you cast an opinion on any judge nominated to the bench, you don't always get what you expect as history has repeatedly shown us.

Thats really the funny part, Alito is pretty darn moderate.

All I want the SCOTUS to do is keep congress (and judges) from taking power that isn't granted them, which I'm not sure Alito will do.

He believes in the "Universal" presidency, so you can be certain that executive power will override congress and the judiciary if the choice were left to him.

Because it is not true. Where's your support of that ludicrous statement?

In 2001 Alito supported a father who sued a school system that wouldn't let his sons speak about the evils of homosexuality. He wrote the winning decision.

Free speech nut? No, he wrote that OTHER kinds of speech were not allowed in the schools, but bashing fags was okay. Saxe v. State College Area School District.

He has also consistently stated that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as hetero couples.

Hate speech is protected, it's not just Alito. Don't know how people feel about Wikipedia, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito

As oppossed to a all male, all white college group, right?

I wouldn't exactly take that as support for homosexuals. I'd wager that at least 90% of America thinks homosexualks should be allowed to work and live their lives behind doors.

At any rate, what he supported as a young Princetonite unfortunately doesn't undo how he's ruled as a judge.

Wouldn't the 'full faith and credit' clause come into play under these circumstances? (Unless, of course, Congress passed some bogus law that negated the constitutional principle of full faith and credit, as they did with the "Defense of Marriage" Act?)

My greatest concern about Alito is his belief in the "unitary executive." For a prospective justice to assert that the president can overrule the other branches of government is a threat to our constitution and to our Republic. Someone, anyone in the Senate must speak out against his nomination to the full extent of a filibuster. I wonder if anyone has the courage to do what is necessary.

TruthOut

Not only that, Alito is one who I am almost certain believes in the "Constitution in Jeopardy," the theory that everything passed since the New Deal is unconstitutional.

Samuel Alito scares me very much. Unfortunately all anyone cares about is abortion. If the democrats were smarter, they would be able to point to the obvious flaws in Alito's nomination. Instead, they are the party that cried wolf -- every time anything happens they fillibuster. They should just have let Roberts go -- he wasn't a big deal, and I think he's the best the left could have expected Bush to nominate. Now all the Republicans can just point out how the left fillibusters every time.

It's a trick the Democrat party has fallen for many times since Bush was president, and I am amazed that they can't wise up! Bush has the bill for the Department of Homeland Security to ban a union; Dems vote nay; Bush touts how Democrats don't want to protect Americans. They are SOOO gullible to these stupid partisan tricks! It makes me mad!

Well it was unconstitutional until FDR stacked the courts. If he's a real conservative he would decide in favor of anyting that had to do with New deal type legislation being unconstitutional. I have my doubts though.

The real dangers are his views on executive power however, as Elphaba noted. As long as we can stay in perpetual war we might as well start calling the president king instead of commander in chief. All hail the king.

You know what though, I really don't see the Democrats taking a tough stand against this guy. As long as Bush doesn't seize absolute control by 08, Democrats have a great shot of inheriting all of this power that Bush has grabbed.

it's been said that the republicans' secret weapon is the democrats...which seems to be a fairly good assessment.

although alito's confirmation looks probable, i'm interested to see how the Maine Senators and Lincoln Chafee vote.

I have great admiration for Susan Collins. I will be interested in her vote, too.

As do I, Elphaba. I also happen to know that Ms. Collins is almost certain to vote in favor of Alito. Further, I would put both Snowe and Chaffee in the "likely" category...

The article quoted in the opening post of this thread begins by clearly stating that Alito was an advocate for the executive branch when he was defending the power of the executive. In the same way that the Dream Team seemed totally oblivious to the possibility of O.J.'s guilt, so too was Alito singularly committed to furthering the interests of his client, the executive branch.

The job of an advocate is to make the strongest possible case for one extreme or the other, not to make a judgment on what is the most reasonable position.

I would also caution the reader against assuming that Roberts and Scalia support unlimited executive power. While Thomas seems headed down that road, I can provide evidence that his conservative colleagues do not share those views.

Thank you for pointing that out sir, I just hope some people pay attention and take it in.

Just the constitutional scholar I had hoped would respond here! Good to see you back! :thumbsup:

I would be extremely interested in your views on how you think the court will act with the addition of Alito.

"Constitutional scholar" is a title I am certainly not qualified to hold. Even so, I can sketch a brief outline of how the Court will function with the addition of Alito.

The new Court, roughly from liberal to conservative:
Ginsberg-Stevens-Breyer-Souter-Kennedy-Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas

Obviously, there will be some debate about the exact positioning of the Justices, but this model is pretty accurate. Here's what to look for: Alito, although he is assuming the seat formerly held by O'Connor, is ideologically closer to Scalia and Rhenquist. In many respects, he is the spiritual successor to the former Chief. The real shift is the more moderate Roberts, who, despite being to the left of the hardcore conservatives, is obviously more consistently conservative than O'Connor ever was.

So, that bullet-proof 5-person conservative majority is made up of: Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.

The only problem is... There are only 4 solid conservatives on the Court.

The new swing vote is Kennedy, generally considered to be slightly right of center. What we are likely to see, then, is a return (in the ways that are still possible) to pre-1937 jurisprudence. The 10th amendment will once again be turned right-side-up and the Court will begin to conflict significantly more with Congress.

One final point: Alito has earned the interesting nickname "Scalito", indicating that his jurisprudence is very similar to that of the Court's other Italian. This might lead some to believe that Alito will become another Thomas, by which I mean another puppet for Scalia. This will not happen for two reasons:

1. Alito is significantly more intelligent and better qualified than Mr. Thomas.
2. The perception that Thomas serves merely as an extension of Scalia is very obviously disproven by SCOTUS precident. Take a look at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld if you don't believe me.

Overall effect of Alito confirmation: Court shifts to the right, with Kennedy becoming the new swing vote. Roe will be upheld 5-4 at the very closest. Tune in in 2009 (at the very latest) when Stevens or Ginsberg step down. Will President Clinton nominate another jurist who believes the Constitution is alive and should be significantly expounded? Or will President McCain put Michael McConnell or one of his ideological peers on the bench? Only time will tell...

well, our old pal senator byrd has hopped onto the alito train.
http://www.c-span.org/congress/alito_senate.asp
it was unofficially 54-31 last time i checked, although this link doesn't have the tallies.

also, kerry has dropped the F-bomb in a very serious manner. i'm not sure it's going to work, but this could actually get interesting after all. alito is looking to receive at 58 votes if no republicans defect (and no more democrats do, either)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/

Yeah, way to go Kerry. I hope he tries it, then I hope the republicans go nuclear, Alito deserves a vote.

Kerry won't get the votes. I would like to officially invite him to become something other than a democrat.

Like maybe unemployed.

Both Kerry and Kennedy are calling for a filibuster. It looks to me as nothing more than political posturing.

kerry makes a power move from his cell phone while he's in some corner of europe. the new york post is right to call it "tone-deaf."

i think conrad (D-ND) has defected...byron dorgan is leaning pretty heavily as well. that would bring it to 60. and many of the "no" votes aren't going to want to filibuster.

any time the republicans show a hint of weakness (a somewhat controversial nominee in this case), leave it to the democrats to entertain notions of making themselves look far worse.