Alito Confirmation Hearing - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 12-23-2005, 08:04 PM

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

Quote:

Alito Defended Officials from Wiretap Suits
By Donna Cassata
The Associated Press

Friday 23 December 2005

Washington - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps for national security when he worked at the Reagan Justice Department, an echo of President Bush's rationale for spying on US residents in the war on terror.

Then an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito wrote a 1984 memo that provided insights on his views of government powers and legal recourse - seen now through the prism of Bush's actions - as well as clues to the judge's understanding of how the Supreme Court operates.

The National Archives released the memo and scores of other documents related to Alito on Friday; the Associated Press had requested the material under the Freedom of Information Act. The memo comes as Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Monday he would ask Alito about the president's authority at confirmation hearings beginning Jan. 9. The memo's release Friday prompted committee Democrats to signal that they will press the conservative jurist about executive powers.

The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."

Despite Alito's warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court in the case of whether Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot.

The FBI had received information about a conspiracy to destroy utility tunnels in Washington and to kidnap Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, to protest the Vietnam War.

In its court brief, the government argued for absolute immunity for the attorney general on matters of national security.

"The attorney general's vital responsibilities in connection with intelligence gathering and prevention in the field of national security are at least deserving of absolute immunity as routine prosecutorial actions taken either by the attorney general or by subordinate officials.

"When the attorney general is called upon to take action to protect the security of the nation, he should think only of the national good and not about his pocketbook," the brief said.

Signing the document was Rex E. Lee, then the solicitor general, officials from the Justice Department and Alito.

Alito's analysis about the court and the need for an incremental legal strategy proved prescient. The case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people's rights, in the name of national security, with such actions as domestic wiretaps.

"The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity," the court held.

However, the court said Mitchell was protected from suit, because when he authorized the wiretap he did not realize his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in 1972 that it was unconstitutional for the government to conduct wiretaps without court approval despite the Nixon administration's argument that domestic anti-war groups and other radicals were a threat to national security.

Alito had advised his bosses to appeal the case on narrow procedural grounds but not seek blanket immunity.

"There are also strong reasons to believe that our chances of success will be greater in future cases," he wrote. He noted that then-Justice William H. Rehnquist would be a key vote and would recuse himself from the Nixon-era case.

The documents were among 45 released by the National Archives as the holiday weekend approached. A total of 744 pages were made public.

The White House and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, dismissed any link between the 1984 memo to Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance without a warrant to thwart terrorism.

"Any connection between Judge Alito's 1984 memorandum and the current discussion of terrorist surveillance by the NSA is a real stretch," Cornyn said in a statement.

But Democrats seized on the memo and vowed to press Alito on the matter at his confirmation hearings.

"At a time when the nation is faced with revelations that the administration has been wiretapping American citizens, we find that we have a nominee who believes that officials who order warrantless wiretaps of Americans should be immune from legal accountability," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Bush picked Alito to take the Supreme Court seat held by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring.

Among the documents released Friday was a June 1985 memo in which Alito said abortion rights should be overturned but recommended a roadmap of dismantling them piece by piece instead of a "frontal assault on Roe v. Wade."

The June abortion memo contained the same Alito statements as one dated May 30, 1985, which the National Archives released in November - but with a forward note from Reagan administration Solicitor General Charles Fried acknowledging the volatility of the issue and saying it had to be kept quiet.

"I need hardly say how sensitive this material is, and ask that it have no wider circulation," Fried wrote.

Alito, a federal appellate court judge, has been seeking to assure senators that he would put his private views aside when it came time to rule on abortion as a justice. O'Connor has been a supporter of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

Hardknock · 12-25-2005, 12:58 AM

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?

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.

Elphaba · 12-26-2005, 11:03 AM

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

alansmithee · 12-26-2005, 11:23 AM

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.

trickyy · 12-26-2005, 12:48 PM

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.

Elphaba · 01-05-2006, 04:41 PM

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

Quote:

During his first term, President Bush issued an unprecedented 108 statements upon signing bills of legislation that expressed his own version of their content. He has countermanded the legislative history, which legally establishes the foundation of their meaning, by executive diktat. In particular, he has rejected parts of legislation that he considered stepped on his power in national security matters. In effect, Bush engages in presidential nullification of any law he sees fit. He then acts as if his gesture supersedes whatever Congress has done.

Political scientist Phillip Cooper, of Portland State University in Oregon, described this innovative grasp of power in a recent article in the Presidential Studies Quarterly. Bush, he wrote, "has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress." Moreover, these coups de main not only have overwhelmed the other institutions of government but have taken place almost without notice. "This tour de force has been carried out in such a systematic and careful fashion that few in Congress, the media, or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all."

Not coincidentally, the legal author of this presidential strategy for accreting power was none other than the young Samuel Alito, in 1986 deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Alito's view on unfettered executive power, many close observers believe, was decisive in Bush's nomination of him to the Supreme Court.

Willravel · 01-09-2006, 02:24 PM

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.

samcol · 01-09-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 05:14 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-09-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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.

Sorry, I forgot the '/sarcasm' thinggy.

samcol · 01-09-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Sorry, I forgot the '/sarcasm' thinggy.

My fault. I totally misread your post.

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 07:22 PM

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

trickyy · 01-10-2006, 01:59 PM

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.

pan6467 · 01-10-2006, 07:29 PM

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.

martinguerre · 01-10-2006, 08:33 PM

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.

trickyy · 01-10-2006, 10:06 PM

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).

martinguerre · 01-11-2006, 04:47 AM

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.

trickyy · 01-11-2006, 10:43 AM

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.

Poppinjay · 01-11-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

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.

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

Quote:

Leahy listed several concerns, among them Alito's comments on the principle of one-man, one-vote and his inability to recall details about his membership _ which he listed on a Reagan administration job application _ in a conservative organization that opposed the admission of women and minorities at Princeton University, Alito's alma mater.

Alito again said he had no recollection of membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, the conservative group that he listed on a job application.

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?

Superbelt · 01-11-2006, 08:12 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-11-2006, 08:57 PM

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.

trickyy · 01-11-2006, 09:34 PM

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.

Elphaba · 01-11-2006, 10:01 PM

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.

trickyy · 01-11-2006, 11:04 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-11-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

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.

Excelent links!!!

RAGEAngel9 · 01-12-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 05:55 PM

Good news everyone!

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito seemed headed for Senate confirmation on Thursday after finishing more than 18 hours of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he defended his record against skeptical Democrats.

Alito said if confirmed he would seek to emulate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dedication and dignity, but declined to say if he would demonstrate the same centrist views.

While the full Republican-led Senate was expected to confirm Alito later this month, most Democrats were expected to oppose him.

"It is clear to me that Judge Alito should be confirmed to serve on the United States Supreme Court. And he will be confirmed," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

A senior Democratic leadership aide conceded that President George W. Bush's 55-year-old conservative nominee appeared to have the votes.

flstf · 01-12-2006, 09:12 PM

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

Poppinjay · 01-13-2006, 12:53 PM

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.

trickyy · 01-13-2006, 07:12 PM

interesting data from my favorite site

Quote:

Alito: by the numbers:
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe reports that Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. took 677 questions during three days in the witness chair; but, for a majority of those 18 hours, the Judge was listening, not talking, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee tally.

The monologue awards go to . . .

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), speaking for 24 minutes and leaving 6 for Alito on Tuesday, gabbing for 12:54 versus 6:06 for Alito on Wednesday, and concluding with 13:25 versus 6:41 on Thursday.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), taking 22:50 for himself and leaving 7:10 for Alito on Tuesday, repeating the pattern by chatting for 15:43 versus 5:19 for Alito on Wednesday, and concluding with 19:38 against 10:22 on Thursday.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), spending a Biden-beating 25:44 for his own purposes and leaving only 5:59 for Alito on Monday and doing the same by defending Alito for 18:44 on Wednesday while allowing the Judge 1:58 to speak for himself on Wednesday.

And, amazingly, in 46 separate exchanges with the 18 members of the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito's time responding exceeded that of the Senators' time asking only 9 times i.e., attempting to discover the Judge's views on the issues, Senators overwhelmingly spent more time talking than listening.

Superbelt · 01-13-2006, 08:31 PM

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.

Ustwo · 01-13-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

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.

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.

Elphaba · 01-13-2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

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.

Superbelt · 01-14-2006, 11:27 AM

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

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

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.

trickyy · 01-14-2006, 12:19 PM

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

asaris · 01-14-2006, 07:43 PM

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-15-2006, 11:34 PM

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.

Ustwo · 01-15-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

Elphaba · 01-16-2006, 09:56 AM

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.

12-25-2005, 12:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	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? 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. Last edited by Hardknock; 12-26-2005 at 04:20 AM..

01-10-2006, 07:29 PM	#14 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-10-2006, 08:33 PM	#15 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	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. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-11-2006, 04:47 AM	#17 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	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. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-13-2006, 12:53 PM	#29 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-26-2005, 11:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I'm counting on that wild-assed group of fourteen.

12-26-2005, 11:23 AM	#4 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	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.

12-26-2005, 12:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.

01-09-2006, 02:24 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

01-09-2006, 05:14 PM	#9 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

01-09-2006, 07:22 PM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Dangit! We need a sarcasm class. Only the Brits and Canukistans do this well.

01-10-2006, 01:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.

01-10-2006, 10:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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).

01-11-2006, 10:43 AM	#18 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.

01-11-2006, 08:12 PM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	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.

01-11-2006, 08:57 PM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

01-11-2006, 09:34 PM	#22 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.

01-11-2006, 10:01 PM	#23 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

01-11-2006, 11:04 PM	#24 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.

01-12-2006, 09:12 PM	#28 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	After those mean senators on the committee made his wife cry you could almost sense the battle was over.

01-13-2006, 08:31 PM	#31 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	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.

01-14-2006, 11:27 AM	#34 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Difference being: Byrd apologized for the KKK long ago. Alito deflected and lied.

01-14-2006, 12:19 PM	#36 (permalink)
trickyy ►	it's interesting how some many of these thread deteriorate into the same thing.

01-14-2006, 07:43 PM	#37 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	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. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

01-15-2006, 11:34 PM	#38 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-16-2006, 09:56 AM	#40 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.