Alito Confirmation Hearing - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Poppinjay · 01-16-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-16-2006, 01:11 PM

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

Quote:

Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey to Samuel A. Alito Sr., and his wife, the former Rose Fradusco. A member of the Roman Catholic Church and the Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament Parish in Roseland, Alito attended Steinert High School in Hamilton, New Jersey. He graduated from Princeton University with an A.B. in 1972, and attended Yale Law School, where he served as editor on the Yale Law Journal and earned a J.D. in 1975. Alito's father, who is now deceased, was a high school teacher and then became the first Director of the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, a position he held from 1952 to 1984. Alito's mother is a retired schoolteacher. Alito's sister, Rosemary, is regarded as one of New Jersey's top employment lawyers.

At Princeton, Alito led a student conference in 1971 called "The Boundaries of Privacy in American Society" which, among other things, supported curbs on domestic intelligence gathering, called for the legalization of sodomy, and urged for an end to discrimination against homosexuals in hiring by employers.[1] During said conference, Alito stated that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden."

...

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

NCB · 01-16-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

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

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

Poppinjay · 01-17-2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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

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.

Valentina · 01-23-2006, 01:33 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.

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?)

Elphaba · 01-23-2006, 07:56 PM

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

Quote:

Alito Filibuster: It Only Takes One
By Robert Parry
Consortiumnews.com

Sunday 22 January 2006

With the fate of the U.S. Constitution in the balance, it's hard to believe there's no senator prepared to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whose theories on the "unitary executive" could spell the end of the American democratic Republic.

If confirmed, Alito would join at least three other right-wing justices - John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - who believe that George W. Bush should possess near total control of the U.S. government during the ill-defined War on Terror. If Anthony Kennedy, another Republican, joins them, they would wield a majority.

Alito's theory of the "unitary executive" holds that Bush can cite his "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief to ignore laws he doesn't like, spy on citizens without warrants, imprison citizens without charges, authorize torture, order assassinations, and invade other countries at his own discretion.

"Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution?" asked former Vice President Al Gore in a Jan. 16 speech. "If the answer is 'yes,' then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?"

The answer to Gore's final rhetorical question would seem to be no, there is nothing prohibited to Bush. The "unitary executive" can assert authoritarian - even dictatorial - powers for the indefinite future.

Under this government envisioned by Alito and Bush, Americans would no longer have freedoms based on the Constitution and the law, but on Bush's tolerance and charity. Americans would, in essence, become Bush's subjects dependent on his good graces, rather than citizens possessing inalienable rights. He would be a modern-day king.

Resistance

In the face of such an unprecedented power grab, Americans might expect senators from both parties to filibuster Alito and resist Bush's consolidation of power. But Republicans seem more interested in proving their loyalty to Bush, and Democrats so far are signaling only a token fight for fear of suffering political reprisals.

A meeting of the Democratic caucus on Jan. 18 to discuss Alito drew only about two dozen senators out of a total of 45. The caucus consensus reportedly was to cast a "strategic" - or a symbolic - vote against Alito so they could say "we-told-you-so" when he makes bad rulings in the future. [See NYT, Jan.19, 2006]

But it's unclear why voters would want to reward Democrats for making only a meaningless gesture against Alito, rather than fighting hard to keep him off the court. An extended battle also would give them a chance to make their case about why they see Alito as a threat to the U.S. Constitution.

A filibuster could give voters time, too, to learn what Alito and Bush have in mind for the country under the theory of the "unitary executive." If after a tough fight the Democrats lose, they could then say they did their best and the voters would know what was at stake.

Losing, however, might not be the end result. A swing in public opinion is certainly possible if even one senator takes the floor to wage an old-fashioned, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" filibuster in defense of the most fundamental principles of the American democratic experiment.

A filibuster could touch a public nerve if it concentrates on protecting the Founding Fathers' framework of checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law - all designed specifically to prevent an abusive Executive from gaining dictatorial powers.

Secondarily, the filibuster could explain to the American people the need for courage in the face of danger, especially at a time when some political leaders are exploiting fear to stampede the public into trading freedom for security.

Rallying the Nation

If an elder statesman, like Robert Byrd, or a younger senator, like Russell Feingold, started speaking with a determination not to leave until Bush withdraws the Alito nomination, the filibuster could be a riveting moment in modern American politics, a last line of defense for the Republic.

In effect, the filibustering senators would be saying that the future of democracy is worth an all-out congressional battle - and that Alito's theory of a "unitary executive" is an "extraordinary circumstance" deserving of a filibuster.

A filibuster also could force other senators to face up to the threat now emanating from an all-powerful Executive.

Democrats would have to decide if they're willing to stand up to the pressure that Bush and his many allies would surely bring down on them. Republicans would have to choose between loyalty to the President and to the nation's founding principles.

For some senators, the choice might define how they are remembered in U.S. history.

Republican John McCain, whose law against torture was approved in December but was essentially eviscerated when Bush pronounced that it would not be binding on him, would have the opportunity to either demand that the torture ban means something or accept Bush's repudiation of its requirements.

Democrats who think they have the makings of a national leader - the likes of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden - could either demonstrate a toughness for meaningful political battles or confirm their reputations for ineffectual gestures.

The American people also would have a chance to rise to the occasion, showing that they are not the frightened sheep as some critics say, but truly care about democracy as a treasured principle of governance, not just a pleasing word of self-congratulations.

An Alito filibuster could be a galvanizing moment for today's generation like the Army-McCarthy hearings were in the 1950s when red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy finally went too far and was recognized as a dangerous demagogue.

Dangers

On the other hand, there are reasons to suspect that the Senate will recoil from a battle of such constitutional magnitude.

Democratic consultants already are saying that the Senate Democrats should finesse the Alito confirmation - letting it proceed without a big fight - and then focus instead on corruption as an issue with more "traction."

This advice parallels the party's strategy in 2002 when Democratic consultants urged congressional leaders to give Bush what he wanted in terms of authority to invade Iraq so the debate could be refocused on the Democrats' domestic agenda. That approach turned out to be disastrous, both on Election Day and in the Iraq invasion that followed.

Nevertheless, a similar approach was pressed on Democratic presidential nominee Kerry in 2004. The goal was to neutralize the national security issue by citing Kerry's Vietnam War record and then shifting the campaign to domestic issues.

So, instead of hammering Bush on his recklessness in the Iraq War, Kerry softened his tone in the days before the election, turned to domestic issues, and failed to nail down a clear victory, allowing Bush to slip back in by claiming the pivotal state of Ohio.

The strategists are back to the same thinking now, urging Democratic leaders to withdraw from a battle over Alito and to keep their heads down over what to do in Iraq, so they can supposedly gain some ground on the corruption issue.

There is, however, no guarantee that corruption will trump national security in November 2006 anymore than domestic issues did in 2002 and 2004.

Even if the Democrats do filibuster, they could still botch it by muddying the waters with appeals about abortion rights. A longstanding Democratic Party tendency is to pander to liberal interest groups even when doing so will hurt the overall cause.

As strongly as many people feel about Roe v. Wade, it would detract from what is of even greater importance in the Alito confirmation, that he would help consolidate the precedent of an American strongman Executive with virtually no limits on his powers.

A disciplined filibuster focused on protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would have a chance of attracting traditional conservatives as well as moderates and liberals in a cause larger than any political grouping.

Indeed, the filibuster could be the start of a grand coalition built around what many Americans hold as dear as life itself, the principles of a democratic Republic where no man is above the law, where no man is king.

rlbond86 · 01-23-2006, 11:46 PM

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!

samcol · 01-24-2006, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

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.

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.

trickyy · 01-24-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

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!

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.

Elphaba · 01-24-2006, 07:30 PM

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

politicophile · 01-25-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Associated Press

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.

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-25-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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

Elphaba · 01-25-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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

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

politicophile · 01-25-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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

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...

trickyy · 01-26-2006, 05:36 PM

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/

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-27-2006, 12:45 PM

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

Poppinjay · 01-27-2006, 01:25 PM

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

Like maybe unemployed.

Elphaba · 01-27-2006, 01:38 PM

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

trickyy · 01-27-2006, 01:51 PM

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.

01-27-2006, 12:45 PM	#56 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yeah, way to go Kerry. I hope he tries it, then I hope the republicans go nuclear, Alito deserves a vote. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-27-2006, 01:25 PM	#57 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Kerry won't get the votes. I would like to officially invite him to become something other than a democrat. Like maybe unemployed. __________________ 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

01-23-2006, 11:46 PM	#47 (permalink)
rlbond86 Insane	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!

01-24-2006, 07:30 PM	#50 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I have great admiration for Susan Collins. I will be interested in her vote, too.

01-26-2006, 05:36 PM	#55 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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/

01-27-2006, 01:38 PM	#58 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Both Kerry and Kennedy are calling for a filibuster. It looks to me as nothing more than political posturing.

01-27-2006, 01:51 PM	#59 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.