Off Hot Seat, Alito Cools His Jets

[Republican_Man]

[TrekkieMage]

Alito is a brilliant man. There is no denying that. And he does have a proven track record. Brilliant, but too conservative.

First of all, Senate confirmation hearings are brutal. No matter who is in the seat. I appreciate Mrs. Alito's concern for her husband, but didn't someone tell her what would be going on? For four days whoever sits in that chair is a punching bag. And only 30 - 40% get approved. They are appointed for life. The Senate is going to be as thorough as possible.

As for Kennedy, he may be a jerk (as most politicians are), but what he did was a tactic. He did send Schumer a letter asking for a supeona on those documents, Schumer admitted that. Kennedy was using a tactic bringing this up in front of the cameras, public attention. I personally want to know just how involved Alito was with PAC - which is a sickening organization. If his involvement was minimal -fine. Anything more, he shouldn't be confirmed.

The problem with Alito is not his credentials or his intellegance, it's how conservative he'll be. Too liberal is bad - they'll let things slide to much, too conservative is bad - they will not do enough. I was reading an article in the Washington Post where Alito was quoted (I believe) to have said that the interpretation of the Constitution should be rigid and viewed as it was when it was written. If that is the case, why is it considered a living document? How can it adapt to fit us if it refuses to change? How can it protect the freedom of the people if it denies things like 'One Man, One Vote' and the social reforms of the 60's (the ones that made it to the Court).

According to Alito's logic, Brown v. Board shouldn't have happened because it outstripped the power of the Court. And yet the Executive office should have more power.

Alito's smart. There is no avoiding that. But he's too conservative.

I don't want him confirmed.

[Republican_Man]

Warning: The following post is quite long.
I�ve spent a loooong amount of time and thought on this post. It�s just over five pages, size 12 font in Word, so, uh, yeah�If there are any holes in it, please let me know, and I�ll be glad to expand upon them. I don�t really want to read through EVERYTHING a second time, so anyways�Read on�

Have you not seen what Kennedy's asking? They're quite similar to when he said in the 80s, "Robert Bork's America is an America where women will be forced to get back alley abortions; blacks will be segregated in the back of the bus and lunch counters. Rogue police will storm into your house in the dark of night to do it." Slander. What Kennedy's asking AREN'T intelligent questions. What Schumer's asking AREN'T intelligent questions. What Biden's asking AREN'T intelligent questions.
We expect intelligent questions. Those are fine. What we DON'T expect smear merchants falsely accusing a man of being a liar and a racist. The hearings should be tough, but NOT like these liberals are doing there.
To go over and over these questions like he's a liar and a bigot and a racist is just wrong. They're not treating him with respect, not at all. Ask him about his judicial philosophy, fine. Ask him about a few issues that MIGHT come before the court (although he could, like Ginsberg, not answer the questions). But to continually attack him is just wrong. Why don't the Republicans do this? Why don't the Republicans attack and brutalize and mischaracterized and character assassinate and all that like Kennedy does? Maybe because we still have some dignity? Kennedy�s been assassinating the character of conservative nominees for YEARS, yet almost all Republicans didn�t do that when liberals were nominated. Just goes to show you the differences in character between both sides.


Qualifications: let's look at Ginsberg. Constitutional right to polygamy. DEFINITELY pro-abortion (which Alito IS NOT NECESSARILY). Former chief counsel to the ACLU. Look, she was RADICAL. FAR LEFT. MUCH farther left than Alito�a good judge who will do his job fairly�is right. And yet she was qualified. Did the Republicans attack her like the democrats are doing? No. I mean, come on! Do you REALLY condone the extent to which some of the questions�and continuous, as well�and insinuations of Kennedy and Schumer and Biden went?
The Republicans let her through. The Republicans didn�t brutalize her. And yet look at what her record is. Far left. Alito, on the other hand, doesn�t actually have that conservative of a record. He chose the side that put forth the best argument in all these cases, and has been nothing but fair. There is no reason to say otherwise.
Same with Clinton nominee Stephen Breyer. He�s a liberal too, and yet the Republicans let him slip by and didn�t do these kinds of things to him in the hearings.
To quote Fred Barnes on this, whom I think put it very nicely: �Let�s compare these two nominations with the two Clinton nominations�both highly credentialed liberals. Now, what happened then? Did we have articles from some magazine thrown up trying to identify them as racist and bigots? Did we have anything like that? No. Republicans, by and large, the majority of them, voted�they were very proper hearings�and they voted for him because a Republican ought to be able to name a credentialed conservative to the court, and the Democrats ought to be able to name a credentialed liberal to the court. Republicans did that. They did not have hearings like this.�

On Ted Kennedy, LIBERAL Mort Kondracke said, after Barnes, �I would observe that Ted Kennedy has been character assassinating judges, ever since Clement Haynsworth back in the Nixon administration�a distinguished man who had nothing wrong with him and was represented as being a racist and anti-labor and all the rest of that. He was merely a conservative, and Kennedy�s been doing it over and over again. He�s got a whole gang of people�who do that.�

Now, to go over that Princeton group over and over was just ridiculous. He didn't remember being in the group, and that's understandable. If you put it into context, they were trying to get the military off the campus. Perhaps he joined the organization in order to have his name somewhere with an organization that said that what was going on with regards to the military there was wrong. He doesn't remember. Seriously--why wouldn't he have said something like, "I was part of that organization, the extent to which they went was unknown to me" or whatever good answer he would have given.
If you're not a prominent member of a group, or really much active at all, then why would you not remember such a thing? I mean, somehow, also, I don't think he would have lied to the committee as well--under oath
He answered more questions than Roberts did, too, and more thoroughly.

As Senator Hatch, on the Committee, said on Hannity�s radio show, he could do anything he wants. He has that status and credibility and ability to do whatever. But he chooses to sit in front of that committee and be brutalized and accused and criticized in a way not done since Bork, and not done in any other instance that I've heard of.
As I said, intelligent questions are fine. Tough questions are fine. But to ask some of the things Kennedy and Schumer and Biden are asking...that just goes to far.

Now, what I believe he means by talking about the Constitution not being a living document or whatever is that he is ORIGINALIST, which is so, and which is what he SHOULD be and what ALL justices on the court should be, as opposed to activist. It�s not merely a conservative view to have originalist justices�but those justices are what we need, especially in this day and age.
To your argument that by his logic Brown v. Education wouldn�t have ruled the way it did, that�s false, because no where in the Constitution does it say ANYTHING about segregation. Instead it talks about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It wasn�t in the Constitution, so I fail to see your argument here.
The Constitution isn�t a living document, nor should it be treated that way. Yes, there are some things that might need to be interpreted differently, but overall, justices need to rule the way the Founders intended, and that is Alito�s position, just as it was Roberts and just as, coincidentally, it happens to be virtually every conservative�s idea�even though it�s not strictly a conservative principal.

With regards to being a conservative, particularly on abortion, I�m going to give a direct quote of Sean Hannity to Paul Begala just a bit ago:
�He did, in the New Jersey case, clearly go against his viewpoint�he went with Planned Parenthood�s position on the issue of partial birth abortion and the ban that was set in New Jersey. He followed the law, and he followed precedent. In the Nebraska case, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. What else do you want from a guy?...I am proud that there are people like Judge Alito who want to serve this country, that will put up with the crap that we saw this week and sit through the sanctimony of (your pal and your hero) Ted Kennedy because he has a better goal and a higher purpose in life, that he wants to serve other people�Everyone�s a liar in your world because he doesn�t remember something from 25 years ago? Paul, you supported the biggest liar in the history of this country, Bill Clinton [Clinton imitation].�


Now, will you not have the moral conviction to denounce the things that Ted Kennedy has been saying and insinuating? Will you not do that?

He�s getting good marks, you know. Let�s tally some of them down:

CLINTON appointee Maryanne Trump Berry (Donald Trump�s sister): �His commitment to doing the right thing�never playing fast and lose with a record, never taking a fast cut��
JOHNSON appointee Ruggero Aldisert, appointed 45 years ago: �Judge Alito has to be included among the FIRST rank of the 44 judges with whom I have served on the 3rd circuit.�
A retired judge on the 3rd circuit, who says he�s �very pro-choice,� Timothy Lewis, said �I cannot recall one instance where he exhibited anything remotely resembling an ideological bent��
He said he disagreed on most issues with Judge Alito, but thought he was an honest man, a man who struggled to find the right answers, who was not an ideologue.

To quote FOX News: �The committee also heard from the panel of the American Bar Association, which said it interviewed more than 300 people, including 130 judges, about Alito,� saying, ��who almost uniformly talked in terms of his even-handedness, of his open-mindedness, of his willingness to be fair. He�s called �A Judge�s Judge� more than once in those interviews.
Democrats and Democratic judges have even testified in his defense in these hearings, so I really don�t see what you�re so worried about.
SEVEN co-justices on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals came to the committee and gave him praise, including at least 2 Democrats.

Next, the charges that Alito was against women and minorities were what made his wife cry�and justifiably so. Somehow I don�t think that what the democrats are doing here is something that would be taught in school�
To once again quote the news, �The [American Bar Association] panel interviewed many women and minorities who worked with him, and said that they saw no evidence of prejudice. ��and they said, that is not the Sam Alito we know. And we heard that time and time again.�� (Marna Tucker)
To now quote Chairman Specter on the Princeton issue, with regards to those documents Kennedy threatened to bring the committee to a standstill over yesterday, �The files contained dozens of articles, including investigative expos written at the height of the organization�s prominence, but Samuel Alito�s name is no where to be found in any of them.�

They�re only arguments now are abortion, which I see him, judging from his past cases and opinions of others (and I�m talking about the people he knows and has worked with), as being quite fair and open-minded (something Ann Coulter�s not too happy about), and powers of the executive branch, especially now that this Princeton thing has been laid to rest.

If you�re a Roe v. Wade advocate and think that it shouldn�t be overturned, you know, Alito gave NO hints that he would do such a thing, and there is NO reason to think such a way.

Now, legal analyst (and reporter) over at FOX, Megyn Kendall, said this:
First she talked about a study discussing the LARGE number of questions Alito was asked. He was asked 759 questions, answered 716 (94%), and didn�t answer 43 (a mere 6%). Now, Roberts was asked 574 questions, answered 510 (89%), and declined to answer 64 (11%). So, assuming that the study is true, Alito was asked a great deal of questions.
Now when Alito declined, however, those were issues that he said were live issues that might come before the court, that he couldn�t pre-judge those cases. Brit Hume felt, watching this, that when he did answer questions, Kennedy and Schumer and Biden considered him �unresponsive.� I quote Kendall�s response here:
�I actually personally thought that he was forthcoming on a number of issues that I didn�t expect him to be. That�s not to say that he answered everything that they wanted answers to�The reason he was able to [answer] much moreso than any other recent nominees is that he has so many opinions that he has authored. More than 300 cases, and [he] decided more than 300 cases. So he was able, in virtually every question, to refer to a case or go back and explain his analysis of that issue, or he would at least say, �I haven�t written on that issue, but here�s how I would analyze it, and he would walk the Democrats through the steps.�
But of course the Democrats didn�t want that. They wanted�they needed�to know how he would judge on a case�to force him to pre-judge it. They weren�t looking for how he would analyze cases, but how he would decide on them.
Now, to quote her one final time, �His response [to questions about what he would decide] was, �I can�t get into specific predictions,� and nor has any other nominee in the past.� And nor, might I add, IMO, should he. NO justice should pre-judge a case. I really don�t think that wise. But analysis�how one would analyze a case�is reasonable. So is your judicial philosophy, but specific cases? Not only is it prerogative not to, but it�s also unwise, IMO, to judge a case before it comes before you. You can see that, I�m sure.

I agree with Fred Barnes when he says, �The only reason to vote against him is because you are a partisan ideologue, and you don�t think someone who is a moderate conservative like Sam Alito ought to be on the court.�

And here�s what LIBERAL Mort Kondracke said, sharing his opinion after Fred Barnes: �I think�my fundamental principle in this�that a Republican president has the right to nominate a conservative, and if the person is of good character, and smart, and learned, and judicious, then he ought to be confirmed, and the same thing for a democratic nominee. And by that standard he ought to be confirmed.�


And notice how it seems as though no one else was added to the number of people who were already opposed to him. I think it�s safe to say that this is so because of the fantastic way he handled himself in the hearings, despite his wife�s outburst and the harsh criticism he got, and of the praise he got from the judges and ABA officials, if you will, that came before the committee. Senators Graham and Hatch�no conservatives�praised him as well for all his credentials and everything else, rightfully so too. Lindsey(sp?) Graham was the one who was defending Alito�comments which resulted in Mrs. Alito�s tears�and he clearly likes him.
He�s not an outrageously conservative judge, and is a lot more open minded than almost everyone I know.

And keep in mind that Alito, finally, said that he would, if successful, try to emulate what he calls Justice Sandra Day O�Connor�s dedication and integrity.

One last comment from me on Alito: There�s no reason not to approve him. He�s the President�s choice, and it�s the President�s prerogative to nominate whomever he wants. Clinton did it�twice in �93 and �94. And what ideology did his nominees have? Left�and farther left than Alito is right (at least in Ginsberg�s case; all I know about Breyer is that he�s a pretty liberal guy). Ginsberg, for instance, had a radical record prior to nomination, as I stated before�and what did the Republicans do? They not only gave her a fair shake in the hearings and the Senate, but by and large the majority of Republicans APPROVED her, even though they disagreed with her ideology.
It�s alright to ask good, quality, intelligent questions. But it�s not to character assassinate and ask and insinuate the things that Mr. Kennedy and Schumer (Kennedy especially) have.
It�s alright to get a feel for the nominee�s judicial philosophy and take that into consideration.
But to take a litmus test on abortion, or so, �Oh my gosh, this guy�s a conservative! We can�t vote for him!� is just ridiculous and, IMO, wrong. If you look at this man�s history, he has a history of being a fair judge�as SO MANY have attested to, in evidence I�ve put forth in this post. He has absolutely impeccable credentials�both education- and service-wise�and has a track record of proven quality performance. So he�s a bit of a conservative. Okay, so what?
Is he originalist? Yes.
Has he been highly praised by those he�s served with? Yes.
Has he gotten high marks from the American Bar Association? Yes.
Has he judged previous cases fairly? Yes.
Is he learned and astute? Yes.
Is he qualified? Yes.

Okay�so what�s the problem? I sure as heck don�t see it. All I see is a well-qualified, honest, mild-mannered judge who has a proven record of outstanding performance. I see a man with impeccable credentials who�s well qualified for the position�even more so than Chief Justice Roberts�who should get approved. There is absolutely no reason why the President�s choice should be confirmed. It�s the President�s prerogative, and he�s the ideal choice.
I say, cut the crap, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden, Patrick Lehi, and Confirm Judge Samuel Alito, perhaps the most qualified nominee in YEARS.


And just a little thing from me, on a related issue: Where is the part of the Constitution that says �A woman shall have the right to have an abortion� or �A woman shall have the right to determine whether or not her unborn child is given birth� anyways. I don't seem to see it, so I don't get why Schumer keeps badgering Alito over it.

Now how�s THAT for a rebuttal, 5 pages of size 12 font?

[Republican_Man]

I wanted to set this off from that post, but on the SMEAR campaign of Durbin and Kennedy--as O'Reilly put it, "intentionally trying to inflict pain on the nominee and the nominee's family"--I really advise you check out O'Reilly's interview with Senator Graham whenever it gets onto FoxNews.com. It is a VERY good interview, very serious.
If you have questions about that, please take a look at that.
But I've drawn the conclusion that there is absolutely no reason for this smear campaign that Kennedy and some others are leading on Alito.
I agree with O'Reilly here when he talks about the Senate supposed to be the body that is revered and of higher status and RESPECTFUL. But this display that Kennedy and Durbin especially (on this issue; Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, and Lehi on others) is just appauling, and I wouldn't be surprised if they lost a chunk fo support because of it. It was wrong and there is NO justification for it.
After yesterday's proceedings, I'm starting to like Senator Graham.

[Cathexis]

[Republican_Man]

I agree with everything you say except this:

[Cathexis]

[Republican_Man]

Okay, thanks. Then I agree with you. Yes, it didn't matter who the President replaced O'Connor with, I agree with you. They would have done everything to get at that nominee as well--save for Miers, but that was a different situation (although, mind you, I would have given her a chance).
Here we have a judge with all the perfect credentials and yet, alas, he's seen to be a conservative, and so we can't have him. Period, end of story.
I think part of it is now that they're so desperate over the fact that it's an O'Connor replacement, and she's the swing vote, so that's why I think they're going after Alito more than Roberts, who replaced another conservative.
But regardless of reasons, it's not justified. It's disgusting how these hearings were being used for purely partisan purposes. It was like something out of a hack-job smear merchant web site or a Michael Moore movie.

[Cathexis]

[Republican_Man]

Agreed. And you know, they pretty much know everything. They should know almost everything already, so for them to do this in that context as well...It's maddening, really.

[Cathexis]

[Link, the Hero of Time]

yES, a supreme court justice serves for Life. A very long time to serve as a judge in the highest court.

People have a right to grill him for everything he's worth over and over again on the subjects they think are important. And if they dont like his answers or his track record, then they have a right to deny him that lifetime position.

[Cathexis]

[Republican_Man]

Exactly as I've been saying, Cathexis, and exactly as I stand. Only you said it very elegantly and in a far shorter when then I did (referring to my 5-page MS Word post ). But yes, exactly. They have the right to grill him, fine. But to lie, slander, defame, and accuse him of being a racist and anything else you could think of (maybe not flat-out, but through insinuations) is just WRONG. The Republicans didn't do such a thing for far-left liberal Ginsberg, or Liberal Breyer, during the Clinton years. What gives the Democrats the right to do such things now? Why aren't they holding themselves to the same standard the Republicans did back in '93 and '94?
It's wrong, distasteful, and shows some of these Democrats for the true savages, if I may, that they really are--particularly Kennedy, and Durbin. They're playing so much to their radical edge that it's gone too far. Kennedy's outdone himself now. But if you're old enough, remember Robert Bork, and what Kennedy said during his hearings? This is just a replay.
It's horrible. Now, as you said, and as I've been saying, there's a certain night in 1969 in which a certain man left a certain car in a certain body of water with a certain woman dying that we don't have good answers for. So, yes, if Kennedy wants to dig so far back for Alito, why not look back at Kennedy? I wonder how he would respond to being questioned about Chapequitic(sp?). Or what about questions about HIS Princeton group--the one that was all men and didn't allow woman?

[TrekkieMage]

Admittedly I did skim over most of these past posts because I am very tired (it took me about six tried to write 'because' ). While I can see what you all are saying, I do believe you are missing one critical point.

Senate confirmation hearings are brutal. No matter who you are. For four days the nominee serves as a punching bag for the Senators, the media, and the public. If they can stand that and come out clean on paper, they're acceptable for the job.

This is a life appointment. It isn't going to be a courtious walk in the park. It doesn't matter who is sitting in that chair. Liberal, conservative, independant, ANYONE. It's brutal. They aren't just picking on Alito. Really. This isn't some special treatment.

As for the CAP thing. Here's what happened. They didn't have access to some documents. They had a resume citing it. This made them suspicious. Kennedy sent a letter to ...I forget his name, sorry...but he didn't respond. When this happened Kennedy saw an opening. So he brought it up, where it would get the most attention. It worked. He got access to the papers they needed. They did not prove anything about Alito's connections with CAP. So it was dropped.

It may have been a 'smear' tactic, but it is one that has been used and it was perfectly legit. Mean, yes. Wrong, not necessarily.

[Cathexis]

[Republican_Man]

Very eloquently spoken.
Yet they did ask him some questions relevant to today, but with the expectation that he would tell them how, exactly, he would rule, to give them a reason not to confirm him.
However, the good judge just didn't play into that game. Instead, he said he wouldn't pre-judge the case before he had the arguments layed out before him. He then, however, discussed how he would analyze a case, and went into step-by-step detail, walking the Democrats through his process.
And yet, that wasn't what they wanted. They wanted a direct answer, for their own political rulings. Would he always vote towards the anti-Roe side? Would he always do this and that?
Well, they didn't get what they wanted. He was too smart to give them it. So, he gave them his process of analysis--what he should have gotten.
But of course the Democrats take that and say, "He didn't answer the questions." Well, he did. And he answered 94% of them, too. Just not the way they wanted them answered.
Oh, and about the Democrats...they hardly even asked questions less than 12 minutes...Ever Alan Colmes aknowledged this.

[Cathexis]

Ah, yes....quite true! Thank you, RM, for correcting my oversight.

[CJ Cregg]

I belive it was Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio (R) who didnt ask a Question for 12 minutes. The longest of all the senators. The hearing serve no purpose anymore. They should just scrap them, as Sen. Biden suggested.

[Republican_Man]

Biden asked a 20+ minute question of his own, which took Alito only 4 minutes to answer. Most of the Democrats kept saying what they wanted, and STUDIES of it show that Alito got a SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER amount of time to speak than the Senators. The questions, as liberal Alan Colmes recognized, were almost ALL 12 minutes or so, or 3000 words, as Michael Reagan put it.
I think I am leaning towards agreement with Biden--which I'm surprised that he suggested it--in that it should be scrapt. It serves no purpose any longer.
Now that it's on TV, it's nothing more than a media circus.
No wonder why only 14% of Americans watched or listened to it, as stats show. The nominee hardly got to speak! It was all Democrats, and sometimes Republicans!

[Cathexis]

[Theresa]

Maybe the other 86% were working, providing for their families? Just because they weren't watching, doesn't mean that they are uninformed. Another example of a stupid stat.

[CJ Cregg]

No one watched because they were BORING! My god I've never seen anything more boring Even the most political of us must of found them boring

[Cathexis]

[Theresa]

Who was talking to you, Cathexis? I was referencing the stat, as I said in my post.
Please don't take a general statement and try and turn it like I'm attacking you. Thank you.


(BTW, like I've said a zillion times before, if I'm directly speaking to you, I'll say your name, or quote you. Got it now? Good, )