I have been following some of confirmation hearings, but admit to not watching a lot of it since watching paint dry is more informative than listening to a bunch of blowhards from both parties who love listening to themselves, and listening to a nominee not answer questions using the same BS excuse.

One part I did see today exemplifies the total nonsense of these hearings. Chuck Schumer pointed out that Alito replied things like the President or other government officials are not above the law, respect citizen's civil liberties, and other cliches that you hear in these hearings. Schumer asked if he ever heard of a case where a nominee said anything other than those cliched responses, and he had some difficulty supplying a straight answer to that as well. So once again, we apparently will get confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court nominee in which we learn virtually nothing.

Prediction: 72 votes for confirmation.

I agree that there is a lot of hard blowing coming from both sides of that table - there are much better uses of your time, Senatorzzz! - but I also love listening to Alito discuss qualified immunity, search and seizure, privilege and other legal issues which I deal with every day, just as I did with Roberts, albeit with better delivery and less nasality. It really does give concreteness to a job in which matters tend to drag on forever, often without any clear cut resolution when they finally do end. It's like listening to a good law professor or good bar exam instructor strut his stuff - without having to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege - and I generally find the whole process fascinating and worth staying up late for.

gmg, bloviating is one thing, but when "senators" like Schumer and Womanslaughter attack a man's character in front of his wife, this is repugnant beyond belief. In fact, reports are that women across the country are calling in furious about what happened to Mrs. Alito.

And this from two "senators" who claim to be guardians of women's rights, defenders of women everywhere, protectors of the female gender.

As CNN's Jeff Greenfield said:

Democrats will pay for their disgusting action in the hearings. They ought to. Severely.

[ January 11, 2006, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

According to the Washington Post, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy convinced Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter to provide a few more hours of Alito interrogation tomorrow so that Democrats could comb through the transcripts and "ask better questions." You want to ask a better question, Pat? Here's one: "Judge Alito, do you have a handkerchief I could borrow so that I could, at long last after more than 30 years in public life, blow my nose?"

I have one for Senator Kennedy: "Judge Alito, why did I let Mary Jo Kopechne die?"

Oh dear god. Another day of this? I've had all I can bear. This whole set of proceedings is wearing on my nerves, probably because the other nominee's travails just completed.

"Mr. ________, will you overturn Roe v. Wade."

"Why no, Senator ____________, I believe that (fill in the blank pre-approved and coached response that meets with public approval)."

There's little new material that comes to light in these things. The whole thing is a grand dance; dance around this topic without appearing committal, and then dance around that topic w/out revealing anything of one's innermost self. Meanwhile, the Solons get to feel important.

More tax dollars flying out the window...that's all these affairs ever produce.

Just for the few talking about the abortion in America, in a Gallup Poll released today, 53% considered themselves Pro-Choice. The difference of Pro-Choice/Pro-Lifers has been virtually the same back to 96.

Yes, a majority does NOT believe it should be legal in every case (although you gotta wonder about the 5% who say there is never a valid reason for an abortion, even the woman's life).


And in a Wall Street Journal Poll last month:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff ®. Dec. 9-12, 2005. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.4.


.

"The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"

Overturn: 30%
Not Overturn: 66%


But I think the inconsistency comes from all the different stipulations. You either allow or not allow abortion. You can only throw in so many different restrictions. The scary thing I just see is when you look back at when abortion was illegal and all the illegal abortions were performed and how dangerous it can be. Abortions are NOT going to stop if it's legal. It's just one of those issues in my opinion, where if you believe it's wrong to get an abortion...then so be it. Don't get one and you can encourage your friends and family members not to either. But it's just one of those things where you don't need to interfere in other other people's freedoms.

Since you never have even the slightest shred of a fact on hand, here goes. It wasn't CAPS, but CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton. It was bankrolled by Princeton's largest donor at the time, so it was hardly "trivial." And many of the pieces in its magazine Prospect would give people on the right pause.

But I'll let people very familiar with the university and issue explain it for you, since you're unwilling to listen to anything unless it's straight out of the right-wing playbook. Here's the Princeton newspaper's discussion of the issue. (Neither Senator Kennedy nor Neas or anyone else is responsible for the error that Shelby Moore Cullom, Shelby Cullom Davis's grandfather, was the Republican Senator from Illinois, preceded by David Davis. And by your analogy, is Laura Bush now Laura Manslaughter? Or Boyfriendslaughter? LOL)

Daily Princetonian: Alito and CAP

Re: the exchange between Chmn. Specter and Sen. Kennedy on the latter's letter concerning the CAP records. Specter was right in noting that Kennedy could testify as to what he sent, but was speculating as to what Specter might have received; that's a basic rule of evidence based on personal knowledge, which Kennedy has none of in relation to Specter's receipt of anything. But a more studious, if not clever, lawyer than Teddy, who might have paid more attention in evidence class, instead of dreaming about family perks and entitlements, would have known of the presumption that a letter deposited into the mails is deemed delivered, thereby shifting the burden to the recipient to show non-delivery. Teddy blew it by failing to follow up on this angle, and instead abandoned the law, as he had previously violated it, for politics, by opting for threats and confrontation instead of logic and reason, which Specter rightly shut down - even if it was subsequently determined that his staff - not he - had received Kennedy's letter over the holidays, which Kennedy might well have established as well - if equipped to do so.

The devil's in the details folks, and he's said to take the hindmost - here, the last born of the litter. The more I see Kennedy in all this, the more I believe I hear his swan song. Or is it the "Evensong of a Fool" that makes me sleep so soundly these nights?

So was he a member of CAP or not? Either he lied to Reagan on his resume, or he's lying right now. Gosh, considering the way he is truth challenged, he seems a perfect fit for this crooked adminstration.

Considering Roe itself was filed and based on a lie, it's no surprising these poll numbers are themselves completely meaningless. The above question is factually incorrect. Roe and its companion case of Doe v. Bolton established abortion on demand throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy. The media is famous for lying about this. Now, how many Americans would not want to overturn Roe if they knew the truth about (a) Roe and the truth about (b)abortion itself?

I'm willing to bet that many here didn't realize the far-reaching and absolute implications of Roe.

CAP had no membership per se, so Aliton couldn't be a member. There was no membership list, none of the activities or items normally associated with membersip. It did have a board on which sat--gasp--a woman (so much for being anti-woman) and men, all of whom are present day, respected individuals in their communities or the public eye (well, most of them are respected, depending on one's ideological point of view, I guess ).

Despite FT's rantings and his pulling CAP info from the memos Kennedy's staffers probably sent him to derail a good and honorable man, CAP was an organization whose sole purpose was to try to get the ROTC back onto Princeton's campus (it had been kicked off after a left-wing fire bombing attack against them). They happened to have opposed racial quotas used to admit minorities ahead of others, something an overwhelming majority of Americans with common sense also opposes, yet because of this, Alito is being branded if not a racist then someone who is racially insensitive. Puhleeze!

Only those who are grasping for the thinnest of straws to deny a supremely qualified, good man a seat on the Supreme Court would attempt to twist CAP into what it's not.

But anyway, a little more on this...

Judge Alito’s name NEVER appears in any CAP-related document of any kind anywhere:

* His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from founder William Rusher.

* His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from CAP’s long-time Executive Director T. Harding Jones.

* His name does not appear anywhere in the dozens of letters to CAP or from CAP.

* The files contain canceled checks for subscriptions to CAP’s magazine, Prospect, but none from Judge Alito.

* The files contain dozens of articles, including investigative exposés written at the height of the organization’s prominence, but Sam Alito’s name is nowhere to be found in any of them.

* Rusher’s files contain lists of the board of directors, the advisory board, and contributors to both CAP and Prospect magazine, but none of the lists contains Alito’s name.

* Tellingly, the files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984—just before Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Alito did not attend those meetings and he was not even mentioned in the minutes.

* The files contain dozens of issues of CAP’s magazine, but none of the articles was written by, quoted, or even mentioned Sam Alito.

[ January 12, 2006, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Kinda like the freedom of the preborn child's life? Thought so.

The face of the Democrats...

Does this man ever smile (when he's sober, that is)?


Ugh.


Love the CAP!


Grrrrr!


The Democrats' plan re. Alito:

1. Run against President Bush, like it’s 2004 all over again—NSA, 2000 Supreme Court election decision, etc.

2. When not doing 1, continually hammer at abortion—which the majority of America is uncomfortable with, to say the least.

3. When not doing 1 or 2, keep talking about CAP, which no American understands.

4. When not doing 1, 2, or 3, tick off Chairman Specter: first threaten to postpone the markup date, then pull a procedural stunt behind his back.

5. When not doing 1, 2, 3, or 4, and all else fails, don’t even apologize when the nominee’s wife cries.

Good plan.

And these guys still want to threaten a filibuster?

we get it. alito was in no way involved with CAP.

but doesn't that mean he lied on his job application?

seems he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. maybe he should just tell the truth...

Sure sounds like a typical embellishment to impress a potential boss.

And Billy Blythe Clinton's "impeachable offense" was a typical deception to stay out of the doghouse of American sexual hypocrisy.

The wife doesn't need to be stationed behind the nominee in the first place; it is done, of course, to guarantee he's a Good Family Man (care to estimate the year of the first gay male justice? 2215?). Mrs. Alito sniffling as Sen. Graham does his Phony Bullshit Apology has sealed Slippery Sam's confirmation... Television replacing democracy at its finest. Let's start this dumbass debased country all over again.

[ January 12, 2006, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

For gmg, more random thoughts and observations of the hearings...

Someone should take count of how many times at these hearings Dems mention the Federalist Society in the context of saying they're not going to talk about the Federalist Society--the assumption presumably being that the FedSoc rep is so notoriously evil that just mentioning the name will kill the nomination.

A Kennedy who has never known a moment's worry about money is now grilling a lifelong middle-class public servant with no family fortune from New Jersey about the public servant's mutual fund -- which, if memory serves, was and is the world's most popular mutual fund, currently serving more than 18 million investors. Teddy Kennedy, by contrast, is showered with money from his family trust. Have you no shame, Senator, at long last?

They're eating their own, I hear. This from Armando, one of the head lunatics over at the asylum that is dailykos.com: "Senator Leahy has done a disservice to Democrats. If he did not have the stomach for the fight, he should have let someone else lead the fight. I can not express how angry I am at Senator Leahy. He is not up to the challenge. He just was not up to the job. He has failed us." Hee hee.

The most painful words spoken in the English language just spoken by Specter: "Senator Biden has asked for twenty minutes." eek!

Biden seems like such a happy guy--someone with a real capacity to enjoy the world. And it doesn't take a lot to make him happy; just the sheer pleasure of being alive, of being able to hear his own voice. I wonder if birds feel the same thrill at their singing.

He says interesting things, from time to time. I think he makes a fair point here and there. He was correct, for example, that Congress needed to have a real deabte over the war. I think he has some obvious verbal intelligence. But, again, what's fascinating--and what might be distracting some folks from seeing his underlying-yet-occassional smarts--is that he lets his ego and vanity get in the way. The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a grey Buick, in defiance of a restraining order, as it walks home from school. He seems to think his teeth are some kind of hypnotic punctuation marks which can momentarily disorient the listener and absolve him from any of Western civilization's usual imperatives to stop talking. Listening to him speechify is like playing an intellectual game of whack-a-mole where every now and then the fuzzy head of a good point pops up from the tundra but before you can pin it down, he starts talking about how he went to the store and saw a squirrel on the way and it was brown which brings to mind Brown V. Board of Ed which most people don't understand because [TEETH FLASH] he taught Brown in his law school course and [TEETH FLASH] Mr. Chairman I'm going to get right to it and besides these aren't the droids you're looking for....

Senator Womanslaughter makes the understatement of the century, perhaps the millenium: “We all make mistakes, I know I have ….”

Herb Kohl has to do a third round of questioning because it's his last chance to remind anyone who is not from Wisconsin that he is still there in the Senate.

More later perhaps...

Check and Balances to Martha-Ann: BOO f**kING HOO.


The NJ mention is curious. Are you being elitist toward my native state? And your "eat their own" comment is a yawner, as you know very well true progressives have generally loathed the Democratic Party as far back as when it got in bed with the Reagan agenda.

Joe Biden, the Senator from Credit Card Companies, generally repulses me, but he has made one obviously necessary recommendation: get rid of the pointless confirmation hearings.

FanT, MIB --is it any wonder that whenever our society engages in a political debate about issues, the tone soon turns nasty, partisan and mean spirited? You guys do our culture of dissent, reasonable inquiry, tolerance and discussion a great disservice. It's like we're transported back to the Founding Fathers' time of slanderous broadsides, petty political espionage, and double dealing. The only thing missing are duels.

Alito comes down to this: he's promised an open mind. We can't force him to keep it open. But after the savaging by Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, and others --as well as the silly 3rd party testimony that's coming up-- Alito may well hold an emotional grudge against liberal issues from this point forward and we have no one to thank but the whacked out Left "friends" trying to make him out to be a troll. I've never been so disgusted to be a Democrat, even in the darkest Slick Willy times.

The House may well lose GOP seats in 2006 --but we'll have a strong conservative SCOTUS for a long time to come... and the Dems aren't helping us make friends --only enemies.

I wish we could rid ourselves of the radical voices within our party --they've been too controling for far too long... Kennedy included.

From that unimpeachable font of news and opinion, the San Francisco Comical, another reason for Ted Kennedy to spend more time in the gym and less bellied up to the bar. CAP - Much ado about nothing?

As Bill W noted,

Joe Biden, the Senator from Credit Card Companies, generally repulses me, but he has made one obviously necessary recommendation: get rid of the pointless confirmation hearings.

Amen, brother, on both points! These ARE an increasingly pointless and embarrassing waste of time! Let's decide this - and lots more issues - "on the briefs!"

[ January 12, 2006, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Hilarious, given that one Dem voted against the USA PATRIOT Act. Will you be satisfied if the Dems nominate an actual Republican for president, instead of a fake one like (either) Clinton?

BillW, not a laughing matter except to you.

Pray tell me, what does the number of Democrats voting for the Patriot Act have to do with our party controlled by radicals for far too long?

Did you not get the memo that Dean is DNC Chair?

I wrote "radical"; I didn't say they were principled, brave, or strong-willed.

Remember, there are far more people in leadership in our party that AREN'T in Congress, than are. Congressional Democrats are in the minority because their strategy for advancing keeps them there.

Nope, not a laughing matter. The radicals still rule in our Party.

The Daily Princetonian, Princeton's student newspaper, is far less truth-challenged and biased than MIB. The organization had a board, it had membership, and as all should note, MIB has yet to produce any link or evidence to his statements. I wish I were in contact with Kennedy's office. I did write to him many times when I lived in Massachusetts, and he was always more responsive than Kerry was, just as Obama is always more responsive to my letters than Dickie Durbin (though I think he's pretty good in responding too). Lautenberg is by far the best, though, among the Senate crowd I've been in contact with.

As I said, the fact that this eminent jurist--Alito, that is--cannot tell the truth about something as basic as CAP should give pause. Princeton returned the ROTC to campus in 1973, which is a matter of public record. CAP's "Prospect" magazine repeatedly wrote articles excoriating minorities and women, and reported to a young Latina's parents that she was using contraceptives (without her permission), and merited the condemnation of alumni from the right and left, to the extent that it received national coverage. Yet Scalito can't remember this. Oh well, yeah, sure. If you buy this, you get what you deserve.

[ January 12, 2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

But what is your response? To have nothing but pabulum? Don't you see how serious this issues surrounding this man's confirmation are? It was the same when Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, etc., were confirmed, but it's especially important given the person whom Alito is replacing. Sandra Day O'Connor played a key role in over 100 decisions, many of which might have gone the other way had she not sat on the court. I didn't always agree with her rulings, especially when she took a more conservative approach. But she was not a rigid ideologue, and to replace her with one is very problematic.

Are you gay? Are you openly gay? Illinois, as you know, just passed statewide laws, signed by Gov. Blago, assuring that you cannot be discriminated against because you are gay or thought to be gay. A Democratic governor (who's more conservative than many Democrats in the state) and Democratic legislators (with some moderate Republican support) ensured this for ALL Illinoisans, not just people living in Chicago or Cook County or Lake County or Urbana. ALL people in the state who're gay now have this protection, and Democrats made it possible. It matters greatly who holds office, and we do need people who are willing to push policies like this that some people may disagree with. Usually the progressive folks are more willing than the namby-pamby types.

The Democratic Party, at the presidential level, at the Congressional level, and even in the DNC, has been led by moderate-to-right-leaning DLC types for quite a while. I t's not the "radicals" who have control; Tom Daschle was hardly a radical, nor is Harry Reid (though he's pretty tough). In fact, Democrats haven't had a really left-leaning person leading anything since Lyndon Johnson (and he was a war hawk). Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both conservative Democrats (the only Democrat running to the right of Carter was Henry Scoop Jackson). When Barbara Boxer or Frank Lautenberg becomes Majority Leader (it ain't gonna happen), or Barbara Jackson-Lee or one of the Sanchez sisters from California heads the House caucus, then we can talk about "radicals." The Democrats, who have basically enabled George W. Bush's entire agenda, are FAR FROM IT.

As for Alito, he's hardly been "savaged." Do you think he's not supposed to answer questions given that he's getting a lifetime job? Maybe you've had the experience of waltzing into a job, but I can tell you, I and most people I know haven't. His job will affect people for generations to come, so he should be challenged and pressed on his beliefs and how he's going to act in this position, if he gets it. It's not a cakewalk, nor should it be.

Finally, I'll agree with gmg for a change. Joe CreditCardCo a'Biden is a farce. But I'd take him over Ms. Huckleberry Graham or Sen. Goofy Corny (who blurted out "Scalito" twice again) any day!

BTW, are you an FOM (friend of MIB's)? LOL

FanT, nice try at channeling the spirit of Joe McCarthy with that last move. What difference does it make what writers at the Prospect wrote --or that CAP members may have espoused at one point or another?

Did Alito write for the Prospect? No
Did Alito endorse the Prospect's editorials? No
Did Alito serve on the Board? No
Did Alito bankroll the CAP? No

The important question to all but those who think they are scoring polticla points with their base... Did Alito categorically disavow the anti-social pronouncements tagged to the Prospect and CAP? Yes

You need to save the Joe McCarthy-ism for important issues, FanT. Not Alito and CAP. And not Vanguard.

We are losing so much in this debate while the radicals seek to claim some imaginary moral high ground. It's such a shame.

FanT, you prove the point... "the only thing missing are duels". Our party is under the control of radicals and they are so far out of step with mainstream Americans we will never win political favor or power if we keep it up.

We've been reduced to the party of victims, "No" to everything, and few new ideas.

1)Because there's nothing radical about going along meekly with Bush's movements toward fascism, unless you're a GOP radical.

2) Dean a radical?! He's a fiscal conservative and reasonably progressive on social issues. You must get your 'talking points' from Sean Hannity.

3) And that strategy is 'be as much like the Republicans -- in substance -- as possible.'

I just read a fascinating op-ed by Sidney Blumenthal in my Pacific Northwest Inlander just now. The context of the article talks about Shrubs attempt to hide the secret government he has created, all too late. But here was the really interesting part:
Blumenthal talking about Bush here

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 to be stepping on his power in national secutity matters. In effect, Bush engages in presidential nulification of any law he sees fit. He then acts if his gesture supercedes 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."

Not coincidentally, the legal author of this presidential strategy for accreting power was none other than the young Samual Alito, in 1986 deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Departments' 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.

How interesting and insightful. This was one big question I had/have of him, and based on what I have heard from him, his answer troubles me greatly. I think he will be confirmed unfortunately in my opinion.

A more loyal and dedicated friend he would not have, if that were the case.

So FT once again believes that someone who disagrees with him is some right-wing hack or similar.

BTW, btmuscle, a duel wouldn't work. My light saber would make quick work of him.

OK, gmg, some late afternoon random thoughts and observations...

Herb Dept. Store Kohl's Q&A...

Kohl: Do courts need to consider public opinion in deciding cases?

Alito: Constitution structures courts the way it does in order that judges not look to public opinion to decide cases. That's also why Constitution gives courts only limited authority. Sovereignty rests with the people. (It's amazing that Dems actually need this elementary lesson in American civics.)

K: How do you deal with the fact that the Court has been striking down laws? (Does Kohl have any clue that his majoritarian premise is incompatible with his position on abortion?)

A: Starting presumption that an act of Congress is constitutional. Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review.

K: How about term limits or age limits? A judge can serve "forever".

A: The Constitution decides those issues.

K: But what is your opinion? (Now that's a really good question . . .)

A: Don't know; I appreciate the competing arguments.

More discussion of Kelo takings decision. Alito again expresses appreciation of special burden on homeowner when home is taken.

K: Do you agree with O'Connor's dissent in Kelo?

A: Would have to address issue as precedent.

Discussion of O'Connor.


Feingold's Q&A...

Feingold tries to link Alito's prep sessions to NSA surveillance issue because some folks involved in the former also have some connection with the latter. (It should hardly be a surprise (and cannot invite any insidious inferences) that folks in the White House Counsel's office would deal with both.)

Feingold seems to find it surprising and troubling that a statute might violate the Constitution's conferral of powers on the President. Feingold thinks it's a problem that such issues might not be justiciable. (Zero understanding that political processes can sort this out. Not every issue needs to be decided in court, and it's often best that some issues not be decided in court.)

Feingold asks (as Leahy did) about whether factually innocent person who has been fairly convicted has constitutional right not to be executed. (Is there a governor in the country who would not grant clemency in such a case?)

"Affirmative action". Alito discusses own experience of value of diversity in educational context.

F: Does Congress have power to enact law preventing discrimination against gays in employment? A: I don't see why not.

Feingold raises Saxe case involving anti-harassment policy. A: Very broad policy presented 1st Amendment overbreadth problems.

Feingold raises ethics issue about Third Circuit judges testifying at his hearing. Will Alito have to recuse himself from cases involving them?

Schumer's round 3...

Begins with incomprehensible hypothetical about Fourth Amendment that suggests that Schumer has no idea what he's asking about.

Schumer argues that Alito has been inconsistent in holding that private party waived argument in civil case by not raising it below but that government in habeas case did not waive. Alito explains principle of comity that applies in habeas cases, cites federal statute.

Schumer badgers Alito for views on 14th Amendment citizenship issue that is a matter of current dispute.

Commerce Clause: Oddly, Schumer doesn't point out where O'Connor was in Lopez and last term's Raich ruling.

"In conclusion, Judge . . ." Schumer expresses concerns with Alito's judicial views, not integrity smears. What a surprise: Schumer is going to vote against Alito.

More Kennedy conflicts...

Justice Breyer has been called “one of the 'parents' of the federal sentencing guidelines” by one commentator. In 1984, as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was deeply involved in crafting the Sentencing Reform Act that gave birth to them. Later, as a Circuit Court judge, he was a member of the first Sentencing Commission which promulgated the guidelines and gave them their structure. In 2004, with Breyer now an Associate Justice, cases squarely challenging the constitutionality of those guidelines were accepted by the Supreme Court for review. Justice Breyer not only declined to recuse himself; last term, he wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in the portion of the Booker and Fanfan cases that preserved the guidelines from what would otherwise have been complete oblivion.

I am not saying that Justice Breyer violated judicial ethics by sitting on a case involving a subject in which he was deeply invested – albeit professionally, not financially. He obviously considered the potential conflict and the appearance-of-impropriety standard, and sat on the case because he believed he could be fair and impartial. I have no doubt Justice Breyer made that decision honorably.

But I do think it’s fair to consider: Ted Kennedy is desperately spinning a conflict of interest out of Vanguard despite the fact that Judge Alito was apparently unaware of a Vanguard connection in the case, recused himself upon learning of it, and had the case reconsidered by a new panel to insure there was not even an appearance of impropriety. How does that stack up against Justice Breyer’s quite conscious decision to both participate and be the difference-maker in the case examining the validity of guidelines he helped write?

BTW, regarding fantomas's ridiculous bloviating on CAP, the ABA witness panel is making clear that it carefully reviewed the Vanguard and CAP matters before concluding unanimously that Alito deserved its highest rating of "well qualified" on its criteria of "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament." Remember the ABA? The Democrats have long considered the ABA the "gold standard" (Dems' words) of judicial qualifications to SCOTUS. If even THEY, a liberal organization, can't find any Alito-CAP link dilemma, folks like FT have nothing on which to base their spurious arguments.

Leahy and Kennedy continue to beat the dead horse — and spew more lies and distortions. For example, Kennedy, perhaps having some sense of how ridiculous he looks, now says that this issue could have been promptly resolved if Alito had acknowledged a mistake. But that's exactly what Alito did two months ago, in his letter to Specter, in which he explained that an "oversight" had led him to depart inadvertently from his practice.

Democratic disrespect...

In the hearing room was a historic panel of federal Circuit Court of Appeals judges who have served with Judge Alito.

Judge Becker is testifying that

The only Democrat Senators who bothered to stay on the dais are Leahy and Feinstein. Almost all the Republicans are there. Most notably, Senator Chuck Schumer got up and left right before the judges began to speak. Not only do they not care about the Judges' testimony, apparently, they don't even care about the disrespect for these judges that the bench of empty seats on the Democrat side bespeaks. Disgusting.

Well, lookey here, Kennedy-Kopechne and Durbin have now showed up. Hope they will watch C-Span replay of Judge Becker and Judge Barry. Dem side still looks pretty empty.

Well, that didn't last long. Kennedy could not take it--he is gone. So is Leahy.

They can't even keep their ranking member there to show the flag. They find it hard to listen to Judge Garth's glowing testimony about Judge Alito--how he will always respect the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress, have deep respect for precedent, etc.

Feinstein is now the lone Democrat... Listening attentively. Give her credit for that. In fact, she is listening to Judge John Gibbons explain the long list of reasons why Judge Alito's partial dissent in Casey on abortion is reasonable, mainstream, honest, good faith judging.

P.S. She is still the lone Democrat on the dais.

Former Third Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis (a black Clinton appointee who says he is appropriately on the “far left” of the panel of testfying judges, is “openly and unapologetically pro-choice”) just testified about Judge Alito's “intellectual honesty”--“I cannot recall one instance when Judge Alito displayed anything remotely approaching an ideological bent.”

Judge Lewis says he is here to testify “out of my own sense of justice and fairness.”

Assures the Republicans and Feinstein — and Durbin, who is now here — that if he thought Judge Alito had even a shred of hostility to civil rights, “I would not be here.”

Judge Aldisert notes he was the first Italian American appointed to the Circuit in 1968 and recalls the discrimination against Italian Americans in New England, New York, Pennsylvania .... Too bad Kennedy and Schumer do not have any interest in even showing up to listen to him.

He just asked Judges Barry and Lewis (female and black, respectively), if they had ever seen anything that would lead them to believe Judge Alito would be hostile to the rights of women or minoritied. Both emphatically said they would not even be in this hearing room if they had.

Only Senators Feinstein and Durbin are here for this testimony. Schumer did not even make the cameo that Kennedy made. A pity that Kennedy and Schumer had no interest in even pretending to respect the testimony based on factual, personal knowledge that these witnesses had to offer. They prefer wild innuendo and baseless character assassination. The judges' panel is over now.

Wonder if Kennedy and Schumer will come back to hear Larry Tribe and Kate Michaelman?

Demagoguery continues: Goodwin Liu, a former Ginsburg clerk, is now telling Senators (yes,Sen. Womanslaughter is here!) that a memo the young Sam Alito wrote in the Reagan Administration shows a dangerous proclivity to defer to the government in allowing the states to make their own policies as to when police use of deadly force against fleeing felons is permissible. “Liberty is not safe where police can shoot and kill an unarmed boy,” he says. Of course, Mr. Liu is conveniently ignoring that the memo Sam Alito wrote contained the same analysis that Justice O'Connor used in her opinion when the Supreme Court ruled on the case.

--------------------------

Prior to these hearings, I was watching the Kate vs. Kate debate on Meet the Press this past Sunday--it was Kate O’Beirne vs. Kate Michelman, formerly of NARAL--how out-of-date the latter's rhetoric seemed, how diffuse and filibustering her language was, over against the precision, citation of telling facts, and self-confident argument of Kate O' Beirne.

Kate, author of Women Who Make the World Worse (that title ought to enrage the Lefties here), talked quietly, as if she owned the future, as when she told the other Kate that, of course, the Left wanted to keep Roe in the courts. Why? Because if Roe were reversed, abortion would not be halted, but the arguments over it would move back into the political sphere of states and localities, where the pro-life forces would win more than half the arguments, for sure. The Left must avoid the democratic branches of government, lest they be badly embarrassed.

Much the same feeling arose from watching with fascination the Alito hearings. How old and out-of-date and empty of real ideas--not to say connection to reality--Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Durbin, and, above all, Schumer seemed. They know they have to do what they are doing, but they know their efforts are for nothing, and their words are making hollow echoes. Even their indignation seems forced and falls swiftly flat.

The pompous rhetorical indignation of Kennedy has become merely pathetic. He was once a heroic figure, but he now seems like the lion of Alice in Wonderland--threadbare, tame, and roaring every so often only out of nostalgic habit. Chuck Schumer drones on like a little spoiled boy who becomes a schoolyard bully just by his superior tone of voice, boring in upon others, coercing them verbally, trying to make them feel as worthless as in his mind they are.

It is painful to watch the ruin of a great party. A once noble party has come to this.

And most of it happened because of commitment to a policy that cannot be maintained without lies and malicious euphemisms. That is, the killing of innocents in what is supposed to be the most welcoming, safest place on earth--a mother's womb. (Isn't the posture of wishing one were safe the fetal position?)

This radical lie--that what is destroyed in abortion is not a human individual, endowed with human rights--has poisoned a great party, induced a great rationalization in the place of constitutional reasoning in the Supreme Court, and divided a nation unnecessarily over an issue that ought at the very least to have been left to the consent of the people in diverse jurisdictions.

No lie so basic to one's own identity goes unpunished.

More after dinner perhaps, gmg.

[ January 12, 2006, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Let me get this straight: Sam Alito, who worked hard in New Jersey public schools, got into Princeton on his own merits, took his meals in the coed dining hall and had nothing to do with the all-male Princeton eating clubs, is getting guff from Ted Kennedy, Boston elitist who got into (and stayed into) Harvard on, um, other people's merits, and who just a few months ago reconfirmed his membership in the Owl Club, which has “long been reviled on campus as sexist and elitist, and in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Oh, come on, now. It was obviously a joke, which is why I appended the "LOL". You're seriously sounding like a combination of MIB crossed with Marshall Wittmann (I'm sure you know who he is given your ideological leanings). I'm hardly McCarthyite--which is quite different from ASKING IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY--so please. I mean, this is the very kind of hyperbolic association MIB would make! Seriously, you guys should get together.

Why would someone join an organization like CAP, and over a decade later BOAST of it, knowing how controversial it was--on issues involving racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and so on--if they didn't subscribe to its views? There are a number of alumnni organizations at the schools I've attended, and I belong to several, and am quite aware of the views they represent. I'm sure most people, and especially someone of Alito's intellect, would not only be able to figure out what a group stood for and if he disagreed with their beliefs, he'd not claim he was a member. He can remember every rulings and argument he's made, but not some hateful group which he joined and touted? Puh-lease.

Who cares about "political points?" I think you again miss the point. This man is about to get a lifetime job, bankrolled by the taxpayers, which includes me and you, and will be making decisions that seriously affect the lives of all Americans. I asked you a few questions about, such as if you were gay, etc. I guess you passed right over those, but I know that MIB doesn't agree with Lawrence v. Texas. Do you? Would you want Illinois state police strolling into your home, as happened in Bowers, and arresting you for having sex with another person of the same sex (I'm assuming you're gay or bi--am I wrong?)? Do you think Alito would have reached the same outcome as O'Connor (or even Kennedy) did?

As I said, I don't use "McCarthyism" ever. It's really insulting for you to toss a loaded term out like that against me. I've never insulted you. I just asked if you know MIB. Your arguments parallel his. I don't see why you take that as an insult. I mean, he is the famous Democrat-smashing "judge" on this board, isn't he?

Yet again, WHAT are you quoting from? Give the people who actually came up with this information credit! (And it wasn't just the Owl Club, which is far from the most elitist of the final clubs--that's the Porcellian, then the Fly and Spee--if you don't believe me, ask someone who went to Harvard--but all of these clubs that were delinked from the university.) I'm sure even Samuel Alito credits the sources of his information.

***PARANOIA ALERT***

Careful, bt, for if you dare to disagree w/ ft's ultra-extreme leftist views, you'll be automatically branded a right-winger. No one's allowed to hold an opinion dissimilar to his. One day he may wake up and realize there are many others who do not march behind him and aren't right-wing at the same time. Don't hold your breath, though. After all, he's still grasping the microthin straw that is CAP, even though entities like the New York Times and Kennedy's chief judicial assasin aide could find absolutely nothing to tie Alito to CAP.

Poor thing. I do believe dementia's not far behind. frown

A Senatorial aide says:

“Reid's people approached Frist's staff with an Alito offer late this afternoon. Alito would be able to come out of committee on Thursday, January 19th, in exchange for an indication that Alito debate could start the week after — but that Alito's final confirmation vote wouldn't happen until February 1 or 2. Furious, Frist shot that down. Tomorrow, Reid and his people are likely to try to float another variation of this slowdown scheme, and Frist will have none of it. He is prepared to put the hammer on this thing down and get it started as soon as it comes out of the committee, even if the Democrats hold the markup over all the way to January 24th (which they have the right to do under committee rules but hasn't been done since 1971). Frist wanted the nomination done in December, maneuvered it to be as early as possible in January, and isn't inclined to take a kiss-your-sister promise of early February as some sort of reasonable Beltway compromise. Those days are over.”

---------------------------------

Just one comment on the committee Democrats’ “right” to hold over the markup for a week: In his opening comments on Tuesday, Chairman Specter firmly stated his expectation that, absent "something extraordinary," the committee vote on Alito would take place next Tuesday, January 17. In other words, Specter clearly believed that he had a deal with Leahy, even if there was not a formal waiver of the right to hold over the markup. Nothing extraordinary has happened, so let’s hope that Specter, who has been a model of fairness and firmness, doesn’t let himself be bullied or cheated by Leahy and has the markup next Tuesday. That would enable Senator Frist to adhere to his long-planned date of January 20 for a final vote on confirmation.

Par for the course with the personal insults, now I'm "demented" because I'm not lapping up after W and his extremist nominee. Look, I don't call you "demented." Since you're championing a judge who's in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, obvious right-wingers, your ideological views are clear. You can label me ultra-leftist, Koolaid, or whatever. But I don't have "dementia." And let Btmuscle defend himself or herself. You do seem a bit hysterical in speaking for him. S/he can disagree with me all s/he wants. More power to her or him. BTW, Marshall Wittman is a CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT. I guess you've never heard of him like Ledeen or Jonah Goldberg.

BTW, still not going to tell us where you quoted your "Owl Club" talking points from?

[ January 12, 2006, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Now Fantomas, we must remember to be kind to those less fortunate or weaker than us. Some on this board are logic-challenged. I won't mention names, but I think you know to whom I am referring.

You two have flogged one another enough and have sufficiently killed what started out as a decent discussion.

Didn't he, though? FT had to come in here and read from Kennedy's playbook and start distorting the same way half the committee did when irrefutable facts were presented all over the place. Leave it to me to bring order to this place.

And what's this Marshall Wittman stuff? Who cares? I hadn't heard of him until I Googled him after FT posted the guy's name.

That's because I'm waayyyyyyy beyond dementia.

With a mind as powerful as mine, well...

Am I the only one who can't watch or read anything related to these hearings without Boz Scaggs' "Lido Shuffle" running through his head?

Alito...whoa-oa-OA-oa...
He's for the money, he's for the show
Alito's waitin' for the go, oh
Alito...whoa-oa-OA-oa-oa...
He said one more job oughta get it
One last shot before we quit it
One more forrrrr the road...

Really? Just me? OK.

LXN

Senator Biden breaks Kyoto pact

FanT, sorry for not observing your neo-brown-shirt styled protocol... how dare I pass over an open question by someone as important as YOU. There's too much stridency and preening condescension in your posts to take much of what you write as credible, so I passed. Sorry if that offends, but it's an honest appraisal.

I would have answered gay, proudly out, 3rd generation Democrat, yes Alito should answer questions put to him but to be "savaged" in the ultimate Mens Club of richboys? And judged by men far less worthy than even Justice Thomas to be on the Court? It stretchs the word "irony" to its breaking point.

For better or worse, the libs new lovefest with SDO is pure political convenience and, frankly, just like Pres Clinton, Pres Bush is entitled to nominate anyone he wants. If that person is qualified to serve --ala the Am Bar Assn standards-- then the Senate should confirm the political choice of the sitting President.

The answer to the issue of should Alito be confirmed, given he's qualified to serve on the Court via the ABA finding, was decided by those who elected Pres Bush --not the radical minority in the losing block of voters. And I was part of the "losers" on that day thanks to Kerry, Edwards and Dean. And that's what your objections and those of Kennedy, et al finally reduce to: you still can't get over the 2000 or 2004 election. It's over; Bush won in everyone's mind but yours and the radicals. Dissent over policy is fine; I'm tired of the opposition for opposition's sake.

Your other implied question: my answer is Alito is in. I hope Justice Stevens returns to good health and serves longer than even Brennan did but it's immaterial. The Court, like the Stock Mkt, is a long term game played out over generations. If the seat opens, the sitting President should be able to get on the Court who he wants IF the nominee is qualified. Period. And that held for Pres Clinton when he placed RBG on the Court. The contemporary Senate hearings are window dressings --they used to be important; but no longer.

I think you tried to sidestep my point about slurring Alito with the CAP nonsense because of what others in CAP thought, wrote, or advocated. That's the JoeMcCarthy-ism like tactic I underscored to you; not associating me with MIB --don't know MIB from Adam.

But that's ok, spin-mongering appears to be an artform for you and something you relish. It's a sad and sorry replacement for true discussion though.

[ January 13, 2006, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: btmuscle ]

You know I can't let the insult stand that I'm a "neo-brown-shirt." Again, it's just so strident and ridiculous it's not even funny. There's nothing Nazistic about me in the least. I think you're just projecting.

As for CAP, if someone has affiliated himself with an anti-gay group in the past, let's say, to the point of touting it on a job application, and then 20 years down the road makes the outrageous claim that he can't remember anything about that group, and then comes up with a preposterous claim that he joined it because of something completely different (that happens to coincide with an RNC press release from Ken Mehlman), it's pretty clear this person had some anti-gay animus. Or why would have have joined such an organization? There'd be no need or reason to otherwise? The same is true with CAP.

Let him get on the court at this point. Let him do whatever he wants. Overturn Roe. Overturn Lawrence. Overturn Griswold. Because hey, Democrats are supposed to just roll over and play dead.

BTW, the Congress is not beholden to do the president's bidding. The Republicans showed more than once during Clinton's 8 years that they would hold up, stall, block, and nix the president's choices, to the extent that he even nominated moderate Republicans. The Democrats do not have to do W's bidding, especially given the mess he's created both domestically and internationally. When you realize we're still paying off that $2 trillion bill for his vanity war in Iraq, you might see this.

[ January 13, 2006, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Is anyone surprised that this is standard morality for MIB? I'm amazed he's not on the RNC -- or is he?

Show me where I endorsed or condoned that, Bill. I just stated a fact that we all know is true. Many people embellish resumes.

Both sides play the political games, but at least the Republicans were fairer than the Dems were/are when it came to SCOTUS nominations. Show me where the Dems would vote to confirm a conservative judge now with 97 or so votes, yet Republican senators did so for Ginsburg, even though she was heavily involved in that dangerous radical ACLU organization, or for Breyer. The GOP had a much better argument for denying her a seat on the Court than the Dems do for Alito, that's for sure.

It's disgusting how SCOTUS nomination hearings are generally nice and civil when a Democratic president names a liberal, yet when a GOP president names a conservative, every scumbag, left-wing group know to mankind comes out of their slime hole to lie and smear in an attempt to derail said nomination, and the Democratic senators are right there alongside them (at least most on the committee are).

What a sanctimonious attitude they possess--liberals can be SCOTUS justices (they're just blessed), but a conservative? Hell no!

[ January 13, 2006, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

FanT, off topic but my last remarks stand. I did submit to your neo-brown shirt demands for an answer to your important questions. That's where it stands.

You're posts tend to be strident, preening, condescending and you are a spinmyster whether you accept it or not, but that's just being honest. No projection. And if you can't see the link between trying to attach Alito to CAP's more silly pronouncements, then you got another character flaw with McCarthy: you've lost touch with reality. McCartryism is wrong even when done by the radical Left.

The part that rubs me the most is that your expressed views are part of what's wrong with our Party. You'd rather be right in your own mind than allow others to compromise policy for majority power. You want 100% acceptance on your terms or the other person is a bigot or a partisan. You have no tolerance for dissent as noted by others more in tune with this board. Tolerance for cryin' out loud! If anyone, a gay liberal should have lots of tolerance for everyone... it should be our "family value". And for you and some others here, bitching about Pres Bush has replaced meaningful discourse, attempts to persuade, or efforts to seek common ground.

My earlier remarks stand. Your comments are more like the broadsides of Founding Father era printers/publishers. The only thing missing are duels, loaded pistols, seconds and 20 paces.

The reason our party will continue in the minority is because the voices most of American voters hear expressed in our Party are the radical ones like yours... or Kennedy's, or Biden's, or Leahy's, or Reid's, or Boxer's, or Dean's. No one would confuse those reprobates with mainstream, middle of the road Democrats. They aren't. And unfortunately, most American voters now equate our Party with Michael Moore, George Soros, and looney tunes from Hollywood.

We need fewer radical voices and more leaders in the Party who will seek accomodation, restore American values of liberty, fair play, equal opportunity, and peaceful cooexistance in the world than strive to protect inner city corruption, philandering politicians, victimization as a new class of citizenship, and Big Govt with Big Taxes and Big Labor.

That's why the Alito gang bang by you and others hurts our cause. We're tarred as obstructionists and opposition-4-the-sake-of-opposing; we need to move away from that if we're to reclaim the House, Senate or WH.

The problem is, even with the GOP scandals and Pres Bush's record of leadership, we probably won't make inroads in 2006 and 2008 because of radical voices in the Party akin to yours.

Frankly, before slamming the Religious Right for putting Geo Bush in office a second time, you need to look in the mirror and see who's radicalism made Geo Bush a winner.

I cringed each time gay rights were addressed as "needing protection" by our Dem Senators in the hearing. I really hope the 3rd party testimony doesn't include gay advocacy groups --'cause those folks dig us graves every time they open their mouth. But it probably will because it's a fundraising moment and a chance for our side to prove it's liberal radical bono fides.

Yeah, you aren't a gay Nazi. Right. Just look at the tone of your partisan rant in the last rejoinder. No projection here: but the suit fits you well.

It's time Kennedy is publicly censured. Enough of this.

The media like to pat themselves on the back for taking down Joseph McCarthy. They award themselves the Edward R. Murrow Award for courage in journalism as Murrow is viewed as the reporter who exposed McCarthy. McCarthy’s name has been turned into a synonym for character assassination.

And yet, judicial-confirmation hearing after judicial-confirmation hearing--during the terms of Republican presidents--there sits Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee using every sleazy tactic fed to him by every sleazy left-wing group to destroy the reputation of honorable men and women.

From Clement Haynsworth, William Rehnquist, Bob Bork, and Clarence Thomas, to Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor, Charles Pickering, and Sam Alito--and scores of others--Kennedy has played the role of McCarthy for 40 years, and always to a fawning press. He’s a greater menace than McCarthy ever was. Indeed, McCarthy’s influence lasted only four years.

In 1954, the Senate censured McCarthy for his behavior. Today’s Senate lacks the statesmen to censure Kennedy, and the media lack the integrity to expose him. Thus, the next nominee can expect to be subjected to Kennedyism.

And what about Breyer? Remember Ted Kennedy's defense of Stephen Breyer's questionable ethics. Here's a relevant excerpt:

This is far more troubling than Alito's Vanguard investment. Some might call Kennedy a hypocrite.

[ January 13, 2006, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

The dean of Mass. School of Law suggests the Dems would've been better off proposing a moderate Repub they'd PREFER... like Specter: