The Democrats are not limited to questions of Sam Alito’s ‘character’ though I have questions about a guy who touts his membership in an organization founded for the purpose of keeping women and minorities out of Princeton.

The relevant issues are what he intends to do on the bench- it’s pretty clear to me that this man would overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold the right of the President to do anything he wants if it is in the name of ‘fighting a war’. It’s too bad the Democrats have not done a better job in forcing Alito to articulate this ideology because it’s not supported by the American public.

Left by Preston on January 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Preston, Alito doesn’t even remember being a member

Please explain what you mean..never mind, the Dems can’t even defend that assertion in the Hearings so I doubt you or anyone else can.

I’ve watched a lot of the Hearings. IMHO I doubt he will overturn Roe. However, he might restrict it, which is what you referred to as the “American public” supports. Only 30% of the public supports wholesale unrestricted abortion.

Please be serious. He would never support allowing any President to do “whatever” he wants in the name of fighting a war.

IMHO conservative judges are far less likely to make drastic changes than liberal ones. If these were Hearings for a “liberal” judge, the ACLU would be breaking their neck to line up their cases.

Left by dianne on January 12th, 2006 at 4:59 pm

I have questions about a guy who touts his membership in an organization founded for the purpose of keeping women and minorities out of Princeton

Do you have the same questions about a leading Democratic Senator who was a Kleagle in the KKK?

Or what about a hypocritical Sen. from MA who belonged to an all-male social club — the Owl — at Harvard University, which refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s? Is he guilty of bias-by-association, too?

And to say that Alito “touted” his association with CAP is disingenuous at best — Alito was a member of this organization some 25-odd years ago. He “touted” it on a long-ago resume.

I once made a small donation to Green Peace (when I was an ill-informed and delusional high-school kid) — God help me if I’m guilty by association for all the evil and reckless lawlessness that that group has engaged in over the last 20 years…

Left by Robbie on January 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pm

If these were Hearings for a “liberal” judge, the ACLU would be breaking their neck to line up their cases.

The last time a “liberal” judge went through these hearings, she was the ACLU. And nobody suggested we subpoena the ACLUs records, either (Uncle Teddy)…and she still sailed through her confirmation hearings despite being considerably less “forethcoming” than the Dems are accusing Alitio and Roberts of being.

Why? Because the Republicans at the time understood their role of “advise and consent”…rather than the Democrats who have intepreted this role as “tar and feather”.

Left by Robbie on January 12th, 2006 at 5:13 pm

Oh, and you’re wrong Preston…the American public overwhelmingly approves of measures such as the NSA wiretaps in the President’s effort to keep America safe in the War Against Terror(ists).

You do know that Alito’s statements about not answering questions that might come before him on the bench (i.e. R v. W) is called the “Ginsberg Defense” right?

Left by Robbie on January 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Dianne- my reading between the lines of his testimony was that he would have cast a second dissenting vote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. That case was a pretty stark indication of a desire to increase Presidential power.

So on the issue of presidential power this puts him in the most conservative 11% of a quite conservative court.

Regarding Roe v. Wade I find it incredible that he is willing to say the Griswold was correctly decided and allowed to decline an opinion on Roe v. Wade. It’s such a dance- the system is a joke. If the President is allowed to appoint based on ideology the Senate may decline to confirm based on ideology- this demands that the nominees answer the questions they are asked regarding their ideology. Perhaps we need to reform the system by putting 15 or 20 year term limits on Justices so that there is a more frequent churning and a subsequent reduction in the stakes. Also requiring a super-majority would necessitate the President nominating moderate judges- something he is apparently unwilling to do otherwise.

Left by Preston on January 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm

The Democrats have had their shot and they’re doing so badly that the Republicans are fairly begging for them to continue. They made his wife cry! It’s incredible! The most the Dems seem to have is that Alito may or may not have been a part of a Princeton club that

Left by The Horrors of an Easily Distracted Mind on January 13th, 2006 at 2:00 am

Preston…

Well, the constitution has been amended before when changes were obviously needed from time to time to fit the time. However, when this is done, politics should not be a factor. Clearly, politics are a factor in the confirmation of judges these days, given the polarity of our Congress and indeed the people in this country, and so I don’t think a compelling case can be made to change the constitution to limit terms for SC judges at this time. In fact, I think it might be the worst of times to attempt to change the constitution. The system really isn’t a joke. It’s the people in the system that are a joke, both sides guilty. The only time we seem to pull together is when we are under attack. If a corporation was run this way, it would be bankrupt in short order.

Interestingly, it crosses my mind that maybe it shouldn’t be the power of the President to “nominate” a SC judge…because that leads to political fires, but if not him/”her”, then who?

Left by dianne on January 13th, 2006 at 9:09 am

The system really isn’t a joke. It’s the people in the system that are a joke, both sides guilty.

I think it’s the system. (But that would be the difference between liberals and conservatives, huh?)

What does ‘pull together’ mean? When the stakes are so high it is in the interest of each side to fight hard to win. ‘Pulling together’ would suggest nominating and confirming moderates- I don’t believe that is on the table (in fact, Bush’s base made it explicit that it was not to be on the table.)

Regarding the trackback by ‘The Horrors of an Easily Distracted Mind’- it was Republican Lindsay Graham that caused Martha-Ann Bomgardner to cry.

Left by Preston on January 13th, 2006 at 10:54 am

Robbie-

Do you have the same questions about a leading Democratic Senator who was a Kleagle in the KKK?

Or what about a hypocritical Sen. from MA who belonged to an all-male social club

In the first case, yes. In the second case, no.

Of course, Robert Byrd has repeatedly apologized for his membership and called it his biggest mistake.

Regarding, Kennedy- are you serious? Harvard began admitting women in 1945- is it particularly surprising or damning that he was in an all-male social club in 1950. I’d suspect a majority of them were. What the ‘Owls’ did after the 1950’s is really beyond Mr. Kennedy’s control.

Compare that with a group expressly founded with the intention of keeping women and minorities out of Princeton.

(The article makes the point that he wasn’t deeply involved in the group- but why the hell was he bragging about his association in the 1980’s?)

Left by Preston on January 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am