I think that it is simply unbelievable that Alito does not remember being a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton" (CAP), as he stated today. It is clear that he was a member, startring in 1972, and that he mentioned this fact on a job application in 1985. There simply can be no way that he would not remember being a member of this controvertial group. It would be one thing if he had been a member but now rejects what this group stood for. But it is quite another for him to lie and deny that he even remembers being in the group.
OTOH, it is hard to imagine remembering every college group you signed up with at some table in the student union 30+ years ago.
OTFH:
"he mentioned this fact on a job application in 1985."
Alito is emphasizing his ability to keep an open mind on abortion, but he is also saying public opinion can not affect how a judge rules on a matter. Isn't it pretty clear he is setting up justification to overturn or, at least, limit Roe? He'll say his mind was open but it didn't matter that a majority of Americans support a women's right to choose.
If you can't watch/listen, there's a liveblog over at dkos.
The ACLU has a hefty report PDF available that makes for interesting reading.
Oh, please. There are groups we just "sign up with at some table" sure, okay--and then there are groups that we stoutly identify with, then boast about belonging to 13 years later, and then somehow forget about entirely? 'Fraid not.
Unlikely. 1)He listed it on an application once before. 2) There's already been enough noise about his involvement for him to plausibly deny it. 3) If its like any other college alumni group, he's been getting mail from them at least a couple of times a year.
Don't "sugar-coat" it, Hank.
;<)
Biden should yield his time to Leahy, Kennedy or Feinstein; then go talk to himself about anything that comes into his mind.
justintime
Hank - Hold on. You're giving weasels a bad rap. Impeach the bastards while we still have a country to work with.
Is this really the best we can do? Complaints that a conservative nominee is not pro-choice? That he may have joined some fringe right-wing group in college and is not juiced about disclosing it? That the ACLU has problems with a conservative member of the federal judiciary?
This guy is clearly going to drag the Court in a direction that brings bile to my lips, but we have to be careful that we do not set the bar for confirmation at adherence to a particular brand of politics. Alito is a qualified jurist. period, and no matter what the dems do here W still gets to enjoy the spoils of his election victory.
That said, I think we should immediately jettison any strategy to pointlessly attack Alito (a "No" vote says all we need it to say) so we can wholly deprive the right of what is an excellent diversion from the real political motherlode - Abramoff.
Did I mishear Alito, or did he say that the Bush Administration is "in the Twilight Zone" on their Executive authority to spy on Americans without a warrant?
He said that in the analysis of Presidential Power you can divide things into three categories:
Explicit grant of power by Congress.
Matters never discussed by Congress
Matters specifically refused by Congress.
On the third point, Alito twice characterized the Presidential Power being at its lowest ebb, "in the Twilight Zone," when Congress has specifically withheld a power.
I can't figure out why Biden is kissing his ass.
I do not think Alito is performing well, but largely because he is not as effective in not answering without appearing like he is not answering as was Roberts. The senators have again proven to be poor examiners - how difficult is it to lay off the speeches, and concentrate on asking questions (particularly questions that were not anticipated, and hence prepared for, months ago).
I think Alito's distinction that the views on Roe expressed in the 1985 memo were the personal beliefs of an advocate, and as a judge, he would keep an open mind to Roe, is untenable. He was not expressing a personal belief about abortion, he was expressing a personal belief that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe. While it is plausible to say that judges can separate personal beliefs about policy from their adjudication, Alito wasn't saying he was personally opposed to abortion - he was saying that he thought a Supreme Court decision should be overturned. What does it mean to separate his personal belief that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe from his duties as a judge on the Supreme Court? If his personal belief is about how the court ought to behave, it obviously tells us how he will behave on the court, and it is disingenuous for him to argue otherwise.
The media reporting breathlessly headlines like, "Alito says judges should follow precedent" is equally absurd. When did these hearings turn into a junior high school civics lesson? We know that judges will say they will keep an open mind, and respect the rule of law, and uphold the constitution. These are meaningless platitudes. Why can't we ask a judge whether they would overturn precedent? The decision to overturn precedent doesn't rest on a particular case or controversy - it is about what they feel about precedent, not parties or facts of a case.
Sen. Biden was trying to get at Judge Alito's values -- his sense of justice -- with what he said. Sen. Biden explained that laws state our values, and human experience has determined the law. He further argued that Judge Alito's opinions are abstracted from human experience, and suggest that while he fully supports the goal of eradicating discrimination, he doesn't fully understand modern forms of discrimination -- injustice, in other words.
So Alito gets Roe overturned.
"Red" States outlaw abortion, "Blue" States legalize abortion.
18 years later, there are 18 million "Red" State kids and their poor moms living on federal assistance programs...at a cost of around $180 billion a year.
Before the Republicans went on "Holiday" break, they passed a bill that cut:
1. Food Stamps
2. Childhood Nutrition Programs
3. Student Loans
I doubt the Republicans will vote in new welfare programs to support all these poor kids.
The "Blue" States already subsidize the "Red" States with massive transfers of federal tax money...
The "Red" States start putting Democrats in Congress to enact laws to pay for their welfare babies.
It would have been splendid for Feingold to coordinate an interactive discussion.
Alito doesn't even know what the limits of Judiciary are. He stated they will enforce the laws.
He has no idea on the idea of a balance of power, or checks and balances in regards to that.
The Executive branch, to have a power, must have it stated expressly and in comparatively narrow realms of possible action with regard to the rights of excercising power over persons.
Individuals, one the other hand, are given much more freedom in the Ninth Amendment. Other Rights- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge pthers retained by the people."
Thus the model of limitation applies to the upper Powers of Government, whilst the broad liberties enjoyed are of the whole as it applies to individuals.
Clearly Alito's Judicial record indicates he has the Founders model backwards. He tries to give broad powers to the most powerful, and his attempt to limit the rights of free citizens carries with it the burden of explicit encroachment upon their rights and persons.
Corporations should have no more rights than persons.
There are standard sovereign benchmarks that apply to citizens which must be upheld as an item easily cleared by judges of good reason and character. Alito raises concerns in this regard in many decisions including ones where he dissented from a conservative majority that his pool of Judges did constitute.
In my humble estimation, there is only one reason Alito was nominated. He believes and supports the Bush-Cheney exapansion of presidential and executive power, which is illuminated in the "unitary executive" theory. The stats prove that no president has used this authority more than Bush. It is also one of Cheney's pet projects, to which Bush gladly signs on. Simply stated, their goal is to leave the executive branch more powerful than when they arrrived. Cheney was arround when Nixon helped inspire the laws that brought the presidency down to size. With Alito on the bench, he is a vote on their side and for cementing the anlaysis of Article II of the Constitution that allows broad, even unlimited, powers to the presidency. At least, that's my take on the situation.
Taylor Marsh
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
"Is this really the best we can do? * * * That he may have joined some fringe right-wing group in college and is not juiced about disclosing it?" His membership in CAP is an important issue, it seems to me. Actually, it is less his membership than the fact that it is not credible that he cannot remember being a member. Let's face it, he is not being honest. He remembers being a member and probably regrets it right now. But why doesn't he just admit it, repudiate what the group stood for, say it was a mistake, and move on? Why is he lying? This is what troubles me. Also, let's remember: Alito graduated in 1972. He was a member of CAP as an Alumnus of Princeton. This was not a group he was in while in college, it was afterwards, into the 1980's. Furthermore, Alito stated that he was "proud" to be a member of the group in 1985 when applying to the Reagan Administration. This is not something that one would forget, and we should be very wary of someone who would lie about this.
Jim Bow,
I agree with you on Biden's intent.
However Biden defeats himself with his chummy style and rambling monologues.
I think Biden would be more effective using concise language and getting right to the point of his questions.
Biden used up far more time talking than did Alito.
I think Biden likes to hear himself talk - a little too much.
I didn't think Alito was under very much pressure during the Biden segment.
Ordinarily in a job interview, the applicant tries to show how his previous job experience qualifies him for the position he is seeking. Judge Alito and his defenders seem to be doing the opposite. The opinions he expressed in the first half of his career, they say, are not necessarily a reliable guide to how he might act on the Supreme Court because he was merely a lawyer representing his clients' views. The latter half of his career is not a reliable guide because, as a judge of an inferior court, his opinions were constrained by precedents. And even unequivocal statements he made in applying for a post in the Reagan administration shed no light on his real beliefs because he was merely trying to ingratiate himself with a prospective employer. His entire curriculum vitae is irrelevant. Harriet Miers was criticized for lack of experience. Samuel Alito asserts it boldly.
I was an entering freshman in fall 1972. I'm not sure when I heard of CAP, but it was astounding stuff. We'd never heard of neocons, of course, so we looked on it as this astonishing holdover of racism past we thought had vanished from the earth. It was also relatively small and very, very outspoken, which, coupled with its controversial nature, gave it a lot of publicity.
Maybe I was wrong, and maybe my memory is wrong, but the point is that this stuff was visible. You just could not forget being a member of it. He's lying.
Alito:
If a strict constructionist is someone who doesn't make stuff up, then I'm a strict constructionist.
Has Alito ever claimed he actually is? He struck down a law due to a lack of Congressional fact finding, and he wrote a memo urging a better use of Presidential Signing Statements. Maybe someone should ask him if the Federalist Papers should be consulted on Constitutional interpretation, not that there is anything wrong with that.
What does "subject to the Constitution" mean?
Alito keep saying the executive is "subject to the Constitution" and "bound by the Constitution." That's seeming to satisfy the Senators who ask. But it's the wrong question.
Bush has never said his power to ignore law is in violation of the Constitution. He argues his power to ignore law is "inherent in" the executives power to wage war in the Constitution.
In short, the real question is: under what circumstances do you believe the Constitution permits a wartime president to ignore the other proivisions in the Constitution - like the 4th amendment against warrantless searches?
It's a bit long and unwieldy, but the answer that Bush is subject to the Constitution is just begging the real question of what the Constitution allows.
Wow! Alito just said that there is a statute which requires the U.S. Attorney General to defend a statute if its constitutionally is called into question.
Now combine this with his assertion that the President must follow the law, to the extent that the laws are constitutional.
There is something very wrong here, I just can't put my finger on it.
This is a 78-22 confirmation just like John Roberts. Democrats just can't get it right.
pshaw, I remember it like it was yesterday. Speak for yourself.
Judge Alioto is either really smart or really dumb. I believe it is the former, because of his ability to act dumb when it suits his purpose. The thing that is so scary is his good legal mind. He is able to parse the law, to find the legalese nuances that allow him to stay extremely conservative, but seeming to love the whole breadth of the law. The trouble is, he is an elitist, never sides with the individual, always with the powers that be. But he tries to look otherwise, as his supporters try to paint him otherwise. However, if you look at his behavior as the truth about him, you can see the true narrow cool jurist who will switch the court direction for what will seem like forever. Ugh!
You get a 5, Hank, after hearing Alito today.
He's lying about his prep for the hearings, he's sleazy for not listing his stock holdings on the recusal list and he's a chump, well, just cause all those GOPs like him so much.
Your point's well taken, but I don't think overturning Roe is the end game. It's turning the country into South Dakota.
rmadilo, you wrote "There is something very wrong here, I just can't put my finger on it."
Actually, you did put your finger on it. Alito's wiggle room is in the definition of what's Constitutional. The sad truth is that we're now in a place when laws being "Constitutional" is very much up in the air.
Alito has a history of defending the radical notion that the Constitution authorizes the President to ignore laws altogether if he's acting in his capacity as a war president. In other words, ANYTHING the President does is, in Alito's view, Constitutional.
So he can say the President is subject to the Constitution all he wants. All he means by that is, the President is above all Constitutional and legal restrictions.
Scary.
I thought Feinstein was BRILLIANT. Case by case, opinion by opinion.
Best TV I've seen in years.
Biden always kisses Republican ass. That's what makes him Biden. How else to court the powerful "center".
I thought this exchange between Graham and Alito was interesting:
GRAHAM: . . . Under the Constitution, what's the vote requirement to get confirmed to the Supreme Court?
ALITO: It's a majority.
Apparently, Alito hasn't read the Constitution closely recently. In fact, the Constitution (surprisingly, maybe) never mentions a majority vote--not even for ordinary legislation. All it says is:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Now the founders clearly did think that most bills would pass via majority vote (at least their writings from the time suggest this). However, it's not at all clear that they would have had any problem with rules that required say 60% of a particular house to agree to close debate on an issue before a vote on that issue could be taken (i.e., the same 60% rule that currently holds in the Senate and that allows for filibusters). After all, they gave each house the right to set it's own rules for proceeding without any qualification.
In the case of the confirmation of the President's judicial and executive nominees, the Constitution only specifies that the Senate must provide advice and consent. How it provides that advice and consent (by majority vote or not) is not specified by the Constitution and probably could be done (under the Constitution) by whatever rules the Senate decides to set for itself.
He said he would have "an open mind" regarding the hearing of cases challenging abortion.
Precedent is already set. He clearly is not going to let precedent rule the day.
A case with establish precedent is no matter to him, he has left it open to change.
Yes, I've been watching it. All I can say is with Alito, as with Roberts before him, the questioners, especially the Democrats, are hearing what they want to hear.
Alito comes off impressive to the Dems when he says "no one is above the law including the President". What he doesn't say is that he believes the Constitution gives the President power to wiretap with no warrants and hold people indefinitely without charging them. Those are the "laws" he sees in the Constitution and that is what he means when he says the President isn't above the law.
But the Dems are hearing a while different thing. And it's painful to see them being taken in. They are being taken in by this because they ascribe the usual meanings to the words Alito is using. Of course, if the ask him to explain what he means he hides behind the vague replies that a case like that may come before him if he's confirmed even if he doesn't use those words like many before him have. But make no mistake, no one really knows how he feels about executive power.
Yes, I've been watching it. All I can say is with Alito, as with Roberts before him, the questioners, especially the Democrats, are hearing what they want to hear.
Alito comes off impressive to the Dems when he says "no one is above the law including the President". What he doesn't say is that he believes the Constitution gives the President power to wiretap with no warrants and hold people indefinitely without charging them. Those are the "laws" he sees in the Constitution and that is what he means when he says the President isn't above the law.
But the Dems are hearing a while different thing. And it's painful to see them being taken in. They are being taken in by this because they ascribe the usual meanings to the words Alito is using. Of course, if the ask him to explain what he means he hides behind the vague replies that a case like that may come before him if he's confirmed even if he doesn't use those words like many before him have. But make no mistake, no one really knows how he feels about executive power.
Why can't we find a democrat Senator to point out plainly that Mr. Alito has a demonstrated track record of saying things he doesn't really believe in order to get ahead professionally, to say nothing of his demonstrated disregard for undertakings made to this very body in the course of a previous confirmation hearing?
Is there anything else to say? Isn't everything this man says in these hearings tainted by his record of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear?
Am I missing something? Let's keep this simple.
The hearings have become a total travesty and sham what with Graham coaching Alito behind the scenes, etc...
see article in Village Voice here:
Alito is a lying weasel chump.
January 10, 2006 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it is simply unbelievable that Alito does not remember being a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton" (CAP), as he stated today. It is clear that he was a member, startring in 1972, and that he mentioned this fact on a job application in 1985. There simply can be no way that he would not remember being a member of this controvertial group. It would be one thing if he had been a member but now rejects what this group stood for. But it is quite another for him to lie and deny that he even remembers being in the group.
January 10, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTOH, it is hard to imagine remembering every college group you signed up with at some table in the student union 30+ years ago.
January 10, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"he mentioned this fact on a job application in 1985."
January 10, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alito is emphasizing his ability to keep an open mind on abortion, but he is also saying public opinion can not affect how a judge rules on a matter. Isn't it pretty clear he is setting up justification to overturn or, at least, limit Roe? He'll say his mind was open but it didn't matter that a majority of Americans support a women's right to choose.
January 10, 2006 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't watch/listen, there's a liveblog over at dkos.
January 10, 2006 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ACLU has a hefty report PDF available that makes for interesting reading.
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_23216.pdf
January 10, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. There are groups we just "sign up with at some table" sure, okay--and then there are groups that we stoutly identify with, then boast about belonging to 13 years later, and then somehow forget about entirely? 'Fraid not.
January 10, 2006 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlikely. 1)He listed it on an application once before. 2) There's already been enough noise about his involvement for him to plausibly deny it. 3) If its like any other college alumni group, he's been getting mail from them at least a couple of times a year.
January 10, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't "sugar-coat" it, Hank.
;<)
January 10, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden should yield his time to Leahy, Kennedy or Feinstein; then go talk to himself about anything that comes into his mind.
justintime
January 10, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hank - Hold on. You're giving weasels a bad rap. Impeach the bastards while we still have a country to work with.
January 10, 2006 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is clearly going to drag the Court in a direction that brings bile to my lips, but we have to be careful that we do not set the bar for confirmation at adherence to a particular brand of politics. Alito is a qualified jurist. period, and no matter what the dems do here W still gets to enjoy the spoils of his election victory.
That said, I think we should immediately jettison any strategy to pointlessly attack Alito (a "No" vote says all we need it to say) so we can wholly deprive the right of what is an excellent diversion from the real political motherlode - Abramoff.
January 10, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I mishear Alito, or did he say that the Bush Administration is "in the Twilight Zone" on their Executive authority to spy on Americans without a warrant?
He said that in the analysis of Presidential Power you can divide things into three categories:
On the third point, Alito twice characterized the Presidential Power being at its lowest ebb, "in the Twilight Zone," when Congress has specifically withheld a power.
January 10, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't figure out why Biden is kissing his ass.
January 10, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Alito's distinction that the views on Roe expressed in the 1985 memo were the personal beliefs of an advocate, and as a judge, he would keep an open mind to Roe, is untenable. He was not expressing a personal belief about abortion, he was expressing a personal belief that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe. While it is plausible to say that judges can separate personal beliefs about policy from their adjudication, Alito wasn't saying he was personally opposed to abortion - he was saying that he thought a Supreme Court decision should be overturned. What does it mean to separate his personal belief that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe from his duties as a judge on the Supreme Court? If his personal belief is about how the court ought to behave, it obviously tells us how he will behave on the court, and it is disingenuous for him to argue otherwise.
The media reporting breathlessly headlines like, "Alito says judges should follow precedent" is equally absurd. When did these hearings turn into a junior high school civics lesson? We know that judges will say they will keep an open mind, and respect the rule of law, and uphold the constitution. These are meaningless platitudes. Why can't we ask a judge whether they would overturn precedent? The decision to overturn precedent doesn't rest on a particular case or controversy - it is about what they feel about precedent, not parties or facts of a case.
January 10, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Biden was trying to get at Judge Alito's values -- his sense of justice -- with what he said. Sen. Biden explained that laws state our values, and human experience has determined the law. He further argued that Judge Alito's opinions are abstracted from human experience, and suggest that while he fully supports the goal of eradicating discrimination, he doesn't fully understand modern forms of discrimination -- injustice, in other words.
January 10, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Alito gets Roe overturned.
"Red" States outlaw abortion, "Blue" States legalize abortion.
18 years later, there are 18 million "Red" State kids and their poor moms living on federal assistance programs...at a cost of around $180 billion a year.
Before the Republicans went on "Holiday" break, they passed a bill that cut:
1. Food Stamps
2. Childhood Nutrition Programs
3. Student Loans
I doubt the Republicans will vote in new welfare programs to support all these poor kids.
The "Blue" States already subsidize the "Red" States with massive transfers of federal tax money...
The "Red" States start putting Democrats in Congress to enact laws to pay for their welfare babies.
January 10, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alito doesn't even know what the limits of Judiciary are. He stated they will enforce the laws.
He has no idea on the idea of a balance of power, or checks and balances in regards to that.
The Executive branch, to have a power, must have it stated expressly and in comparatively narrow realms of possible action with regard to the rights of excercising power over persons.
Individuals, one the other hand, are given much more freedom in the Ninth Amendment. Other Rights- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge pthers retained by the people."
Thus the model of limitation applies to the upper Powers of Government, whilst the broad liberties enjoyed are of the whole as it applies to individuals.
Clearly Alito's Judicial record indicates he has the Founders model backwards. He tries to give broad powers to the most powerful, and his attempt to limit the rights of free citizens carries with it the burden of explicit encroachment upon their rights and persons.
Corporations should have no more rights than persons.
There are standard sovereign benchmarks that apply to citizens which must be upheld as an item easily cleared by judges of good reason and character. Alito raises concerns in this regard in many decisions including ones where he dissented from a conservative majority that his pool of Judges did constitute.
January 10, 2006 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taylor Marsh
January 10, 2006 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
January 10, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
His membership in CAP is an important issue, it seems to me. Actually, it is less his membership than the fact that it is not credible that he cannot remember being a member. Let's face it, he is not being honest. He remembers being a member and probably regrets it right now. But why doesn't he just admit it, repudiate what the group stood for, say it was a mistake, and move on? Why is he lying? This is what troubles me.
Also, let's remember: Alito graduated in 1972. He was a member of CAP as an Alumnus of Princeton. This was not a group he was in while in college, it was afterwards, into the 1980's. Furthermore, Alito stated that he was "proud" to be a member of the group in 1985 when applying to the Reagan Administration.
This is not something that one would forget, and we should be very wary of someone who would lie about this.
January 10, 2006 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Bow,
I agree with you on Biden's intent.
However Biden defeats himself with his chummy style and rambling monologues.
I think Biden would be more effective using concise language and getting right to the point of his questions.
Biden used up far more time talking than did Alito.
I think Biden likes to hear himself talk - a little too much.
I didn't think Alito was under very much pressure during the Biden segment.
January 10, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinarily in a job interview, the applicant tries to show how his previous job experience qualifies him for the position he is seeking. Judge Alito and his defenders seem to be doing the opposite.
The opinions he expressed in the first half of his career, they say, are not necessarily a reliable guide to how he might act on the Supreme Court because he was merely a lawyer representing his clients' views. The latter half of his career is not a reliable guide because, as a judge of an inferior court, his opinions were constrained by precedents. And even unequivocal statements he made in applying for a post in the Reagan administration shed no light on his real beliefs because he was merely trying to ingratiate himself with a prospective employer. His entire curriculum vitae is irrelevant.
Harriet Miers was criticized for lack of experience. Samuel Alito asserts it boldly.
January 10, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was an entering freshman in fall 1972. I'm not sure when I heard of CAP, but it was astounding stuff. We'd never heard of neocons, of course, so we looked on it as this astonishing holdover of racism past we thought had vanished from the earth. It was also relatively small and very, very outspoken, which, coupled with its controversial nature, gave it a lot of publicity.
Maybe I was wrong, and maybe my memory is wrong, but the point is that this stuff was visible. You just could not forget being a member of it. He's lying.
January 10, 2006 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alito:
Has Alito ever claimed he actually is? He struck down a law due to a lack of Congressional fact finding, and he wrote a memo urging a better use of Presidential Signing Statements. Maybe someone should ask him if the Federalist Papers should be consulted on Constitutional interpretation, not that there is anything wrong with that.
January 10, 2006 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alito keep saying the executive is "subject to the Constitution" and "bound by the Constitution." That's seeming to satisfy the Senators who ask. But it's the wrong question.
Bush has never said his power to ignore law is in violation of the Constitution. He argues his power to ignore law is "inherent in" the executives power to wage war in the Constitution.
In short, the real question is: under what circumstances do you believe the Constitution permits a wartime president to ignore the other proivisions in the Constitution - like the 4th amendment against warrantless searches?
It's a bit long and unwieldy, but the answer that Bush is subject to the Constitution is just begging the real question of what the Constitution allows.
January 10, 2006 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Alito just said that there is a statute which requires the U.S. Attorney General to defend a statute if its constitutionally is called into question.
Now combine this with his assertion that the President must follow the law, to the extent that the laws are constitutional.
There is something very wrong here, I just can't put my finger on it.
January 10, 2006 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a 78-22 confirmation just like John Roberts. Democrats just can't get it right.
January 10, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
pshaw, I remember it like it was yesterday. Speak for yourself.
January 10, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judge Alioto is either really smart or really dumb. I believe it is the former, because of his ability to act dumb when it suits his purpose. The thing that is so scary is his good legal mind. He is able to parse the law, to find the legalese nuances that allow him to stay extremely conservative, but seeming to love the whole breadth of the law. The trouble is, he is an elitist, never sides with the individual, always with the powers that be. But he tries to look otherwise, as his supporters try to paint him otherwise. However, if you look at his behavior as the truth about him, you can see the true narrow cool jurist who will switch the court direction for what will seem like forever. Ugh!
January 10, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get a 5, Hank, after hearing Alito today.
He's lying about his prep for the hearings, he's sleazy for not listing his stock holdings on the recusal list and he's a chump, well, just cause all those GOPs like him so much.
January 10, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point's well taken, but I don't think overturning Roe is the end game. It's turning the country into South Dakota.
January 10, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you did put your finger on it. Alito's wiggle room is in the definition of what's Constitutional. The sad truth is that we're now in a place when laws being "Constitutional" is very much up in the air.
Alito has a history of defending the radical notion that the Constitution authorizes the President to ignore laws altogether if he's acting in his capacity as a war president. In other words, ANYTHING the President does is, in Alito's view, Constitutional.
So he can say the President is subject to the Constitution all he wants. All he means by that is, the President is above all Constitutional and legal restrictions.
Scary.
January 10, 2006 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Feinstein was BRILLIANT. Case by case, opinion by opinion.
Best TV I've seen in years.
January 10, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden always kisses Republican ass. That's what makes him Biden. How else to court the powerful "center".
January 10, 2006 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this exchange between Graham and Alito was interesting:
GRAHAM: . . . Under the Constitution, what's the vote requirement to get confirmed to the Supreme Court?
ALITO: It's a majority.
Apparently, Alito hasn't read the Constitution closely recently. In fact, the Constitution (surprisingly, maybe) never mentions a majority vote--not even for ordinary legislation. All it says is:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Now the founders clearly did think that most bills would pass via majority vote (at least their writings from the time suggest this). However, it's not at all clear that they would have had any problem with rules that required say 60% of a particular house to agree to close debate on an issue before a vote on that issue could be taken (i.e., the same 60% rule that currently holds in the Senate and that allows for filibusters). After all, they gave each house the right to set it's own rules for proceeding without any qualification.
In the case of the confirmation of the President's judicial and executive nominees, the Constitution only specifies that the Senate must provide advice and consent. How it provides that advice and consent (by majority vote or not) is not specified by the Constitution and probably could be done (under the Constitution) by whatever rules the Senate decides to set for itself.
January 10, 2006 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precedent is already set. He clearly is not going to let precedent rule the day.
A case with establish precedent is no matter to him, he has left it open to change.
January 10, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've been watching it. All I can say is with Alito, as with Roberts before him, the questioners, especially the Democrats, are hearing what they want to hear.
Alito comes off impressive to the Dems when he says "no one is above the law including the President". What he doesn't say is that he believes the Constitution gives the President power to wiretap with no warrants and hold people indefinitely without charging them. Those are the "laws" he sees in the Constitution and that is what he means when he says the President isn't above the law.
But the Dems are hearing a while different thing. And it's painful to see them being taken in. They are being taken in by this because they ascribe the usual meanings to the words Alito is using. Of course, if the ask him to explain what he means he hides behind the vague replies that a case like that may come before him if he's confirmed even if he doesn't use those words like many before him have. But make no mistake, no one really knows how he feels about executive power.
January 10, 2006 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've been watching it. All I can say is with Alito, as with Roberts before him, the questioners, especially the Democrats, are hearing what they want to hear.
Alito comes off impressive to the Dems when he says "no one is above the law including the President". What he doesn't say is that he believes the Constitution gives the President power to wiretap with no warrants and hold people indefinitely without charging them. Those are the "laws" he sees in the Constitution and that is what he means when he says the President isn't above the law.
But the Dems are hearing a while different thing. And it's painful to see them being taken in. They are being taken in by this because they ascribe the usual meanings to the words Alito is using. Of course, if the ask him to explain what he means he hides behind the vague replies that a case like that may come before him if he's confirmed even if he doesn't use those words like many before him have. But make no mistake, no one really knows how he feels about executive power.
January 10, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't we find a democrat Senator to point out plainly that Mr. Alito has a demonstrated track record of saying things he doesn't really believe in order to get ahead professionally, to say nothing of his demonstrated disregard for undertakings made to this very body in the course of a previous confirmation hearing?
Is there anything else to say? Isn't everything this man says in these hearings tainted by his record of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear?
Am I missing something? Let's keep this simple.
January 10, 2006 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hearings have become a total travesty and sham what with Graham coaching Alito behind the scenes, etc...
see article in Village Voice here:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0602,roston,71634,6.html
it's posted over at truthout.org as well.
The ineffectiveness of the way our government now works (or doesn't) is infuriating.
January 10, 2006 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
but we have to be careful that we do not set the bar for confirmation at adherence to a particular brand of politics.
Where else would we set the bar?
January 10, 2006 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink