so i've watched it/listened to it off and on most of the day and frankly this guy holds up better than i expected him to. and i do think he's answered a lot of stuff which i didn't think he would and the few statements he avoided he did it with pretty good reason and tact. i also want to say that i disagree with lindsay graham a lot but next to sessions and cornyn he looks articulate like clinton. Alito Seeks to Distance Himself From Previous Abortion Statements Nominee Faces Senators in Second Day of Hearing By William Branigin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 10, 2006; 5:30 PM Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., facing tough questioning on the second day of his Senate confirmation hearings, distanced himself today from a statement he made 20 years ago in opposition to abortion, saying he would approach the issue differently and keep "an open mind" if it came before him as a Supreme Court justice. But Alito said his 1985 statement -- that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion -- accurately reflected his view at the time, and he cautioned that the principle of respect for Supreme Court precedents is not "an inexorable command" binding justices in future rulings. Alito, a federal appeals court judge nominated by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, made the statements in response to questioning from the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a supporter of abortion rights. Alito said he agreed "that the Constitution protects a right to privacy," the main underpinning of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationally. He also agreed with Specter that stare decisis, meaning to stand by that which is already decided, "is a very important doctrine" that must be considered. Asked by Specter whether he regards a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade as a "super precedent," Alito demurred. "I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super precedents or super-duper precedents," he said. "Any sort of categorization like that sort of reminds me of the size of the laundry detergent in the supermarket." But he said that "when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent." However, Alito added, "Now, I don't want to leave the impression that stare decisis is an inexorable command, because the Supreme Court has said that it is not." Alito said his 1985 anti-abortion memo was "a correct statement of what I thought" at the time, when he was an attorney in the Reagan administration. "That was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge you really have to put aside the things you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career," Alito said. If the issue were to come before him today, the first consideration would be precedent, he said. "And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, then I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made," Alito said. He repeated his remark in his opening statement yesterday that a judge "doesn't have an agenda" and is obliged to follow the law. Abortion rights groups have come out in strong opposition to the confirmation of Alito, arguing that he would become a key swing vote on a court that would then be more likely to strike down the right to an abortion. Alito also came under persistent questioning on executive power, an issue that has come to the fore with a controversy over Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In response to questions from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alito said that "no person in this country is above the law." But he said some issues related to executive powers fall into "a twilight zone" where presidential authority is at a low point. Pressed by Leahy on whether Bush broke the law when he authorized the domestic spying program, Alito said the issue was "very likely to result in litigation in the federal courts" and that he would have to hear the arguments of the contending parties and examine any constitutional questions to make a determination. Bush nominated Alito, 55, last fall to replace retiring O'Connor, 75, the first woman on the Supreme Court, who announced her desire to retire upon the confirmation of a successor. Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit based in Philadelphia and a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department attorney, was effectively Bush's third choice for the seat. The president's first choice, John G. Roberts, was elevated to be the nominee for chief justice after the death of William H. Rehnquist, and Roberts subsequently won confirmation handily. Bush then chose longtime friend and White House counsel Harriet E. Miers to replace O'Connor, but Miers withdrew under pressure from critics who challenged her qualifications and from conservatives who considered her insufficiently reliable. In today's hearing, Leahy questioned Alito closely on his membership in the conservative Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that the senator said resisted admissions of women and minorities to Alito's alma mater. Alito mentioned his membership in the group in a 1985 application for a job in the Reagan administration. Alito replied that he has "no specific recollection of that organization" and did not remember being actively involved in it. He said opposing admissions to Princeton of women and minorities "certainly was not any part of my thinking in whatever I did in relation to this group." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) referred to the domestic spying program and Bush's opposition to efforts by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to explicitly ban torture by any U.S. government personnel. Kennedy said he has "serious doubts" that Alito would be the kind of Supreme Court justice who would stand up to presidential power, but would be "overly deferential" to such authority. He cited Alito's statement in his 1985 job application that he believed very strongly in the "supremacy" of the executive branch. Alito said he had used "an inapt phrase" that was "very misleading and incorrect." He said he did not mean that the executive branch is superior to the legislative and judicial branches, and he recognizes that "the branches of government are equal." The nominee defended his opinions in specific federal appeals court cases that Kennedy charged showed a pattern of "single-minded deference to the executive power." Alito said essentially that he reached his decisions based on the law as it applied to each case. Angered by critics' questioning of Alito's judicial independence, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) followed up by asking the nominee if he believes the executive branch "should have unchecked authority." "Absolutely not, senator," Alito replied. He added, "Nobody in this country is above the law, and that includes the president." Alito parried questions about his past statements supporting a "unitary executive," a concept now promoted by the Bush administration, and favoring President Reagan's Supreme Court nomination in 1987 of Robert H. Bork, a staunch conservative who was ultimately rejected by the Senate as being too far out of the mainstream. Alito said that to him, the "unitary executive" concept means simply that the president should be able to control the executive branch no matter how big it is, and has nothing to do with "the scope of executive power." Asked by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) about a 1988 interview in which Alito called Bork "one of the most outstanding nominees of this century," Alito said he had been speaking as a member of the Reagan administration and does not currently agree with some of the views Bork expressed. "He was and is an accomplished scholar," Alito said. "But I don't agree with him on a number of issues." The hearing largely followed the pattern of previous such exercises, described by Specter yesterday as a delicate "minuet" in which the nominee tries to answer senators' questions just enough to win confirmation but not so much as to give ammunition to his critics. For their part, the senators often use their turns at the microphone less to elicit information from the nominee than to expound their own views on various issues. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), an abortion opponent, delivered a lengthy disquisition on the "super precedent" issue raised earlier by Specter and said he disagreed with the chairman that Roe v. Wade amounted to such a precedent -- one so well settled that it is not challenged in court. But DeWine did not ask Alito to elaborate on his own views on the matter. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) queried Alito on his comment that the Supreme Court would need a "special justification" for overruling a precedent, pressing him to give examples. Alito replied that such justifications could come if the ruling "has proven to be unworkable" or if there had been "changes in the real world" that present new conditions, such as technological advances. © 2006 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011000198.html?sub=AR
I'm happier with the nomination now than before watching the hearings, but all the critics of GWB *I'm not just the president of the GWB is evil club, I'm also a client* should realize that most of their own elected officials (Dem and Rep alike) are also tools. There was waaay way too much "I'm against child p*rn... kiddie p*rn is bad... don't you think kiddie p*rn is bad?" lines of questioning. With a few exceptions, that was a big waste of time.
I've been listening to them everynow and then my opinion is pretty mixed. He's generally sounded well and seems more candid than John Roberts. He has some excellent responses and I particularly liked his response regarding the Bill of Rights applying in times of war. OTOH I question the fidelity of some of his responses. Its one thing for John Roberts who wrote most of his controversial comments when he actually was representing a client to say that he was delivering legal opinions to a client compared to Alito who wrote many of those when he wasn't employed by a client. Also some of the potential ethics questions regarding why he didn't recuse himself from cases regarding Vanguard financial and his sisters law firm after he promised the Senate he would at his last confirmation seem downright evasive. He's definately well spoken, hasn't come off as rapid ideologue and shown intelligence but he still doesn't strike me as very convincing.
I have listened to most of the hearings as I usually do. I think the "opposition" senators are not doing very well in their challenges which is funny because I had heard a report about how they were humiliated by how Roberts danced around them and would thus be better prepared. Often, they have gotten facts wrong and tried to drive the wrong facts home. Hatch is funny but I still love Lindsay Graham. Theat guy is unintentionally hilarious to me. I especially like how he asked pointed questions that Alito - supposedly the most conservative nominee since Bork - did not want to accept. Part of that is obviously strategic but it was still funny to hear him try to dance away from questions by a Republican. Alito is obviously smart but he definitely has some problems with honesty. His memory is either really strong about cases or various other justices but when it comes to things in the past he has more than once expressed no memory.
Some of the Dems have done a poor job but some have done a very good job. My respect for Sen. Russ Feingold continues to rise and I thought his questions on Alito's ethics issues did the most to trip him up. At the same time the Repubs have been pretty mixed too. Arlen Specter has done a wonderful job running the committees and pressing the nominee with good probing questions. OTOH many have just come off as speechifying advocates for the nominee rather than Senators doing their duty to find out what sort of Justice he will be. Some of these guys like Sen. Dewine might as well be doing an infomercial for Alito than conducting hearings. As for Sen. Lindsey Grahm IMO I find him grating. He may be truly thoughtful and very concerned about moderation but the impression I get from him is that he's putting on an act saying, "Look at me I'm really the most moderate independent Senator. John McCain got nothing on me!" I think this is true and he might be hurting in comparison to John Roberts. Roberts was certainly dodgy and might in actuallity be far less honest than Alito but Roberts did a better job keeping his stories straight and rarely used a foggy memory as a defense but instead steered the question to issues regarding precedent, his role as an advocate and tot he potential of him dealing with that issue as a USSC Justice.
Yeah, until Orrin Hatch reached out and slapped him silly by totally shooting down Feingold's ridiculously partisan approach to the Vanguard 'issue'. The whole chamber was laughing at Feingold. He was totally shamed. The Democrats are doing nothing but embarrassing themselves. Schumer, Kennedy, Feingold and others are only cementing their place in the annals of liberal extremism. Who takes them seriously anymore? I am LICKING MY CHOPS at the prospect of Alito being confirmed. LICKING MY CHOPS. This *lifetime appointment* will swing the court decidedly in the conservatives' direction. A crippling blow to the already floundering liberal movement.
I agree Feingold did the best job with respect to the Vanguard questioning - and got Alito to admit that it was his mistake and not computer, etc. - but I think that itis not a good issue to try to drive home. It is really minor. No matter his politics, Alito is a stand-up guy. Otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. If he is to be attacked, it should be on issues and his voting record. Precedent is huge and nobody has realy hurt him in that area yet. Agreed fully. Specter is really a good chair and from what I hear he is a good Senator for his state. A lot of the others do look silly. Especially in light of how some of them responded to the Meirs nomination. Perhaps you misunderstood me...I can't tell. I think Graham is a bufoon and thus he makes me laugh. I do not think he is close to a moderate - he is one of those "war on Christmas" types. Further it seems from time to time he really confuses himself. That is enjoyable.
I kind of agree with Sishir that his responses seem fair, but I don't trust his honesty. Even if he is answering 100% honestly regarding these issues, the man is a dishonest person. His job application was full of dishonesty. Now, he doesn't remember belonging to the group that wanted to keep women and minorities out of Princeton? I do believe that Alito doesn't hold those views, so why lie about it? He lied when he made a pledge to congress about Vanguard. Then his past explanation for that was perhaps the most dishonest of all. To claim that a pledge only pertains to the start of a job is ridiculous. I am not sure how much honesty has to do with being a judge, so it might hamper him. But how do we know that we can trust what he is saying now? Either way he is a basically dishonest person, IMO.
Egads! FB has caught me. I am a dishonest person. In fact I didn't even go to Princeton but went to CAL.. Just having a little fun FB, I know you were referring to Alito but your phrasing sounds like you're referring to me.
FB touched on this issue and to follow up I think this is a very important issue. Alito is very well qualified and the fact that most of his decisions have tended to be conservative isn't a problem in and of itself. What should be a problem though for any judge of any ideological bent is ethics. While this in the grand scheme of things might seem minor it goes straight to the heart of his integrity and whether his word is good. Given that there is no other court or review for the USSC justices should be of unimpeachable integrity. I got what you meant but I was responding in general to a few posters who've commented on Lindsey Grahm. I think its more shtick than anything honest.
Alito Refuses To Say Roe Is "Settled Law of the Land" Durbin exposes Alito. Durbin asks "John Roberts stated unequivocally that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land. Do you, Judge Alito, believe that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land?" Unlike, John Roberts, Alito refuses to say that Roe is the settled law of the land. It is very simple. Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and anyone who supports his confirmation; any SENATOR who votes for his confirmation, has no excuse -- they are voting for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
If Bork was too radical for the Court, why isn't Alito? One of the difficulties with judicial confirmation hearings is that there is no real standard to use for determining which nominees should be confirmed and what constitutes a disqualifying attribute. But one of the few things that is settled in this process is that whatever else it means to be too radical to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork was too radical, which is why he was overwhelmingly rejected by the Senate and by Americans. Bork has come to set the standard for non-confirmability – he is now the embodiment, the measure, in this country of a nominee whose views are so radical that he is disqualified from serving on the Court. For that reason, as Alito opponents are starting to highlight, the most significant fact revealed during Alito’s confirmation hearings yesterday, by far, was the extreme praise which Alito heaped on Robert Bork when Alito was already the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. As uncovered by The Washington Post, Alito, in 1988, did not just say that he supported Bork’s nomination, but also made clear that Bork was his ideal for what a Supreme Court Justice ought to be: That is extraordinary praise for someone who was judged too radical to serve on the Supreme Court. And even more strikingly, when asked why he believed Bork was one of the greatest nominees, Alito cited exactly that which compelled the Senate and the country to reject Bork’s nomination: specifically, Bork’s "understanding of constitutional history" and his thoughts "about the Supreme Court and the role it ought to play in American society." This leads to an obvious and overarching point: If Robert Bork was so far out of the mainstream in 1988 as to be unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, how can Sam Alito be in the mainstream in 2006? Since Alito has cited as his judicial hero someone whom the country overwhelmingly rejected as being too radical, shouldn’t Alito and his allies bear the heavy burden of demonstrating in what material respects Alito differs from Bork? Alito does not claim that he’s changed his views in any way during his legal career. To the contrary, he’s been a model of consistency and immovability. Nobody suggests that he is anything but the same person as he was in 1988. The views of Bork which led to his rejection are not obsolete relics of that time period. Quite the contrary; they are urgently relevant to the most critical issues of today. Here, for instance, is what the Senate Judiciary Committee said about Bork's extremist views concerning Executive power: All this talk about respect for precedent is ironic. One of the very few things that could be called "precedent" with regard to these judicial confirmation hearings is that whatever else "out-of-the-mainstream" means, Robert Bork and his judicial philosophy clearly qualify. Given that, isn’t it almost self-evident that a person who holds Bork up as his judicial model and lavishly praises Bork’s "understanding of constitutional history" and role of the Court in our society should be presumptively viewed as being too radical as well? At the very least, Alito should bear the heavy burden of demonstrating that he is, in material respects, a different jurist than the Robert Bork who was resoundingly condemned by the country and the Senate as being far too radical to be confirmed. Two final points: (1) The fact that Alito claims that he followed Supreme Court precedent when he was a lower court judge says nothing about how radical and aggressive he will be in overturning precedents once he is on the Supreme Court. Nobody suggested that Bork had failed to follow Supreme Court precedents when he was an appellate judge. The concern that led to Bork’s rejection was that once he was on the Supreme Court -- and, for the first time, had the power to overrule Supreme Court precedents -- he would then be guided by his radical judicial philosophy to overturn some of the most important and settled cases safeguarding Americans’ basic liberties. That is the same concern about Alito, and as was true for Bork, nothing in his history as a lower court judge can assuage that concern. (2) Alito’s defenders and the media have made much out of Alito’s stated belief in stare decisis and his agreement to uphold the rule of law, as though those statements prove that Alito is in the judicial mainstream. Here are the first three paragraphs of Bork’s opening statement to the Judiciary Committee – the very first words he spoke at his hearing: What Bork said is almost verbatim what Alito said yesterday. That's because everyone can and does recite these cliches. Every judge, including the most radical such as Bork, believe that they are correctly applying the law and promise to have respect for precedent. But the Bork hearings already established the principle that the mere fact that a nominee comes in and pledges allegiance to stare decisis and the rule of law is meaningless. Reciting a belief in following the law is an obvious prerequisite just to get into the confirmation door, but it is not even close to being sufficient to prove that one should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. What determines that is whether a nominee's judicial philosophy is sufficiently in the mainstream to allow confirmation. For Alito, that examination must start with his identification of Robert Bork as his judicial model.
Did ya hear ole' Lindsay this morning on NPR? He is nothing more than a parody of an "aww shucks" televagelist...a raging buffoon. The last soundbite was Lindsay(I bet he got beat up FREQUENTLY with that first name)referring to Alito's 1985 job application in which he proudly listed C.A.P. as one of the Princton orginizations that he was a member of. As you well know, Alito can't recall being a member of the arch conservative Alumni group that was pushing for restrictions on minorty and female applicants over alumni legacies. Mr Graham joked to the chamber that, and I paraphrase, "I hope that if I ever come before this panel about my ties to Jack Ahbramof that you will accept that I don't remember him." Wow....wowey-wow....
that was a fairly heated argument between specter and kennedy just now... this issue of concerned alumni of princeton seems to becoming quite an issue...
These hearings are the onlly thing more boring than Alito himself. What a disgusting nerd. Man I hated law school.
Oh WOW!! Ted 'The Drunk Killer' Kennedy just got done with a ridiculous emotional tirade during the hearings. After spending the better part of 30 minutes insinuating that Alito is racist through ridiculous allegations regarding CAP (an organization that Alito was not active in and the allegations of impropriety were years after Alito left school), The Drunk then demanded that the Chairman of the Committee (Specter) subpoena CAP records from the mid-80's. Specter and Kennedy then had a nice little emotional spat in which Kennedy was sent retreating with his tail between his legs. How ridiculous is it that liberals like Schumer and Kennedy think it is their right to attempt to smear Alito through 'hail mary' attempts at slander such as the Vanguard 'issue' and the CAP 'issue'. If this is all they've got, then welcome to the Court, Sam. Ted Kennedy is particularly hypocritical, given the fact that he got drunk and KILLED a woman -- who is he to talk about someone's ethics? Seriously, the guy is a joke. Specter's shoutdown of him was very much warranted.
Here's a tissue, you got some froth on your mouth. How can you live your life with such hate? Hate for others usually means you hate yourself. Anyway, I think he's fine, at least he's smart, logical and knows the law. I don't care about his ideological leanings, as I don't expect far left or far right presidents to appoint moderates. He's replacing a conservative anyway, so aside from potentially swinging abortion and death penalty, I don't think there is an overwhelmingly one-sided court.
Sandra was SUPPOSED to be Reagan's dark horse conservative appointment...I think it's pretty clear that she was the swing vote and couldn't be considered as consevative as Alito. Regardless, I think he will be confirmed and I look forward to the Roe v. Wade showdown. Heck, he might not even be the deciding vote, maybe Thomas will grow a set and vote on his own for once. As a Democrat, I would prefer a more centrist replacement to maintain the court's fragile balance, but I don't htink Alito is that much worse than any other puppet that Bush and Co. could parade in front of us that has a snowball's chance of being confirmed.
IMHO Alito is not the fight the dems need to be focusing on. They should let him have his vote and move on. The longer this stays on the front page the happier Rove will be. There are bigger fish to fry.
