Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

-- Kennedy: "You've Asked For My Opinion Whether Judge Breyer's Committed A Violation Of Judicial Ethics In Investing In Lloyds Name And Insurance Underwriting While Being A Federal Judge. In My Opinion, There Was No Violation Of Judicial Ethics." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/14/94)

 

 

Dude, SSI, dont you realize that only Republicans are criminals? Dont you realize that Democrats s*** doesn't stink?

 

Thats Kennedy's world.

[southsideirish71]

His job is to be a partisan hack.  No more, no less.  People like him aren't interested in whether Alito would make a good judge or not but rather to oppose simply for the sake of opposition. 

 

Fortunately, however, leftist hypocrites like Kennedy are nothing more than a noisy irritant and nothing more.

 

 

Someone should hold this up anytime Teddy goes into a ethics based attack.

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Someone should hold this up anytime Teddy goes into a ethics based attack.

 

 

 

Kennedy would have made a great swim teacher. Hell, he could even swim like a champ while wasted. Too bad he forgot to teach his girl how to swim.

 

 

SIGH.

[Rex Kickass]

So the wife of a man being grilled by alot of very inept Senators leaves in tears over the anguish her husband is experiencing, and it MAY be a political ploy.  However, the grieving mother of a war veteran uses her 15 miutes of fame to become a shill for all things liberal and she is merely 'expressing her grief'?  Hmmm.

 

Or could it be something found hollow when everyone tries to put the blames on Dems and Lindsey Graham a Republican who helped coach Alito on his supreme court hearings was talking when his wife went into hysterics.

 

Oh yeah, don't count out the filibuster yet. Even Lieberman said it was still on the table.

[Rex Kickass]

Gee, I wonder why?  No bias there.

No, it could just be her name. God forbid they should use it, rather than Mrs. Alito when she might not actually want to be called that.

[Rex Kickass]

You know what I love? An honest disagreement in policy with the Bush administration in this forum becomes a "blame Bush for everything" pity fest for our poor embattled President who has to have had it the hardest of any of our past presidents despite never having to face a serious investigation against any of the many accusations that have dogged him throughout his last five years in office.

 

Ted Kennedy says something that might actually equate the right thing to some people (even if it was a position that he may have gone to via political means) and its Chappaquiddick all over again.

 

And the libs on the board, although it could just be me, seem to find the Kennedy jokes amusing.

 

The wingnuts on the board seem to find jokes about their "leaders" and Government reps insulting.

 

No wonder all the good comedians are democrats. They seem to actually have a sense of humor.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to sort of agree with Rex here. The GOP'ers in this thread are being awfully whiney, defensive and, frankly, sound like their own stereotyped versions of "leftists".

 

I'm sorry but I don't feel one bit badly about Alito getting grilled or his wife being in tears. This man is looking to be nominated to the highest court in the land - I would expect BOTH parties to grill Alito like a steak at the family BBQ. We need to. He's not exactly being forthright, or open about his background and views.

 

And frankly, while I don't think he's way-right (as some Dems seem to fear), I do think he's far too politically minded and wishy-washy for SCOTUS. Just my take. I don't see in this guy what we saw from Roberts - a man dedicated to the law with every bone in his body. And that's what I'd want from anyone on SCOTUS.

[kapkomet]

I have to sort of agree with Rex here.  The  GOP'ers in this thread are being awfully whiney, defensive and, frankly, sound like their own stereotyped versions of "leftists".

 

I'm sorry but I don't feel one bit badly about Alito getting grilled or his wife being in tears.  This man is looking to be nominated to the highest court in the land - I would expect BOTH parties to grill Alito like a steak at the family BBQ.  We need to.  He's not exactly being forthright, or open about his background and views. 

 

And frankly, while I don't think he's way-right (as some Dems seem to fear), I do think he's far too politically minded and wishy-washy for SCOTUS.  Just my take.  I don't see in this guy what we saw from Roberts - a man dedicated to the law with every bone in his body.  And that's what I'd want from anyone on SCOTUS.

I think it's bull s*** when every single move is "political". She cried. WAAAAAAAAH OMFG she's ACTING!!! Put the theatrics away about the theatrics, ok?

 

Yes, his ass needs grilled, it's important. But grill him on things that matter, not on some stupid application from 30 years ago that has been vetted to mean nothing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it's bull s*** when every single move is "political".  She cried.  WAAAAAAAAH OMFG she's ACTING!!!  Put the theatrics away about the theatrics, ok?

 

Yes, his ass needs grilled, it's important.  But grill him on things that matter, not on some stupid application from 30 years ago that has been vetted to mean nothing.

 

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I actually was not referring to the crying as the political act - i don't even want to touch on that, because I have no idea if those tears were real or not, and I don't really care. That's why I said I feel no pity towards her or her husband, even if they DID feel badly.

 

I am referring more to Alito's lack of solid responses to some important questions. I am trying to point out that judges should not be political animals, ideally. All of them are to some extent, but I seek candidates who are less so. Is that more clear?

[southsider2k5]

The system is making them political animals.

 

We parade potential SCOTUS judges onto TV and ask them a bunch of questions about hot button political questions without any legal indications which would be surrounding a real case. They go in front of the biggest political group in the world to answer questions about politics from people looking to get reelected based on the chance that their soundbyte makes the difference in them getting back to Washington again. They get asked a minimal amount of questions on the law, and instead they get asked what they personally think about laws... subtle, but there is a difference.

 

I don't know what else is to be expected with the way the process is handled.

[NorthSideSox72]

The system is making them political animals. 

 

We parade potential SCOTUS judges onto TV and ask them a bunch of questions about hot button political questions without any legal indications which would be surrounding a real case.  They go in front of the biggest political group in the world to answer questions about politics from people looking to get reelected based on the chance that their soundbyte makes the difference in them getting back to Washington again.  They get asked a minimal amount of questions on the law, and instead they get asked what they personally think about laws... subtle, but there is a difference. 

 

I don't know what else is to be expected with the way the process is handled.

 

All true. And I think that it should be the role of judges to push back against that.

 

Realistically, all will have to cave to an extent. But if you look at Roberts versus Alito, I see two different animals, specific issues aside. Roberts seemed more dedicated to the law than Alito does, in my opinion.

[Rex Kickass]

I would think its a real big deal if someone claimed membership to a group who's sole purpose was keeping his alma mater white and male - bragged about it to get a government job in 1985 (which is only 21 years ago, and helped lead to his first judicial appointment) - and now claims to not even remember the group exists or that he was even a part of it.

 

If he never was a member (which it turns out he wasn't), he lied on his resume for political purposes and Notre Dame footballl coaches have been fired for the same thing. Sorry, but I hold my Supreme Court justices to a higher standard than Notre Dame football. This shows a willingness to lie for political purposes and the kind of lie he makes would show where his allegiance lies.

 

If he was a member, rather than eschew or even downplay his membership when he applied for the position in 1985's Reagan administration, he trumpeted it. One year after the organization had been disbanded and disgraced as being a racist and chauvinist organization. Rather than claim it a mistake of his youth, he chose to highlight it as a reason why the government should employ him. Again, I'm not sure I want someone of that ethical character in the Supreme Court.

 

And that's why that subject is or should be fair game in a Supreme Court hearing.

[kapkomet]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me.  I actually was not referring to the crying as the political act - i don't even want to touch on that, because I have no idea if those tears were real or not, and I don't really care.  That's why I said I feel no pity towards her or her husband, even if they DID feel badly.

 

I am referring more to Alito's lack of solid responses to some important questions.  I am trying to point out that judges should not be political animals, ideally.  All of them are to some extent, but I seek candidates who are less so.  Is that more clear?

Yes. And I agree.

[Cknolls]

I understand that you understand the orders of magnitude difference between losing your son and watching your husband get a Senate beatdown, so I won't even dwell on that.

 

But, don't you think Mrs. Bomgardner/Alito expected that her husband was going to be put on the spot during the confirmation hearings?  I very much suspect the outburst was for effect, to paint the Dems as big bad bullies for doing their job.  Especially when interview opportunities were being lined up with associates of hers within an hour of the incident.  Mrs. Alito may have received some coaching as well I'd guess.

 

Regardless of the outcome, and despite the MSM saying quick confirmation is iminent, the Dems should filibuster.

 

Alito failed to substantively engage his record during the hearings, and so failed to sway anybody that he is anything more than an extreme conservative idealogue.  I think if the Dems filibuster and ultimately Alito is confirmed anyway(likely), that is still far preferable to letting the nomination go unchallenged.  During the filibuster, lots of time can be given to spelling out not only Alito's character and positions, but also the executive abuses that have come to a head in the NSA affair and the fact that that sort of consolidation of power in the executive suits Judge Alito just fine.  Throw in several re-readings of the Constitution, especially the 4th amendment, and have every Democratic Senator note that they in no way intended for the 9/14 Joint Resolution for the use of force in Afghanistan to extend the executive authority to conduct warrantless surveilance against US citizens.  The MSM will be unable to ignore all of that and will finally have to explain the facts of some of these issues to the public.

 

 

They will not filibuster. They will lose. Repubs are not f***ing around this time. If

 

they filibuster this time and lose, it will make it that much harder to filibuster the

 

next candidate to the court. The Dems will paint themselves as serial filibusterers.

 

Won't look good in the eyes of America.

 

 

A resonable person would expect their spouse to be questioned diligently and th

 

thoroughly, but character assasination should not be tolerated in these hearings.

 

The whole Vanguard shenanigans was a disgrace. Vanguard was not a party to that

 

suit. They were the transfer agent for funds held by the husband. Hence, Alito was

 

not required to recuse himself. Unlike Stephen Breyer who sat in on at least six

 

cases involving Lloyds of London while being a shareholder of the said company.

 

 

Details details. Dems hate being outsmarted, but it is not too hard to outsmart

 

this bunch of tools. Kennedy is an embarassment and should be knocked down a

 

few pegs. Him questioning anyone about character and morality is the height of

 

hypocrisy.

[Cknolls]

Did Mrs. Alito's coaching not cover the fact that her husband might actually be asked to explain how his documented history as a conservative idealogue and basically someone who will apparently say anything to get a job leaves him qualified to sit on the high court?

 

Conservative idealogue? To who???? Kennedy,Schumer, and Durbin? All

 

fine Centrists, right???? GMAFB.

 

You are losing at the ballot box and now you are losing in the courts.

 

I love the smell of Conservatism in the morning.

[Cknolls]

I have to sort of agree with Rex here.  The  GOP'ers in this thread are being awfully whiney, defensive and, frankly, sound like their own stereotyped versions of "leftists".

 

I'm sorry but I don't feel one bit badly about Alito getting grilled or his wife being in tears.  This man is looking to be nominated to the highest court in the land - I would expect BOTH parties to grill Alito like a steak at the family BBQ.  We need to.  He's not exactly being forthright, or open about his background and views. 

 

And frankly, while I don't think he's way-right (as some Dems seem to fear), I do think he's far too politically minded and wishy-washy for SCOTUS.  Just my take.  I don't see in this guy what we saw from Roberts - a man dedicated to the law with every bone in his body.  And that's what I'd want from anyone on SCOTUS.

 

 

Tell me the last Scotus nominee that answered all questions to your satisfaction?

[NorthSideSox72]

Tell me the last Scotus nominee that answered all questions to your satisfaction?

 

Roberts was pretty darn close, as I noted earlier.

[Cknolls]

I would think its a real big deal if someone claimed membership to a group who's sole purpose was keeping his alma mater white and male - bragged about it to get a government job in 1985 (which is only 21 years ago, and helped lead to his first judicial appointment) - and now claims to not even remember the group exists or that he was even a part of it.

 

If he never was a member (which it turns out he wasn't), he lied on his resume for political purposes and Notre Dame footballl coaches have been fired for the same thing. Sorry, but I hold my Supreme Court justices to a higher standard than Notre Dame football. This shows a willingness to lie for political purposes and the kind of lie he makes would show where his allegiance lies.

 

If he was a member, rather than eschew or even downplay his membership when he applied for the position in 1985's Reagan administration, he trumpeted it. One year after the organization had been disbanded and disgraced as being a racist and chauvinist organization. Rather than claim it a mistake of his youth, he chose to highlight it as a reason why the government should employ him. Again, I'm not sure I want someone of that ethical character in the Supreme Court.

 

And that's why that subject is or should be fair game in a Supreme Court hearing.

 

 

Did we forget that the ABA said he was well qualified? Oh, they are part of the

 

Bush cabal, I forgot.

[Cknolls]

Roberts was pretty darn close, as I noted earlier.

 

 

What is his view on abortion???

[NorthSideSox72]

What is his view on abortion???

 

That Roe v Wade is the part and parcel of the law of the land, and that it stands for itself. Any new cases would be judged on their own merit, but with that precedent in hand. I think he was pretty clear - as much as he can be without a complete scenario, anyway.

 

With Alito, he pretty much dodged the question entirely, from what I saw.

[Balta1701]

What is his view on abortion???

The phrase he used, which Alito refused to endorse, was that Roe v. Wade was "Settled law".

[NorthSideSox72]

Did we forget that the ABA said he was well qualified?  Oh, they are part of the

 

Bush cabal, I forgot.

 

Why bother adding that second sentence? It just makes it look like you have no intelligent argument to present, and you just like complaining that everyone seems to hate Bush.

[kapkomet]

That Roe v Wade is the part and parcel of the law of the land, and that it stands for itself.  Any new cases would be judged on their own merit, but with that precedent in hand.  I think he was pretty clear - as much as he can be without a complete scenario, anyway.

 

With Alito, he pretty much dodged the question entirely, from what I saw.

Um... Alito pretty much said the same thing - and that he knew that he had to "have an open mind" about any case that came before him.

[kapkomet]

Why bother adding that second sentence?  It just makes it look like you have no intelligent argument to present, and you just like complaining that everyone seems to hate Bush.

I don't think he's complaining, I think he's saying what definitely appears to be the case in the leftist's eyes.

[Balta1701]

Did we forget that the ABA said he was well qualified?  Oh, they are part of the

 

Bush cabal, I forgot.

Does anyone actually know what standards the ABA uses to judge a candidate as well-qualified? I honestly don't, and without that, for all I know is that means he passed the bar exam.