Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court

[redhot00]

WASHINGTON - President Bush (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=President+Bush), stung by the rejection of his first choice, will nominate conservative judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Sandra+Day+O%27Connor) in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base, officials said Monday.

The choice was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed by Bush's conservative allies, Alito faces opposition from liberal Democrats.
Bush planned to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. EST. Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement.

The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Antonin+Scalia). But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

The White House hopes the choice mends a rift in the Republican Party caused by the failed nomination of Miers, a Bush loyalist, and puts his embattled presidency on a path to political recovery.

With the rebuke of Miers, the rising death toll in Iraq (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Iraq), his slow-footed response to Katrina and last Friday's indictment of top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Bush's approval ratings are at the lowest ebb of his presidency.

Polls show Democrats and most independents don't approve of his job performance, leaving the conservative wing of his party the only thing keeping Bush afloat politically.

Miers bowed out last Thursday after three weeks of bruising criticism from members of Bush's own party who argued that the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidant had thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.

If he is confirmed by the Senate, Alito would join another Bush pick on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts. O'Connor, who is retiring, has been a decisive swing vote in a host of affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to preview Bush's remarks, said Alito was virtually certain from the start to get the nod from the moment Miers backed out. The 55-year-old jurist was Bush's favorite choice of the judges in the last set of deliberations but he settled instead on someone outside what he calls the "judicial monastery," the officials said.

Bush believes that Alito has not only the right experience and conservative ideology for the job, but also has a temperament suited to building consensus on the court. A former prosecutor, Alito has experience off the bench that factored into Bush's thinking, the officials said.

"The president has made an excellent choice today which reflects his commitment to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas," said Kay Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.
"It's a pretty predictable move from a politically crippled president," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan. "Toss out a judicial extremist to pacify his base and provoke a fight that he hopes changes the subject away from indictments and Iraq and Katrina and a soft economy."

While Alito is expected to win praise from Bush's allies on the right, Democrats have served notice they will fight it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems."
Unlike Miers, who has never been a judge, Alito, a jurist from New Jersey, has been a strong conservative voice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, seated him there in 1990.

Judicial conservatives praise Alito's 15 years on the Philadelphia-based court, a tenure that gives him more appellate experience than almost any previous Supreme Court nominee. They say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced. They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Liberal groups, on the other hand, note Alito's moniker and say his nomination raises troubling concerns, especially when it comes to his record on civil rights and reproductive rights. Alito is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.
In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter inPlanned Parenthood (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Planned+Parenthood) v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," Alito wrote.

The case ended up at the Supreme Court where the justices, in a 6-3 decision struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cited Alito's reasoning in his own dissent.
Alito, an Italian-American who grew up in Trenton, N.J., has a resume filled with stepping stones to the high court. He was educated at Princeton University and earned a law degree from Yale University, the president's alma mater. ___

[lofter1]

Alito is bad news ...
... conservative judge Samuel Alito ... his nomination raises troubling concerns, especially when it comes to his record on civil rights and reproductive rights. Alito is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.

In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Planned+Parenthood) v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses...

The case ended up at the Supreme Court where the justices, in a 6-3 decision struck down the spousal notification provision of the law.

I wonder if Alito supports a law that requires men to notify their wives before they get a vasectomy?

[lofter1]

Who is Sam Alito?

October 31, 2005
http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-2188-who-is-sam-alito.html


Judge Alito (http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=26) was born in 1950 and educated at Princeton and Yale Law School. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to sit on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in his home state of New Jersey. Prior to his appellate court judgeship, he served as clerk for Third Circuit Judge Leonard I. Garth, as Assistant to the Solicitor General, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

http://www.acsblog.org/Alito.jpg



Alito has earned the nickname "Scalito" for an Italian American heritage and conservative jurisprudence akin to Justice Scalia's. Law.com (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052) evaluates the nickname:In some ways, the Scalito moniker hits the mark. In his 13 years on the 3rd Circuit, Alito has earned his stripes as a strong and intelligent voice on the growing conservative wing of a court once considered among the country's most liberal. As with Scalia, lawyers say that Alito's vote is easy to predict in highly charged cases. But where the nickname misses is temperament, or what some might call personality. Personality-wise, on the bench and in person, Alito is no Scalia. Though he's a frequent dissenter and not at all afraid to disagree with his colleagues, Alito's opinions are usually devoid of passion. And his tone during oral arguments is probing but always polite.On Reproductive and Women's Right

Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in the Third Ciruit's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which struck down a Pennsylanvia statute that placed unconstitutional burdens such as mandatory husband notifications on women seeking to terminate pregnancies. The Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit majority (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833) and rejected Alito's reasoning that the law promoted necessary discussions of "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition" in a manner inoffensive to a woman's right to self-determination. The Supreme Court took Casey as an opportunity to reconsider its holding in Roe v. Wade, and the 6-3 majority ultimately stood so solidly with that decision that Judge Luttig would later describe Casey (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/30/13406/091) as "a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy."

Alito authored what Law.com (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052) called perhaps his "most memorable dissent" in Sheridan v. Dupont (http://www.neubergerlaw.com/sheridan_v__dupont.htm), a case that "forced the 3rd Circuit to tackle fundamental questions about the plaintiff's burden of proof" in sex discrimination cases under Title XII. Writing alone following the en banc hearing, Alito argued that admitting evidence casting doubt on the employer's claims of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment decision might not be enough for the plaintiff to withstand summary judgment.

Writing for the majority in Fatin v. INS, Alito held that an Iranian woman could establish a valid claim for asylum by showing that she might be persecuted because of her gender, belief in feminism, membership in a feminist group, or failure to follow gender-specific laws such as those mandating she wear a veil in public.

On Separation of Church and State

Writing over a dissent, Alito authored the majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/985021.txt), which held that a city hall holiday display featuring a creche and a menorah did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also incorporated secular features such as Frosty The Snowman and a banner proclaiming commitment to diversity.

On Criminal Law


USNews reports that Alito construes criminals' and prisoners' rights narrowly (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm): Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.On Free Speech and Minority Rights in Public Schools

Alito wrote for the majority to strike down a school district's antiharassment policy that reached nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech posing no realistic threat of disruption to the learning environment in Saxe v. State College Area School District (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/994081.txt). He also wrote for the majority in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S. (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033438p.pdf), which held the school district in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by failing to protect a student from "severe and prolonged harassment" by other students on account of his lack of athleticism and perceived sexual orientation; the school district had thereby failed to provide P.S. with a free and appropriate public education as required by the Act, according to the Administrative Law Judge whose ruling was reinstated by Alito's opinion.

UPDATE: More coverage of the Alito nomination:

The 12 cases (http://www.acsblog.org/news-and-announcements-2192-alito-as-litigator.html) Alito litigated before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government.

The President's and Judge Alito's statements (http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-2194-bush-and-alitos-statements-from-this-mornings-announcement.html).

Other analysis here (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/) and here (http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-2193-more-on-judge-alito.html).

(Hat tip to Anisha Dasgupta of SCOTUSBlog (http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/alito/) for her compilation of noteworthy opinions)

[lofter1]

Some info on one of Alito's well-thought-out opinions ...

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.939297/apps/s/content.asp?ct=1550161

Fails to consider racial discrimination in capital punishment:

(Riley v. Taylor) An African American had been convicted of felony murder by an all white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck because of their race. Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting the defendant's claims. The full Third Circuit, in a split decision, reversed Alito's ruling, and the majority specifically criticized him for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed.

According to the majority, "[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants . . ."

[ryan]

His support for spousal notification for abortion is some hateful sexism. Pretty much the only women that would be effected are abused women, so all this law does is make increase the power abusive husbands have over their wives.

[BrooklynRider]

I would like to add that he looks like a dufus.

I am waiting for the screams from the right-wingnuts for a quick yes or no vote. Just like the one they gave Harriet Miers.

[redhot00]

I would like to add that he looks like a dufus.

I am waiting for the screams from the right-wingnuts for a quick yes or no vote. Just like the one they gave Harriet Miers.

I have a feeling the dufus will get a hearty yes from the conservatives.

[Ninjahedge]

His support for spousal notification for abortion is some hateful sexism. Pretty much the only women that would be effected are abused women, so all this law does is make increase the power abusive husbands have over their wives.

I was kind of thinking about this...


At first I was thinking, in a "normal" situation, wouldn't it also be appropriate to notify the father of the child in a situation like this? Doesn't he have some rights as the father to have the kid. Maybe not as much as the mother since he does not bear the child or have to give birth, but some sort of concern just as he is also responsible for the childs care if the woman keeps the child.


But at the same time, most of the cases where this would probably be a difference of opinion rather than an abusive relationship, the man and the woman have probably already talked about it, and therefore the notification requirement is unnecessary. The ones that would be the most directly effected by this would be the women in the abusive relationships where the woman would be afraid of her own safety should she be forced to notify the man....

I think that is where that issue gets confusing to most people. In their lives they would be dealing with the former situation where the family and father would be caring and loving for the child and would like to be notified and have some say in the matter. But the ones most directly effected would be the latter, a group that a lot of people cannot directly relate to.


So for the few fathers that would be unjustly hurt by something like this (and ironically, most would not be hurt if they did not know in the first place) the many more women that could and would be hurt by this outweigh the requirement for his notification.

As for this guy, he looks to be a tough one to relate to. He seems like a strait line hard core conservative. I see a fight coming. Question is though, on what grounds could he be refused? There are other conservative judges on the bench. If he is qualified to do the job, despite his leanings, how can he be refused the position?

[BrooklynRider]

Relating to the abortion notification issue as well, if the mother in this case is underage it sets up a very difficult legality between the rights of a father (potentially underage, whose parents would call the shots - perhaps wanting to keep their "grandchild") and the rights of the girl (whose own parent's would bear the burden of responsibility for a child with a child).

Unwanted pregnancy and unwanted children are different things. It not only highlights the complex legalities that require a more flexible and interpretive mind on the abortion issues (as opposed to a strict constitutionalist) - but, again, highlights the needs for effective sex education in schools and the availability of cheap, effective birth control to people old enough to procreate.

[ryan]

I cannot think of a situation where a healthy marriage needs the help of legislated communication. This law implies the woman (and her biological function) are property of the man, and thus that he requires notification as if he were her parent.

[BrooklynRider]

But, wait Ryan, the Bible says....

[Ninjahedge]

I cannot think of a situation where a healthy marriage needs the help of legislated communication. This law implies the woman (and her biological function) are property of the man, and thus that he requires notification as if he were her parent.

So you are saying that the child has nothing to do with the man?

[redhot00]

This law implies the woman (and her biological function) are property of the man, and thus that he requires notification as if he were her parent.

Well no, she isn't property of the man, but shouldn't he have something to say about the child she's carrying?

[BrooklynRider]

The implication is that a woman needs permission from the man to make decisions about her own body. That implies that a woman is property of the man. Biology arguments do not apply. A woman is not a gestation device for men to use against the woman's will. This is the most basic tenet of reproductive rights: the right to make decisions about your own body and what you do with it.

If legislation is allowed to stand that gives anyone a right to decide how any of us can or can't use our own bodies, we are enslaved.

[infoshare]

If one of the issues of concern is the possibility that abortion will be outlawed: I do not believe that can happen - it is simply unconstitutional.

I hope most american voters do not get to concerned about that possibility.

[BrooklynRider]

Well no, she isn't property of the man, but shouldn't he have something to say about the child she's carrying?

That would be a zygote she is carrying at the initial time of pregnancy, not a child. A child is sustainable outside the womb.

[redhot00]

That would be a zygote she is carrying at the initial time of pregnancy, not a child. A child is sustainable outside the womb.

I'm not getting into this debate, not here, not now.

[Ninjahedge]

The implication is that a woman needs permission from the man to make decisions about her own body. That implies that a woman is property of the man. Biology arguments do not apply. A woman is not a gestation device for men to use against the woman's will. This is the most basic tenet of reproductive rights: the right to make decisions about your own body and what you do with it.

If legislation is allowed to stand that gives anyone a right to decide how any of us can or can't use our own bodies, we are enslaved.


I think that is pushing it a bit, and why legislation on it has to be stepped around lightly.

Since when is the guy both responsible for what he has done, and not able to have any word in what happens whatsoever?

The woman is not a breeding tool, but the child is not her appendix either. The rules for a situation like this have to be worded carefully as to not leave anyone with the short end of the stick.

[lofter1]

The abortion debate rests upon when a being becomes a being (at conception? at 12 weeks? at 24 weeks? at birth?). Given the short shrift that science is getting lately this is, and will continue to be, a very contentious point of disagreement.

And don't be too certain about abortion remaining a Constitutional right. The entire issue of abortion being legal via Constitutionally-protected rights of privacy are in the cross-hairs of "constructivists", who claim that the Constitution makes no mention of privacy -- and therefore issues of privacy are not necessarily protected.

While many scholars and legal minds view Roe v. Wade as a "Super" precedent case that should not ever be overturned (newly-installed Chief Justice Roberts inferred this during his Senate hearings), there are many others that believe that Roe v. Wade is faulty, incorrect & immoral. Seemingly there are two current SC Justices who are of this belief.

[ryan]

I maintain that any man who does not know he has impregnated a woman does not have any right whatsoever to participate in the decision to abort. If they had a health relationship, he would be a part of it. If not, he abdicated his responsibility when he didn't wear a condom.

Let's look at this the other way. Anyone have a theoretical situation where a man has a valid right to be legally notified a woman he has impregnated is getting an abortion? A situation where she wouldn't have told him herself.

[redhot00]

I think that is pushing it a bit, and why legislation on it has to be stepped around lightly.

Since when is the guy both responsible for what he has done, and not able to have any word in what happens whatsoever?

The woman is not a breeding tool, but the child is not her appendix either. The rules for a situation like this have to be worded carefully as to not leave anyone with the short end of the stick.

Good point Ninja, they want a man to not make decisions about a woman's "body" even though she is carrying his child, but when it comes time to make a man responsible financially (and rightfully so), than he isn't living up to the obligations as a father.

I'm in no means making excuses for deadbeat dads, quite the opposite, but if a man is responsible after the birth of his child, shouldn't he have some say before he/she is born?

[lofter1]

"Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.

Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court

By RON FOURNIER,
AP Political Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su_co/bush_scotus&printer=1



President Bush nominated veteran judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court Monday, seeking to reshape the judiciary and mollify conservatives who derailed his previous pick. Ready-to-rumble Democrats said Alito may curb abortion rights and be "too radical for the American people."

... Abortion emerged as a potential fault line. Democrats pointed to Alito's rulings that sought to restrict a woman's right to abortion. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican who supports abortion rights, said that Alito's views on the hot-button issue "will be among one of the first items Judge Alito and I will discuss."

Alito's mother shed some light. "Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.

[lofter1]

...they want a man to not make decisions about a woman's "body" even though she is carrying his child... but if a man is responsible after the birth of his child, shouldn't he have some say before he/she is born?
The decision that Alito dissented against was solely about the woman NOTIFYING her spouse that she planned to have an abortion.

The law in question did not require the spouse to give approval, or give the spouse any rights whatsoever regarding the woman's decision to have an abortion. (However, in certain cases notification could open the door to the man taking legal action to stop the abortion -- can anyone say "injunction"?)

That law was struck down by SCOTUS, which found such a requirement to be onerous.

What is now being discussed ("shouldn't he have some say before he/she is born?") goes way beyond what that law required.

[Ninjahedge]

I maintain that any man who does not know he has impregnated a woman does not have any right whatsoever to participate in the decision to abort. If they had a health relationship, he would be a part of it. If not, he abdicated his responsibility when he didn't wear a condom.

That is a little bit of a hard sell.

Throw this in the works. What if the guy WANTS to have a kid. How is he removed from the loop because he did not use a condom?

Lets try to stay on topic, or at least the first "off topic" topic.

If you want to play it the other way, what happens if the guy did everything to prevent the pregnancy but abstinance. He has a right to know, and say something about it, but how is this right ranked? Who would be hurt most by it.

I believe that he does have a right to know, but there are circumstances that would rank above this, such as the health and safety of the woman.

But you can flip it over again. Is this a healthy relationship for the woman to be in to be afraid of telling her husband about the abortion?

It is not an easy issue, and no matter how it is ruled, there will be some people hurt by it. The question is how can it be worded to no only protect the most people, but be interpreted in a flexible manner that does not automatically ostracise any party from not only the decision, but any information whatsoever about something that does concern them....

Let's look at this the other way. Anyone have a theoretical situation where a man has a valid right to be legally notified a woman he has impregnated is getting an abortion? A situation where she wouldn't have told him herself.

What if the guy thought he was infertile and the couple tried to get pregnant for years. What if one of the treatments worked, but in light of the knowledge that her life would now change, she panics and secretly aborts.

Although he should not have the absolute right to force her to have the kid, he should know the woman he is with does not have the same feelings that he does when it comes to kids and families.

This information should probably be available for him and his health, as well as for the relationship itself.

But this is a rare case.

[ryan]

Throw this in the works. What if the guy WANTS to have a kid. How is he removed from the loop because he did not use a condom?

If a couple were trying to have a baby, why would the woman be getting an abortion? If he wants it and tricked her - or forced it, then he doesn't deserve to be notified about any abortion

What if the guy thought he was infertile and the couple tried to get pregnant for years. What if one of the treatments worked, but in light of the knowledge that her life would now change, she panics and secretly aborts.

Do you know any couples who have had trouble conceiving, then get pregnant only to have the woman impusively abort? I do, and your theoretical seems a bit unlikely.

Can you think of a situation that justifies spousal notification where the woman is not an idiot?

[Ninjahedge]

If a couple were trying to have a baby, why would the woman be getting an abortion? If he wants it and tricked her - or forced it, then he doesn't deserve to be notified about any abortion

You are putting a bunch of ifs and buts into the argument.

What if the guy was an alien? Would he still have rights? You asked for a situation, I gave it to you. THEY were looking to be pregnant, and then she decides against it when she finds out she is and goes for an abortion without telling him.

What if she starts blaming the "failure" of getting pregnant on him? Would it be fair to him?

Like I said, this is not a likely scenario, but you asked for a condition where I would support the father. There is one scenario, no other "ifs" included.

Do you know any couples who have had trouble conceiving, then get pregnant only to have the woman impulsively abort? I do, and your theoretical seems a bit unlikely.

I did not say that. I said that it was unlikely. So you know a couple where the woman tried to get pregnant and then aborted w/o telling the man?

I do not think that is what you meant, but if it is then you should really tell your male friend to get out of that relationship.

Can you think of a situation that justifies spousal notification where the woman is not an idiot?

You are starting to pull out straw men. I gave you a situation, and since it is possible, you ask for one more level of constraint to the situation.

Who says the woman that has second thoughts about the pregnancy is an idiot?

Stop trying to argue a case I presented as an unlikely condition that would, nevertheless, make an absolute law difficult to apply in all cases.



Back to this guy. Aside from his crackpot mother spouting that his son is a devout Catholic, do you see this guy as a potential problem on cases like this? Or do you think his decision making was done at a time to foster his own political support on cases where he already knew which way they were going?

[ryan]

Shame on me for a badly written sentance. Can anyone provide a plausible example of a situation that justifies spousal notification? One where the woman is not a moron?

This law was just a hoop to make abortions more difficult for women to obtain - to punish women who do get abortions and to make the process unpleasant as a deterrant. This is how American access to abortion is in jeapordy. Roe could be overturned, but it's much more likely that the pro-life fundies will chip away at access - through laws precicely like this. Any judge who supports a mean-spirited and sexist law like will continue to do so.

[Ninjahedge]

You are labeling anything that is not in agreeance with absolute feminine power as being sexist.

There is a balance point Ryan, but where is it? It has been falsely placed under the male for many generations, but grabbing it and sticking it under the woman is not the proper response. It is one that will only promote an inevetable swingback.

What rights do the men have?

Do they have any?

[ryan]

grabbing it and sticking it under the woman is not the proper response.

Apparantly the balance point is some kind of sex toy?

[Ninjahedge]

Apparantly the balance point is some kind of sex toy?

Ummmmmmmm.... No.


It is not the Anal Intruder......

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000066C6Z.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[lofter1]

Scalito on Workers Rights

November 01, 2005
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/003519.shtml


Alito on the Supreme Court will be a consistent vote against workers rights. That is a clear message if you look over his history on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic right of workers to have a day in court, much less interpreting the law in their favor.

The following cases are ones where Alito dissented from a majority decision of the Third Circuit, cases where his views were more conservative than the overall panel. They cover minimum wage, discrimination, retirement, public employee rights, and interpretations of union labor law.

There are other cases as well, where Alito wrote anti-worker majority decisions, as in his opinion (http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/3rd/003140.html)to exempt public employers from the Family and Medical Leave Act (a principle that the Supreme Court subsequently overruled, putting him to the right of William Rehnquist).

I will add to the list as I find more cases.


Minimum Wage and Safety Protections for Workers

In RNS Services. v. Secretary of Labor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=971602P), the court found that a mining services company was violating safety laws under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. The court rejected the company claim that it was not covered by mining safety laws, seeking to narrow application of the law to mines, not coal processing plants associated with such mines. Alito in dissent voted to exempt the facility from those mining safety regulations.

In Reich v. Gateway Press (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=940770P), the court majority found that a newspaper chain had violated federal minimum wage and overtime laws, but Alito sought to interpret the law in the way that would have excluded the newspaper workers from protections under the law.


Employment Discrimination

In a race discrimination case, Bray v. Marriott Hotels (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=971559P), Marriott sought to deny the plaintiff, an african-american women who alleged racial discrimination, the right to even present her case to a jury. The Third Circuit argued that given disputed facts in the case, it was up to a jury, not judges, to decide if discrimination had occurred.

In dissent, Alito argued for granting summary judgement against the plaintiff, not even letting her present her case to a jury.

In Sheridan v. DuPont De Nemours (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=961457P), the full upheld a jury verdict against a hotel for sex discrimination, yet Alioto voted to overturn the jury verdict and substitute his own minority view of the evidence for the jury's.

In Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=940825P), a race and age discrimination case, Alito would have upheld a lower court's refusal to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine his employers about the hostile environment he experienced, evidence the majority of the court found was "relevant to a key aspect of the case" so the exclusion illegally undermined the plaintiff's right to a fair trial on his charges against his employer.

In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.”


Public Employee Rights

In an assault on the rights of government employees, Alito voted in the minority in Homar v. Gilbert (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=961353P) that governments do not violate the due process rights of employees when they suspend them without a hearing and without pay. Alito rejected the majority's view that some minimal hearing was required beyond the initial accusation -- in this case a drug charge never proven in court -- to justify loss of a job; Aliota declared that a mere accusation justified loss of pay and employment.


Labor Union Cases

In Caterpillar v. UAW and Local 786 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=971530P), the Third Circuit upheld a system were the company and the union negotiated for union stewards to process grievances over violations of the contract without losing pay or benefits, a relatively common practice that had been used at this particular plant for over 18 years. In the wake of a strike, the company suddenly challenged the legality of the system the company itself had agreed to and sought to have it overturned by the courts. The Third Circuit rejected the company's argument.

But in dissent, Alito sought to overturn the practice to benefit the company and disabled union grievance procedures, which they had bargained for through their previous contract.

In Luden's Inc. v. Local Union No. 6 of the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Union (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=940744P), the majority held that the employer's duty to arbitrate a disagreement over work conditions survived the contract termination through an implied contract agreement between the parties, but Alito ruled against the union.

In Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, the full court found that the Navy was violating federal labor law for public employees in refusing to give a union the names and address of employees it was seeking to organize. Alito voted to disable the organizing drive by denying union access to the employee names.

In Specter v. Garrett, Alito voted to deny workers and their unions the legal standing to challenge the closing of a federal shipyard by the Base Closure Commission, legal standing that Alito would have denied the workers.


Retirement and Pension Cases

In a case of critical importance for many retiring workers, DiGiacomo v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/043510p.pdf), the Third Circuit found that a Teamster driver, who had worked in a union position from 1960 and 1971 and then from 1978 onwards, had to be credited for the time working before 1971 for calculating his pension. This was based on an interpretation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which prohibits forefeiture of benefits due to a break in service.

Alito in a lone dissent argued for destroying the workers retirement and deny the worker credit for those early years of work through his anti-worker interpretation of ERISA.

[BrooklynRider]

And, he looks like a dufus.

This guy has both a paper trail and a stench to follow in the confirmation process. When someone is consistently in the minority it is EVIDENCE that his views are not mainstream.

[lofter1]

Alito writing backed privacy, gay rights

By Christian R. Burset and Alan Wirzbicki,
Globe Correspondents
November 2, 2005

http://boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/02/alito_writing_backed_privacy_gay_rights/


PRINCETON, N.J. -- As a senior at Princeton University, Samuel A. Alito Jr. chaired an undergraduate task force that recommended the decriminalization of sodomy, accused the CIA and the FBI of invading the privacy of citizens, and said discrimination against gays in hiring ''should be forbidden."

The report, issued in 1971 by Alito and 16 other Princeton students, stemmed from a class assignment to study the ''boundaries of privacy in American society" and to recommend ways to protect individual rights.

The far-ranging report, which satisfied a requirement for public policy students and which was stored in the university's Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, provided a glimpse of a more liberal Alito than the jurist is now perceived.

''We sense a great threat to privacy in modern America," Alito wrote in a foreword to the report, in 1971. ''We all believe that privacy is too often sacrificed to other values; we all believe that the threat to privacy is steadily and rapidly mounting; we all believe that action must be taken on many fronts now to preserve privacy."

A classmate, Jeffrey G. Weil, said yesterday that Alito, one of the top seniors in his class, had been selected to advise juniors writing the report, coaching them through the research and then writing an introduction explaining their recommendations.

Alito was ''not a person who has an agenda in terms of changing the world," said Weil, who is now a lawyer in Philadelphia. His role was mostly advisory, said Weil, who wrote the section of the report dealing with gay rights but who said he could not remember whether Alito personally agreed with the recommendations.

The Supreme Court did not strike down laws prohibiting gay sex until the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003. Many social conservatives have criticized that decision.

As a judge, Alito has not ruled on any major gay rights cases. Richard H. Fallon, a professor at Harvard Law School, said that it would be a mistake to read too much into ''little bits of evidence like this" and that even if Alito held socially liberal views on gay rights, it would not necessarily mean that he would vote in favor of gay marriage or any other issue.

''From the fact that someone thinks legislators ought to forbid discrimination," he said, ''it does not follow that the person would necessarily think that the Supreme Court of the United States ought to hold that the Constitution forbids discrimination against gays."

Indeed, the 1971 report rarely commented on what action the judiciary should take, focusing mostly in legislative action. The report covered what its undergraduate authors saw as increasing threats to privacy in the late 1960s, questioning whether the ''cybernetic revolution" would result in more invasions of privacy and criticizing government surveillance of ''mild dissenters on the war in Vietnam."

Alito, who would probably rule on many privacy issues arising from the Bush administration's pursuit of the war on terror, wrote in his 1971 introduction: ''We are convinced that in recent years government has often used improper means to gather information about individuals who posed no threat either to their government or to their fellow citizens."

At the end Alito wrote: ''The erosion of privacy, unlike war, economic bad times, or domestic unrest, does not jump to the citizen's attention . . . But by the time privacy is seriously compromised, it is too late to clamor for reform."


http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif
© Copyright (http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright) 2005 The New York Times Company

[nycbound]

Well no, she isn't property of the man, but shouldn't he have something to say about the child she's carrying?

I can make it really simple... He can have something to say when he has the ability to become impregnated, carry the fetus to term & give birth- That my friend is when he can say what a woman can and can not do w/her own body!

And as for Alito. He is nothing but Bush's switch & bait man. Bush threw Miers out there, knowing that she would never be confirmed so that he could say "I tried to put a woman on the Supreme Court"... all the meanwhile, his plan was to put another conservative, anglo puppet, I mean man, on the bench. Big surprise Georgie, didn't see that one coming!:eek:

[ZippyTheChimp]

I can make it really simple...
Things are never really simple.

While I agree with the rights aspect, legislation often carries with it an unintended societal impact. When a man is constantly reminded that he has no legal rights, it becomes an easy step for him to assume that he has no moral responsibility to his partner.

The result usually has a greater impact on women who do not have the financial and emotional resources to control, not just their bodies, but their lives.

As for Alito, his confirmation seems to be in jeopardy from more mundane issues.



washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)

Alito Refutes Conflict-Of-Interest Concern



By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Friday, November 11, 2005; 4:14 AM


WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito says he never has violated conflict-of-interest guidelines as a judge, despite questions about two lower court rulings he made involving an investment firm and a brokerage house that handled part of his financial portfolio.

"To the best of my knowledge, I have not ruled on a case for which I had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse myself during my 15 years on the federal bench," Alito said Thursday as an influential Republican senator urged him to publicly answer questions about his legal rulings concerning the Vanguard Group and Smith Barney, Inc.

In an unusual letter prompted by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Alito said he was "unduly restrictive" in promising the committee in 1990 to avoid appeals cases involving the two investment firms, First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, N.Y., and his sister's law firm.

When he listed the companies, "my intention was to state that I would never knowingly hear a case where a conflict of interest existed. ... As my service continued, I realized that I had been unduly restrictive," Alito said.

Alito said he only invests with Vanguard and Smith Barney and doesn't hold any interest in the companies.

Alito issued the letter one day after all eight Democrats on the committee called for voluminous records involving a 2002 case in which Vanguard was a defendant.

Democrats addressed their letter to the chief judge of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Alito has been a judge since 1990, and did not accuse Alito of bending his ruling to favor Vanguard. Instead, they raised possible conflict of interest concerns, and said he had violated the promise he made to the committee 15 years ago during his confirmation to the appeals court.

Even so, the Democratic challenge prompted Specter on Thursday to write Alito suggesting a quick response. "I think it is important that the issues be addressed promptly since a number of senators have expressed concerns," Specter advised.

Alito was nominated by the White House to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose judicial rulings sometimes have made her the deciding vote on the Supreme Court on issues such as abortion and affirmative action.

Confirmation hearings for Alito are scheduled for Jan. 9, and Wednesday's letter from Democrats on the panel marked their first organized challenge to his nomination.

Specter said he thinks "there has been no impropriety." But he added that "we have seen issues which may be minor, unmeritorious and even nonexistent proliferate into major controversies by those who are opposed for other reasons."

In the 2002 case, Shantee Maharaj, who had lost a suit against Vanguard, sought a rehearing after learning Alito held investments with the mutual fund company. She sought to have the ruling erased and Alito disqualified from further proceedings.

Alito said Thursday he did not believe he was required to disqualify himself on the basis of ownership of shares in a mutual fund but "voluntarily recused myself once my participation was called into question."

The White House and senators have said there was a computer glitch that allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected in the first place, but Alito only mentioned an "oversight" in the letter to Specter.

Alito's letter also said he decided a case involving Smith Barney, but added it did not fall under judicial conflict-of-interest guidelines. "Smith Barney is my brokerage firm and I hold no interest in the firm itself," the judge said in the letter.

Senators will get more information about Alito when he gives them his answers to a 12-page questionnaire the Judiciary Committee sent him Thursday.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov (http://judiciary.senate.gov/)
© 2005 The Associated Press

[Ninjahedge]

I can make it really simple... He can have something to say when he has the ability to become impregnated, carry the fetus to term & give birth- That my friend is when he can say what a woman can and can not do w/her own body!

And as for Alito. He is nothing but Bush's switch & bait man. Bush threw Miers out there, knowing that she would never be confirmed so that he could say "I tried to put a woman on the Supreme Court"... all the meanwhile, his plan was to put another conservative, anglo puppet, I mean man, on the bench. Big surprise Georgie, didn't see that one coming!:eek:

I agree with zip on this one.

No matter how you look at it, the guy DOES have some responsibility and some right. You cannot expect him to have 100% responsibility for the child (or 75% as it is today) but no word in how the child is raised or if the child is to be born.

Legislation was written in order to protect women in a time when men were the only earners out there. It is not the case now, and steps should be taken to look at all sexually delineated legislation to align them to current societal standards.

(Case in point would be alimony. Why is it a woman can earn more than a man, with no kids, but yet the man still has to pay alimony?)

But that is another track. I think that more attention is being paid to Jennifer (urk) Anniston than the Supreme Court Nominee..... :p

[lofter1]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/MENFOLK.jpg

[Ninjahedge]

This is the thing that gets me though Loft, it is not just teh guys doing this.

I know there is a limited ammount of candidates available to vote for, based on who is supported by the parties involved, but if:

50% of the voting age population is female
MOST of the people who actually vote are retired (most by percentage participating)
THE MAJORITY of people of THIS age group are women.

Why are more women not being voted for?

I think it is partially because of the "old boy network", but I think women can be a lot more critical of other women than of men. Also, I think that a lot of women still posess the "traditional" outdated view of where a womans place in society is.

Until this is changed, it is awfully hard to keep pointing the finger at "the menfolk".

How long did it take Gynocology to come to a point where women were accepted?

[lofter1]

The vast majority of lawmakers continue to be "menfolk".

More interesting info from RAWSTORY regarding SCOTUS / Judicial Nominees ...


New York Times slots major splash on

Progress for America,

group financed and run by Bush allies
which underwrote Supreme Court campaigns:


Developing...


Progress for America

From SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_for_America


Progress for America and its affiliate Progress for America Voter Fund are national tax-exempt organizations closely linked to the George W. Bush (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush) administration. PFA was established in 2001 to support Bush's "agenda for America." PFA Voter Fund, which was set up in 2004, raised $38 million in support of Bush's 2004 election bid.

History

As the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=McCain-Feingold) bill began working its way toward its eventual passage in Congress in 2002, long-time Republican strategists were already scheming how to get around the law’s ban on soft-money (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Soft_money) contributions. They found an answer in Progress for America (PFA).

PFA was registered as a 501c4 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=501c4) group in February 2001 by Tony Feather (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tony_Feather), a political director of the Bush-Cheney 2000 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush-Cheney_2000) campaign and partner at DCI Group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Group) as well as at the affiliated telemarketing and fundraising firm of Feather Larson Synhorst-DCI (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Feather_Larson_Synhorst-DCI) (FLS-DCI). Feather set up PFA as a “grassroots organization that mobilizes the public to contact their members of Congress about pending legislation and to write local newspapers to publicize the White House’s agenda,” the Center for Public Integrity (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Public_Integrity) wrote in 2002. During the first part of the George W. Bush administration (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration), it led campaigns to support tax cuts, conservative judicial appointments (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush%27s_judicial_nominees) and energy legislation.

Feather told the Washington Post in 2002 that PFA was simply a vehicle for building grassroots support for Bush administration policies. “Many other Republicans, however, describe it as the first organization designed to capture some of the soft money that the political parties will be barred from accepting after November 6,” wrote the Post’s Thomas B. Edsall...

Several high-level Bush supporters and advisors have been associated with Progress for America. Ken Adelman (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ken_Adelman), who would go on to become the Bush-Cheney ’04 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush-Cheney_%9204&action=edit) campaign director, spoke to the Washington Post in 2002 and identified himself as the group’s chairman. However, Adelman claimed he “knows neither the organization’s budget nor its sources of financial support.” The address that Adelman provided to the Post for PFA’s offices turned out to be in the “high-rent Lafayette Center complex in downtown Washington” - the same building where the offices of FLS-DCI are located.

Federal Judicial Battles

In May 2005, PFA began running ads targeted at pressuring Republicans Senators into supporting a ban on Senate filibusters for judicial nominations. Associated Press reported that PFA would spend $350,000 on "radio ads on Christian stations" and $1.5 million on television ads (http://www.upordownvote.com/xp303htm/ads.htm) (http://www.upordownvote.com/xp303htm/ads.htm) to be run in Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska and Rhode Island as well as nationally.[10] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/politics/main692369.shtml) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/politics/main692369.shtml) PFA coordinated their campaign with the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Focus_on_the_Family) and the Judicial Confirmation Network (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judicial_Confirmation_Network&action=edit).[11] (http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2846157,00.html) (http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2846157,00.html)[12] (http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036427.cfm) (http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036427.cfm)

In June 2005, The Hill reported that PFA intended to "spend at least $18 million on the expected fight to replace William Rehnquist, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court." PFA's campaign would include "national cable-news and broadcast-television ads in targeted states. The group will also coordinate grassroots organizers and public-relations specialists in 18 states, including states represented by centrist Republican senators such as Arizona, Maine and Oregon" The Hill wrote. The groups will also use phone-bank and direct-mail in its campaign. "Before Senate confirmation of Owen and Brown, PFA claims to have helped generate nearly 80,000 telephone calls supporting their nominations," The Hill reported. PFA will work closely with the Judicial Confirmation Network (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judicial_Confirmation_Network&action=edit) and the Committee for Justice (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_Justice) on the campaign.
13] (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061605/conservative.html) (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061605/conservative.html)

On June 22, 2005, PFA issued a press release announcing a $700,000 campaign in anticipation of a Supreme Court Justice vacancy during the Court's summer break. The campaign included buys on big newspapers' internet sites, and a roll-out of a new website: Up or Down Vote (http://upordownvote.com/) (http://upordownvote.com/).

[lofter1]

Alito rejected abortion as a right

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015136-2101r.htm


Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.

"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.

"I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican."

But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January.

"It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote.

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

A leading Republican involved in the nomination process insisted that this does not prove Judge Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion a constitutional right.

"No, it proves no such thing," said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade."

Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself.

"The issue is not Judge Alito's political views during the Reagan administration 20 years ago," the Republican official said. "It's his 15 years of jurisprudence, which can be evaluated in hundreds of opinions. And in none of those opinions is it evident what his political philosophy is.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long history of advocacy on behalf of liberal causes, but she was evaluated on her 13-year record as a federal judge and her jurisprudence, not her belief that there was a constitutional right to prostitution or polygamy."

Although Judge Alito's conservatism has not been particularly evident in his legal rulings, it was abundantly clear in his job application 20 years ago.

"I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," he wrote.

"In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate," he added.

The document also provides the clearest picture to date of Mr. Alito's intellectual development as a conservative.

"When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign," he said. "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment."

Republicans are relishing the opportunity to defend Judge Alito's support for judicial restraint, saying it puts him squarely in the majority of American public opinion.

As evidence, they pointed to public outrage over a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that said the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. More recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that government can seize property and give it to a private party for the sake of the "public good." Other Supreme Court rulings have cited international law.

"We're delighted to have a debate over judicial philosophy and the proper role of courts in America," a Republican strategist said. "That's a debate the Republican Party wins every time."

Republicans also pointed out that Judge Alito's devotion to Reagan administration policy was reminiscent of those of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who also served in the Reagan administration and was confirmed in September by all Republicans and half the Democrats in the Senate.

"The notion that working for the Reagan administration is a disqualifier for serving on the Supreme Court was decisively refuted by 78 votes earlier in the summer when John Roberts was confirmed," said the official close to the Alito nomination process.


© 2005 News World Communications, Inc.

[lofter1]

Progress for America and its affiliate Progress for America Voter Fund are national tax-exempt organizations closely linked to the George W. Bush (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush) administration.

Federal Judicial Battles

... In June 2005, The Hill reported that PFA intended to "spend at least $18 million on the expected fight to replace William Rehnquist, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court."

Unwavering Bush Ally Acts Quickly on Court Choices

New York Times
By GLEN JUSTICE (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=GLEN JUSTICE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=GLEN JUSTICE&inline=nyt-per) and ARON PILHOFER
November 14, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/politics/politicsspecial1/14progress.html?hp&ex=1132030800&en=bea0f3359d269ff5&ei=5094&partner=homepage


WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - When President Bush named Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) as his Supreme Court pick, it took Progress for America just 39 minutes to introduce a slick Web site and begin lobbying for his confirmation. And that was slow.

The group had taken 11 minutes to do the same for Harriet E. Miers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/harriet_e_miers/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and only 7 minutes for John G. Roberts Jr. before that. Knowing it would support whomever Mr. Bush chose, Progress for America started working months ago to create more than two dozen Web sites promoting various potential candidates. When the announcements came, it was prepared.

"We get out of the box quickly," Brian McCabe, the group's president, said in an interview.

While many Republican organizations support the White House selectively, Progress for America has shaped an unusual role for itself as an unwavering ally on just about every issue: Supreme Court nominations, tax cuts, terrorism and changes to Social Security.

The group, which is likely to play a leading role in support of Judge Alito, expects to spend at least $2 million on several waves of television advertisements as he heads into Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. McCabe said. And it has also vowed to respond to any attacks by Democratic groups. "P.F.A. stands ready to do what it takes," he said.

Though the group describes itself as an independent grass-roots organization, it receives millions of dollars from the president's largest fund-raisers, is run by former Bush campaign aides and draws heavy support from a Republican lobbying and consulting firm in Washington.

As a result, Progress for America often functions like an unofficial extension of the White House, advancing the president's policies alongside the Republican National Committee.

The group's campaign arm, the Progress for America Voter Fund, is one of the so-called 527 committees, which spent tens of millions of dollars on both sides to influence last year's elections. Though the groups can collect unlimited contributions, they were barred from coordinating with campaigns.

But in the postelection season, there is no prohibition against coordinating with the White House and the party, and Progress for America has become one of the strongest players to emerge from 2004.

"It has become a weapon in the arsenal of the Bush administration and the R.N.C.," said David B. Magleby, a professor at Brigham Young University who studies politics. "You can be sure the Democrats are watching and learning, and that this will become the mode of future politics."

The group was formed in 2001 as a nonprofit organization to support Mr. Bush's agenda, but drew widespread attention in last year's presidential race. Its Voter Fund raised roughly $45 million in a few months and financed a barrage of television advertisements focused on terrorism. Now, the group is pushing Mr. Bush's new priorities.

After putting up the Web page supporting Judge Alito, Progress for America created an advertisement within hours and ran $425,000 in television commercials in the first week. It activated consultants in 20 states, who began lobbying for Mr. Alito before editorial boards and on local talk radio programs. And it announced that it would spend $50,000 on Internet advertising and online advocacy.

The group sent about 10 million e-mail messages to supporters, with help from lists supplied by the Republican National Committee and other organizations, and it released "Alito2Go," a video clip of its commercial on the judge that can be viewed with an iPod.

Progress for America has also circulated long lists of Judge Alito's allies to reporters in hopes of generating favorable articles. In addition to law school friends and fellow judges, the group tracked down Judge Alito's former English teacher, his Latin teacher, a fellow youth baseball coach, classmates as far back as middle school and even a neighbor Judge Alito once baby-sat for.

Last week, it helped arrange for 22 of Judge Alito's former law clerks to visit Washington, where they lobbied senators in behalf of their former boss.

"This is an evolution of P.F.A.," Mr. McCabe said. "We have expanded the ways we get our message out. We are using all of the tools in the toolbox."

The campaign to support Judge Alito is similar to those the group waged for Chief Justice Roberts and Ms. Miers. It builds on efforts that started in early summer when the group began a media campaign to pave the way for Mr. Bush's choices and pre-empt Democratic criticism even before any names were announced. So far, it has spent more than $9 million promoting judicial issues, Mr. McCabe said.

The group's continuing efforts contrast sharply with those of Democratic political groups that played a prominent role in the 2004 election.

Two of them, America Coming Together and the Media Fund, raised more than $140 million. Critics called them a "shadow party" exploiting campaign finance laws to augment, or perhaps supplant, the Democratic National Committee. The groups raised most of the money through their 527 committees. Progress for America did the same through its Voter Fund.

While there are plenty of Democratic-leaning organizations focused on Supreme Court issues, America Coming Together and the Media Fund have done little to wade into postelection political fights, and now some say the shadow party title better fits Progress for America.

"There's more energy on their side on a daily basis than there is on our side," said Harold Ickes, who helped lead both Democratic groups. "Democrats are galvanized by a particular candidate and when the election is over, they go about other things. Conservatives have a series of issues that keep them more cohesive and focused."

Officials at Progress for America acknowledge that they work closely with the White House and the Republican Party, but say they have no more access than other organizations. Christian Myers, the group's executive director, described its position as "first among equals," if only because it brings major resources to the table.

"We pride ourselves on blocking and tackling and executing a plan," Mr. Myers said.

During the push to overhaul Social Security, for example, it was well known among the coalition supporting Mr. Bush's plan that Progress for America would be a prime player. The group attended strategy meetings with White House officials, the party, Congressional aides and interest groups, and spent about $7.5 million before turning its attention to judicial nominations.

During the ill-fated effort to have Ms. Miers confirmed, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, even referred questions to the group, directing reporters to "check with Progress for America" for details on part of the campaign.

Derrick Max, executive director of a business coalition that supported Mr. Bush's Social Security plan, said the group's ties to the administration and its reputation for effective campaigns had made it a valuable player.

"They always have money," Mr. Max said. "They always have big plans, and they follow through."

Progress for America is run by Mr. McCabe, who commutes to Washington from his home in New Hampshire, and Mr. Myers. The group also relies heavily on the DCI Group, a Republican consulting and lobbying firm in which Mr. McCabe is a partner.

The two organizations share office space, and Progress for America has paid the lobbying firm almost $2 million since last year, according to disclosures. Services have included help with direct mail, buying air time for television commercials and putting consultants in the states to lobby, said Adam Mendelsohn, vice president of the DCI Group.

The ties between the two groups may have paid other dividends for DCI, whose lobbying business increased to nearly $4 million a year from $480,000 from 2001 to 2004, according to lobbying disclosures. However, the firm says there is no link.

"The vast majority of the growth in DCI's lobbying practice occurred through work on Capitol Hill, not with the administration," Mr. Mendelsohn said.

To raise money, Progress for America has turned to many of the president's financial backers. Roughly half of the $45 million its Voter Fund raised last year was contributed by 15 of Mr. Bush's top campaign fund-raisers, records show.

The top givers, who contributed $5 million, included Dawn Arnall, who heads the Ameriquest Capital Corporation; Alex G. Spanos, owner of the San Diego Chargers football team; and A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision Communications. T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman, contributed $2.5 million. And Richard M. DeVos Sr. and Jay Van Andel of Michigan, co-founders of the Amway Corporation, each gave $2 million.

Unlike many other political advocacy groups, Progress for America uses paid professional fund-raisers. One California fund-raiser, Anne Dunsmore, and her firm, Capital Campaigns, received roughly $1.4 million since last year for soliciting major donors, records show.

Some of the officials who run Progress for America and the DCI Group have worked on Mr. Bush's campaigns. Tony Feather, the Republican lobbyist who founded Progress for America but left before last year's election, worked as a consultant in both Bush presidential campaigns. Thomas J. Synhorst, DCI's chairman, worked as an adviser in 2000. And Mr. Myers was deputy political director in 2004.

"Many of us have swam in the same pond before," Mr. Myers said.

And they have stuck by Mr. Bush. Even when many conservatives turned against Ms. Miers, Progress for America stood firm. On the day she withdrew, the group was planning a nationwide tour promoting her confirmation. Mr. McCabe released a statement defending her decision - and forecasting his group's support for Mr. Bush's next choice.

"P.F.A. is anxious to engage in a debate that will result in the confirmation of a highly qualified, conservative justice," he wrote.



Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[kliq6]

This guy is no good however Schumer and the rest of the Dem's have no guts and this guy will get in with a 70 plus vote

[ZippyTheChimp]

November 27, 2005

From Alito's Past, a Window on Conservatives at Princeton

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK&inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 - In the fall of 1985, Concerned Alumni of Princeton was entering a crisis.

The group's members at the time included Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per), now President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, although there is no evidence that he played an active or prominent role.

The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school.

As Princeton admitted a growing number of minority students, Concerned Alumni charged repeatedly that the administration was lowering admission standards, undermining the university's distinctive traditions and admitting too few children of alumni. "Currently alumni children comprise 14 percent of each entering class, compared with an 11 percent quota for blacks and Hispanics," the group wrote in a 1985 fund-raising letter sent to all Princeton graduates.

By the mid-1980's, however, Princeton students and recent alumni were increasingly finding such statements anachronistic or worse.

"Is the issue the percentage of alumni children admitted or the percentage of minorities?" Jonathan Morgan, a conservative undergraduate working with the group, asked its board members that fall in an internal memorandum. "I don't see the relevance in comparing the two, except in a racist context (i.e. why do we let in so many minorities and not alumni children?)," he continued.

By 1987, the group had sputtered out.

Mr. Morgan's memorandum and other records of Concerned Alumni are contained at the Library of Congress in the papers of William A. Rusher, a leader of the group and a former publisher of National Review.

Those records and others at Mudd Library at Princeton give no indication that Judge Alito, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was among the group's major donors. He was not an active leader of the group, and two of his classmates who were involved and Mr. Rusher said they did not remember his playing a role.

But in an application for a promotion in the Reagan administration in the fall of 1985, Judge Alito was asked to provide information about his "philosophical commitment" to administration policies and listed his membership in Concerned Alumni.

When the White House disclosed the application this month, liberal groups opposed to his nomination pounced on the connection. "The question for senators to consider and to ask is why Samuel Alito would brag about his membership in an organization known for its fervent hostility to the inclusion of women and minorities at Princeton," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way.

Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman, declined to comment. But former leaders of Concerned Alumni say they do not remember the group objecting to the inclusion of minorities, only to the university's affirmative action policies.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a friend and Princeton classmate of Judge Alito, questioned the relevance of Judge Alito's association with the group. "His membership probably tells you that his social inclinations are conservative," said Mr. Napolitano, who became a leader of the group, "but he is so intellectually honest that he labored mightily to keep those inclinations from influencing his decisions on the bench."

As for how Judge Alito might rule as a Supreme Court justice, Mr. Napolitano, a former Superior Court judge in New Jersey, said, "Who knows what will happen?"

By 1985 Concerned Alumni had become well known in conservative circles. Financed in part by Shelby Cullom Davis, a member of the 1930 class and the ambassador to Switzerland in the Nixon administration, the group announced in an early fund-raising pamphlet that its goals included a less-liberal faculty and "a more traditional undergraduate population."

A pamphlet for parents suggested that "racial tensions" and loose oversight of campus social life were contributing to a spike in campus crime. A brochure for Princeton alumni warned, "The unannounced goal of the administration, now achieved, of a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future."

In 1975, an alumni panel that included Senator Bill Frist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/bill_frist/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Tennessee, the current Republican leader and a 1974 Princeton graduate, concluded that Concerned Alumni had "presented a distorted, narrow and hostile view of the university that cannot help but have misinformed and even alarmed many alumni" and "undoubtedly generated adverse national publicity." (Mr. Frist could not be reached for comment.) In 1977, The New Yorker devoted 20 pages to a gently derisive history of the group's squabbles with the university.

By the 1980's, however, Concerned Alumni had added a new cause: the defense of the exclusive "eating clubs," where many upper class Princeton students took their meals, and especially the three all-male clubs. All now admit women.

As a student, Judge Alito had not joined any of the clubs, taking his meals at a dining hall. But the leaders of Concerned Alumni and the editors of Prospect regarded the clubs as pillars of the university's distinctive social life that were under attack by the Princeton administration.

When the administration proposed a new system of residential colleges with their own dining halls, Prospect denounced the idea as a potential threat to the system of eating clubs. The magazine charged that, like affirmative action, the plan was "intended to create racial harmony."

Prospect portrayed the proposal as an effort to end the de facto segregation of the campus in which black students were concentrated in one dormitory and mostly did not belong to the clubs. "Doubtless, there will be many who regard this as mere stalling, and prejudice by another name," an unsigned 1982 editorial argued in defense of the magazine's position. "If realistic approaches to problems must be called dirty names because we do not like them, well, there is no remedy for it."

The magazine's content also grew increasingly provocative under the editorship of conservative rising stars, including Dinesh D'Souza and later Laura Ingraham.

A March 1984 article by Mr. D'Souza told the story of a Puerto Rican first-year student whose mother sought to remove her from the school after learning that she was having sex with a male student and was receiving sex-education from the school. The magazine said the administration had increased the female student's financial aide to enable her to stay, and it accused Princeton of giving new meaning to the phrase "in loco parentis."

Hundreds of students signed a petition protesting the article as an invasion of privacy, and the campus debate received national attention.
Later that year, Concerned Alumni fund-raising letters to Princeton graduates charged that the director of the university's health clinic had "celebrated the fact that 31 out of 33 pregnant students had abortions after receiving counseling from Princeton's sex clinic."

In January 1985 - a few months before Judge Alito filled out his Reagan administration application - William G. Bowen, Princeton's president, issued a statement calling the letter "callous" and "outrageous."

In an interview, Ms. Ingraham said liberal groups were making too much of Judge Alito's membership. "Stop the presses!" she said. "Sam Alito, a conservative, was once a member of a conservative Princeton alumni group."

Mr. D'Souza said supporters of Concerned Alumni were motivated by a fear that "traditional values" at Princeton had come under attack, but their specific concerns varied from academic standards to the athletic program. Judge Alito's support for the group "might tell you something," he said, "but it is hard to know what."


Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[lofter1]

Info on possible Supreme Court hearing regarding the case against Jose Padilla: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=74522&postcount=190

U.S. citizen Jose Padilla wants to know how long he can be held as an 'enemy combatant.'

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-padilla28oct28,1,1111006.story

...Padilla's lawyers want the Supreme Court to rule that the Bush White House has overstepped its legal authority by holding "without charge an American citizen arrested on American soil" during a war on terrorism that is "indeterminate in scope and time."

But the government, which won a major ruling in the case last month when the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Padilla could be held without trial, said the president had the authority in wartime to identify enemy combatants and hold them indefinitely."

[lofter1]

Alito's 1985 Memo Reignites Document Fight

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
December 1, 2005

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/alito;_ylt=Au1Nj5hEcG54_HshyWILnQWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDM TA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


A 1985 memo in which Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito suggested that the Justice Department try to chip away at abortion rights has reignited a battle over what documents should be available to senators as they evaluate judicial candidates.

"This information reinforces the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant information about this nominee, including his other solicitor general memos and his work in the Office of Legal Counsel," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., who has been fighting with the White House for greater access to nominees' documents for years.

"We now see why this administration has resisted so strenuously to the release of these sorts of memos," said Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on Alito's nomination in January.

Republicans argue that Democrats are just looking for a way to block President Bush's conservative nominees from being approved by the GOP-controlled Senate.

The questions "disturbingly seem to be suggesting that some Democrats are ready to implement a strategy ... that they would obstruct the Roberts nomination and later nominations by claiming that they didn't have sufficient access to documents," White House spokesman Steve Schmidt said.

The administration refused to permit the release of similar documents during Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, and Schmidt said, "The rest of Alito's internal solicitor general's documents are still privileged and will not be released."

The abortion memo, written while Alito was working for the solicitor general's office, was released Wednesday by the National Archives.

In the May 30, 1985, memo, Alito recommended the Justice Department weigh in on state-level cases seeking abortion restrictions instead of attacking the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. This approach was "free of the disadvantages that would accompany a major effort to overturn Roe. When the court hands down its decision and Roe is not overruled, the decision will not be portrayed as a stinging rebuke," he wrote.

"No one seriously believes that the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade," Alito wrote. Referring to a high court decision to review two abortion-related cases, he asked, "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling ... and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said, "The more we know, the more disturbing it gets."

The document "raises very serious questions about whether Judge Alito has been sincere about his respect for the precedent of Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a woman the right to choose," she said.

At the Justice Department, Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand said, "Nothing in that memo indicates how he'd rule as a judge on abortion cases."
Documents have been at the center of several judicial battles between the Bush White House and Senate Democrats.

Democrats successfully filibustered Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada's lower court nomination, saying the combination of his refusal to fully answer their questions and the White House's refusal to turn over his solicitor general documents made him too risky.

Bush nominated Alito to the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination. The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators' demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. Miers, however, also had lost the support of conservatives.

The Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for Alito begin Jan. 9, and majority Republicans hope for a final vote on his nomination on Jan. 20.
On Wednesday, Alito turned in a 64-page response to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Asked to provide his views on judicial activism, Alito wrote that the courts "must engage in a constant process of self-discipline to ensure that they respect the limits of their authority."

Judges must "have faith that the cause of justice in the long run is best served if they scrupulously heed the limits of their role rather than transgressing those limits in an effort to achieve a desired result in a particular case," he added.


Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press

[Ninjahedge]

Simply put, RELEASE THE DAMN DOCUMENTS ALREADY!!!!

If you have nothing to hide, STOP HIDING EVERYTHING!


"Oh, the car is fine, but please do not look under the hood."

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 11, 2006
News Analysis

Judge Alito Proves a Powerful Match for Senate Questioners

By ADAM LIPTAK and ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - If Senate Democrats had set out to portray Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as extreme on issues ranging from abortion to government surveillance of citizens, they ran up against an elusive target on Tuesday: Samuel A. Alito Jr. For nearly eight hours, Judge Alito was placid, monochromatic and, it seemed, mostly untouchable.

Unlike the testimony of John G. Roberts Jr., who had often declined to answer questions on various grounds, among them that certain issues might come before him as chief justice or that his older writings did not necessarily reflect his current views, Judge Alito's default impulse frequently seemed to be to try to give a direct response to the senators' often rambling questions.

Failing that, he offered what he presented as clarifications of earlier statements or writing, sanded of any rough edges, or said he simply could not recall details about some past chapter of his life that had raised concern among senators. Only in one exchange did he appear rattled, refusing to give a direct answer when Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York asked him if he still held a view, expressed in 1985, that there was no constitutional right to abortion.

For the most part, his handling of questions from Democrats had the effect of leaving his questioner shuffling through papers in search of the next question.

Judge Alito was not Judge Roberts, to be sure - far less personable, rarely smiling and struggling to draw even the occasional burst of laughter. But he came across as far less ideological than Democrats have suggested, undercutting their efforts to stir public opposition by portraying his writing as outside the American mainstream.

Yes, he said, he once believed that there was no constitutional right to abortion, but at the time he was merely a "a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration," and he would keep an open mind should abortion come before him at the Supreme Court.

Not even a president is above the law, he said, though he added that he did not have enough information to say if he agreed that President Bush had broken the law by authorizing extensive domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

He claimed no memory of having been active in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed the university's affirmative action program for minorities, despite listing his affiliation with the group in a 1985 job application. That lack of memory "left some of us puzzled," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Even when he was pressed to offer his opinion on the landmark Supreme Court decision that awarded the 2000 presidential election to Mr. Bush, Judge Alito said he had not given the case enough attention to offer an opinion, an assertion that left his questioner, Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, rolling his eyes.

But at other times, he silenced Democrats by the directness of his responses. Asked by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts about an endorsement of "the supremacy of the elected branches of government" in the 1985 job application, Judge Alito simply disavowed it.

"It's an inapt phrase," he said, "and I certainly didn't mean that literally at the time, and I wouldn't say that today. The branches of government are equal."

Mr. Kennedy followed up. "So you've changed your mind?" he asked.

"No, I haven't changed my mind, senator," Judge Alito responded. "But the phrasing there is very misleading and incorrect."

To a large extent, Judge Alito's success at skating though a good deal of the day reflected the quality of the questioning. The senators frequently did not follow up on their own queries, and Mr. Biden in particular devoted most of his 30 minutes to talking, leaving little time for the nominee to speak.

Mr. Schumer, whose questioning left Judge Alito looking wobbly and pale, was an exception, as was Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who pressed him on his views about the Supreme Court's authority to overrule precedent. Early in the day, Judge Alito said there "needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent."

Ms. Feinstein asked for an example of such a justification. It took four attempts, but Judge Alito finally listed some decisions in which such justifications figured.

Like Judge Roberts, Judge Alito declined to adopt the terminology of the Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, that the status of Roe v. Wade was "super precedent" or "super duper precedent," a reference to the fact that its core holding had been reaffirmed in later cases. "It sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket," Judge Alito said, in one of the very few comments he made that gave rise to laughter.

The nominee said he did believe there was a constitutional right to privacy, based on a 1965 Supreme Court case that overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting married couples from using contraceptives, though he did not take it the next step to argue that such a provision could be extended to abortion.

At a time when members of Congress from both parties are increasingly concerned that the White House has become overly empowered, he also said the president did not have a "blank check" to do what he wanted.

When several Democrats pressed him on a statement he once made calling Judge Robert H. Bork "one of the most outstanding nominees" for the Supreme Court in this century, he said that he had been speaking only in his role as a member of the Reagan administration and that he in fact did not agree with some of Judge Bork's positions.

Judge Alito's command of the law was impressive, but it did not have Judge Roberts's effortless, Olympian quality. In responding to one of many questions about presidential power, for instance, he slightly misstated an element of the framework set out in a 1952 concurring opinion by Justice Robert H. Jackson.

"Do you believe the president has the constitutional authority as commander in chief to override laws enacted by Congress?" asked Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

"Where the president is exercising executive power in the face of a contrary expression of Congressional will," Judge Alito said, "you'd be in what Justice Jackson called 'the twilight zone,' where the president's power is at its lowest point."

Judge Alito's larger point in describing the opinion was correct, but Justice Jackson's reference to a "zone of twilight" was not to situations where Congress had spoken but, as Justice Jackson wrote in 1952, to "when the president acts in absence of either a Congressional grant or denial of authority."

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, asked Judge Alito, as he had asked Judge Roberts, whether it was appropriate for American courts to look to the precedents of foreign courts. The differences in their responses were illuminating.

Judge Roberts was crisp. "Looking at foreign law for support," he said, "is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They're there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge."

Judge Alito was more methodical. "I don't think that foreign law is helpful in interpreting the Constitution," he said, adding that it might be helpful in other contexts, including the interpretation of treaties and of issues in private lawsuits.

Asked by Senator Kyl why he wanted to serve on the Supreme Court, Judge Alito gave an answer that contrasted with Judge Bork's famous response in 1987. Judge Bork, whose nomination was defeated, said the court's work would be "an intellectual feast."

Judge Alito gave a blander, almost bureaucratic answer.

"I think it's an opportunity for me to serve the country," he said, "using whatever talent I have."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

Alito is a talented Judge and Arse-kisser.

In order to get to where he was, he wrote to the people that he needed to and pandered to their ideologies on hot button issues that tied too close to emotion, and not to many cases he would actually have to face as an appointed judge.

Now he is at a point where he has to face those declarations in open questioning and "lo and behold" he is an entirely different person than he said he was 20 years ago.


People change, but Alito was always a player.

[lofter1]

Alito is a talented Judge and Arse-kisser...

People change, but Alito was always a player.
This must freak out GWB, as one of his biggest recommendations for Harriet Miers during her short-lived life as a nominee was that he'd known her for 20+ years, knew who she was inside -- and that she wasn't the type to change.

[ZippyTheChimp]

This guy is going in. At least he's not incompetent.

I watched some of the hearings. It's an opportunity for Bush Bashing -not necessarily a bad thing.

[lofter1]

Kennedy & Spector just got into a vigorous exchange regarding a document that Kennedy wants released from Alito's Princeton years (after receiving no objection to the release from Alito) and which document Kennedy previously requested via a letter to Spector

Spector is not budging ... claims he never received Kennedy's request.

Hmmmmmmmm...

[BrooklynRider]

Spector gets smacked down by Kennedy. He produced the response from Spector's office to the letter. Strange how Republicans have no memory for things that are inconvenient to them.

[BrooklynRider]

Anyone see Alito's wife's performance? She came in right on cue, just as they rehearsed. If you watch the video of it, focus on her and listen to what is being said, you see the tears coincide with nothing. NOTHING. But, listen to the voice over by Linsey Graham as she starts the crocodile tears and you get to listen to what has been played over and over across the country. A Republican loop of "we don't let people buy our influence," "the influence peddling allegations are all untrue." Find the video online. Watch it closely. You will see Mrs. Alito give a smile and a glance to the person on her right, for no apparent reason other than to say, "Oh my gosh, here comes my performance." Then listen to voice over that the nation heard hundreds of times as was replayed on every newscast.

Jeez! Y'know, if Tipper had just cried, Gore would be president today.

The Aademy Award goes to.....

[ZippyTheChimp]

For most of the past quarter-century, it has been the O'Connor Court, not the Rehnquist Court. At the time of her appointment by Ronald Reagan, she was viewed as a conservative. I wonder how she would be questioned at a confirmation-hearing today.

January 12, 2006
The Cases

O'Connor Casts a Long Shadow on the Nominee

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - The Constitution does not say what criteria the Senate should use in deciding whether to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

But at least one clear test has emerged over the first three days of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings. This nominee must, it seems, continually refer to and, if at all possible, endorse the views of the woman he aims to replace, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Senators from both parties have frequently used Justice O'Connor's opinions as a basis for questioning Judge Alito. The heavy emphasis on her work is a testament to her disproportionate influence on the court in her 25 years of service, and a reminder of the important role Judge Alito will assume if he is confirmed.

As two senators noted in their opening statements, Justice O'Connor has cast the decisive vote in almost 150 cases, many of them of great moment.

Whenever the opportunity arose, Judge Alito and his supporters highlighted instances in which he had ruled as she had. He invoked her name on 9 occasions, and he had good things to say about her decisions 10 times. On Tuesday, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, ticked off areas in which the two judges had agreed.

"Justice O'Connor and Judge Sam Alito both set limits on Congress's commerce power," Mr. Cornyn said. "Sandra Day O'Connor and Sam Alito both struck down affirmative action policies that had strict numerical quotas. And both - this ought to be a shocker to some based on what we've heard here today - is that both Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Judge Sam Alito have criticized Roe v. Wade."

Democratic senators, on the other hand, worked hard to show that Judge Alito and Justice O'Connor were at odds, particularly in an important abortion case.

In his opening statement, striking a theme that has run through the hearings, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, asked rhetorically, "Are you in Justice O'Connor's mold or, as the president has vowed, are you in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas?"

President Bush has said he would try to appoint justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court's two most conservative members.

By Wednesday morning, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, had grown frustrated with all the O'Connor talk. "The fact that you have to fit the Sandra Day O'Connor mold is really a misapplication," he said. "There is no precedent that would say that."

Judge Alito said he would be his own person, but not before offering one more tribute. "No nominee can ever be a duplicate of someone who retires," he said, "and particularly when someone retires after such a distinguished career and such a historic career as Justice O'Connor. Nobody can be expected, as a nominee, to fit that mold."

Judge Alito gave no indication, beyond saying he respected precedent and would proceed with an open mind, about whether he would follow the joint opinion Justice O'Connor signed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision affirming the constitutional right to abortion found by Roe v. Wade in 1973. Casey was, however, a 6-to-3 decision, and Judge Alito will not be in a position to move the court away from its support of the core right to abortion.

But Justice O'Connor did provide the crucial fifth vote in the court's last major abortion ruling, in 2000, striking down Nebraska's ban on what were called "partial birth" abortions. The court will soon decide whether to hear a challenge to a similar federal law, and in that case Judge Alito could alter the course of the court's abortion jurisprudence.

Judge Alito participated in the Casey decision in 1991 as an appeals court judge, and he seemed a little defensive in explaining his dissenting vote to uphold a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands before having abortions. The Supreme Court took the opposite view the next year.

All he had been trying to do in his dissent, Judge Alito explained, was to understand what Judge O'Connor had meant in some earlier decisions.

"There were just a few hints in those opinions about what she meant," Judge Alito said. "Based on the information that I had from Justice O'Connor's opinions, it seemed to me that this was not what she had in mind. Now, that turned out not to be a correct prediction."

In another exchange, asked whether he agreed with Justice O'Connor's statement in a 2004 decision that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Judge Alito did not hesitate.

"Absolutely," he said. "That's a very important principle."

In defending his dissent in a 10-to-1 decision of his court in an employment discrimination case, Judge Alito also invoked Justice O'Connor.

"When the issue went to the Supreme Court" in another case, he said, "Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court, and she agreed with my analysis."

In 1996, Judge Alito voted in dissent to strike down a law regulating the possession of machine guns, citing United States v. Lopez, a 1995 Supreme Court case that struck down a law banning the possession of handguns near schools.

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was quick to note the lineup in the Lopez case. "By the way," Mr. Kyl said, "it was one of those decisions that Justice O'Connor was in the majority, a 5-4 decision in which her position could be characterized as the swing vote."

On Wednesday, Judge Alito said he would follow Justice O'Connor's approach in religion cases.

"Justice O'Connor pointed out something that's very critical in this area," he said. "She said there is a big difference between government speech endorsing religion and private religious speech. And private religious speech can't be discriminated against. It has to be treated equally with secular speech."

From the moment he was nominated in October, Judge Alito has made clear his fondness and admiration for Justice O'Connor. That was based in part, he said in remarks accepting the nomination, on something she had done at his first argument before the Supreme Court in 1982, an occasion that filled him with "a sense of awe."

"I also remember," he said, "the relief that I felt when Justice O'Connor, sensing, I think, that I was a rookie, made sure that the first question that I was asked was a kind one. I was grateful to her on that happy occasion, and I am particularly honored to be nominated for her seat."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

Kennedy & Spector just got into a vigorous exchange regarding a document that Kennedy wants released from Alito's Princeton years ...
Dang ... just smoke and mirrors, seems this was a dead end.

Alito's in ...

It will be interesting (if not totally predictable) to see how the Democrats play the vote once Alito clears the committee.

[ZippyTheChimp]

A Hearing About Nothing

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, January 13, 2006

A listless intellectual fog had fallen over the Senate hearing room on Tuesday, the first full day of questioning for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. before the Judiciary Committee. As one Democratic senator strode out to the hallway during an afternoon break, he leaned toward me and said: "We have to hit him

harder."

The senator was expressing frustration over a process that doesn't work. It turns out that, especially when their party controls the process, Supreme Court nominees can avoid answering any question they don't want to answer. Senators make the process worse with meandering soliloquies. But when the questioning gets pointed, the opposition is immediately accused of scurrilous smears. The result: an exchange of tens of thousands of words signifying, in so many cases, nothing -- as long as the nominee has the discipline to say nothing, over and over and over.

Alito, an ardent baseball fan, established himself as the Babe Ruth of evasion.

The headlines went to the abortion issue. Alito was pressed about his statement in a 1985 job application letter to the Reagan administration that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." It is a reasonable view shared by millions of Americans. Republican Sens. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) were refreshingly open in their denunciations of Roe v. Wade .

But Alito would neither embrace nor back away from what he had said. He did allow that "there is a general presumption that decisions of the court will not be overruled." Well, yeah.

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Alito if the issue was "well-settled in court," he offered the celebrated formulation: "I think that depends on what one means by the term 'well-settled.' " The standard dodge is that nominees can't answer questions bearing on cases they might later have to decide. But Democrats Feinstein, Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) all noted that Alito was perfectly happy to speak expansively on some questions he would face, notably reapportionment.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), much mocked for his prolix prattling in the early going, actually made a pithy observation yesterday. He said that nominees "tend to answer controversial questions in direct proportion to how much they think the public is likely to agree with them."

Conservatives are right that our abortion debate is distorted because Roe v. Wade has forced too much discussion into the limited confines of Senate hearings over future judges. But that doesn't make the circumlocutions any more satisfactory. Conservative appointees who might well overrule Roe can't quite say so if they are to get the votes they need from Republican senators who support abortion rights and want to protect themselves with pro-choice voters.

That was just one of many evasions. When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked if "the president has the power to curtail investigations, for example, by the Department of Justice," Alito replied: "I don't think the president is above the law." A fine sentiment that didn't answer the question. Leahy asked yesterday if Congress could strip courts of their authority to rule on cases involving the First Amendment. Alito didn't have a view.

When Biden asked Alito about John Yoo's expansive reading of presidential power, Alito said he had not read the former Justice Department official's recent book, even though Yoo's views have long been well known.

And there was something odd about the gap in Alito's memory concerning his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a right-wing group whose publications said some rather unpleasant things about blacks, women and gays. Alito didn't remember anything, but if he did remember something, his membership might have been related to Princeton's decision to throw the ROTC off campus, even though parts of ROTC later returned. The first public reference I can find to the ROTC rationale came not from anything Alito has said but from talking points put out Monday by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

My biggest worries about Alito are how he would rule on presidential power, workers' rights, civil rights and regulatory issues. Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor, has noted that Alito follows the law when it's clear, but he almost always tilts toward his conservative predilections when the law is less settled.

Democrats seem to be wary of mounting a filibuster. What they should insist upon, to use a euphemism Alito might appreciate, is an extended debate in which his evasions will be made perfectly clear to the public. If moderate senators want to vote for a justice highly likely to move the Supreme Court to the right, they can. But their electorates should know that's exactly what they're doing.

postchat@aol.com
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

This is what the party in power does. Democrats can only blame themselves for parading candidates that say nothing.

Dukakis fumbled around explaining Willie Horten and what he would do if his wife was raped.

Gore ran away as fast as he could from a successful two-term administration, and let a once-elected idiot who looked like a scared rabbit on TV take the presidency. Forget hanging chads; it never should have come to that.

All I remember about Kerry is swift boats and brand new LL Bean hunting jackets. A draft-dodger paints a decorated combat veteran as soft on defense, and gets away with it.

Only the guy with the cigar had the balls to directly challenge his opponent, and not worry about alienating core Democrats.

[BrooklynRider]

If you oppose this nomination and want to retain your rights in this country, call your senator and urge them to filibuster...

Hilary Clinton
(212) 688-6262

Chuck Schumer
212-486-4430

[MidtownGuy]

Thanks for the reminder to call- I just spoke to a young lady in Senator Clinton's office who took my name and comments.
I watched nearly all of the hearings and I can honestly say I never saw
such evasion in my life. Alito said basically nothing.
I'm familiar with the goals of the Federalist Society, of which he is a member, through a briefing paper from the Institute for Democracy Studies.
It's sick stuff.

http://www.idsonline.org/

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 15, 2006

Glum Democrats Can't See Halting Bush on Courts

By ADAM NAGOURNEY, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and NEIL A. LEWIS

This article was reported by Adam Nagourney, Richard W. Stevenson and Neil A. Lewis and written by Mr. Nagourney.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - Disheartened by the administration's success with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., Democratic leaders say that President Bush is putting an enduring conservative ideological imprint on the nation's judiciary, and that they see little hope of holding off the tide without winning back control of the Senate or the White House.

In interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.

That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they would take the courts too far to the right.

Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views - in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights - appeared to be stirring little opposition.

Republicans say that Mr. Bush, in making conservative judicial choices, has been doing precisely what he said he would do in both of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, they say, his re-election, and the election of a Republican Congress, meant that the choices reflected the views of much of the American public.

Republicans rejected Democratic assertions that Judge Alito was out of the mainstream. "The American people see Judge Alito and say, that's exactly the sort of person we want to see on the Supreme Court," said Steve Schmidt, the White House official who managed the nomination.

Now,, several Democrats said, even at a time when many of his other initiatives seem in doubt, and though he was forced by conservatives to withdraw his first choice for the seat, Mr. Bush appears on the verge of achieving what he had set as a primary goal of his presidency: a fundamental reshaping of the federal judiciary along more conservative lines.

Mr. Bush has now appointed one-quarter of the federal appeals court judges, and, assuming that Judge Alito is confirmed - the Judiciary Committee vote is expected to occur in the next 10 days - will have put two self-described conservatives on a Supreme Court that has only two members appointed by a Democratic president.

"They have made a lot of progress," said Ronald A. Klain, a former Democratic chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee and the White House counsel in charge of judicial nominations for President Bill Clinton. "I hate to say they're done because Lord only knows what's next. They have achieved a large part of their objective."

Asked if he had any hope that Democrats could slow President Bush's effort to push the court to the right, Mr. Klain responded: "No. The only thing that will fix this is a Democratic president and more vacancies. It takes a long time to make these kinds of changes and it's going to take a long time to undo them."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said it was now hard to imagine a legislative strategy that could slow Mr. Bush's judicial campaign, assuming vacancies continue to emerge, at least through the end of this year.

"You either need a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate or moderate Republicans who will break ranks when it's a conservative nominee," Mr. Schumer said. "We don't have any of those three. The only tool we have is the filibuster, which is a very difficult tool to use, and with only 45 Democrats, it's harder than it was last term."

Few Democrats or analysts said they thought that Judge Alito's nomination could ever be blocked, noting that as a rule presidents tend to get their Supreme Court nominees approved by the Senate.

"It may be a mistake to think that their failure demonstrates that they necessarily did something wrong," said Richard H. Fallon, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Referring to one of the major Democratic complaints about Judge Alito's testimony, Mr. Fallon said: "As long as most of the public will settle for evasive or uninformative answers, maybe there was nothing that they could have done to get Alito to make a major error."

Nonetheless, there have been some recriminations in the party since the hearings ended about how Democrats responded to a nominee who once seemed an easier target than Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., because of his long record of written opinions and briefs.

Several Democrats expressed frustration over what they saw as the Republicans outmaneuvering them by drawing attention to an episode Wednesday when Judge Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, began crying as her husband was being questioned. That evening, senior Democratic senate aides convened at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, stunned at the realization that the pictures of a weeping Mrs. Alito were being broadcast across the nation - as opposed to, for example, images of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, pressing Judge Alito about his membership in an alumni club that resisted affirmative action efforts.

"Had she not cried, we would have won that day," said one Senate strategist involved in the hearings, who did not want to be quoted by name discussing the Democrats' problems. "It got front-page attention. It was on every local news show."

Beyond that, Democrats said Judge Alito had turned out to be a more skillful witness than they had expected. They said Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had been outflanked in their efforts to pin down Judge Alito on any issues, and that some of the questioners - notably Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware - devoted more time to talking than to pressing the nominee for answers.

"You're trying to convince the American people that this man is not on your side," said Dale Bumpers, a former Democratic senator from Arkansas. "Obviously, we didn't do a very good job. Or I'd put it this way: Alito and Roberts did a good enough job that the Democrats couldn't make that case."

Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, said: "It is causing far more serious consideration by at least the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of what you do in future cases. How do you make clear where this person stands? Alito was pretty successful at getting through this maze."

The developments were particularly frustrating, Democrats said, because Mr. Bush has never made a secret of what he wanted to do with the judiciary, and Democrats had devoted much energy to trying to stop it.

The Democratic push began in earnest on the last weekend of April 2001, when 42 of the 50 Democratic senators attended a retreat in Farmington, Pa., to hear from experts and discuss ways they could fight a Bush effort to remake the judiciary.

"There were very few principles on which we could all agree," said Mr. Daschle, who was Senate minority leader at the time of the meeting. "But one was that we anticipated that the administration would test the envelope. They were going to go as far as the envelope would allow in appointing conservative judges."

At the retreat, Democrats listened to a panel composed of Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School and Marcia D. Greenberger, the co-president of the National Women's Law Center. The panelists told them that the court was at a historic juncture and that the Bush White House was prepared to fill the courts with conservatives who deserved particularly strong scrutiny, participants said.

The panel also advised them, participants said, that Democratic senators could oppose even nominees with strong credentials on the grounds that the White House was trying to push the courts in a conservative direction, a strategy that now seems to have failed the party.

Mr. Tribe said Friday that Democrats were increasingly discouraged in their efforts to mount opposition campaigns. "When it comes down to it, the numbers of Democrats means that it begins to feel to some like tilting at windmills," he said.

Members of the committee, while defending their performance, said they had been hampered because many of the issues they needed to deal with - like theories of executive power - were arcane and did not lend themselves to building a public case against Judge Alito.

Mr. Kennedy said that the nomination process, and particularly the hearings, had "turned into a political campaign," and that the White House had proved increasingly skilled in turning that to its advantage.

"These issues are so sophisticated - half the Senate didn't know what the unitary presidency was, let alone the people of Boston," he said, referring to one of the legal theories that was a focus of the hearings. "I'm sure we could have done better."

"But what has happened is that this has turned into a political campaign," he said. "The whole process has become so politicized that I think the American people walk away more confused about the way these people stand."

Democratic aides said there had been even less strategy than usual in trying to coordinate the questioning by the eight Democratic senators. The situation was complicated because senators and staff were out of Washington before the hearing.

But while there was some self-criticism among Democrats, the main concern coming out of the hearings was that the nation had reached a turning point in the ideological composition of its judicial system.

By the end of last year, about 60 percent of the 165 judges on the federal appeals courts were appointed by Republican presidents, with 40 percent from Democratic presidents. Of the 13 circuit courts of appeal, 9 have majorities of judges named by Republicans presidents.

The extent to which Republicans are intent on remaking the judiciary was demonstrated by one of President Bush's greatest setbacks, when he was forced to abandon the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, in no small part because conservatives were distrustful of her position on abortion rights.

Asked how they might stop the shift, Stephanie Cutter, a senior Democratic Senate aide, sighed and responded: "Win. Win in 2006."

Indeed, many Democrats said that what took place with both the Roberts and Alito nominations simply underlined what Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democratic who ran for president in 2004, said would happen to the court if Mr. Bush was returned to the White House.

"George Bush won the election," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat. "If you don't like it, you better win elections."

Neil A. Lewis contributed reporting for this article.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

Anyone who read or listened to the news prior to the 2000 & 2004 elections should have seen this coming.

That was the time to take the needed action to thwart the neo-cons from packing SCOTUS in a way that could easily threaten any number of our civilian rights.

(*leaving aside the shenanigans that took place during the vote counts*)

[MrSpice]

Alito will be a fine judge, don't worry about it. No matter what happens to Roe vs. Wade case, abortions will still be legal in New York and most other states in this fine country.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Roe vs Wade is not the problem.

[lofter1]

"Executive Priviledge" is a much more pressing issue.

By all indications Alito is sympathetic to the Bush idea that the President can do all ...


If the President does it then it's not illegal. (Richard M. Nixon)

[NYatKNIGHT]

Doing the Alito Shuffle

by Maureen Dowd
The New York Times (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/opinion/11dowd.html)
January 11, 2006



WASHINGTON

You've got to like a man who knows how to juggle.

Samuel Alito picked up the skill on a summer vacation a decade ago, and his juggling talent was on full display yesterday as he tried to balance the old Sam, who was eager to impress Reagan revolutionaries with his zeal, with the new Sam, who is eager to impress a bipartisan Senate panel with his open-mindedness.

It was a tale of two Sams.

Is he the old Sam, who devised ways to upend Roe v. Wade and crimp abortion rights? Or the new Sam, who has great respect for precedent and an "open mind" about abortion cases?

Is he the old Sam, who plotted ways to tip the balance of power to the executive branch? Or the new Sam, who states that "no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president"?

Is he the old Sam, who said Robert Bork "was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century" and "a man of unequaled ability"? Or the new Sam, who shrugged off that statement as the dutiful support of one Reagan appointee for another?

Is he the old Sam, who cited membership in a Princeton alumni club that resisted the admission of women and minorities when he was seeking a promotion in the very white Reagan old boys' club? Or the new Sam, who has "no specific recollection of that organization," unless, of course, he innocently joined it to support R.O.T.C. on campus, and who says he's been shaped partly by his hopes for his 17-year-old daughter, Laura, and by his sister's experiences "as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men"?

Is he the old Sam, who thoughtlessly blew off a pledge to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he has a six-figure mutual fund? Or the new Sam, who admits that the problem was not "a computer glitch," as he had suggested, and humbly says, "If I had to do it over again, there are things that I would have done differently"?

The judge didn't deign to say what he thought of illegal wiretaps - which you'd think would be an easy one.

About the judge's memory lapses, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, drolly noted, "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us."

Some of his answers, Senator Joe Biden complained to Chris Matthews, did not "ring a chord of sincerity." (The National Review Web site says the voluble Biden got in 3,673 words and held Judge Alito to 1,013.)

You don't have to know the difference between horizontal and vertical stare decisis, or between emanations and penumbras, to see that the man who could take Sandra Day O'Connor's seat and yank back women's rights was, in a word, shifty.

Or in three words, shifty, sapless and sighing.

To offset his reputation on women's rights, he even played the henpecked husband. When Republican senators used the expression "When did you stop beating your wife?" about Democratic questions, Judge Alito riposted, "I wasn't asked whether she had stopped beating me."

His basic defense to Democrats boiled down to: "I was just saying what my boss wanted to hear at the time." Haven't we had enough yes-men mangling government for the last five years? Heck of a job, Sammy.

I understand why the president is drawn to the judge. Mr. Alito is dubbed "Scalito" - a conservative senator, John Cornyn, accidentally blurted out the nickname - because he's so much like Antonin Scalia. And W. loves Nino.

Judge Alito has supported imperial powers for the presidency, not strong checks and balances; he approved the strip search of a 10-year-old girl but is not probing too deeply into what the executive branch is doing. That's W.'s philosophy, too - a pre-emptive right to secretly do everything from war to torture to snooping.

Like the president, the judge loves baseball. Mr. Alito once vacationed at a fantasy baseball camp (O.K. fielder, hopeless hitter), wearing the red and white Phillies uniform. W. has spent five years in fantasyland on Iraq, on occasion donning military costumes.

His fingers in his ears, W. didn't want to hear that we had too few troops in Iraq - ignoring advice from Viceroy Paul Bremer and Gen. Eric Shinseki - or that the troops didn't have enough armor. But the president continues to fling blame outward. In a speech yesterday before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he warned the Democrats that they should take care not to bring "comfort to our adversaries."
Judge Alito was evasive, disingenuous and deferential. He fits the Bush era like a baseball glove.

[Bob]

I managed to watch most all of the hearings, thanks to C-SPAN. In all, I thought Judge Alito presented himself well, answered questions appropriately, had a clear grasp of the issues, and maintained proper judicial decorum despite badgering from more than a few thugs on the panel.

As for who those thugs might be, let's just put Senator Kennedy at the top of that list. He had some nerve asking the candidate if he READ AN ARTICLE in a paper! Heck, by that fascist litmus test, we would all be judged by the newspapers or magazines we chose to read.

[lofter1]

The Imperial Presidency at Work

New York Times
Editorial
January 15, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/opinion/15sun2.html

You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them aside at the first opportunity.

Mr. Bush made a grand show of inviting Mr. McCain into the Oval Office last month to announce his support for a bill to require humane treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and other prisons run by the American military and intelligence agencies. He seemed to have managed to get Vice President Dick Cheney to stop trying to kill the proposed Congressional ban on torture of prisoners.

The White House also endorsed a bargain between Mr. Levin and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, which tempered somewhat a noxious proposal by Mr. Graham to deny a court hearing to anyone the president declares to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." The bargain with Mr. Levin removed language that stripped away cases already before the courts, which would have been an egregious usurpation of power by one branch of government, and it made clear that those cases should remain in the courts.

Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency. First, he issued a constitutionally ludicrous "signing statement" on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program.

Then Mr. Bush went after the judiciary, scrapping the Levin-Graham bargain. The solicitor general informed the Supreme Court last week that it no longer had jurisdiction over detainee cases. It said the court should drop an existing case in which a Yemeni national is challenging the military tribunals invented by Mr. Bush's morally challenged lawyers after 9/11. The administration is seeking to eliminate all other lawsuits filed by some of the approximately 500 men at Gitmo, the vast majority of whom have not been shown to pose any threat.

Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.


Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[lofter1]

More here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79613&postcount=79

... If the President believes torture is warranted to protect the country, he'll violate the law and authorize torture. If the courts try to stop him, he'll ignore them too. This wasn't quibbling or spinning. Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do, Bush all but declared himself above a law he signed. One professor who specializes in this constitutional area, Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon, has described the power grabs as "breathtaking."

And who came up with this innovative use of presidential signing statements? Drumroll, please. Samuel Alito, Supreme Court nominee, way back in 1986. In a Feb. 5 memo, he wrote, "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress."

[BrooklynRider]

I managed to watch most all of the hearings, thanks to C-SPAN. In all, I thought Judge Alito presented himself well, answered questions appropriately, had a clear grasp of the issues, and maintained proper judicial decorum...

You want to venture a guess as to how and / or why Mr. Alito can cite legal cases throughout the history of this country, yet can't remember being a member of a racist, homphobic, misogynistic organization at Princeton? He can recollect every facet of his life from his childhood through the latest cases, but this one little area he has NO memory of. Yeah, right. That is hardly forthcoming. Lying scumbags shouldn't be placed on the court.

He is unfit for the court and his wife either gave the performance of a lifetime or should be institutionalized for a nervous disorder. Personally, I believe any member of the Federalist Society ought to be automatically disqualified from consideration.

[lofter1]

Lying scumbags shouldn't be placed on the court.
Agreed, however he joins a long list of others who have come before him.

[lofter1]

I don't know what to think about this tactic ...

Brilliant Alito ad released by NBJC

Monday, January 23, 2006
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/01/brilliant-alito-ad-released-by-nbjc.html

[UPDATE: Welcome, Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/) readers. I've added Freeper reaction to this ad at the end of the post...]

This is a slam dunk ad on Alito by the National Black Justice Coalition (http://www.nbjcoalition.org/). It will be published in black newspapers in Baltimore and Washington, and in Roll Call, the Congressional newspaper.

NBJC Director of Religious Affairs Dr. Sylvia Rhue noted (http://www.nbjcoalition.org/news/alitothomas-ad.html) that "Forty years ago, opponents of interracial marriage cited the Bible to justify their discrimination. Today, opponents of same-gender marriage cite the Bible to justify their discrimination."

There's nothing like turning the tables on the wingers, especially Clarence Thomas -- the ad asks, "Offense Before God?" I converted the ad to text to post (click here (http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/thomas_BJC_wht.pdf) for the PDF).

*******************************************
Offense Before God?
http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/cthomas.jpg
Clarence Thomas and Wife Virginia


Before 1967, laws would not allow Clarence Thomas, a black man, to marry his wife Virginia, a white woman. Opponents of interracial marriage cited the Bible to justify this discrimination.

In 2006, laws do not allow two men or two women to marry each other. Opponents of same-sex marriage cite the Bible to justify this discrimination.

Using Religion To Justify Discrimination Is The Real Offense Before God.

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

We wonder: If Clarence Thomas had been on the Court in 1967, how would he have voted?

We wonder: If Samuel Alito had been on the Court in 1967, how would he have voted?

Today, America is faced with the challenge of how to treat a group of its citizens fairly. We've been down this road before. We can't allow powerful people to use religion to justify their bigotry. It wasn't right for African Americans, and it's not right for gays and lesbians.

In America, the framers of our Constitution created a separation of church and state for a good reason: to protect minorities.

Don't turn back the clock. Let's protect our Constitution.

**********************************************

Of course, the larger question, even with this meaningful ad campaign, is whether the Democrats are going to do anything about the Alito nomination at this point? Sigh.

Contact your Dem Senators (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) and tell them the filibuster shouldn't be off the table.

***

[ZippyTheChimp]

I wish Kerry would just shut up instead of displaying the stupidity that assured we'd have four more years of Bush.

January 27, 2006

Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 — Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts could not attend the Senate debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Thursday. He was in Davos, Switzerland, mingling with international business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum.

But late Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kerry began calling fellow Democratic senators in a quixotic, last-minute effort for a filibuster to stop the nomination.

Democrats cringed and Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed.

"God bless John Kerry," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "He just cinched this whole nomination. With Senator Kerry, it is Christmas every day."

Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman working on the nomination, said Mr. Kerry's move "says a lot less about Alito than it does about the Iowa primary in 2008," suggesting that Mr. Kerry, who lost the presidential race in 2004, was playing to his party's liberal base in a bid to recapture its nomination.

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, sounded almost apologetic about Mr. Kerry's statements.

"No one can complain on this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con," Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. "I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking."

Mr. Kerry's call for a filibuster, an effort to stop confirmation by refusing to close debate and hold a vote, was joined by his fellow Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy.

Under Senate procedures, their objections blocked the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders from setting Tuesday as the date for a vote on confirmation.

Instead, the Senate will vote Monday on whether to close debate. Sixty votes are required for a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. More than 60 senators have already pledged to support him, and the leaders of both parties said they expected to hold the full vote on Tuesday.

Mr. Kerry offered an explanation for his position in a post on a liberal blog, the Daily Kos.

"People can say all they want that 'elections have consequences,' " he wrote. "Trust me, more than anyone I understand that. But that seems like an awfully convoluted rationale for me to stay silent about Judge Alito's nomination."

Mr. Kerry was celebrated by leaders of the coalition of liberal groups opposing Judge Alito's nomination.

"Senator John Kerry has called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination, heeding your calls to do everything possible to defeat it," People for the American Way cheered in an e-mail message to its supporters.

Mr. Kennedy said a filibuster might help focus attention on the nomination and give its opponents a last chance to sway the public and the Senate.

He acknowledged some "divisions in the caucus" over the advisability of a filibuster, but he said the effort had the support of a few others, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip.

A spokesman for Mr. Durbin confirmed that he would vote against closing debate.

"It is an uphill climb at this point," Mr. Kennedy said of a filibuster. "But it is achievable."

Asked if Mr. Kerry's absence from the Senate would hinder their efforts, Mr. Kennedy said, "We'll do the best we can and make a good fight of it."

Mr. Kerry has been rallying his supporters against the nomination for weeks in mass e-mail messages and on his Web site.

And when the Democratic caucus met Wednesday to discuss the nomination, he gave an impassioned plea that the party should try to stage a filibuster even if it failed, people present said, speaking only if granted anonymity because the meeting was private. Some senators at the meeting said an unsuccessful filibuster would leave the party weakened for future battles.

Some said a messy and unsuccessful filibuster fight would distract from the Democratic focus on other issues like corruption in government and wiretapping by the Bush administration.

In the end the party leaders were not persuaded by Mr. Kerry's appeal.

Judge Alito's confirmation was looking increasingly certain Thursday. Two more Democrats, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, said they would break party ranks to vote for confirmation.

Mr. Byrd said his constituents had told him they were "appalled" by the harsh questioning Judge Alito received from the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearings, calling them "an outrage and a disgrace."

With Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Byrd bring the number of Democrats pledging support for Judge Alito to three. The vote on confirmation is expected to hew closely to party lines. No Republicans have said they will vote against him.

Two Republican supporters of abortion rights, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, have not declared how they will vote.

Shortly after 7 p.m., Mr. Kerry issued a statement saying, "Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court."

"The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court," Mr. Kerry said. "It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously."

A few moments later, April Boyd, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry, sent a postscript saying that "as things played out over the course of the day today" he had decided to fly home. "Kerry will be back in Washington tomorrow," Ms. Boyd said.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[BrooklynRider]

The Democratic Party is done. Collapsed. Finito.

It is hard to understand how all the Senators who voted "no" and warned of Alito's extreme views can then not support a filibuster. If he is such a danger and such and extremist, block him. The Dems want it every which-way. The are a rudderless ship breaking into pieces on the open sea. They have proven wholly ineffective, without vision, and are leaderless. Not even a peep from Howard Dean. I'd expect at least one "AAAAARGH!" from him on this nomination.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not supporting a fillibuster is exactly what the Democrats should do. They should record their displeasure with no-votes, and accept the fact that Alito will be confirmed no matter what they do.

A fillibuster will only strengthen the perception that the Democratic Party is obstructionist and lacking in a vision. It is the reason that, as the majority party, they suffer from crossover votes.

The Democrats should spend the next few years defining an agenda of what this country should do, not just what it shouldn't do.

[MrSpice]

NYatKNIGHT: Dowd likes to exaggerate and present her doubts as ultimate truth.

BrooklynRider: You keep saying this word "extreme" as if it was a fact. Alito was an appelate judge for 15 years. He rules or had part in ruling on hundreds if not thousands of cases. Even on such policy matter as abortion his rullings were far from extreme. I think it's fair to say that he has been a conservative for a large portion of his life buit his last poitical opinions date all the way back to 1985 when he was a lawyer in the Reagan administration. Discounting his service as a judge is kind of silly. I am myself strongly pro-choice so I have some concerns about his stand on that issue. However, on the economic front, most of his rullings were simply great. He ruled repeatedly to limit damages awared in a variety of class action and other suits. We are not talking about reducnig $100 damages, we are talking about million-dollar damages that have become an additional taxes on doing business in America. I am glad we'll have at least one judge on the court that will stand up to the wave of frivolous lawsuits that incourage companies to move jobs into other countries. I am a bit worried about Alito's social views, but you cannot get a perfect judge. Someone is bound to be unhappy. The fillibuster is totally unnecessary here and would predictably lead to the "nuclear" option. Alito will be confirmed either way.

[JMGarcia]

I seriously doubt a fillibuster will happen. IMO the political point being made here is to talk about a fillibuster rather than actually do one. It is basically Democratic posturing to go on public record as being extremely displeased with the nomination.

[lofter1]

Alito Opposes Mo. Execution


By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
Feb 01, 2006

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGN8509.html

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservative Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

Earlier in the day, Alito was sworn in for a second time in a White House ceremony, where he was lauded by President Bush as a man of "steady demeanor, careful judgment and complete integrity."

He was also was given his assignment for handling emergency appeals: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. As a result, Missouri filed with Alito its request for the high court to void a stay and allow Taylor's execution.

The court's split vote Wednesday night ended a frenzied day of filings. Missouri twice asked the justices to intervene and permit the execution, while Taylor's lawyers filed two more appeals seeking delays.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

[BrooklynRider]

Well, I guess we are all on "Alito Watch" this term. I'm pleased, but not yet impressed. Of course, I know Alito is very concerned about what I might think.

[lofter1]

Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'

By JONATHAN EWING
Associated Press
Tue Feb 14, 2006

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_constitution;_ylt=AlEQp3xkeW2vGJCv.XphJgYGw _IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal.
Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press

[TLOZ Link5]

Somebody had better remind Scalia that abortions were legal in all the colonies, in addition to in the entire independent U.S. from 1776 to around 1820, so long as they occurred before the "quickening" – when the movement of the fetus could be felt.

For a Justice, I'm surprised that Scalia seems to have never heard of the Necessary-and-Proper, or "elastic," Clause. By his expert opinion, then, we should not have formed political parties, because there is no mention of it in the Constitution. The same goes for a federal minumum wage, the national park system, pollution controls, etc.

And my personal favorite: in Scalia's world, the airforce is unconstitutional, because Congress is only reserved the right to raise an army and a navy.

Gotta love McCollough v. Maryland.

[MidtownGuy]

Now that South Dakota has banned all abortions, hello Supreme Court.
This entire thing has been so predictable.