Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

I would suggest "nominate" is the better choice ....

agreed.

Re: Thomas


I think the issue has more to do with the admin's interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which wades in murky separation of powers waters. You disagree?

Re: Thomas


Not especially.

Re: Thomas


idisagree.
How is the President running the executive branch "wading in murky waters"?

He sets foreign policy,not the state dept.
He controls the military,not the congress.
He is constitutionally charged with those duties,not the congress or the courts.

As the President,he can nominate anyone he wants,even you,to the USSC if he wants. The Senate then votes to confirm or not.
That is their job.Bush is not trying to take that away from them.

So,how exactly is he "wading in murky waters?

Re: Thomas


The president (or his advisors, or both) appear to interpret "unitary executive" to grant Bush the right to interpret laws, determine their constitutionality, and either disregard them or issue an alternative interpretation of the laws counter to congressional intent. Since determining the constitutionality of laws when disputed is the responsibility of the Judiciary, and making laws is the responsibility of Congress, this interpretation of "unitary executive" wades in murky separation of powers waters.

Btw, the state department is part of the executive branch.

Re: Thomas

It depends which issue you address. In discussing the intentions of the Bush administration, I think it's a moot question. After all, they didn't study constitutional law with an open mind and concluded they can legitimately expand their powers. They knew what they wanted to achieve, and flouted whatever buzzword sounded vaguely helpful for the purpose. Advanced hermeneutics is futile in making sense of the Bush administration.

But there's another issue where such inquiries do make sense. Judge Alito has held at least one speech to the Federalist society in which he came accross as a supporter the unitary executive theory. Alito's definition, of course, is consistently similar to Tico's: He sees it as a theory about the internal structure of the executive, but not about the boundaries between it and the other branches of government. Liberal pundits have duly reported Alito's endorsement of the theory, but neglected to mention his understanding of it, for another example of "politically valuable misuse of language". In Alito's understanding, the unitary executive theory does not speak to things like warrantless wiretaps by the NSA. Therefore, you can make Alito look like a wannabe authoritarian by not reporting his support for the theory, but passing over how narrow Alito's definition of the theory is. The temptation proved irresistable to some.

Re: Thomas


There is such a thing as a "presidential finding",where the President can say that the law means what HE thinks it means.
It has been used several times in the past by various presidents,to circumvent a law to get things done.
Its nothing new.

I know the state dept is part of the executive branch.
But,there are dems complaining that the president is wrongly setting foreign policy.

Well, good for them, but I wasn't speaking to that.

Re: Thomas


Understood, but given the implication of the use of buzzwords by the admin, I can see how it could raise flags. It did for me as well, but I was mostly satisfied with his answers to those questions.

Yes, "the words mean exactly what we want them to mean".

... I just read the article BBB posted earlier, presumably in support of her "court packing" argument. It appears she didn't read the article before posting it.

LINK.

In defense of BBB, she did change her tone after I'd pointed out that her own source contradicted her.

The Wrong Questions - and the Wrong Questioners
The Wrong Questions - and the Wrong Questioners
By Alan Dershowitz
01.18.2006

As the Senate prepares to vote on Judge Alito's promotion to the Supreme Court, we should reflect on lessons learned from the deeply flawed process thus far and their implications for future nominations.

In four full days of questioning, the Senate Judiciary Committee was not able to elicit much useful information from Judge Samuel Alito.

To be sure, Alito deserves part of the blame for his evasiveness. Unlike John Roberts, who refused to answer questions on the ground that an issue might conceivably come before the Supreme Court, Alito preferred to hide behind what he called the "judicial decision-making process." Alito would have us believe that judges reach their opinions in a manner wholly distinct from the way in which everyone else thinks. Without hearing oral arguments, reading competing briefs, and meditating on an issue for hours alone in his chambers, Alito simply does not know what he thinks about the taste of Cherry Coke or the constitutional status of Roe v. Wade.

This is a man who will likely spend the next two or three decades as one of only nine Americans with the power to determine what the Constitution means for the entire country. It is astounding that he should be allowed to join the Court without identifying the political lens through which he will confront cases. Jeffrey Toobin put the issue perfectly when he noted, "[A]ll 18 of those senators on that [Judiciary] Committee had to answer when they ran for office, 'Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?' Yet the one person in that room who actually has something to say about whether Roe v. Wade gets overturned doesn't have to answer that question."

But the real trouble with the hearings is some of the senators themselves. Of course Judge Alito wants to say as little as possible, especially with a Republican majority ready to confirm. It is the job of the Judiciary Committee to cut through the nominee's reticence and force him to answer questions.

Why are the senators unable to conduct the sort of thoughtful and informative hearings that would best serve the public?

In the first place, too many senators view the hearings as a campaign opportunity instead of as a confirmation hearing. Almost the entire first day was taken up with Committee members' "opening statements," which would be more accurately described as stump speeches. Things didn't get much better when the questioning began. For example, Senator Biden, the first announced presidential candidate of the 2008 campaign, spent over two-thirds of his first 30-minute "questioning" session talking about himself. Columnist Richard Cohen catalogued just a few of the things we learned about Biden, including his ethnic roots, his views on Ivy League colleges, and his thoughts on Senator Feinstein's eyeglasses (he approves). Right wing Republican senators postured about abortion, religion, and family values. We learned virtually nothing about Judge Alito. With all the pandering, posturing, and platitudes, it's a wonder that Judge Alito was able to get a word in edgewise.

The second problem with senator questioning is that most senators are not competent to question an experienced federal judge on issues of constitutional law adjudication. They are neither well-enough versed in the minutia of recent Supreme Court cases, nor are they very good at examining witnesses. Any experienced trial lawyer will tell you that asking crisp, concise questions - each aimed at a single discrete fact - is the only way to control a hostile witness. The senators' meandering, multi-pronged questions allowed Alito to pick and choose which parts he wanted to answer, to speak vaguely, and sometimes to evade the questions altogether.

When Alito proved unresponsive, the senators didn't know how to ask follow-up questions. Experienced cross-examiners instruct aspiring attorneys never to "work from a list of questions, because there is no way to know what question to ask until you have heard the previous answer." But because their staff had apparently drafted the questions, the senators were largely incapable of deviating from what was written on the page. Even when Alito gave contradictory testimony, no one pointed out the inconsistencies. To give just one obvious example, in his opening statement, Alito emphasized that his personal beliefs and preferences play no part in his work as a judge. Later on, Alito said that when a discrimination case comes before him, "I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender." Well, which is it? Do Alito's personal beliefs and experiences matter or don't they? And if not - if personal beliefs are entirely irrelevant in Alito in his role as a judge - why did he refuse to answer questions about those beliefs?

Finally, as my colleague Bill Stuntz has pointed out, the Supreme Court's greatest impact on people's lives is not in so many of the sensational but largely symbolic areas of constitutional law (think: Ten Commandments displays), but rather in the field of criminal justice. "[T]he Supreme Court's most important job is not managing the culture wars. Regulating the never-ending war on crime is a much bigger task." Senators, however, are afraid to question nominees about their commitment to the rights of the accused. No politician wants to risk being seen as sympathetic to criminals or labeled "soft on crime."

The only way to remedy these problems is to get senators out of the questioning business. I propose that the Judiciary Committee take a page from other Congressional committees by hiring outside lawyers to conduct their hearings. They should bring in three or four first-rate trial lawyers with backgrounds in constitutional scholarship to ask the hard questions. Of course Committee members will consult with the litigators to ensure that they cover all the issues of concern to the senators. But during the hearings, the senators' job will be to listen and then to vote.

History provides instructive examples of committee lawyers helping conduct important Congressional hearings. Congress hired outside counsel to examine witnesses in both the Watergate and Iran Contra sessions. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are no less important. The next time a seat on the Court opens, the Judiciary Committee members should check their egos and hire lawyers who will force both the Committee and the nominee to put substance before spectacle.

Interesting piece written by one of America's most successful ambulance-chasing, self-promoting trial lawyers. His bottom line recommendation is that the Senate hire people like him to do the public questioning (on Television of course) of candidates for the supreme court -- surprise, surprise.

His claim in paragraph #2 that, unlike Roberts, Alito was "evasive" in avoiding responses by "hiding behind" the nee3ed (unfulfilled in the question) for the full "judicial decision-making process", is pure nonsense or possibly deliberate deceptiuohn. This is EXACTLY the same reservatiuon that Judge Roberts used to avoid answering.

The basic folly here is that some senators want advance assurances about how Judges will rule in future cases. This is not what was contemplated in the Constitution, and violates the very idea of an independent Judiciary. These Senators are, of course, free to vote as they wish on the nomination based on their suspicions, beliefs or preconceptions, but they should not use this farce to deny other Senators the right to vote as well.

I would also add that it's simply not true that Senators can't ask in the manner Dershovitz favors. Over the course of the recent confirmation hearings I have seen excerpts of the hearings of Rehnquist (for chief justice), Scalia, and Bork. Senator Leahy, in particular, has proven remarkably able to ask risp, concise questions aimed at a single, discrete fact. If he didn't ask them in the Roberts and Alito hearings, it must be because he didn't want to. Maybe he's already running for president. Maybe he found through experience that crisp, concise question did not get him the answers he wanted for some reason. Dershovitz doesn't even consider the possibility that senators might know something that he does not.

The judicial nomination process has had 210 years to evolve, and most of its features have stoood the test of time. It is safe to say that all easy improvements to it have already been made. Therefore I am skeptical of Dershovitz's suggestions.

DRUDGE Exclusive: Teddy's Last Gasp On Alito
Fri Jan 20 2006 13:29:15 ET

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) office is behind a last ditch effort to stop Judge Samuel A. AlitoÕs confirmation before next week's vote using a 2004 recusal request.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a complaint filed by H. Gerard Heimbecker of Upper Darby, PA accusing Alito of not properly listing the Heimbecker v. 555 Associates case in his Senate questionnaire.

Kennedy legal aide James Flug is behind the efforts to push this latest attack. The veteran aide has been criticized for Sen. Kennedy's misfires during the Alito hearing last week. Flug was reportedly behind the attacks Kennedy used against Alito related to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) and Vanguard recusal case.

In the 2004 case, Heimbecker not only filed a request for Alito to recuse himself but also the entire Third Circuit as well.

One Capital Aide aware the situation challenged Heimbecker's credibility. "The individual who filed this complaint is clearly a serial litigant. It will be interesting to see how far the Democrats will push this and what the mainstream media will make of it."

Developing...

When will this arrogant, hypocrite give up?

When the people of Massachusetts retire him, which I hope is in his next re-election. Then he can go live sumptuously on Marthas Vineyard with his lavish government retirement salary at our expense of course. Please note he never paid a dime into Social Security probably. Question, did Ted ever have a job besides some government position?

Why don't you get your facts BEFORE you attempt to smear someone?

What facts did I misrepresent? He is from Massachusetts I assume. I'm not sure if he would go to Marthas Vineyard to retire but he does have a place there doesn't he? And I think it is pretty nice and they live pretty high on the hog so to speak. And as a senator, does he pay into Social Security? I didn't think they did. And the pensions are supported by tax monies I assume. And I simply asked a question about other jobs, I'm not sure. I had no intent to smear him. I was simply expressing my desire that he would not be re-elected again, and he would then retire probably. Or maybe he would become a lobbyist I don't know. I am simply saying I don't like his politics and would hope the people would elect somebody else in his place. I thought that was a right that I should have?

If you like him, vote for him if you live in his state.