Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Samuel Alito ~ Senate Judiciary Hearing [LIVE THREAD] (Day-2)
Senate Judiciary ^ | 1-10-06 | Senate Judiciary

Posted on 01/10/2006 4:14:05 AM PST by OXENinFLA

ALITO CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

Questioning Begins Today

Each of the eighteen senators on the Judiciary Cmte. will have 30 minutes to question Supreme Court nominee Samual Alito today during round one. Sen. Arlen Specter, as chairman, will begin, then they will alternate by party in order of individual seniority. Round two starts on Wednesday.


Live Links

C-span

Judiciary LIVE LINK

FEDNET

CapitolHearings.org


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: 109th; alito; alitohearings; babykilling; bidenisamoron; feingoldstinks; feinsteinreeks; judicialnominees; judiciary; kennedysucks; penumbra; scotus; senate; super; superduper; superduperduper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 2,981-3,000 next last
To: Cboldt

Sounds like the old "stop on the name of the law" we used to hear on tv.
That means you get shot if you don't follow the order given by police.
Duh.


81 posted on 01/10/2006 6:25:33 AM PST by jackv (just shakin' my head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

More on the 1974 Memphis shooting - the Garner case ...

The case grew out of a police shooting of a burglary suspect in Memphis in October 1974. Memphis police officer Elton Hymon saw 15-year-old Edward Garner running from a house and shouted for him to halt. When Garner started to climb a chain-link fence in the backyard, Hymon shot him in the back of the head.

Garner, who was carrying $10 and a purse taken from the house, died at the hospital.

His father sued police and the city, arguing the shooting violated the teenagers Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The city countered that police were acting under state law and a department policy allowing the use of deadly force in burglary cases.

Asked to prepare a memo on whether the Reagan administration should intervene and how the case should be argued, Alito wrote, The shooting can be justified as reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

The young lawyer contended that a fleeing suspect in effect states to the police: Kill me or let me escape the legal process, at least for now.

He added, If every suspect could evade arrest by putting the state to this choice, societal order would quickly break down.

Alito argued against overturning the Tennessee law, but recommended that the administration stay out of the case.

Republished from AP

Apparantly, the memo is available too. I figure if this comes up, Alito will handle it fine in that he was a lwayer counseling his client (the government) as to its involvement in the case.
82 posted on 01/10/2006 6:26:06 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; mewzilla; ken5050; Harmless Teddy Bear; dervish; rmlew; Cacique; Tabi Katz
Why does that weaselly-faced, craven schmuck Charles Schumer even make a pretense of objectivity during this process?

I just don't get it.

Does he think there's some sort of incipient backlash brewing back home?

That if he's forthright about his opinion-as Rush Limbaugh suggested-and goes out and declares that he refuses to vote for anyone but an avowed socialist, that it'll redound to his detriment?

That the GOP will nominate a sacrificial lamb that might get 20% of the vote next time, instead of merely 18%?

Is there some sort of arrangement with C-SPAN whereby he receives more air-time if he invents a posture of fairness, rather than being up front, and displaying the raging partisan lunatic that almost all of us know him to be?

Or is lying just such a compulsion for him that he can't avoid doing it, even when it's completely unnecessary?

83 posted on 01/10/2006 6:27:10 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

84 posted on 01/10/2006 6:27:28 AM PST by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jackv
Sounds like the old "stop on the name of the law" we used to hear on tv.
That means you get shot if you don't follow the order given by police.

SCOTUS got involved, and invalidated the police policy to shoot fleeing burglars. But get this, O'Connor dissented ;-)

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in early 1985 that the Tennessee statute and department policy violated Fourth Amendment protections, setting a precedent forbidding the use of deadly force by police except in certain circumstances. Justice Byron White wrote the majoritys decision.

Three justices, including Sandra Day OConnor and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented, arguing the officer had to shoot in order to prevent Garners escape.


85 posted on 01/10/2006 6:28:07 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

about 9:30 eastern


86 posted on 01/10/2006 6:29:10 AM PST by d-informed-1 (i'm not very smart, so don't hold my thoughts against me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Why does that weaselly-faced, craven schmuck Charles Schumer even make a pretense of objectivity during this process?

I didn't notice the pretense ;-)

87 posted on 01/10/2006 6:29:58 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: All

Bump


88 posted on 01/10/2006 6:30:25 AM PST by tiredoflaundry (I'll admit it , I'm a Snow Flake !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

They're just getting started..


89 posted on 01/10/2006 6:30:56 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
oops, I didn't notice I didn't post the start time.

I thought it was in what I clipped from C-span..

90 posted on 01/10/2006 6:31:49 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Well, Specter sure shows his Pro-abortion stripes quick.


91 posted on 01/10/2006 6:34:22 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

It's sad that Alito, a Catholic, has to say things that are contrary to his religion in order to get a Supreme Court spot.


92 posted on 01/10/2006 6:35:18 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

He's so irritating. He did the same thing with Roberts.


93 posted on 01/10/2006 6:35:46 AM PST by ilovew ("We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom." GWB 12-14-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

How does this donkey keep getting elected?


94 posted on 01/10/2006 6:35:51 AM PST by jlasoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
I would just like to get this off my chest.....

Specter is a disgusting a$$. It makes me sick to hear him reduce a human life to an obstacle to a woman getting a good job.
95 posted on 01/10/2006 6:36:01 AM PST by msnimje (This space is currently undergoing maintenance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Specter comes out - and it is significant that at first, Alito said his conclusion was based on liberty clause of the Constitution, but just now, Alito added a comment thathe also found foundation in the 14th. Griswold was decided on multiple grounds, and the liberty clause foundation is the one less troublesome for those who despise judicial activism. Finding privacy in the 14th amendment is a stinker.

Listening for "superduper" or "super precedent" - so far Specter is avoiding those silly labels.

96 posted on 01/10/2006 6:36:06 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
Yea .. but at least Spector will ask questions and allow Alito to answer

The Dems will grandstand and accuse .. but won't give Alito the time to answer the question
97 posted on 01/10/2006 6:36:21 AM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Yea .. but at least Spector will ask questions and allow Alito to answer

He just interrupted Alito. You were saying?

98 posted on 01/10/2006 6:38:01 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
Well, Specter sure shows his Pro-abortion stripes quick.

I think this stripes are showing, but this takes a bit of the edge off the abortion issue if Kennedy, Fienstein , or Schumer were allowed to bring it up first.

99 posted on 01/10/2006 6:38:11 AM PST by Chuck54 ( "Happy people need no particular cause to be happy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

He keeps interrupting him though. Twice he hasn't let Alito finish his answer.


100 posted on 01/10/2006 6:38:26 AM PST by ilovew ("We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom." GWB 12-14-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 2,981-3,000 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson