"Wooosssa....wooosssaaa...." (From "Bad Boys 2")
Posted on 11/13/2005 10:21:38 PM PST by indianrightwinger
Alito's Sock Drawer If you can't beat him on philosophy, try ethics.
Monday, November 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito must be sailing toward Senate confirmation. We say this because his opponents--who know they can't beat him on credentials or judicial philosophy--are now rolling out the "ethics" machinery.
The eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote last week to the chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals demanding more information about Judge Alito's participation in a 2002 case called Monga v. Ottenberg. On Thursday, Chairman Arlen Specter urged the nominee to give a "full public response" on this and another business case in which he participated even though, Mr. Specter wrote, "it is my conclusion that there has been no impropriety on your part." You can say that again.
Bear with us while we recount a few of Monga's gory details, for that's the only way to understand how absurd the conflict-of-interest accusations are. The case concerns a litigious widow, Shantee Maharaj, who was trying to get a federal court in Philadelphia to enjoin the Vanguard investment company from paying her late husband's creditors, as ordered by a Massachusetts state court. The court had found that the IRAs her husband had set up--some of which were invested in Vanguard mutual funds--were the product of fraud and therefore should be available to pay creditors.
The federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed the case, which then went to the Third Circuit, where Judge Alito sat on the three-judge panel that unanimously dismissed it. Next stop was the Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. It was at this point that Ms. Maharaj claimed that Judge Alito should have recused himself because he was invested in mutual funds managed by Vanguard.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Dems and RINOs scraping the bottom of the dumpster again.
Okay, everyone. Close your eyes, calm your minds, and take a deep breath. Feel that? Try again. There it is. That faint, sweet tinge is the feeling of sheer p-a-n-i-c from the Left. They are on the ropes, and we're a single jab from a knockout.
At this point I think it's safe to say that the overturning of Roe v. Wade is now coming rather soon, and the Left knows it too. They can't get Bush out before 2009 no matter what they do. Once their "swing vote" is gone, that might be it for them.
After that, of course, it's not yet over. It will fall to the States, and some will undoubtedly vote to make it legal. Many of those states will be in the northeast, with a high percentage of Catholic populations and legislators.
I wonder which legislator will be the first to be excommunicated, and what the reaction of fellow Catholics will be.
Breathe deep. Feel the panic.
(Statement issued by Sen. Arlen Specter on Thursday, Nov. 18 [2004]. Specter's potential chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary committee is strongly opposed by conservatives, and he has spent the past week seeking the support of his Republican colleagues.)
I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees.I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist after he voted against Roe v. Wade. Similarly, I have voted to confirm pro-life nominees Justice Scalia, Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy. And I led the successful fight to confirm Justice Thomas, which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.
I have assured the president that I would give his nominees quick committee hearings and early committee votes so floor action could be promptly scheduled.
I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor. And I have no reason to believe that I'll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination.
I believe I can help the president get his nominees approved, just as I did on confirmation of two controversial Pennsylvania circuit court nominees, when other similarly situated circuit nominees were being filibustered.
I have already registered my opposition to the Democrats' filibusters with 17 floor statements and will use my best efforts to stop any future filibusters.
It is my hope and expectation that we can avoid future filibusters and judicial gridlock with a 55-to-45 Republican majority and election results demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Democratic filibusters.
If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes.
I intend to consult with my colleagues on the committee's legislative agenda, including tort reform, and will have balanced hearings with all viewpoints represented.
I have long objected to the tactic used in bottling up civil rights legislation in the Judiciary Committee when it should have gone to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Accordingly, I would not support committee action to bottle up legislation or a constitutional amendment, even one which I personally opposed, reserving my own position for the floor.
"Wooosssa....wooosssaaa...." (From "Bad Boys 2")
LOL, now I have to go watch that again.
See my PING list on the Santorum threads. Don't be too cocky, the Democrats have one our best conservative senators in their sites... If the Dems have a good 2006, then the Senate will get even worse than it is already, meaning almost useless for the conservative agenda due to the RINOs being the swing votes.
Yes, the left is down, but they are not out. Yes, they are panicking, but they also have the bit between the teeth, they see a majority of Americans believing that Bush 'lied' to go to war in Iraq (biased pollaganda but that's their belief).
R v W is 2 votes away from being overturned, even Alito wont change that arithmetic. And if the conservative tide ebbs, we may not get the chance you hope for.
So its important not to lose the 2006 senate races.
Specter doing the dirty work for the dems. Despicable.
Well, in this case it may work in Alito's favor. Specter also has said he is favorably disposed to Alito's argument that there was no conflict of interest.
I posted a WSJ editorial earlier, which nails this issue and explains clearly why it is a non issue. You can read it at opinionjournal.com.
Wonder if that pillar of rectitude, Chuckie Schumer, has Alito's credit report yet...
Still Specter is acting like the demorats advocate. All this stuff could come out at the hearings but Specter is telling Alito to come clean. What a crock. If Specter wanted this stuff to come out now he could have had the hearings earlier, but no, he puts it off until January so the demorats have more time to secure smear material.
No, they don't! You must not have seen their unsigned editorials on the situation in France.
This whole idea of recusing oneself can be extended and extrapolated so that no judge could sit on any case anywhere...if taken to an extreme.
Vanguard gets nothing out of this. Only the creditors. So how does Alito having a Vanguard account have anything to do with the creditors?
These, on the surface, appear to be the actions of a defrauder, and the widow is attempting (if I understand correctly) to sidestep creditors and fraud on behalf of her husband.
Excuse me, the law is clear on these things. Stick a fork in it!
They will find a mirror at bottom of the dumpster that reflects their image.Best for them to not go there. Simply vote him down if that's what they wish. But do vote up or down on Judge Alito.
I am hearing almost no intrest in fillibuster. So hopefully the hearings go on and he is put to the floor vote without a bunch of delay by the left wing hate mongers.
Yesterday was spent covering the fact that they got a document that says he was "opposed to abortion" well DUH. Why do they think the President chose him. Egads these democrats are nuts.
Nope. Even after Alito and Roberts are confirmed, there are five firm pro-abortion votes on the Court--Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Kennedy, and Breyer.
So even assuming that Alito and Roberts will vote to overturn Roe--a big assumption, especially with Roberts--there is still no majority to roll back all the right of privacy nonsense.
When one of the remaining five leaves the court or dies, then all hell will break loose politically and genuine control of the Court will be at-issue. That's why conservatives need to weigh in big time in 2006. We cannot have a depleted majority in the Senate because the big judicial battle isn't here yet.
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.