Posted on 01/09/2006 1:20:18 PM PST by RWR8189
With the battle over the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court set to take center stage on Monday, the American people have undoubtedly become familiar in past weeks with his critics -- along with their criticisms, attacks and mischaracterizations.
If the best predictor of future behavior is past performance, then it is reasonable to expect that a host of rather predictable, knee-jerk criticisms -- which have already been refuted with fact -- will be leveled against this fine nominee in a misguided effort to discredit his qualifications.
As a preview of the coming debate, here is a guide to some of the charges one might expect to hear most often.
Judge Alito will be charged with supporting the ability of administration officials to order illegal wiretaps.
This charge will be leveled regardless of the fact that the case in question, Mitchell v. Forsyth, had nothing to do with the legality of wiretapping. In a 1984 memo, Judge Alito simply argued that the attorney general of the United States should not be held personally liable for money damages because there were other means to keep the activities of government officials in check.
Although the Reagan administration sought "absolute immunity" for the attorney general, Judge Alito advised the administration to seek only more limited "qualified immunity" instead, advice the administration ultimately rejected.
Judge Alito's recommendation of limited immunity was actually more moderate than the Carter administration's position in favor of absolute immunity in the very same case. In fact, President Carter's solicitor general was quoted in a Dec. 8, 1980 Associated Press story as saying: "absolute immunity is absolutely necessary" for both the president and his staff -- a broader position than that argued by Judge Alito in 1984.
Despite these facts,
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Cornyn needs to be the point-person on Bush's judicial nominations, to counter the knee-jerk, predictable opposition of the Dems' point-person, Putzy Schumer. Looks like Cornyn is filling that role.
Anyone else think todays bloviation toward Alito was a waste of time? Come on why all the grandstanding with allowing a response, what was the point of that?
IMO Cornyn flopped on MTP yesterday by letting Schumer hog the microphone thus failing to counter Chuckie's bogus arguments, particularly on the "one man, one vote" canard.
He's got a lot of credibility as a former Texas Supreme Court judge. He could be a nominee himself.
I don't think it was a waste of time. I watched the whole thing while doing my elliptical training at the gym, and found it very entertaining. Wolf Blitzer's commentary was hilarious. I hope the hearings drag on and on. I might lose a few pounds, and I don't need to bother bringing music or something to read.
He was also our Attorney General before running for the Senate.
"Letting" Schumer hog the mike?? Letting??
The only way that Cornyn or anybody else could keep Shmucky Schumer away from a mike or a camera would be to overpower him with brute force, hogtie and gag him, and physically drag him away from it. Personally, I would pay a fair amount of coin of the realm just to watch somebody do exactly that while videotape is rolling.
That's right. He should have shut it down after a decent interval and called it what it was. Instead, he just mildly protested that he was hopeful he was going to "get a chance" to answer the Chuckie's points. When he got his chance and Schumer interrupted, he should have squelched it right then.
He didn't. It's his own fault.
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.