Samuel Alito ~ Senate Judiciary Hearing [LIVE THREAD] (Day-2)

Senate Judiciary ^ | 1-10-06 | Senate Judiciary

[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

[minus_273]

ugh Super Precident. I'm waiting for SUPER DOUBLE SECRET Precident

[Cboldt]

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

Specter is doing a good job. He is setting a good example - he isn't making acusations, and his questions are specific with well defined context and substance.

Alito is giving good answers re: stare decisis and reliance by the public; but I think was vague at the end of that. Not to worry, he'll be grilled on stare decisis a few times today.

The Miranda rule is one of convenience for the courts - it creates a bright line that is easy to judge. The alternative (to Miranda) creates a matter of judgement for the court as to whether or not a confession was voluntary. Scalia talked about this in Dickerson ...

Today's judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops' Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today's decision does not pretend that it is--and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people's representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision--especially a celebrated decision--that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.

I dissent from today's decision, and, until §3501 is repealed, will continue to apply it in all cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's confession was voluntary.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428 (2000)

Dang - there goes super precedent and super stare decisis.

Specter advocates having the Court adopt and decide social hot button issues, and has said so. THis is a popular approach for legislators becuase it gets them off the hook of accountability.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I think Hatch and Graham's vocal intention to vote for Alito before he even answers any questions is just as inappropriate as Senators Kennedy and Schumer's vocal intention NOT to vote for him.

[LisaFab]

Super duper precedents? "It reminds me of laundry detergent."

[Pyro7480]

UGH! Here's that bloody chart again!!!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Just an FYI

STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.

[Clint N. Suhks]

jim crow was super duper Arlan

[ilovew]

Everyone had made up their mind before the hearings. And this is more about his job as a judge. What he says in the hearings will only affirm that.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

His 1985 statement: Alito: "That was a correct statement based on what I thought at that time..."

They want to ask him his personal view on abortion but they ought not be able to. You have to rule based on law, not personal beliefs.

[LisaFab]

Same chart, different day.

Mrs. Alito looks like she's constantly counting to ten and/or biting her inner lips to avoid scowling.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Yup; Kennedy is sitting over there stewing about his personal attacks he is about to launch. Watch; he will make it personal today.

[Elpasser]

Why can't they know they're going to support him yet? The man's been on the bench in the 3rd Circuit for 15 years. If we don't know him by now, then a 2 day hearing is not going to do anything for us. People ought to pretty much know whether they support him or not based upon his lengthy record.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Specter advocates having the Court adopt and decide social hot button issues, and has said so. THis is a popular approach for legislators becuase it gets them off the hook of accountability."

I this is among the many reasons that I am very uncomfortable with Specter as the head of the judiciary committee. It's not just his pro-life stance, it's his judicial philosophy.

[GOP_Lady]

I'm just so bored of the Rowe v. Wade questions.

[Crawdad]

All he needs to say is, "I think it would be great if there were no abortions." Who could argue with that?

[Cboldt]

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.

Takes the edge off, and Specter is both committed to the pro-choice agenda, and a skilled inquisitor. He doesn't seem to be trying to lay any rhetorical traps. In fact he is being helpful, softballing questions on hard subjects.

Very good to highlight the difference between being an advocate and being a judge.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

"A judge doesnt have an agenda; a judge has to follow the law"

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

And now a word from our real Sponsors of Free Speech

The Men and Women who serve,
and have served, our country
are the ones who make sure that
the Politicans and Judges are free to do their job.

We would not have a US Supreme Court
without the protection of the Military.

Politicans and Judges are safe
because of the Military who protect them.

TEST : Call your Senator or Congressman's office
AFTER 5 PM, or on the weekend.
IF you speak to an actual person, ask who's in charge today?

Now look up the phone number
of your local military base.
Call that number 24/7
and ask the live voice you get
to speak with the person in charge.

Send a Thank You while you enjoy your Freedom also.

[Carolinamom]

Kennedy has certainly changed HIS position on abortion. In 1971 he was adamently AGAINST it.

[Brytani]

I missed Brit's interview with Jane Harmon this weekend. Can you give a condensed version?