Posted on 01/11/2006 11:11:20 AM PST by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON, D.C.--In the first hours of Samuel Alito's Senate confirmation hearings on Monday, Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, may very well have irreparably compromised himself.
At the hearing, Graham told Alito, nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, that he had already decided in Alito's favor. "I don't know what kind of vote you're going to get, but you'll make it through. It's possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won't even try to challenge you along those lines."
That certainly ought to be the case. Graham is one of a group of Republicans who have been coaching Alito behind the scenes. The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reported before the hearings began:
"On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the 'gang of 14' who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House.''
The coaching session for Alito has raised a few eyebrows.
"Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee," writes Think Progress, a project of the American Progress Action Fund. "It could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator."
Writing about the Alito situation, Think Progress cites Senate Rule 37 in the Senate Ethics Manual. The rule says: "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties."
Think Progress further cites the ethics manual, saying that language has been interpreted as prohibiting "compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual's Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties."
If this is true, how can Graham make an impartial decision about Alito based on what he learns at the Alito hearings? Graham has already made up his mind.
Unlike, say, Sens. Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, Feinstein, etc, etc, etc.
"Nobody in the room is making an impartial decision."
An "impartial decision" is like a "jumbo shrimp".
I bet you don't hear really anything about this. This is the first I've heard about it. It's obviously nothing.
Isn't the Village Voice and the Daily Worker published by the same communist cell?
Yeah, like the Village Voice is going to say anything positive about Alito or his confirmation.
True.
Add to that that there will be witnesses in opposition to Alito.... just wondering whether any senator speaks to such witnesses prior to their testimony....
Funny:
Stalking Specter
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 01/11 02:05 PM]
Everyone watching the hearings on TV or in person could see Arlen Specter being approached (and seemingly not at all happy about it) as soon as he got up from his seat for lunch. That man was a Kennedy staffer, James Flug, who Bob Novak wrote about here in August — about the Kennedy-Flug campaign against Bill Pryor among others.
See, Flug has (in the past - possibly today as well) been "wired" via earphone directly to Kennedy during Congressionial hearings. Is that "coaching" or teleprompting?
Who pays Flug's salary?
The senators duty is to "advise and consent", thats his constitutional obligations, there is nothing in there saying he is, has to, or even should, make an impartial decision.
Think Progress cites Senate Rule 37 in the Senate Ethics Manual. The rule says: "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties."
If he took a bribe or got paid, its not just unethical, its criminal.
Is there any evidence he got paid or recieved some kind of compensation?
saying that language has been interpreted as prohibiting "compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual's Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties."
So you didn't like the original rule, so you now say it means something else, interesting approach.
But alas, again, his job is to advise and consent, and mock trials do not, even under the loosest standards fit any of the above categories, nor is this article even accurate to say he coached, as they have no evidence he did so or statements that he did so, in fact, you have to infer that he did, while its just as easy to infer that he played a hardass who grilled Alito with tough questions and has made his mind up from previous questions and answers.
it's john podesta.....any Qs?
```That man was a Kennedy staffer, James Flug```
brit said this guy whispered Qs into an earpiece teddy wore when brit testified
The idea that Alito would need or want the coaching of any of the 100 mental midgets in the Senate, 'rat or Republican, is preposterous. Maybe the could teach how to give dull, discursive speeches with no actual content while saying "uhm" every three seconds.
Alito is eating the dimbulbs for breakfast so far.
"Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee," writes Think Progress, a project of the American Progress Action Fund. "It could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator."
Who the hell cares what these Morons think?
They are Pinko leftists.
Alito will win.
Why would a senator be held to making an impartial decision about anything; except in areas of impeachment of elected officials, and defending and upholding the Constitution? - tom
To all the damn bears it sure would. I mean their sense of smell is like a thousand times better than ours. The only upside is their own farts smell extra rosy, LOL.
If your not a homo leftist commie pole smoker the Village Voice is definitely not for you.
Who's coaching Schumer & Kennedy?
MoveOn.org? People For The American Way? The ACLU?
Where's the coverage of that coaching??
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.