Posted on 01/11/2006 10:06:02 PM PST by smoothsailing
The calm judge and the angry senator
Published January 12, 2006
It was a stunt, and it failed in ways that prove how Senate Democrats have tossed reason out the window when it comes to Judge Samuel Alito. When the facts don't support you, get dramatic.
Around noon yesterday, during what were until then smooth and uneventful hearings, an angry Sen. Ted Kennedy demanded that 30-year-old documents about the now-defunct Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP, be entered in the record. Would Republicans try to keep the documents from view? Would the documents reveal damning facts about Judge Alito? On both accounts, the answer was no.
After lunch, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent aides to retrieve the documents -- the private papers of longtime National Review publisher and onetime Concerned Alumni of Princeton leader William Rusher -- which are housed in the Library of Congress. The documents -- internal correspondence, magazines, minutes of meetings and other items -- would show whether Judge Alito was an active member of a group which, over the years, counted among its members at least a few people who made racist or sexist statements in CAP's publication, Prospect.
The answer was no. Seven weeks ago, New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick found that the documents contain little or nothing about Judge Alito. The judge was not "among the group's major donors," Mr. Kirkpatrick found. "He was not an active leader of the group, and two of his classmates who were involved and Mr. Rusher said they did not remember his playing a role." Another member appeared on Fox News to confirm that. To judge by Mr. Kennedy's fiery accusations, though, he is bargaining that most viewers haven't read the article.
Why even talk about all this? The only...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
A few notes from the recent break at the Alito hearings:
Republicans believe that Sen. Kennedy, in his desire to spark a confrontation and bring the hearings to life, made a tactical blunder by confronting Chairman Arlen Specter and demanding a subpoena for the Rusher papers. But the real key to Kennedy's embarrassment, aides say, is Rusher himself. Republicans were not inclined to agree to a subpoena for the papers, which could have allowed Democrats a period of time to charge that Alito and GOP were hiding something. But Rusher's quick agreement to make the papers available -- they are being copied and examined now, apparently -- called Kennedy's bluff and will likely put an end to the whole thing. "It's over," says one Republican aide.
Meanwhile, Alito's opponents are increasingly placing their hopes in what they believe is Alito's growing "credibility problem," and they apparently believe they can still reap some additional benefit from continuing to push the CAP and the Vanguard issues. "The credibility gap that existed before the hearing has become a credibility chasm," People for the American Way head Ralph Neas said outside the hearing room. "Judge Alito has a profound problem both on substance and credibility grounds," said Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. And yet another anti-Alito activist said credibility is now a key issue for Alito. The question now, of course, is whether the activists can keep Democratic senators on the attack if it appears that the CAP/Vanguard strategy is going nowhere. Already, there is a sense of rapidly diminishing energy in the hearing room.
Finally, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said that "Sen. Kennedy is the gift that keeps on giving, from my point of view."
Poor old Ted, have a drink, calm down, don`t worry, you will still be in the Senate, no matter how stupid you are.
ROFL!
Funny, until you realize, that Teddy has a vote in the Senate
There is an age-old maxim in trial/hearing practice.
If the facts don't support you, argue the law. If neither the facts nore the law supports you, attack your opponent.
That's all we saw today, and the Republican team played it perfectly, all the way from Chairman Specter setting the Kennedy bombast trap, to Grassley's apt reference to the losing team tossing hail mary's, to Graham's shared emotion with Alito's spouse.
The hearing is going better than I expected any hearing following the Roberts' hearing could go. It's been an absolute thing of beauty.
For the sake of the judge and his family I don't want that, but Hannity made a point, just like Graham did.
They first went for the idealogue angle, and trusted that too much given the fact that Ginsburg's on the court already. Then, as Grassley pointed out, in the 4th quarter they are tossing anything up for grabs.
A bunch of bombastic, incredible losers attacking Alito as incredible is an incredibly bad idea that I have to believe they were warned against, but decided to pursue anyway, because there was no other hope.
Tough luck for the lot of 'em.
but teddy sent his 'boys' over to the LOC tonight to rummage through those documents.
maybe he called mary mapes too, eh?
We're dealing with some very sick people here.
i agree
he's been remarkable, imo.
and watching and listening to it all, I realize all over again why people like us aren't EVER going to make it in the political world.
talk about self control.
we'd be under arrest.
You're absolutely right. The Republicans are doing much better than I expected.
I made the point to my wife today that Feingold asked a question that Alito could easily answer: "Yes, I would rule the same way on the Supreme Court." But Alito showed his thoughtfulness while adressing, at length, the pithy, unthoughtful reaction by Feingold to his own substantive question of law, while Feingold replied by answering his own question himself. It was a petty and accusatory question.
It was just one moment of many that have demonstrated Alito's thoughtfulness and forthrightness, particularly in contrast to his accusers.
As far as making it goes, in whatever context it arises, I trust Lombardi. Virtue never fades!
Actually, I'm surprised Alito didn't burst out laughing at them.
I've never excelled at proof-reading!
Errata
Alito showed his thoughtfulness while adressing, at length, the subtantive question of law, while Feingold offered only the obvious, pithy, unthoughtful response to his own question. And on....
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.