Please say a prayer for their loved ones and friends.
Also say a prayer for Protection for those serving in the military.
Its almost comedy listening to news and reading drudge like there is actually "news" going on. Most of the hearings so far have been as boring and dry as can be.
They try to make it seem like there is drama, but the news won't tell people the 2 most important facts. First the Rep party has enough votes to push him through regardless of what the Dems do, and 2nd- Does anybody think for even a second that they will try the fillibuster? I'm betting 100-1 odds they do not have the guts to even try.
I don't know if others have made this point to date, but here goes. Italians are a very unusual ethnic group in the U.S. in that for over a century now they have voted more or less 50/50 Dem/Rep. I suppose, but cannot document, that large Italian donors to political parties likely split the same way.
My point is that Teddy and the Dems are managing quite nicely to lose their 50% by the way in which they are approaching Alito. They are messing with the wrong judge and, certainly, with the wrong ethnic group. I would be willing to bet that hundreds and thousands of Italian donors to the Dems have called their respective committee leaders to tell them to shove it come next election. I would also bet that hundreds of thousands of Italians are permanently switching political parties as we speak and listen.
when does this hearing turn into an intervention for Ted Kennedy?
Schumer: Dear Ted, I like you but I can't condone your behavior. In the past couple years you've done things to hurt me and other people love you. If you can't get better, I can't be around you.
Grassley to the rescue - Courts handle cases and controversy. I think he's aluding to the "unitary executive" attack -- yep.
Maybe some of each, LOL.
At any rate, I'm getting a lot of work done this morning while everyone drones on....and on....and on......
Leni
So, Schmucky just said that he needed answers so he could draw a conclusion whether he would vote for or against Alito's nomination. What a schmuk! He has no intention of voting for anyone or thing set forth bt President Bush. What a a$$hole!
He's a little subdued. Raises the same issue that Feingold did about 3rd Circuit judges testifying; as well as apparant inconsistencies between opinions prepared by Alito.
January 12, 2006
Judge Alito's Confirmation Battle, The Unitary Executive ...
By Ronald A. CassThis phrase has been used repeatedly in the hearings, as Judge Alito has been queried about why he is a fan of the concept and why he gave remarks praising it to the Federalist Society. (Senate Democrats don't know much about the Society, but they regard it as a cross between the Freemasons and a satanic cult, only with better suits.) The typical exchange asks something like this: "Can you tell us, Judge Alito, why you favor a theory of government that removes any constraint on executive power and makes the President the unchecked, unreviewable authority over everything the government does?" Frequently, the questioner asks Judge Alito to defend the theory of "the unitary form of government." ...
Of course, the theory of the "unitary executive," as Judge Alito has explained ad nauseam, has nothing at all to say about the scope of executive power. It has nothing to say about how that power is granted or how it is checked.
Instead, the theory says that "the executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States." Those are, in fact, the words of the first clause in Article II of the Constitution. This means that the President is in charge of the executive branch and that executive power is to be given to people who work for - and are in important ways controlled by - the President. This means that Congress can't pass a law, even with the President's approval, giving executive authority to people who work for Congress or for the courts.
Taken seriously, the theory of the unitary executive would require some reorganization of the "independent" agencies, especially the Federal Election Commission and the US International Trade Commission, the two agencies most insulated from presidential control and most subject to legislative control. Taken seriously, the theory would have invalidated the Independent Counsel law, upheld in Morrison v. Olson over the prescient dissent of Justice Scalia. Democrats drafted the law in the 1970s and vigorously supported the law when it was challenged in the 1980s, but by the late 1990s they were reading verbatim from Scalia's critique. Go figure.
Theory and Practice: Re-trenching
Of course, this isn't where the story ends. The theory isn't the end of the story because, although Judge Alito finds it interesting and in some ways compelling, he doesn't decide cases on theory. He recognizes all of the Supreme Court precedents that pull away from the vision of a unitary executive, and says that he'll start from them, not from the theory, to resolve cases that come before him.
That's pretty much the same answer Judge Alito has given in every area. He understands the theory, but he's going to start with the cases and the Constitution, with what the document says and what other judges have said. It's the standard way judges approach the job.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_12_06_RAC.html
Well qualified, with unanimity and one recusal (somebody who worked with him, likely). Goal is qualified and objective judiciary.
Good testimony from the judge - his responses to questions from DEMs will be fun.
Thank You GWB !
Ironically, he cited Tennessee v. Garner, a USSC case decided in 1985, ironic, because Justice O'Connor wrote a dissenting opinion that is in agreement with the memo that Professor Lieu (sp?)cited.
Garner was a 15-year-old burglar shot by Tennessee police after they shouted for him to halt and after he began to climb over a fence to get away. Tennessee law, as was as a number of other states, allowed the use of deadly force in situations like that. Justice O'Connor, whom Judge Alito would be replacing, was of the same mind as Judge Alito, though both were in the minority.
got ping?
Poll lower right of page; fun place to poll; very liberal paper
http://www.news-journalonline.com/
I was watching today's session on CSPAN. At the end of today's session Sen. Kennedy turned to Sen. Specter and said words to the effect that he'd like to have a couple of letters inserted into the record at an appropriate time. Sen. Specter basically said he would do that. One of the letters, Sen. Kennedy said, was from the National Association of Women's Lawyers.
Here is something I found on their web site that I suspect parallels what will be conveyed in that letter. National Association of Women's Lawyers
"JANUARY 8, 2006 -- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS ("NAWL") ISSUES EVALUATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL A. ALITO FOR THE POSITION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Chicago, IL
The National Association of Women Lawyers ("NAWL"), Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees, has evaluated Judge Samuel Alito for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Committee has determined that Judge Alito is not qualified to serve on the Court from the perspective of laws and decisions regarding women's rights or that have a special impact on women.
NAWL's rating of not qualified from a women's rights perspective is the result of its evaluation of Judge Alito's writings, including his judicial record. On those women's rights issues that he has addressed, Judge Alito has shown a disinclination to protect or advance women's rights."
What gives the National Association of Women's Lawyers the audacity to "assume" that they speak for all women, or even the majority of women, when apparently their views represent only a fringe group of radical, gender feminists who are clearly out of the mainstream?
It appears to me that rich, privileged, women in America's gender feminist fringe are a little hypocritical to be alleging (pretending) to understand the motivations of mainstream American women.
I certainly hope someone reads statements into the record, in support of Samuel Alito, from the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America.
From the NY Times:
"The chances of a Democratic filibuster faded after the third day of hearings, as a spokeswoman for Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate Republican, announced that Ms. Snowe would oppose it. Her decision is pivotal because she was one of seven Republicans who had joined an earlier successful effort to block Republican leaders from changing Senate rules to prevent filibusters against judicial nominations."