Replies

"I'll have to read the transcript because Graham is going pretty fast . . ."

I so often wonder where the heck he is going with his questions, but in the end it usually makes sense. I look forward to seeing your analysis of the transcript.

Here is part of a minute by minute paraphrase at scotusblog. Good running commentary, linked somewhere above as well. It's in reverse time order, so read from the bottom, up.

I don't have any comments, other than to say Graham was rambling, and Alito seems to express a general appreciation for separation of powers (including civil rights, i.e., the power or rights of the people) and that the balance shifts depending on facts.

Alito seemed very deferential to the Senate during this line of questioning; but I think gave no hint as to his inclination in the various balances of power.

As I've said a couple time, IMO these hearings are not a proper venue to settle these issues, or even really delve into the legal principles and precedents that will drive where all this moves in the coming months and years. But, "so what" to that!

Again, big hat-tip to scotusblog

5:59: Graham wants to know what the process has been like and how to improve it. Alito says everyone is doing their job.
5:57: Graham - we shouldn't hold the lawyer responsible for the positions of their clients.
5:55: Could Congress set a super-majority requirement for judges? Alito says he shouldn't answer. Graham says he is glad Alito doesn't answer. Sigh.
5:53: The President and Congress should work together. What if the Congress attempted to appoint judges rather than the President. Alito, "I have a certain self-interest in the answer." (Badaboom. He doesn't have the timing of Roberts.)
(Again, thanks for the notes in the comments. It's good to know that I'm not here alone; there are 6 of us paying attention.) 5:52: Graham to Alito, "you don't have to listen, I'm talking to other people now."
5:51 On the AUMF, could a strict constructionist say that it is an exception to the warrant requirement. Alito says that a strict constructionist would interpret the law based on text, legislative history (which is interesting), past practice, and a host of considerations.
5:50: Alito says whether he is a strict constructionist depends on what that means. If it means someone who doesn't make things up, he's one.
5:48: Graham is on AUMF and says that it doesn't create an exception from FISA. He knows the issue may come before the Court, but what the heck. Graham says U.S. law already subscribes to the Convention Against Torture. He wants to know if the President can decide not to follow the law. Alito says again that the President has to follow constitutional statutes, and that he can construe statutes.
5:46: Graham wants to know if Geneva grants a private right of action. Alito says it is at issue in Hamdan; some treaties are self-executing and others aren't. Graham wants to know if Geneva has ever been read to create a cause of action; Alito doesn't know of a case, but isn't sure.
5:45: Graham wants to know if Alito thinks the Geneva Convention is good. Alito says yeah, but it's not really up to him. Graham wants to know if he is proud. Alito says it expresses deep American values.
5:44: Alito says courts don't have military affairs expertise and should recognize that, which is a powerful consideration, although there is another powerful consideration to exercise the jurisdiction they have. Graham says that traditionally courts don't run military jails.
5:42: Alito agrees that the judiciary doesn't have as much expertise on intelligence matters. But there is a balance between expertise and protecting individual rights. Graham says the military can make decisions about letting people go.
5:40: Graham turns to Eisentraeger. Graham says that the people trying to kill us, sue us, RIGHT?! Is that a good summary of the law. Alito says that he doesn't know "that he would put it that broadly." Eisentraeger has been substantially modified, if not overruled.
5:37: Graham wants to know if there is a constitutional right for a combattant to sue to challenge his confinement. Alito says there isn't a precedent. Graham asks about habeas challenges. Alito says there may have been a lower court decision. It's a trick question! Graham says there was: In re Quirin in the S. Ct. Alito now remembers, and does know the facts. (These issues are before the S. Ct. with respect to the Graham-Levin legislation [emphasis here on "Graham"] in the Hamdan case, which is probably what Alito should be saying.)
5:36: Graham wants to know traditionally who determines someone's status as a combattant. Alito says that Hamdi holds that a detainee has due process rights. But it doesn't decide the kind of tribunal. Graham wants to know if a court has ever decided status, rather than the President doing so. Alito can't but isn't an expert. Graham cares not a bit about the answers; he's on a role.
5:32: Graham is on Hamdi, and its holding with respect to the AUMF (the use of force statute). Graham asks whether the court can require the Executive to release a combattant at a time they could go back to the battlefield. Alito answers from the perspective of WWII, where the prisoners were held. They agree with each other that Hamdi gives the President discretion.
5:31: Alito says that the country has been at war, "in a lay sense." He is careful to distinguish the term of art. Alito acknowledges that the Bill of Rights survives in a time of war. The Constitution applies both in peace and war.
5:30: Graham wants to know if the 9-11 attacks were a crime or an act of war. Alito decides not to answer and to say that his personal views don't matter.