Samuel Alito ~ Senate Judiciary Hearing [LIVE THREAD] (Day-3)

Senate Judiciary ^ | 1-11-06 | Senate Judiciary

[OXENinFLA]

Day 3: Questioning Continues

This morning, Round 1 concludes with Senators on the Judiciary Cmte. who did not question nominee Alito yesterday. During Round 2, questioning is limited to 20 minutes for each of the eight- een senators. Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) leads off, followed by the others, alternating by party in order of seniority.

WEDS., 9:30AM ET, C-SPAN

---

Live Links

C-span

Judiciary LIVE LINK

FEDNET

CapitolHearings.org

[OldFriend]

Remember Kennedy during the Ashcroft hearings. He stated that he was afraid tht because Ashcroft was religious he wouldn't be able to perform his job as Attorney General.

Every dem senator went after Ashcroft's religious beliefs.

SICKENING

[small voice in the wilderness]

lol. That's byrd's #2 problem. His floor speech novels aren't always edited for content!

[OldFriend]

Your insistence upon defending the indefensible is misplaced. Try the local branch of your KKK, they'll welcome you with open arms.

[milagro]

Thanks--I think our Pubbies need to point this out--often and loudly!

[maica]

Why does no one point out that if Roe is declared unconstitutional it will then go to the States to decide their own laws on abortion.

I was hoping for this statement earlier. Perhaps Alito considers it too political.

[Txsleuth]

I have gotten the distinct impression that the Dems know that they have no chance to keep Alito off of the court...

And they knew that going in....so they are using this "hearing" as campaign commercials for their side...

and when this goes to the SENATE..watch OUT---Kerry and Hillary will bloviate all over the place out "presidential power"...and the other topics that will important in the Congressional and POTUS races..

[Chuck54]

UNITARY...........Yawn

[milagro]

AND ILLEGAL!! Please--hoist the Dems on their own petards on this one!

[Cboldt]

Why? What's so wrong about doing your job until you are replaced? I know she's bad news for the Constitution, but I don't find anything wrong with the WAY she's retiring.

Not putting a date certain on the retirement provides uncertainty and opportunity for prolonged politicing the retirement that would not otherwise be there.

I wrote more about it a few months ago, but don't have a quick handle on the posts.

I found it ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513922/posts ... check posts 27, 36, 44, 47, 59, and 98.

... what her "hanging on" does do is reinforce the false premise that there is some duty to preserve status quo ante of the balance or makeup of the SCOTUS. That each nominee should mirror the philosophy of his or her predecessor.

[saveliberty]

It relates to fund raising for them and may help them with some Bush Derangement Syndrome voters this year.

But if they did make a significant hit, they would go in for more to do as much harm as possible

[LisaFab]

I have gotten the distinct impression that the Dems know that they have no chance to keep Alito off of the court... And they knew that going in....so they are using this "hearing" as campaign commercials for their side...

Winner!

[ilovew]

I think the dims were going to argue that regardless of when Justice O'Connor left.

[pgyanke]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I simply see it as not leaving a vacancy during hearings. Maybe I'm too simple-minded.

[OldFriend]

If Rehnquist had not passed away we would not be having this hearing nor this discussion about the how and when O'Connor finally leaves the stage.

Suddenly there were two openings and the Meiers matter took time as well.

[SE Mom]

Alito has to explain the concept of power to Leahy.

[mike182d]

LOL! Sorry! I forgot since I was not posting a photo of she who must not be named

You mean Lord Hildemort?

[LisaFab]

Leahy takes a shot at Nixon and Bork. Brings up the "Saturday Night Massacre." Sigh, those were the days the libs pine for!

[saveliberty]

LOL LOL LOL!

Perfect!

Am I allowed to borrow it?

[milagro]

Please correct me if I'm wrong--but I have not heard ONE commentator discuss the Title 7 implications of citing religious or moral beliefs (creeds) as basis for denying confirmation of a candidate for the Supreme Court. I think it would be a great way to to bitch-slap the Dems with the "crushing hand of the LAW"!!

[saveliberty]

I don't know if Leahy will understand it. LOL!