Samuel Alito ~ Senate Judiciary Hearing [LIVE THREAD] (Day-5)

Senate Judiciary ^ | 1-12-06 | Senate Judiciary

[OXENinFLA]

5th & Final Day of Hearings

This morning, the Senate Judiciary Cmte. convenes for a final session in the nomination hearings of Judge Samuel Alito. Outside witnesses who did not testify at yes- terday's hearings are given an opportunity to offer their opinions on the nominee. The Cmte. meets again to vote, either to approve or reject, on Tues., Jan. 17

FRI., 9:00AM ET, C-SPAN

Live Links

C-span

Judiciary LIVE LINK

FEDNET

CapitolHearings.org

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Thurmond?

I didn't know that.

I think almost all of the senators who voted against Breyer are either retired or in the process of retiring from the Senate.

I hope that we don't see the same behavior in the future, if-God forbid-another Dem. president has the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the SC.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

All of the above.

[BigSkyFreeper]

OK, you're right. The vote was 96-3, and the "not voting" party was Riegle (D-MI).

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Good luck!

Hope I'm not too late.

:)

[Hoodat]

Will Ramsey Clark take a break from Saddam's trial to testify against Alito?

[STARWISE]

I couldn't regurgigate the many and varied graphic names he elicits in me and still be here ;) ...

[STARWISE]

regurgigate = reGURGITATE -- although, we could have a whole new "gate" here .. LOL.

[saveliberty]

John Roberts rocks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557633/posts

[andyland]

Actually I would like to know what happened today as well. I've been out all day...

[Peach]

Hi, Ali. I wasn't around a lot but did catch some of the people who testified against Alito. They weren't as nutty as I thought they'd be--they seemed resigned. LOL

That doesn't mean they didn't say that Alito would set back women's rights and civil rights, etc. Samo samo.

It sounds like Specter is going to hold firm to the 17th to get the vote out of committee, although there is a possibility that Leahy will talk him into a week's extension. It's permissable under the rules but I'm unclear if when another deal was struck a month ago which postponed the hearings until after Christmas if Specter was smart and made that deal with the proviso that there would be no more delays.

[msnimje]

1:10 Leahy says that Judiciary Committee democrats will delay the vote for one week; he's concerned about scheduling conflicts that might interfere with a full and fair hearing.

HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT!!! Specter and Leahy added the week delay into the FRONT of the Schedule. It is on tape on C-Span.

[Torie]

Chaffee said there was no "extraordinary circumstance," so to me that implies he will press the nuke button if team Reid does a filibuster on Alito.

[Cboldt]

Specter and Leahy added the week delay into the FRONT of the Schedule. It is on tape on C-Span.

Yup. But it was a gentleman's agreement, a "good faith" agreement in Specter's parlance. Reading the below, it appears this good faith agreement was reached after consultation with ALL of the members of the Committee.

I suggest, since the DEMs will try to hide which of them demands another week, that the request be assigned as having come from EACH and EVERY one of them. Reid has asked ALL of the Dems to avoid committing to votes before Wednesday the 18th, so it is fair to have a presumption of "guilt" if you will on all of them.

Aired November 3, 2005 - 17:00 ET

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We don't know what is -- our staff has been stretched very, very thin, having given up August, and we had to go through a very difficult scheduling process to have Chief Justice Robert seated by October 3. But we did that.

And we had a difficult process with Ms. Harriet Miers. And we finally worked that out with the consent of Senator Leahy to start on November 7. And I said to Pat a few minutes ago, after all these years of training and practice, I've turned in to be a professional scheduler. That's all I do is schedule.

So we have -- we have worked through the process, and my preference on a starting date is January 2, which would have given us hearings on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th, with an exec on Tuesday the 10th, and floor action on the 11th, 12th, and a vote on the 13th. But that allows for a week's holdover as a matter of right by any senator.

And January 2 is a difficult day. Technically it's a holiday. We could work on a holiday around here if we really had to, and it also implicates Hanukkah, I'm told. But we could have done that. But at any rate...

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: Not me. I'm not going to give up Hanukkah.

(LAUGHTER)

SPECTER: But at any rate, Senator Leahy and I have worked through it. And since it could be delayed for a week in any event by any senator who wants to hold it over for a week, that we would put that week back at the start on the 9th, with the good faith understanding that our intent would be to go to an executive committee meeting on the 17th, the day after Martin Luther King holiday, so that the schedule will be -- we'll start hearings on -- at noon on the 9th, and we'll have them Tuesday the 10th, Wednesday the 11th, Thursday the 12th, Friday the 13th, Saturday the 14th, if necessary.

We will then go to exec on the 17th. And here we can't get everybody bound in writing to waive it in advance. But Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter have had no problems, nor have anybody on the committee, of not fulfilling what we have said we would do as a matter of good faith intent, which will put the executive session on the 17th.

We finish that with Chief Justice Roberts in the morning. And then we would go to the 18th, 19th and 20th for floor debate, with a vote on the 20th.

Now, that will require senators coming back. And Senator Frist has been apprised of this every step of the way, as has Senator Reid.

Senator Frist, Reid, Senator Leahy and I met earlier today, and there are a lot of people to consult.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/03/sitroom.03.html

[Graymatter]

Here's Pat Buchanan's happy dance from msnbc.com

"As of mid-day in the third day of hearings, the winners are Alito, the conservatives who derailed Harriet Miers, and the President who took his rout on Miers like a man and sent back a judge who is everything a Supreme Court nominee should be: a person of character, deep knowledge and judicial temperament whose polestar is the Constitution and now some mushy liberal concept what our world ought to look like."

[ken5050]

He won't vote to sustain a filabuster, but he may well vote against him on the up or down vote..He has 3 dem opponents..all are very pro-choice.....RI is a very liberal state...but in the GOP primary..against a popular conservative oponent..all bets are off..

[Cboldt]

A quick timeline of events relating to SCOTUS nominations in 2005. There really weren't many gaps where President Bush waited to announce a decision.

• Jul 01 - O'Connor announces retirement.
  Bush says he'll nominate a successor after meeting with G-8.
• Jul 19 - Roberts nominated to be Associate Justice.
• Sep 03 - Chief Justice Rhenquist passes away.
• Sep 05 - Roberts nominated to be Chief Justice.
• Sep 12 - Roberts Committee Hearings begin.
• Sep 22 - Roberts voted out of Committee, 13-5.
  Leahy, Kohl & Feingold are the "crossovers."
• Sep 29 - Roberts confirmed by Senate. Roberts sworn-in.
• Oct 03 - Miers nominated to be Associate Justice.
• Oct 27 - Miers nomination withdrawn.
• Oct 31 - Alito nominated to be Associate Justice
• Jan 09 - Alito Committee Hearings begin.

I think part of the DEM attitude today is follow-through to their expressions on the Miers/Alito switch. The negative reaction to Alito is due in part to being "deprived" of Miers. Of course, Alito is probably to "the right" of Miers, so objection is to be expected anyway, but some Senators who might accept Alito in their hearts are now hemmed in by past reaction, or by the exercise of pique and revenge.

[Founding Father]

For those who view the court not in terms of liberal vs. conservative, but in terms of small vs. big government tendencies, nothing in the new court makeup suggests it will begin to roll back the excesses of federal growth and misuse of the Commerce clause we've seen since at least the 1930's.

You're absolutely correct. We may have one vote in Thomas and he's shaky.

[syriacus]

I wish we had had a pro-alito group ready to go as soon as the hearing ended, so C-span had to make a choice of what to cover

That would have been nice.

[Wolfstar]

We may have one vote in Thomas and he's shaky.

Sigh. From the earliest days of the Republic, the Supreme Court has been the worst of the three branches in terms of seizing and applying more power than the Constitution gave it, and also in terms of helping the other two branches expand their power.

[Graymatter]

Leahy voted for Roberts. So did Levin and Byrd. Here's the tally:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493815/posts?page=68#68

And here's the live thread of the Roberts vote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493489/posts