I’ll blog this poofy puffery for a while … BooMan knocked himself out the past three days … (Mr. and Mrs. Alito don’t dig fashion, apparently. I like how Steven Cobert dresses … talk about snazzy.) So what’s goin’ on? Listenin’?
Update [2006-1-12 13:31:18 by susanhu]: The Senators are now in executive session to review the FBI investigation of Samuel Alito. (This is normal procedure, and involves questioning of neighbors and relatives to make sure there is nothing in his background of question.) Following that, they will return to hear the testimony of federal judges from the Third Circuit. This is very controversial in that judges are supposed to be impartial. Also, the testimony of judges during a SCOTUS nomination hearing is unprecedented. Tony Mauro of Legal Times is on C-Span saying that the judges have assured him that they will merely be character witnesses.
A brief commentary: There seems to be no “BIG MO'” for filibuster. The bulk of the Democratic senators’ questiioning was more dutiful than inquisitive in order to probe open wounds that could lead to a rousing resistance to Alito’s confirmation. Armando at Daily Kos says “Au contrare, mon cherie!” in “Lieberman Says Filibuster Is ON The Table!.”
Is this thing really going to drag on through Saturday?
I haven’t checked the latest “reviews” of the nation’s newspapers, but can guess …
If Alito really loved his wife he would withdraw his name from nomination. The stress of the job will destroy her.
Like Colbert says, “I can’t prove it, but I can say it”
My two cents after watching highlights of the previous day last night on Democracy Now!’s last airing at 9pm …
We cannot pin Alito to the wall if we don’t have the prosecutorial skills to do it.
For example, Feingold asked him some tough questions but as soon as Alito gave one of his blowsy answers, Feingold just moved on! WTF?!
they’re ALL doing it … i don’t mean to single out Feingold. It’s an art…. how to keep needling.
I thought Schumer had a chance yesterday. At one point, he was just about to get Alito to explode in anger. NOW THAT would have turned things around. But Schumer blew it by making some artificially kind remarks and moving on …
None of them knows how to go in for the kill. (I don’t either, but I’ve seen it done …. and we need one or two senators who are up for that.)
None of them knows how to go for the kill.
Exactly. Sorry to repost a previous comment, but Leahy nearly made me lose it.
And of course, for the courts to say “Stop” someone has to have a case, then it has to wend its way through the legal system for years . . .
Yes, I think it’s pretty clear that the Dems have been told that Alito will be approved, and anyone making the Republicans look too bad over this obviously bogus nomination will be punished.
But hey, that’s what you get when you vote for right-wing lunatics!
Go right to the top, and tell ’em “No” to Alito’s confirmation:
Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee.
Here’s another “Veto Alito” tool:
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper and contact your congress critters — all with one click.
People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours:
Save the Court Petition
Yeah well, here is the email I just received from DiFi in response to mine to her to vote no. The usual BS.
” Thank you for writing to me about the nomination of Judge
Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the
Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome this
opportunity to respond.
Now that the President has put forth another nominee to succeed
Justice O’Connor, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a
member, must fulfill its obligation to thoroughly review his record, read
his opinions and evaluate his judicial philosophy.
This new justice will be critical in the balance with respect to
rulings on Congressional and Executive authority, as well as a woman’s
right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of
Constitutional law. Since Judge Alito has been nominated to fill Justice
O’Connor’s seat, the extraordinary importance of this nomination
cannot be overstated. Having said that, I intend to reserve judgment until
our due diligence and the formal hearings in January are completed.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views with me. I will be
sure to take them into consideration as the nomination process moves
forward. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please
feel free to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Last night someone told me Sam should stick to red ties, I kid you not.
We won’t even go there with the Missus’ attire…
FEINSTEIN up … and I was just listening to the archived interview of Reddhead from FireDogLake yesterday on Majority Report … and she said that Feinstein was excellent yesterday on the issue of executive power …
DF ( Dianne Feinstein):
She may take 20 minutes…
(His wife is smiling … likes DF!)
Equal branches of government …. Hatch, DeWine and herself also sserve on INTEL comm….. has duty to provide oversight for the 15+ agencies that monitor country’s intel activities.
THIS QUESTION of presidential authority at a time of crisis becomes very prescient right now.
Wants to talk to him about the president’s plenary authority as commander-in-chief — unrestrained and unrestrainable.
congress has the EXPLICIT power in times of war …
NSA headed within the Dept of Defense and headed by a geenral … so shoudl come under purview of Congress
FISA is very explicit — reads portion — it provides to exigent circumstnaces — 1) followinf decl of war (pres has 15 days) and 2) emergency authority, and the atty genl can authorize it provided they go to the FISA court in 72 hours
IF WE HAVE EXPLICIT authori8ty under the constitution, is the president bound by that law or does his plenary authority supercede that law?
am listening. I have this so helpless feeling with all this bru ha ha. I am so tired of feeling helpless, nowadays. I have questions that have never occurred to any of them…like, do you discuss any of your thinkings with othrs before giving said commentary. I think this man has the ablility to even think for himself without discussing his thoughts with someone else. Not that it is a bad thing to run your thoughts to someone before delaring them..I mean just asking others for their thoughts and use them for claiming a stance.
Alito says pres must follow statutes and constitution, unless states are proven unconstitutional.
Feinstein: There was no indication of domestic wiretapping going on …. [someone who wrote oped for NYT says he refused to add a phrase to 2nd resolution re preemptively acting against future teerrorist attacks …. who wrote that? I mised name.)
Neither res included wiretap Americans … does plenary supercede?
ALITO:
Fienstein interrupts …. detention is a necessary following of auth of military force … when you have specific statute that covers all electronic surveillance, does it follow that wiretap/Americans — that we set up two exigent circumstances? Doesn’t that law prevail? (confusing )
DiFi is NOT saying – did the President violate FISA because he decided that FISA was unconstitutional – and does he have the power to do that???
Great point, Janet! And I’m sorry, but she was quite unclear — not to Alito — but to any average American who might be listening.
What trumps the other?, Feinstein asks again …
Alito: You have whatever power the president has MINUS whatever the Congress / statutes have taken away ….
Let me move on . . . (AARRRRGGGHHHH! – go for the kill Diane!)
Jesus.
EPA now … and she asked him A question that made him look like an ass …
shouldn’t we have deference to legislation that affects citizens’ health … and he just replied about the statutes/agencies … didn’t give the effect on people a thought…. and she just went on right by her zinger
may I ask a question here? Does the panel send the questions they are going to refer to ahead of time for him to gather his responses? If so, why?
According to Senate Ethics rules, i doubt they can … there’s already been considerable criticism of the GOP senators coaching Alito and telling him that no matter what he says, they’ll vote for him. … see my story a couple days ago / Village Voice article.
I read this. I just was wondering and if the republicans can do such unethical things, why is it that we can not retaliate in kind? It seems that we are gang banging here with this mans question..reference to the otherside, not ours. I got the distinct impression that the republicans have given a threatening rhetoric ahead of time for us to follow through on. This is simply sinckening to me..and I am a lay person here. I did gather this from the rhetoric…sessions is a nut job ready to blow any opinion away with his to get what he wants..no debate what so ever.
Federalism views of Reagan administration … go further in respecting what it viewed as the federalist system than what the constitution required …
DF: Alito was writing that as a staff member of Reagan, but as judge this isn’t a position you’d hold?
A: I wouldn’t have any ability to use my views … Congress can .. judges can’t.
Now we’re watching grass grow …
(Grassley is up)
CG: his theories have nothing to do with him deciding a case
SA: You’re exactly right.
I like the tie very much, but the buttoned collar is so passe.
Studly Steven Cobert wouldn’t be caught dead in that get-up.
Tall grass is growing.
Paul Bunyan-esque grass growing … hope he gets a patent on that.
Short Grassley – we need whistleblowers b/c Justice Dept is incompetent.
WE NEED TO RUN WITH THAT … how ’bout that NSA whistleblowe that Congress refuses to hear?
Now Specter and Grassley are exchanging amusing stories … (OHHHHH HAHHAHAHAHAHA! Grassley said his constituents thought he was the senator who was awful to Anita Hill! That’s so funny.)
Feingold NOW — looking-a-little-less-sexy to this girl —
RE Benjamin Powell and Harriet Miers — who gave testimony on him —
Feingold’s just going to think about this … an ethical issue could arise…. what issue? HELLO?
…
The president violating a criminal statute … come on, Russell!
RF thinks SA would let the president get away with breaking criminal statutes ….
“i woudn’t separate constitutional questions in category … an exec member has to abide by law passed by Congress …
Nothin’ but the theoretical … blah blah blah …
RF: Troubled, concerned … rely only on Jackson rather than getting more on how you view these matters?
Leaves open enough ambiguity that could alter the balance between the exec and congress …
SA: This is a momentous issue…. it would be irresponsible of him to say anything of substance on the question here …
Come on, Russ.
I wouldn’t have elected Russ as Head Inquisitor during the Middle Ages.
President, maybe …
Now RF is asking about executing an innocent person …
Does that person have a constitutional right NOT to be executed?
That person would first hae to avail himself of the procedures that Congress has specified for challenging convictions after they become final.
If convicted, and gone through direct appeal, then there are procedures — state and fed laws for just that …
The system is designed to prevent a person from being executed if the person is innocent ….
Actual innocence factors in importantly …
doctrine of procedural default (if a state prisoner is challenging a state convictino, the state pris must take advantage of state law)
SA: Person must file a petition.
RF: You can’t say that a person has a constitutional right not to be executed?
SA: Fundamental objective of our system that no one to be convicted w reasonable doubt .. gets to heart of what our system is to address
RF: stops on topic .. he believes they have constitutional right not to be executed
He likes diversity.
Won the Family Research Council’s 2001 Gavel for … a case involving harrassment of gay/lesbian kids at a school
he says it was a very broad anti-harrassment policy that’d been adopted by a school district … prohibited expression of political viewpoints but went so far as to say that anything a student would say about another student would be a violation …
under the first amend, statutes can be challenged on over-breadth grounds.
has to satisfy Justice Brennan’s Tinker standard.
Is anyone still listening? If not, I’d love to do something else …
I’m listening but I’d just as soon you do something else since the fix seems to be in on this nomination.
Schumer is UP!
Give us some life, Chuckie!
of Jerusalem.” In context of Christ’s passion, it means, much worse things are going to happen.
Weep not for him, oh Mrs. Alito, weep for all the people who will be hurt by your husband if he is confirmed. Weep for women, minorities, persons with disabilities, working people, the environment, the US constitution.
Street cleaning machine just went by — what did Chuck ask?
….
Schumer referring to Durbin / “Crushing Hand of Fate”
You don’t prejudge any case? You’ll apply laws evenly no matter who’s involved?
You believe you’ve done just that on 3rd Circuit …
Peroli v World Flavors — a mentally retarded man sued for violent and persistent sexual harrassment —
Alito voted against giving him his day in court because his attorney failed to mention it in his brief.
If parties don’t raise issues in trial court, they can’t raise issue on appeal.
TWO OTHER CASES NOW:
Smith v Horn — similar issue / criminal case / habeas corpus brought by crim defendant — in that case as well, one of the parties had failed to raise a relevant argument in his brief …
Ailto says that’s different because it’s a habeas case ….
CS: The majority said it as the gov’t that failed to bring up the issue / this time SA was prepared to excuse that failure /
I’m at a loss to understand that difference.
CS: “To retarded man, sorry you’re out of luck … to govt, we’ll give you a break.”
SA: There’s a prniciple of comity .. federalism … Congress has strongly recognized in the habeas (Alito is making the distinction that the 2nd case involved habeas and says that the court must consider those issues even if both parties fail to bring it up)
Dilllinger v Caterpillar ….
Defendant Caterpillar didn’t raise an issue at trial / sided with plaintiff who was seriously involved in accident …
now SA can’t remember the facts of the case … maybe CS is on to something ….
SA dissented: If he had prevailed, the accident victim’s case would have failed.
WTG, Chuckie!
SA: he has to refresh his memory …
CS: I would posit to you that it shows you have MORE SYMPATHY for a CERTAIN type of plaintiff than another …
CS: Asks that he refresh his memory, look at the case and try to explain why it’s different
Now CS is asking about strict constructionism
14th amendment — citizenship —
CS: could congress deny citizenship to person born in the U.S.?
SA: There is ongoing legislation ….
CS: Is there any way you can see any such legislation as anything but unconstitutional?
Biden told I believe the “Today” show this morning that the hearings should be scrapped and just go to the Senate floor for debate. This is a waste of time because the nominees never answer the questions anyway. Just read that a Yahoo news. guess the didn’t start these hearings until 1925. It used to just go before the Senate.
On the other hand, sometimes what the witnesses who ARE NOT the nominee have to say can be interesting. (Not often, granted, but sometimes.)
This whole thing has given me a migraine! Wish I could close the office and go to bed.
Me too, and I’m with Joey.
I’m trying to be a good citizen of BooTrib and follow this — and I’m trying to emulate BooMan’s superb example of the first three days, but this is driving me fucking nuts.
in the little inset screens? Is that smoke? Is something on fire? Does it have all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda?
Good summaries today. Sounds like enough grass grew to graze a herd of cattle.
Damn you, Mary. Damn you.
…
CS: Commerce clauses …. i can’t type it fast enough.
Chyuckie did a number on him … read a quote without attribution from Scalia, with which SA agreed … 2nd blind quote, it turned out, came from Thomas’s dissent.
SA agreed with the first, rejected the 2nd as being without precedent.
🙂
I’ve been on a conference call for 2 hours (yawn) so I’ve only had your summaries to go by. I appreciate it — but if you want to quit, don’t let me make you feel guilty.
CS: Commerce clause … (Reich (sp?) might have changed SA’s thinking …)
CS: As US Atty you crossed paths wtih state agencies, law enforcement especially …. all kinds of fights abt increased fed role in increased crime fighting … you must have dealt with some of those statutes …. car jacking, etc….. mail fraud was expanded too … I agree with them, but tend to be conservatie priorities
Did your exp as USAtty affect your thinking about what the fed can do when the state can’t do it?
In odometer act — that DF also mentioned — it would have been difficult for feds to regulate odometers across states —
your decision in Reibar (sp?) didnt’; make sense … there’s no way that NY State could stop it unless they inpsected each car across the Geo Wash bridge ….
we need FED LAWS for common sense reasons, CS is saying
“State primacy is such,” wrote Alito when he worked for Reagan …
“Tell us for a couple minutes about your view of the balance between state and fed powers.”
CS: Told him that a strict reading of SA’s views would have eliminated his own job as a US Attorney
schweeeeeeet
SA: “a practical division of responsibility … “
CS: a practical dimension that fits with the Const. and you and i are agreeing
….
CONCLUSION: As your testimony comes to a close, I remain VERY TROUBLED … by your judicial views.
Your record contains evidence that you don’t believe in a woman’s right to choose, that makes the president too powerful …. undermines Congress’s ability to look out for the little guy ….
BY REFUSING to confront our questions directly, and by giving us rseponses that really don’t illuminte how you think, many of us have no choice to but conclude that you still believe these statements ….
the evidence before us makes it very hard for us to vote for you
you give the appearance of a meticulous legal navigator, but the evidence shows us that you always veer rightward.
I agree with Mary Susan…looks as if only 2-3 people are really paying any attention to the thread. I am bowing out too. Thanks for doing a great job but I have no problem if you want to drop it.
It sounds like this is winding down … next come witnesses? What else?
Jeff Sessions is gushing … the ABA thinks he’s qualified and his sister, after all, is a nationally known attorney…
Now asking the TOUGH Q: WHen you both were in high school and on the debate team, who was the better?
Set up question to make him appear more human after that MEAN Senator Schumer questioned him.
Durbin is up.
Durbin quizzed him about the coming appearance of judges frmo the Third Circuit … was that your idea, were you consulted? No, says SA. Durbin says that it’s very unusual — it’s never been done before, and that it was the subject of much bipartisan debate.
Durbin is now quizzing him on the 10-year-old girl case. (SA did say one thing that made sense to me, cold as it may be: It is possible that if 10-year-old girls could not be searched, that they could become the repository for drug dealers hiding their stashes.)
I’m making breakfast … starving … will keep listening and reporting.
My basic response to Alito on ten-year-olds as possible drug repositories: so what? In this particular case I don’t believe the ends justify the means.
This is a simple matter of the abuse & traumatization of children by law enforcement, which is not at all justified by the conception of their employment as couriers or repositories also as abuse.
It’s certainly not as if the use of children in the trade is the ultimate strategy for concealment, either. Remove children from the equation & other means of circumventing the law will be found — while, given carte blanche on this, law enforcement can obviously feel free to traumatize & abuse children strictly as a matter of intimidation.
The tendency for many is to believe that the people involved in illicit drug trade — in any capacity whatsoever — are somehow undeserving of humane treatment under the law (quite outside the perception that, in general, drug policy on the whole has proven an utter failure).
Let these abuses occur under the auspices of the ‘war on drugs’ & it will be quite easy to transfer this allowance to other aspects of law enforcement (such as those punitive measures taken against ‘dissenters’, for example). How would you like this type of law-enforcement ‘carte blanche’ when it comes to searching your child due to his/her involvement in a march or demonstration, strictly as a matter of intimidation? Don’t think it can’t be done, once you’ve crossed certain other lines in terms of the acceptance of child abuse.
thanks everyone for all of updates on this. i haven’t been able comment much, just read in disgust. just because we haven’t commented doesn’t mean we are not here and are not appreciative. 😉
Much appreciation to all who have contributed to these hearing descriptions. 🙂
Absolutely — I add my appreciation (especially as I gave myself a respite from listening in today). This
‘minuet’ has become a monotone.
I’m going to go out on a limb here but I’m not so sure the senators aren’t setting Alito up for not getting their votes for confirmation and thus setting him up to be filibustered. I haven’t heard what Reid has to say but I’m not sure this is a done deal and that we should give up hope.
Just because they haven’t blown up in his face and confronted him harshly, I think many of them, with Leahy and Biden being the exception, have asked questions in a way that suggests they have serious concerns. Roe is huge, of course, but presidential ‘unitary executive’ powers are also.
It’s obvious to them and to us that Alito isn’t going to bite. He will keep stammering and stuttering and answering like he has for the past two days so the senators have taken a tact to go after him with civility so a ‘fight’ doesn’t become the issue but the issues remain the issue.
I seriously think some of the senators think Alito has not answered as many questions as Roberts did. If that’s so it’s truly pathetic, Roberts answered what, NONE? I think the senators think Alito hasn’t been as forthcoming as Roberts.
I may be laying the ground to be told, ‘I told you so’ by many but I don’t think it’s over.
Well, I’m hoping they’re just setting him up for the big smackdown, but they honestly don’t have much of a track record of even attempting full-out opposition to the Repubs. We’ll see.
Agree that it isn’t over, though I am always a pessimist about the current set of Dems in regards to showing some oppositional spine.
The thing is that Alito has done a very good job of not answering the questions, of dodging every potentially controversial thing he might say. Which leaves very little room for the dems questioning him to get overtly harsh — it means they need to keep it subtle, but it does not mean that they’re unconcerned.
It’s one of those careful dances. Sound too harsh on the guy without clear reason, and you lose public support that you will need if you want to continue to oppose him.
I personally think, unfortunately, that he will probably get through in the end… but I’d be happy to see the dems oppose it as much as they can, and I’d also be happy to be surprised. I think there are still some cards to be played.
Generally agreed, Spit, on all your assessments.
Noted: quite unfortunately, the Roberts hearings did set an immediate ‘precedent’ — in that it was shown that you can sail on through without saying squat.
The fact that Lieberman has said that a “filibuster is still on the table” leads me to believe that Lieberman believes there is no chance for a filibuster. If Lieberman really felt that he would have to take action and filibuster he would be blustering on and on about how it wouldn’t be wise, etc. But if he doesn’t think there is going to be on, its a win-win situation for him to show unity with the party and never have to put his money where his mouth is.
It would be useful for grabbing onto and tightening way too much… Not that a lack of oxygen would affect his thought process much.
Yep… It ain’t fashinable BUT it sure is useful!
OOPS… Fashionable… But hey! I am tired as all heck today…
I’m another one who is following the live-blogging threads here (and sometimes on DKos) because I’m at work and can’t watch it (though I don’t think my blood pressure could stand it even if I were home).
Wishing the Democrats had put one good, aggressive cross-examiner on this committee.