Federal Judge Roberts/Harriet Miers/Alito nominated to US Supreme Court

[jimzinsocal]

Watch on cspan later. The judges who came to testify:

Dem Disrespect
[Wendy Long 01/12 03:40 PM][Bench Memos]

I'm sitting in the hearing room, in back of an impressive and historic panel of federal Circuit Court of Appeals judges who have served with Judge Alito.
Judge Becker is testifying that

Sam Alito is not an ideologue .... Have never seen him exhibit a bias ....

In civil rights and employment discrimination cases....

I think the public does not understand what happens when you become a judge ..... Sam has great respect for precedent ....

The only Democrat Senators who bothered to stay on the dais are Leahy and Feinstein. Almost all the Republicans are there. Most notably, Senator Chuck Schumer got up and left right before the judges began to speak. Not only do they not care about the Judges' testimony, apparently, they don't even care about the disrespect for these judges that the bench of empty seats on the Democrat side bespeaks.

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Been watching and also noticed the Democrats' absenses, but you have to realize that their mikes were off for awhile and at least one of them had good reason to leave. Joe Biden went out of the chamber, found a microphone and declared that these hearings might not be necessary anymore, because the candidates don't answer questions. I swear, believe it or not, that's what he did.

One might ask why Joe Biden speaks at these hearings for thirty minutes at a time without asking a question, but nonetheless, that was his reason for leaving... had to find a mike.

[jimzinsocal]

Maybe they should create a questionaire that gets to what some of the Senators are interested in:
1. Can you imagine any circumstance that might cause you to revisit Roe v Wade?
2. Is there any sort of abortion that you object to?
3. Have you ever performed an abortion?

[if you answered no no and yes? Please proceed]

4. Are you sure about your replies in 1 and 2 above?
5. Have you ever thought about any sort of abortion limits?
6. Have you ever subscribed to a magizine that prints article from nutjobs?

[if you have answered yes to 4 5 or 6 return to 1]

[bk94si]

I would like to see a new Republican tactic based on the Alito hearings. You place the wife and preferably the kids right behind the candidate so they are visible on camera. I think the questioning will be a whole lot more civil.

[Trekari]

I think a valid concern was raised when the principle of 'One man, one vote' was brought up.

There are FOUR cases scheduled to appear before SCOTUS that deal with 'one man, one vote' and yet Alito said that is a well-established precedent that he agrees with.

Point: Four cases before the Supreme Court and despite that, he says he agrees with the precedent. Aka: Establishing and publicizing a judicial opinion before hearing a case.

Yet when asked about Roe, he refuses to say it is an established precedent because he's worried a case based on it is likely to come before the court.

Why is he being allowed to have it both ways? Why does he use the potential for a case appearing before the Court as an excuse not to answer about Roe when he gives an answer for an issue that IS before the Court?

I don't care what political orientation you have, that should sound warning bells. These hearings are a joke.

[jimzinsocal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011300175.html

[jacdswen]

"I don't think he's going to get many votes from Democrats on the committee," Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat on the committee, told CBS' "The Early Show." "As for a filibuster, it's something we'll have to discuss. So it's not on the table or off the table right now."

My feelings? It all seems like a waste of taxpayer money anymore to even hold hearings in Congress, it's all ready been predetermined by the respective parties. But that would hamper the theatrics.

[BlackDragon24]

Originally Posted by jimzinsocal

Maybe they should create a questionaire that gets to what some of the Senators are interested in:
1. Can you imagine any circumstance that might cause you to revisit Roe v Wade?
2. Is there any sort of abortion that you object to?
3. Have you ever performed an abortion?

[if you answered no no and yes? Please proceed]

4. Are you sure about your replies in 1 and 2 above?
5. Have you ever thought about any sort of abortion limits?
6. Have you ever subscribed to a magizine that prints article from nutjobs?

[if you have answered yes to 4 5 or 6 return to 1]

LOL reminds me of one of the NEW RULES that Bill Maher used in one of his last shows

And finally, New Rule: President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, must bomb an abortion clinic. I know it sounds crazy, but the right wing needs assurance that they've really got their holy man this time. We can't let the swing vote on the Supreme Court just wind up in the hands of some level-headed legal •••••.

Is Sam Alito a decent man with Christian values? Well, until he kills a nurse with a pipe bomb, there's no way to be sure. Because there is nothing you can say to a real conservative to convince him abortion should ever be acceptable other than, "Your daughter is pregnant and the father is black."

Now, with all the hubbub lately about qualifications and constitutional law, it's sometimes easy to forget why our founding fathers created a judicial branch in the first place: to punish hussies by saddling them with the mewling, drooling reminder of their sin.

But here's where overturning Roe v. Wade could actually turn out to be the best thing for the Democrats. Because if you want to create more liberal voters, don't scare them with the possibility of terrorism. Scare them with the possibility of parenthood. Because voters nowadays are all about the issues that affect "me." They need to see how Bush's f***-ups affect them personally.

I mean, think about it. Other than the war in Iraq, the Katrina disaster, the deficit, the CIA leak, torture, stopping stem cell research, homeland security, global warming and undercutting science, we've yet to really feel the negative effects of the Bush administration.

But you know what voting block had the lowest voter turnout in the last election? Young, unmarried women. And you know who'll be the most affected if they overturn Roe v. Wade? Kobe Bryant. But, after him, young women. Come on. You're living in South Carolina and you need an abortion. You're going to get on a bus and head to New York. Maybe next time you'll think twice about letting your older brother tuck you in.

Because, overturning Roe v. Wade won't make abortion illegal. The choice to allow it will just be returned to the states. In all likelihood, the blue states. The rest of you will have to make a weekend of it. Tourism, ka-ching!

Every state will have a new motto: Massachusetts: "Where the country was born, but your baby wasn't." "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. No, seriously!"

And of course, California: "I just got an abortion and now I'm going to Disneyland!"

[jimzinsocal]

Whoops. I forgot this. Some background on the quote Kennedy held up to make Alito out to be a racist. Accuse first...research later.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/downanddirt...cap_smear.html


And a good Buckley piece

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckle...0601131457.asp

Save/rules of the game

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ame...tory/wm800.cfm

[AMDScooter]

Bork-O-Matic....

Bork-O-Matic

[jimzinsocal]

Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.

The State of the Union "is the 800-pound gorilla lurking over the debate," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "That's part of the strategic calculation." Manley also said, "This is an important vote, and we are not going to be rushed into anything."

[AMDScooter]

More stalling..

Democrats abort deal on Alito vote

Senate Democrats have scrapped a "good-faith" agreement they made two months ago to allow the Judiciary Committee to vote today on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
"This is a new low in our confirmation process," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican. "Not only because it is virtually unprecedented, but also because it reflects a breach of trust."
According to Judiciary Committee rules, either party can stall a nomination in committee for only one week, meaning that Judge Alito's nomination will likely be approved by the panel during an executive committee meeting next Tuesday.
The entire Senate will take up the nomination no later than Jan. 25 and will remain on it until Judge Alito's nomination is voted up or down, said Eric Ueland, chief of staff for Majority Leader Bill Frist.
"Justice delayed will not be a justice denied, as Sam Alito will receive a fair up-or-down vote and join the Supreme Court before month's end," he said. "Any remaining threats to filibuster are just filibluster."
Although Democratic leaders have not ruled out an attempt to filibuster the nomination, such a maneuver seems increasingly unlikely.
Still, conservatives were furious that Senate Democrats "reneged" on their agreement to vote Judge Alito out of committee in time for a full Senate vote on Friday.
"You know it's an election year in Washington when people try things like this," said Joseph Cella, president of Fidelis, a conservative Catholic-based organization. "The Democrats are going through these gyrations of block and delay for the liberal interest groups who butter their bread."
Under the terms of the November arrangement presented to reporters by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy, Republicans agreed to conduct the confirmation hearings after the holidays and Democrats agreed to allow a committee vote on the nomination today.
The only conditions for violating the agreement mentioned at the time by Mr. Leahy was "if something extraordinary comes up that neither Senator Specter nor I anticipate or expect."
Yesterday, Mr. Leahy was not claiming that anything extraordinary had come up. The only explanation he has offered is that Democrats didn't want to cut short their Martin Luther King Day holiday.
But, according to his office, the November agreement was not binding anyway because it wasn't in writing.
In a statement yesterday, Mr. Leahy promised that Democrats on the committee will make no further attempts to delay the nomination.
But when he appeared at the press conference with Mr. Specter on Nov. 3, Mr. Leahy gave the same assurances.
After negotiations that included the Senate leaders of both parties, Mr. Specter said then that the hearings would begin "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."
The agreement was not put in writing, Mr. Specter said at the time, "but Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter have had no problems, nor have anybody on the committee, of not fulfilling what we have said we'd do as a matter of good faith, which will put the executive sessions on the 17th."
As Mr. Specter spoke to the roomful of reporters, Mr. Leahy stood three feet away and never objected.
After Mr. Specter finished explaining the schedule, Mr. Leahy began by saying, "First, I agree with the chairman."
When the two men finished, a reporter asked whether the agreement still permitted Democrats to "hold over" the nominee in committee for one week.
"The answer is that, after conferring with all of our colleagues, Senator Leahy and I have proposed what we call good faith intention to have the executive committee meet on the 17th with the vote on that day," Mr. Specter responded.
Then Mr. Leahy spoke, comparing the agreement to the one reached on the hearing schedule for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
"As you recall, Arlen, we had the same thing with the Roberts case," he said. "We dealt not with some kind of unanimous consent, but with two senior members of the Senate having commitments. And I think my side, we'd expect that. Obviously, this leaves room if something extraordinary comes up that neither Senator Specter nor I anticipate or expect."

[jimzinsocal]

Teddy's last stand.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

DRUDGE Exclusive: Teddy's Last Gasp On Alito
Fri Jan 20 2006 13:29:15 ET

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) office is behind a last ditch effort to stop Judge Samuel A. AlitoÕs confirmation before next week's vote using a 2004 recusal request.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a complaint filed by H. Gerard Heimbecker of Upper Darby, PA accusing Alito of not properly listing the Heimbecker v. 555 Associates case in his Senate questionnaire.

Kennedy legal aide James Flug is behind the efforts to push this latest attack. The veteran aide has been criticized for Sen. Kennedy's misfires during the Alito hearing last week. Flug was reportedly behind the attacks Kennedy used against Alito related to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) and Vanguard recusal case.

In the 2004 case, Heimbecker not only filed a request for Alito to recuse himself but also the entire Third Circuit as well.

One Capital Aide aware the situation challenged Heimbecker's credibility. "The individual who filed this complaint is clearly a serial litigant. It will be interesting to see how far the Democrats will push this and what the mainstream media will make of it."

Developing...

Exclusive footage of Kennedy

http://theunsucks.com/pic/tedked.gif

[myv65]

What every happened to simply reading the writing on the wall and acknowledging the outcome whether one likes it or not? Why all the posturing? Kennedy knows full well he isn't going to stop this confirmation. Does he really believe he'll "score points" that he doesn't already have? The liberals will support him, the conservatives will oppose him, and he'll remain the senior senator from MA til he dies. His droning and protestations here mean nothing. For cryin' out loud, just get on with it man.

I'm far too direct for a career in politics.

[jimzinsocal]

I think it shows in a very clear way...the lengths politicians will go to prove theyre earning the special interest money...and dancing to the tune. Thats what I think.
I also think the dems cant accept the fact that they arent "choosing" nominees right now.