| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/12 |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41619 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 Can someone please explain to a dumb oblivious foreigner like me
the 411 on why Alito is bad for the nation? -dumb foreigner
\_ Most importantly, because he doesn't seem to believe it's his role
to provide an actual check on executive (i.e. presidential) power.
\_ Because he's a solid conservative vote replacing a swing voter in
a lifetime appointment post. Ideally the court would be 9 swing
voters, but having it be a majority party-line-voters without any
swings is bad for the nation.
\_ So does this mean you were also against the nominations of
Ginsburg or Breyer since they were also not swing-voters?
\_ He doesn't believe in women's reproductive rights; he has expressed
racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the rights'
of individuals (vs. the govt).
racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the
rights' of individuals (vs. the govt).
\_ Note how the above posts say nothing about the constitution.
\_ Note how the above post begs the question: if individual
rights and the balance of powers have nothing to do with
the constitution, then what does?
\_ 1) It's "raises" the question.
2) Interpreting the constitution according to how it is
written (and prior rulings) strikes down laws that the
legislative and executive branches enact if they
violate the constitution. That's not a check?
\_ He has lied to congress in the past under oath in order to get
a federal judgeship, and has admitted he did it because otherwise
he would not have gotten confirmed. Does that sound like someone
fit to be the highest judge in the nation?
\_ Cite?
\_ he said in a job app that he interprets the Constitution to mean
a right to abortion isn't covered. when questioned about this, he
said, that was his personal opinion, but not his legal
interpretation of the Constitution.
no, it was his opinion AND his legal interpretation -- it's clear
as day in his job app. he lies in your face. someone who lies
in your face should not be a supreme court justice.
\_ (not pp) an E'ist article mentioned something about him
putting all his money in a Vanguard fund and stating that
he would declare it if he were ever confronted with a
case involving Vanguard, but forgetting to do so (then
informing after the fact.) According to the article, there
was no effect on the case. -John
\_ Did it say which case? There was at least one case where
his decision was vacated.
\_ http://www.factcheck.org/article367.html
Monga v. Offenberg: Alito was part of a unanimous 3-judge
rule in favor of Vanguard. Alito also requested the case
be reheard by a new panel, who also ruled in favor of
Vanguard unanimously. At that time, Alito owned several
hundred K of Vanguard funds, but he said the funds were
not an issue in the case and no conflict of interest.
Johnston v. Smith Barney: Smith Barney was Alito's stock
brokerage, but he had no financial interest in Smith Barney.
Sister's law firm: no one really knows, and there's no record.
\_ Of Alito, a Democratic staffer said, "It became clear to us
early on that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes,
but we think the guy is a man of honor."
http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt]
\_ If the above stories are what pp is talking about, this is
about the most disingenuous statment I've read so far this
year. We need some sort of motd award for this kind of
thing.
\_ He said under federal oath "I will not do x." When
the chance to do x happened, he did x. It doesn't matter
if it was a cut and dry case. He presided on the case,
after saying, once again UNDER OATH, that he wouldn't ever
preside on a case concerning Vanguard.
\_ Keep working on those Vanguard issues. Privately,
Democrats are blaming the emphasis on Vanguard and
other canards for their poor showing in Alito's
nomination. http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt] |
| 7/12 |
|
| www.factcheck.org/article367.html Printer Friendly Version Summary A liberal group's ad says Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito didn't keep his word when he took part in cases he had promised to avoid while a conservative ad quotes a "respected" journalist calling Alito "widely admired" and "fair-minded." Both ads are accurate as far as they go, but there's more to it than either of these 30-second spots can tell. org is a project of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, whose members include People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, Moveon PAC, NARAL Pro-Choice America and others. Their 30-second ad, "Keep," is set to air on national cable news and locally in Maine and Arkansas. org's Ad "Keep" Announcer: Americans believe if you give your word, you ought to keep it. And that's what's disturbing about George Bush's Supreme Court pick, Samuel Alito. Alito promised to disqualify himself from certain cases. An announcer saying that "Americans believe if you give your word, you ought to keep it." The ad refers to Alito's failure to disqualify himself from certain cases in spite of a promise he made in 1990, when the Senate was considering his nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito promised the Judiciary Committee in a written questionnaire: Alito: I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney , or the First Federal Savings and Loan of Rochester, New York. I would disqualify myself from any case involving my sister's law firm, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, of Newark, New Jersey. It quotes newspaper accounts that called Alito's actions "troubling," saying he showed "poor judgment." It concludes: "Shouldn't we be able to trust Supreme Court nominees to keep their word?" In fact, Alito did participate in cases involving Vanguard and Smith Barney. He may also have participated in a third case involving his sister's law firm, though there is no record of him voting in the case, and Alito says he has no memory of it. Generally, Alito says his promise to the Senate covered only his "initial" service on the court, and these cases came years later. He also says none of them posed any financial conflict for him or required his recusal under judicial ethics rules. "To the best of my knowledge I have not ruled on a case for which I had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse myself during my 15 years on the federal bench," he said in a letter to Pennsylvania Sen. Here are details of the three cases: * Vanguard: In Monga v Ottenberg, Alito was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that in 2001 ruled in favor of Vanguard, dismissing a suit by a Massachusetts woman who wanted the assets of the retirement funds of her late husband Dev Monga. Lower courts had ruled the funds must go to pay creditors of Monga's bankrupt company. Monga's widow moved to have the case heard anew, with Alito disqualified. Alito - in a 2005 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee - says "I took the extra and unnecessary step of requesting that a new panel of judges be appointed to rehear the case." The second panel also ruled in favor of Vanguard, again unanimously. Alito notes that the several hundred thousand dollars he then owned in Vanguard mutual funds were not an issue in the case, and says they didn't pose any conflict for him. "I hold no interest in the firm itself," he said in a November 2005 letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter. Alito is listed as one of 14 judges "present" when the court denied a borrower's petition for a rehearing. Only one judge - not Alito - voted in favor of a rehearing. There is no record of Alito voting, since only votes in favor of a rehearing are recorded in such cases. Alito's sister says she was "absolutely not" personally involved in the case, according to the Globe. Democrats are criticizing Alito for hearing cases he said he would not. The ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "He made it very clear he would not hear any cases with those people. is something that obviously is going to be an issue at the hearing." A "Drip" of Attacks The Progress for America Voter Fund on Jan. Progress for America Ad "Drip" (On Screen: Image of a dripping faucet) Announcer: Everyday desperate liberals make up a steady drip of attacks against Judge Samuel Alito. Respected Supreme Court analyst Stuart Taylor, of the non-partisan National Journal, Alito "is widely admired by liberals, moderates, and conservatives, who know him well as fair-minded, committed to apolitical judging, and wedded to no ideological agenda other than restraint in the exercise of judicial power." com Paid for by Progress for America Voter Fund) An Accurate Quote The ad opens with an image of a dripping faucet as an announcer says that "everyday, desperate liberals make up a steady drip of attacks against Judge Samuel Alito. The quotation used by the PFA ad is accurate and in context. Taylor's article flayed general news accounts of the Alito fight for adopting the line of what he called "liberal ideologues." Here is the quote in broader context: Taylor: The systematic slanting -- conscious or unconscious -- of this and many other news reports has helped fuel a disingenuous campaign by liberal groups and senators to caricature Alito as a conservative ideologue. In fact, this is a judge who - while surely too conservative for the taste of liberal ideologues - is widely admired by liberals, moderates, and conservatives who know him well as fair-minded, committed to apolitical judging, and wedded to no ideological agenda other than restraint in the exercise of judicial power. The ad describes Taylor as a "respected" Supreme Court analyst, and his publication as "non-partisan." org published a rebuttal arguing that Taylor is not as non-partisan as the ad leads viewers to believe, pointing out that in April 1998 Taylor was courted by independent counsel Ken Starr to be a senior adviser on the Whitewater investigation. Clinton is not: honest, principled and utterly inept at spin." When word of the job offer leaked out, the National Journal skipped one of Taylor's columns, and he eventually apologized to his readers for failing to realize the need to for full disclosure. Nevertheless, Taylor's articles have at times been harshly critical of the Bush administration. He called Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers "foolish" and "self-indulgent," and also said Bush and Vice-President Cheney need "adult supervision" concerning their approach to US torture policy. And in the very article quoted by the ad, Taylor concludes by slamming Bush's intelligence and morals: Taylor: Meanwhile, lest this column be dismissed as pro-Bush propaganda, I hereby associate myself with a comment by Walter Murphy, the distinguished constitutional scholar who was Alito's thesis adviser at Princeton University: "I confess surprise that a man so dreadfully intellectually and morally challenged as George W Bush would want a person as intellectually gifted, independent, and morally principled as Sam Alito on the bench." |
| tinyurl.com/b5fyr -> www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31confirm.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26pagewantedQ3D1Q26adxnnlQ3D1Q26adxnnlxQ3D1138760229-ILHsrd0Q2FmxWMjRA5KXIgjwQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=31a1c880Q2FutTfua_rDX__Q22Q5EuQ5Exx0ux(uI(uQ7D e-mailed the text of his opening statement to the White House. It included very little about his legal thinking, dwelled at length on his family and opened with a tired and rambling joke about courtroom banter between a lawyer and a judge. Go to Complete Coverage The response from the White House: "Perfect, don't change a word," according to an administration official who was granted anonymity because Judge Alito's preparation sessions were confidential. Failing to adjust to his meekness, Democratic aides admit they searched too hard for scandal in Judge Alito's past. The White House, meanwhile, sought to take advantage of Judge Alito's low-key, almost shy demeanor to build sympathy for him. They say they succeeded beyond all expectations when Judge Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, walked out in tears from his confirmation hearings. "Any time they are yelling, preaching, lecturing, and you are cool and calm and breathing deep, you are winning," the administration official said the White House team told Judge Alito. "What that means on television sets where the American people are watching this is, you look good and they look bad. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, agreed. "It was a classic rope-a-dope," Mr Manley said, referring to the boxing tactic of leaning against the ropes to let an opponent exhaust himself punching. Some Republican Senate staff members said they initially worried that Judge Alito might be too nervous to perform well under the pressure of the hearings. In one of his early meetings with a Senate Republican, Judge Alito's hands shook as he compulsively tied and untied the lace of one shoe. Both Republican and Democratic staff members in the Senate spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from their bosses. Judge Alito's political naivete led to at least one early miscue. Unaccustomed to attention from the news media, Judge Alito looked surprised when White House aides advised him to dispatch a relative to guard his 90-year-old mother from inquiring journalists, one administration official said. The next day, The Associated Press quoted his mother saying, "Of course, he is against abortion," the first chink in his supporters' portrait of him as an impartial jurist with no preconceived views. Judge Alito shyly acknowledged that he had not managed to get a relative to her door, the administration official said. But Democrats, expecting a firebrand, came out swinging even before the nomination was announced. As President Bush prepared to announce a nominee three months ago, Mr Reid vowed a vigorous fight if the president chose Judge Alito. "I think it would create a lot of problems," he told CNN the night before Judge Alito was named. But mindful of the need to enlist both moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats in any successful effort to block Judge Alito, liberal groups and Senate Democrats kept pushing for new points of attack other than the divisive subject of abortion rights, a strategy that at times detracted from the coherence of their message. Edward M Kennedy of Massachusetts who, at 67, was decades older than most of the other legal counsels on the Judiciary Committee staff. Among other things, several Democratic aides said, Mr Flug drove the investigation into Judge Alito's failure to recuse himself, as he had pledged to do during his court of appeals confirmation hearing, from cases involving his mutual fund company, Vanguard. But Mr Flug met with polite skepticism from many of his colleagues. "You are going to ask more questions about that oversight where Alito made no money?" a staff member for another Democratic senator said he asked Mr Flug. "It became clear to us early on," the staff member added, "that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes, but we think the guy is a man of honor." |