Alito confirmation hearing

[SunWuKong]

i'm watching Alito's confirmation hearing right now and some Republican Senator is asking all these fluff question. :rolleyes:

this is stupid. he's saying all this shit about the importance of precedence, but then when talking about Roe vs. Wade, he's saying precedence is not all powerful.

now there's some Republican going on and on about how great Alito is. he isn't even asking any questions. he's basically kissing Alito's ass.

[Yeahman]

i'm watching Alito's confirmation hearing right now and some Republican Senator is asking all these fluff question. :rolleyes:

this is stupid. he's saying all this shit about the importance of precedence, but then when talking about Roe vs. Wade, he's saying precedence is not all powerful.

now there's some Republican going on and on about how great Alito is. he isn't even asking any questions. he's basically kissing Alito's ass.
What's you expect? It's their guy.
Alito has said that he believes in precedence but not super-precedence.

[SunWuKong]

well throughout the preceding he kept trying to portray himself as a judge that just limits himself to his role, as justification for his views and past judgements he's handed down. but the democrats kept exposing holes in that stand. Roe v. Wade is one example. he kept harping on about the importance of precedence but when it comes to Roe v. Wade, all of a sudden it's all about keeping an open mind when presented with a case. there was also the point about him overturning immigration judges' rulings. he kept saying that he was limitted to the role of the appellate court concerning those cases, which was that it should overturn cases only when a "reasonable person" can find errors in the judges' decisions. but a study showed that all other judges were about 50/50 in the decisions on immigrants' requests for asylum and such whereas he only upheld those decisions 1/8th of the time. again, the portrayal he was attempting does not explain the discrepancy.

[Faithless]

Democrats: Alito, you're a no good anti-civil rights danger.

Alito (mumbling): Yeah, whatever bitches.

Somebody should ask him what he thinks of the statement that constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

[tapestrybabe]

am i missing any big details by not watching...
the way i find out whats going on, i just
read the newspaper every morning at work...
and i ended up reading there had been a lot
of yawns and tired eyes during the hearing...

republicans asking soft ball questions and
democrats giving soliloquy speeches...
whatever...

by what i read in the paper and what was stated above...
about him expressing the importance of precendence...
but at the same time...
turning around saying it doesnt bind
the high court, he'll keep an open mind...
he's inconsistant to me...

[SunWuKong]

by what i read in the paper and what was stated above...
about him expressing the importance of precendence...
but at the same time...
turning around saying it doesnt bind
the high court, he'll keep an open mind...
he's inconsistant to me...

what it came down to for him was that if a certain issue was still in litigation, it is still open for possibility of overturning precedence. obviously there are some cases that have not been debated for a long time now, like one-person-one-vote. but the tricky part comes in where does he define something to still be "in litigation" and therefore requires an "open mind" as opposed to just going with precedence? does one case do it? do two cases do it? three? four? in that regard that seems to be up to his own personal opinion, and i think that's where he's going to lean to the right on his decisions.


another thing - and not that i consider myself liberal, or conservative for that matter - but whenever i hear or read about some conservative talking about protecting our "values", i can't help but think that's some PC term to say that s/he is against gay rights. i mean what the hell are our "values"? it's so vague.

[Faithless]

Better to use google news and do a find on --

alito transcript (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=alito+transcript&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d)

[Yeahman]

Did you really think that he would answer the Roe v. Wade questions directly?
Anyway, I supported Roberts 100%. Alito I support with some reservations. Certainly better than Miers and a lot of other people Bush could have nominated but he's no Roberts.

[snailpoo]

It's only a very recent phenomenon that a judicial nominee had to answer question about where they would rule on any potential case.


what it came down to for him was that if a certain issue was still in litigation, it is still open for possibility of overturning precedence. obviously there are some cases that have not been debated for a long time now, like one-person-one-vote. but the tricky part comes in where does he define something to still be "in litigation" and therefore requires an "open mind" as opposed to just going with precedence? does one case do it? do two cases do it? three? four? in that regard that seems to be up to his own personal opinion, and i think that's where he's going to lean to the right on his decisions.

The problem is that he's being asked hypotheticals about possible future litigation what may well come given the proclivity of activists on both sides of the spectrum to find and pursue test cases to bring about changes in law. Judges are different from politicians: their primary job is to uphold the law, not make it; and therefore, they cannot, or at least they should not, have preconceived notions of how they would rule before actually hearing the case.

[kuilong]

The problem is that he's being asked hypotheticals about possible future litigation what may well come given the proclivity of activists on both sides of the spectrum to find and pursue test cases to bring about changes in law. Judges are different from politicians: their primary job is to uphold the law, not make it; and therefore, they cannot, or at least they should not, have preconceived notions of how they would rule before actually hearing the case.

A few days ago, I heard Alito say that he thought Griswold v. Connecticut was properly decided, but he won't comment on Roe. Why?

Which brings us to the drinking game Kevin Drum suggested: take a drink every time Alito claims he can't answer a question because it might prejudice his opinion in a future case.

Anyway, I think it's a little ineffective to go on mounting filibusters at every turn. If we want more liberal justices, then we'll have to elect more liberal politicians. (And look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg's margin of confirmation...)

[SunWuKong]

A few days ago, I heard Alito say that he thought Griswold v. Connecticut was properly decided, but he won't comment on Roe. Why?

the reason is simple. answering one way might anger the left, answering another way might anger the right.

[Banana]

What's the deal with Alito and his membership to a Princeton club that opposed lifting a ban to let women and minorities into Princeton University?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/12/MNGPMGLV0K1.DTL

[Keke]

Being new here, I have a question for the Board...

Does being Republican = disliking minorities?
Does being Republican = hating women?
Does being Republican = hating gays?

I'm trying to get a feel of just what you think "Progressive" means...

[soapzen]

I'm new to the board too. Since it's my first day here, I hope I can be forgiven for my toe stepping and unsolicited but occasionally passionate opinions. This is the rant board, and probably where I'll stay when I post:P. Long rant and 200 years of political history synopsized to follow.

The fact is, the Bush Administration is Republican, and their primary constituents are the far right (at least their most vocal and deepest pocket supporters). The #1 agenda has been in recent years for the far right is the pro-life agenda.

Traditionally, Republicans (conservatives) stand for (this is the extreme far right position):
1. pro life
2. pro guns (NRA)
3. capital punishment
4. smaller federal government (more state funding)
5. reduction and elimination of social welfare
6. reduce immigration, protect borders, reduce benefits to illegal aliens (part of reducing social welfare)
7. Might makes Right. A strong military, backed by the highest defense spending.
8. Proactive foreign policy. We back up our resolve with weapons, not words (aka guns before diplomacy). Foreign policy before domestic policy. We have to maintain #1 Superpower. Anyone who challenges our supremacy is an enemy (the 'great satan' Soviet Union under Reagan. China under Bush).
9. Supply side economics (reduce taxes, give the rich/big businesses the money, tax incentives, and tax cuts. They spend, and it trickles down to the population in the form of job creation and stronger companies)
10. Protectionism and isolation (protect US wealth and resources worldwide. Trade is necessary evil). Stiff the UN. The Republican adminstrations allowed the US debt to the UN (for dues as Security Council member) to reach millions of dollars in dues. This US shortfall was paid for by Japan and Germany.
11. Business before environment. Sell/rent virgin forests to loggers, don't worry about erosion, strip mining is ok. Priorities are not social works (New Orleans levies would have cost 123 million to repair before Katrina. It was deemed too expensive by the Bush Admin, whom last year funded a bridge to an island off of Alaska for $250 million. Politics before people).
12. Civil liberties are not as important as National Security (see Patriot's Act). Get rid of Affirmative Action, minorities can sink or swim.
Traditional US Republicans are WASP (white anglo saxon protestant).

Democrats (liberals) are (far left):
1. pro choice
2. gun control
3. abolish death penalty
4. social welfare is the government's raison de etre, fund necessary services.
5. expand human services, working class matters (strong Union support)
6. give immigration a chance, this is how we all got here, give benefits to the immigrants and allow their kids to attend public schools.
7. Reduce defense spending. Diplomacy makes more sense in a global environment (current defense spending is 2/3 of our annual budget).
8. Reactive foreign policy, support the UN. Build concensus.
9. Domestic before Foreign Policy. Take care of the US as a priority, the world is secondary. Focus on domestic economy. A strong economy = a strong country, we don't need more weapons or foreign bases.
10. Environmentally conscious. We can't regrow 3000 year old trees once cut. Strip mined land is distroyed. Species that are eliminated create chain reactions ecologically that harm us all. Global warming and the growth of the ozone hole is a problem we need to address.
11. Humanitarian concerns are important.
12. Civil liberties are important, minorities have rights, proponents of affirmative action.
Democrats are traditionally Catholic.

Of course, these are the extremist positions, and there's a vast middle. But for a clearer understanding, you have to know what they lean towards.

What does this have to do with Alito?

He's the gimme to the far right. Roberts was a moderate right.
The Republicans are still smarting from Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor, and they have vowed for all of Bush's term that they won't allow another moderate to take her place again.

He's not talking no... but I'm pretty sure the Republicans know he's very conservative and will vote accordingly. Of course... never know, once he's appointed, it's for life, he could move to the center... but I tend to doubt it.

Bush's reelection was probably the single most important election in 20 years because of the double Supreme Court vacancies.

I was a Republican most of my life. I belonged to the College Republicans, Young Republicans, Women's Republicans and Heritage Youth Council when I was in school. I have a BSFS from Georgetown U SFS (foreign service). I voted against Bush and for Kerry in the last election. The first time I've voted Democrat in my life.

The Republican party does not have many Asian interests at heart any longer, the Bush Adminstration mistrusts Asians in general, N. Korea and China in particular, India somewhat (Pakistan is good, they have assisted with the Afghanistan routing of the Taliban).

If not for being mired in Iraq, odds were very good 1/2 the US Navy would be sitting off the coast of North Korea, forcing a confrontation with China over both North Korea and Taiwan today. Tensions against all Asians would rise in the US farther, look at the tensions against Muslims today... not to mention the authorizing of illegal phone taps by Bush himself as he confessed to recently.

Most of us can remember the last time there was an Asian-American conflict right? The Korean and Vietnam wars led to the serious racial discrimination we feel today. WWII resulted in Japanese being sent to concentration camps and losing all their property, and Chinese being called Japanese and discriminated against. This despite that the REASON for the war was over Japan's invasion of China to begin with. US blockaded Japan, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

How can any Asian want to see an administration in power hell bent on 'doing something' about Korea? We are only saved from the US muslim's fate because the US is so fully committed in Iraq.

Lets not forget the Los Alamos scientist who got railroaded a few years ago for simply being Asian. Most of his coworkers committed the same 'crime' he pleaded guilty to (backing up classified files). Why weren't they trucked around as spies?

And some Asians voted for Bush. I will never understand that.

Sorry for the long rant. This is the rant board right:)?

[Faithless]

What's the deal with Alito and his membership to a Princeton club that opposed lifting a ban to let women and minorities into Princeton University?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/12/MNGPMGLV0K1.DTL
What's the deal with his wife crying during yesterday's confirmation hearings.

There's no crying during confirmation hearings! :frown:

[Yeahman]

Traditionally, Republicans (conservatives) stand for (this is the extreme far right position):
1. pro life
2. pro guns (NRA)
3. capital punishment
4. smaller federal government (more state funding)
5. reduction and elimination of social welfare
6. reduce immigration, protect borders, reduce benefits to illegal aliens (part of reducing social welfare)
7. Might makes Right. A strong military, backed by the highest defense spending.
8. Proactive foreign policy. We back up our resolve with weapons, not words (aka guns before diplomacy). Foreign policy before domestic policy. We have to maintain #1 Superpower. Anyone who challenges our supremacy is an enemy (the 'great satan' Soviet Union under Reagan. China under Bush).
9. Supply side economics (reduce taxes, give the rich/big businesses the money, tax incentives, and tax cuts. They spend, and it trickles down to the population in the form of job creation and stronger companies)
10. Protectionism and isolation (protect US wealth and resources worldwide. Trade is necessary evil). Stiff the UN. The Republican adminstrations allowed the US debt to the UN (for dues as Security Council member) to reach millions of dollars in dues. This US shortfall was paid for by Japan and Germany.
11. Business before environment. Sell/rent virgin forests to loggers, don't worry about erosion, strip mining is ok. Priorities are not social works (New Orleans levies would have cost 123 million to repair before Katrina. It was deemed too expensive by the Bush Admin, whom last year funded a bridge to an island off of Alaska for $250 million. Politics before people).
12. Civil liberties are not as important as National Security (see Patriot's Act). Get rid of Affirmative Action, minorities can sink or swim.
Traditional US Republicans are WASP (white anglo saxon protestant).
#8 is not traditional Republican philosophy. The proactive engagment is a contribution of the neo-cons. Republicans have traditionally been opposed to foreign involvment.
#10 is exactly the opposite of Republican philosophy. What do you think the party affliation of WTO protestors are?

The stereotypical Republicans are the rich male WASP, the Bible-thumping WASP redneck, and the elitist traditionalist Catholic.

Democrats (liberals) are (far left):
1. pro choice
2. gun control
3. abolish death penalty
4. social welfare is the government's raison de etre, fund necessary services.
5. expand human services, working class matters (strong Union support)
6. give immigration a chance, this is how we all got here, give benefits to the immigrants and allow their kids to attend public schools.
7. Reduce defense spending. Diplomacy makes more sense in a global environment (current defense spending is 2/3 of our annual budget).
8. Reactive foreign policy, support the UN. Build concensus.
9. Domestic before Foreign Policy. Take care of the US as a priority, the world is secondary. Focus on domestic economy. A strong economy = a strong country, we don't need more weapons or foreign bases.
10. Environmentally conscious. We can't regrow 3000 year old trees once cut. Strip mined land is distroyed. Species that are eliminated create chain reactions ecologically that harm us all. Global warming and the growth of the ozone hole is a problem we need to address.
11. Humanitarian concerns are important.
12. Civil liberties are important, minorities have rights, proponents of affirmative action.
Democrats are traditionally Catholic.
The stereotypical Democrats are the blue-collar Catholic son-of-an-immigrant, the feminist, and blacks.



And here's my rant...
I was a registered Democrat. Still am actually. I never got around to changing my party. My political hero is RFK. I cannot forgive Bush for the war. But I cannot return to voting Democrat unless they stop being so damn anti-religious. I hope Casey whips Santorums ass this year and I hope it gets lots of press. We need more pro-life Democrats.

[soapzen]

When I began the note, I began listing 'traditional' values... then finding myself listing current extremist values because I was citing current examples. Sloppy note editing, it was late.

These are current far left/far right positions.

The 'proactive' foreign policy, surely you can't disagree that the Republicans today are far more proactive militarily than democrats:)?

Tho in fairness, beginning with Reagan is why I say that. Consider Noriega, we kidnapped the Head of State for another nation then threw him in a US jail and tried him for drug charges. We connected Libya and Gaddaffi with financing the bombing of the downed US commuter plane... and sent a fighter squadron to level his palace, resulting in a kill of his wife and son and his own maiming, and you didn't see him funding terrorism anymore... Libya, which was then daily in the news, got real quiet... and still is. Reagan sent US military into Granada and 'took back' a fishing island because Americans lived there. Lets not forget the dissolution of the Great Satan (the Soviet Union), the taking back of the Iran hostages that stumped Carter and the US fleet off of Taiwan.

I can't think of another President more proactive in Foreign policy, including JFK, where the Bay of Pigs was a REACTION to the Soviets building a nuclear missile site 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Or Bush unilaterally going to war. Can you?

I disagree that Democrats are 'anti-religious', unless your only definition of religion is bible-thumping far right pro-life catholics. There are 2500 sects of Christianity alone today, whom do not uniformly agree on life or choice. There are multiple other religions and non-religions from Buddhism to Wicca. Most of whom do not have a stated abortion platform.

This ALWAYS puzzles me. The pro-life movement votes on that basis, especially for President, when it's not the President who has any say in the matter. It's a Supreme Court issue. This was the only election in 20 years where the Supreme Court nominations had anything to do with the President where it might count. And I think perhaps the conservative viewpoint in other votes will really hurt. Yet Roe still has 5 Supreme Court defenders, no chance of overturning. UGH.

For a group that has a HUGE stake in Foreign Policy, aka Asian Americans, why would you vote for a President simply being pro-life, when the only thing he really controls is the military and the budget proposals?

His twitchy war finger can really hurt us, from daily racial discrimination right down to taking away our privacy and personal property historically (Japanese Interrment camps). Yet he cannot overturn Roe vs Wade. Can you explain the illogic of this?

Pro-lifers vote for Senators and Congressmen on the basis of their ability to caste a fractional vote for abortion-related legislation, which has only come up ONCE (partial birth) in 100 years in Congress... without considering their daily impact when voting on our money (tax legislation), our future (social security and medicare), our foreign policy (ratifying the President's decision to go to WAR), our environment and the only earth we can live on (leasing virgin forests to loggers for $1/acre, ignoring the ozone depletion at the poles), our personal privacy (Patriot Act), maintaining national infrastructure (New Orleans Levys).

THESE are the decisions these people make every day, issues that touch on our lives, our paychecks, our ability to enjoy health and happiness, not abortion issues, which these people have no power to affect.

What I want to know is... did religious brainwashing distroy common sense, even among people who should know better and have something to lose? AKA, the Asian American community?

As the press puts it: "Casey is just a watered down version of Santorum". If you didn't like Santorum, why would you like Casey?

My gosh, I didn't even realize how far to the left I had swung myself... but decades of policy watching and who and how it impacts us has opened my eyes.

I'm still pro gun, pro business pro capital punishment :biggrin:

[kuilong]

#8 is not traditional Republican philosophy. The proactive engagment is a contribution of the neo-cons.

It depends on how far back you want to go, doesn't it? Before Thatcher and Reagan, small government and free enterprises weren't conservative policies either (just look at the fuss the One Nation Tories put up). That's how the Economist can so adamantly insist that it's a liberal, rather than a conservative newspaper, and still be right.

And here's my rant...
I was a registered Democrat. Still am actually. I never got around to changing my party. My political hero is RFK. I cannot forgive Bush for the war. But I cannot return to voting Democrat unless they stop being so damn anti-religious. I hope Casey whips Santorums ass this year and I hope it gets lots of press. We need more pro-life Democrats.

I think that might have been a pig flying past my window just then, but I agree. It's a shame that the abortion issue has been so politicized along party lines in this country; the fact that such issues are usually left up to conscience votes in parliamentary democracies is how it's not uncommon for prominent leftists, like Charles Kennedy or George Galloway to be pro-life. Republicans get too much political mileage out of the abortion issue for anyone to seriously believe they'll take steps to outlaw it, so pro-lifers ought to be asking themselves seriously whether they should really be single-issue Republican voters over the abortion issue (for their single-issue Deity, perhaps). After all, it wasn't so long ago that Jimmy Carter was trying to pass restrictions on abortion, and almost all Republicans have blithely voted for Title X and XIX funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood.

[soapzen]

Kuilong.. you aren't REALLY in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa are you? How are Asians treated there in the post Apartheid regime?