Alito On the Spot
by Pamela LeaveyDay two of the Alito nomination hearings was a day of watching Alito squirm and wiggle out of being put on the spot…
Samuel Alito claimed today he will “keep an open mind” when it comes to Abortion. It was a move that is clearly seen as a man trying to distance himself from the statement he made 20 years ago in opposition to abortion. Alito made the statements today in response to questioning from the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter who is a supporter of abortion rights.
Alito said he agreed “that the Constitution protects a right to privacy,” the main underpinning of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationally. He also agreed with Specter that stare decisis, meaning to stand by that which is already decided, “is a very important doctrine” that must be considered.
Asked by Specter whether he regards a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent,” Alito demurred.
“I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super precedents or super-duper precedents,” he said. “Any sort of categorization like that sort of reminds me of the size of the laundry detergent in the supermarket.” But he said that “when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent.”However, Alito added, “Now, I don’t want to leave the impression that stare decisis is an inexorable command, because the Supreme Court has said that it is not.”
Well, it seems to me that Alito left himself WIDE OPEN today for the possibility to change his mind once he is on the bench and pull s0me super-size box of precedents out vote to over turn Roe v Wade.
When pressed by Senator Patrick Leahy on whether “Bush broke the law when he authorized the domestic spying program, Alito said the issue was “very likely to result in litigation in the federal courts” and that he would have to hear the arguments of the contending parties and examine any constitutional questions to make a determination.”
Alito also said that Alito said that “no person in this country is above the law.” However, he also wiggled and squirmed when he said “some issues related to executive powers fall into “a twilight zone” where presidential authority is at a low point.” Leahy also questioned Alito on his membership in the conservative Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that Leahy said “resisted admissions of women and minorities to Alito’s alma mater.”
Alito claimed to have “no specific recollection of that organization” and said he “did not remember being actively involved in it.” RIGHT.
Ted Kennedy pull no punches when he questioned Alito and “referred to the domestic spying program and Bush’s opposition to efforts by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to explicitly ban torture by any U.S. government personnel.”
Kennedy said he has “serious doubts” that Alito would be the kind of Supreme Court justice who would stand up to presidential power, but would be “overly deferential” to such authority. He cited Alito’s statement in his 1985 job application that he believed very strongly in the “supremacy” of the executive branch.
Alito said he had used “an inapt phrase” that was “very misleading and incorrect.” He said he did not mean that the executive branch is superior to the legislative and judicial branches, and he recognizes that “the branches of government are equal.”
The nominee defended his opinions in specific federal appeals court cases that Kennedy charged showed a pattern of “single-minded deference to the executive power.” Alito said essentially that he reached his decisions based on the law as it applied to each case.
The transcripts from Day 2 of the Alito Hearings are available here. An analysis from Tom Raum of AP News said that “Samuel Alito is no John Roberts.”
His day’s mission _ hour after hour _ seemed to be to say nothing particularly attention-grabbing, out of character, or reflecting anger or lack of preparation.
Stay tuned for Day 3 of Alito On the Spot…
Filed under: Democrats, In The News, Politics, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
I think Senator Schumer’s questioning really showed the true Alito. Schumer pinned him down on his 1985 statements which strongly stated that he “proudly” supported the belief that an abortion is unconstitutional. Schumer allowed him so many opportunities to better explain this position and Alito fell flat (in my opinion). Alito even appeared terrified that he was forced to answer what he meant by these statements. Why can he discuss something so fundamental to his job? He kept trying to go back to “if this is brought in my court…” Schumer kept stating, I don’t want response about process or what you may decide. Schumer said I want to know what you think about this document…the constitution. I recommend anyone to please look at this portion of the hearings closely. Schumer brillantly exposed this 1985 statement along with Alito’s circuit decisions which often ignored precedent (eventhough he says this will be his principle guide in abortion matters). He is definitely full of double talk. He has such strong opinions in his record. These records definitely become our best judgement of him as a possible Supreme Court judge. He in no way better explains these positions. This and many other portions of the hearing give me the assurance that he will not be open-minded about abortion or other important matters. I hope Democrats can keep him out of this important position. Yeah, we will have to take a Republican for this position but not someone with opinions and and record that can’t even be defended…NOT EVEN BY HIM. As Senator Feinstein stated…His behavior has been “puzzling” and as Feingold (or Schumer)stated “disturbing”. Eventhough the Republicans try to bring up a few cases where he helped a minority in a discrimination case or related matters, the more negative aspects of his decisions, social affiliations, and public statements far outweigh the positive.
I saw some of yesterday’s hearing he was getting hot under the collar when DiFi was bringing up his record.
If it’s true that american’s aren’t paying attention to his nomination hearing then this country is even worse shape than I thought. How can you not pay some attention to a man that may rule on laws affecting your life for the next 30 years.
I think they need to keep on him about presidential powers, and voting rights as much as roe. At least Kohl asked him about Bush vs Gore 2000. I thought Alito didn’t answer that question at all and that right there are to keep any sane dem from voting for this man. Giving the pres more power than the legislative branch should shake up the so called moderates enough to vote against him especially after bush’s illegal wiretaps and opening people mail but who knows. The media is already spining this as a done deal and the dems can’t win it.
I believe that the entire premise of a supreme court judge not giving his/her views on issues is flawed. This will bring such uncertainty in the judicial process that it becomes even more overwhelmed than it already is. The “tests on the system” will kill it’s effectiveness. Now add two justices at the same time and imagine the trouble. My personal beliefe is that those in government under question currently, are counting on the overbooked legal system to bypass prosecution. Justices routinely publish thier opinions as a guide to clear the court loads. This secret government situation we have now is not what anyone wants, even if people do not want to be bothered with the details. We pay thier salaries. They work for us.