Alito: "No person is above the law, and that means the president and...the Supreme Court"
Samuel Alito said in today's Senate hearing that he does not believe war allows the president to bypass the Constitution. "No person is above the law, and that means the president and that means the Supreme Court.''
No waffle there. But wait.
After Sen. Kennedy said to Alito, "Time and again, even in routine matters involving average Americans, you give enormous, almost total deference to the exercise of governmental powers,'' Alito said that he has tried to decide each case on its merits, and that "Sometimes that means siding with the government, sometimes it means siding with the party that's claiming a violation of rights.''
Waffle.
But then Alito said, "Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war. And it protects American citizens under all circumstances.''
No waffle. But wait!
When Sen. Specter asked Alito whether he thinks the act of Congress authorizing use of force against those responsible for Sept. 11 gave Bush the authority to order warrantless wiretaps, Alito replied, "These questions are obviously very difficult and important....and likely to arise in litigation even before my own court or before the Supreme Court.''
Waffle waffle.
Important, yes; difficult, no. The law is the law. When you respond to a direct question with an indirect answer, it's called deflecting.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060110/1630071571.htm
No waffle there. But wait.
After Sen. Kennedy said to Alito, "Time and again, even in routine matters involving average Americans, you give enormous, almost total deference to the exercise of governmental powers,'' Alito said that he has tried to decide each case on its merits, and that "Sometimes that means siding with the government, sometimes it means siding with the party that's claiming a violation of rights.''
Waffle.
But then Alito said, "Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war. And it protects American citizens under all circumstances.''
No waffle. But wait!
When Sen. Specter asked Alito whether he thinks the act of Congress authorizing use of force against those responsible for Sept. 11 gave Bush the authority to order warrantless wiretaps, Alito replied, "These questions are obviously very difficult and important....and likely to arise in litigation even before my own court or before the Supreme Court.''
Waffle waffle.
Important, yes; difficult, no. The law is the law. When you respond to a direct question with an indirect answer, it's called deflecting.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060110/1630071571.htm
posted by Editor at Large at 4:59 PM
3 Comments:
I understand the frustrations of liberals when they do not have any facts against such an over-qualified Judge as Alito. In over 3,000 cases he's heard, in over 300 written summaries - the liberals have nothing that they can point to against this good Judge.
In the frustrations and acts of desparation of the liberals - I laugh!
justadog:
"Liberals" (humans with views that differ from your own) are not frustrated by a lack of facts about Alito; to the contrary, they are frustrated by the abundance of facts and evidence (as you've noted) pointing to Alito's apparent disregard for civil and human rights, his inconsistency, his tendency toward self-contradiction, and his dishonesty. Yes, "liberals" are frustrated and desperate - desperate to keep this insensitive, bigoted, imperialistic extremist off the Supreme Court.
Here's a rundown on a few of the documented arguments against Alito, from today's NY Times:
EVIDENCE OF EXTREMISM Judge Alito's extraordinary praise of Judge Bork is unsettling, given that Judge Bork's radical legal views included rejecting the Supreme Court's entire line of privacy cases, even its 1965 ruling striking down a state law banning sales of contraceptives. Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton - a group whose offensive views about women, minorities and AIDS victims were discussed in greater detail at yesterday's hearing - is also deeply troubling, as is his unconvincing claim not to remember joining it.
OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE In 1985, Judge Alito made it clear that he believed the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He had many chances this week to say he had changed his mind, but he refused. When offered the chance to say that Roe is a "super-precedent," entitled to special deference because it has been upheld so often, he refused that, too. As Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, noted in particularly pointed questioning, since Judge Alito was willing to say that other doctrines, like one person one vote, are settled law, his unwillingness to say the same about Roe strongly suggests that he still believes what he believed in 1985.
SUPPORT FOR AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Judge Alito has backed a controversial theory known as the "unitary executive," and argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he installs illegal wiretaps. Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.
INSENSITIVITY TO ORDINARY AMERICANS' RIGHTS Time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, the nominee has taken the side of big corporations against the "little guy," supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled. The hearing shed new light on his especially troubling dissent from a ruling by two Reagan-appointed judges, who said that workers at a coal-processing site were covered by Mine Safety and Health Act protections.
DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S HONESTY Judge Alito's explanation of his involvement with Concerned Alumni of Princeton is hard to believe. In a 1985 job application, he proudly pointed to his membership in the organization. Now he says he remembers nothing of it - except why he joined, which he insists had nothing to do with the group's core concerns. His explanation for why he broke his promise to Congress to recuse himself in any case involving Vanguard companies is also unpersuasive. As for his repeated claims that his past statements on subjects like abortion and Judge Bork never represented his personal views or were intended to impress prospective employers - all that did was make us wonder why we should give any credence to what he says now.
Congradulations to Justice Alito - the newest member of the US Supreme Court.
Now, so much awful liberal damage to undo....
Post a Comment
<< Home