Democrats make fools out of themselves at the Alito Hearings

Yep, that's how I see it.

The democrats are digging at the bottom of the barrel in order to find dirt on Alito, who is clearly an intellegent and qualified judge. Let's look at some of the allegations:

1. The "Princeton Group" - the democrats were so desperate that they brought up a group that appeared on Alito's resume at one point. The group had opposed allowing women and minorities into Princeton, so the democrats are trying to say by association that Alito doesn't want women and minorties to have the same rights in education. This is clearly not what he believes, so the only reason for bringing this up is to confuse the public and personally attack the charater of a person who doesn't deserve it.

2. Executive Power - the democrats have also suggested that Alito wants unrestrained executive power and is against seperation of powers. No self respecting judge as educated as Sam Alito would take that position, and he said so. This is just another attempt to scare people into believing that Alito will help create the mythical future Bush dictatorship.

3. When all of those fail, opponents say that Alito is "moderate in speech" but "actually out of the mainstream." Well gee wiz. How can anyone disprove that?

Honestly, what do the democrats have to gain by attacking this guy? Remember, they only have a certain amount of political capital. Maybe they should spend it elsewhere.

Connecticutter said:

Honestly, what do the democrats have to gain by attacking this guy? Remember, they only have a certain amount of political capital. Maybe they should spend it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Well he was nominated by the President. What do you expect from the opposition party besides...... well opposition/obstructionism?


Dems pound Alito


The way I see it they are just doing their jobs and if Alito is good enough all this will just be another expensive good-for-nothing media farce and if he is not then someone else will be nominated and the process will begin anew.

Did anyone see Biden ramble on? He spoke for 12 minutes and never asked a single question. He just wanted Alito to sit and listen, I guess. :lol:

akyron said:

Well he was nominated by the President. What do you expect from the opposition party besides...... well opposition/obstructionism?

The way I see it they are just doing their jobs and if Alito is good enough all this will just be another expensive good-for-nothing media farce and if he is not then someone else will be nominated and the process will begin anew.

Click to expand...

Their jobs are to conduct an investigation and interview of the nominee and make independant judgements as to whether he should be confirmed to the court.

Instead, this is being used so that politicians can get free air time on network news, play party politics, and make unfounded attacks that hurt the nominee through guilt by association.

These people have SIX full years in the senate. You'd think that should be enough time to put away partisan politics and actually do your job.

Connecticutter said:

Yep, that's how I see it.

The democrats are digging at the bottom of the barrel in order to find dirt on Alito, who is clearly an intellegent and qualified judge. Let's look at some of the allegations:

1. The "Princeton Group" - the democrats were so desperate that they brought up a group that appeared on Alito's resume at one point. The group had opposed allowing women and minorities into Princeton, so the democrats are trying to say by association that Alito doesn't want women and minorties to have the same rights in education. This is clearly not what he believes, so the only reason for bringing this up is to confuse the public and personally attack the charater of a person who doesn't deserve it.

2. Executive Power - the democrats have also suggested that Alito wants unrestrained executive power and is against seperation of powers. No self respecting judge as educated as Sam Alito would take that position, and he said so. This is just another attempt to scare people into believing that Alito will help create the mythical future Bush dictatorship.

3. When all of those fail, opponents say that Alito is "moderate in speech" but "actually out of the mainstream." Well gee wiz. How can anyone disprove that?

Honestly, what do the democrats have to gain by attacking this guy? Remember, they only have a certain amount of political capital. Maybe they should spend it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

It is probably a good idea for you actually spell the word “intelligent” correctly when using it to describe someone.

1. Do you have any associations with any groups that believe that women and minorities should not be allowed in certain Universities? Would you ever consider associating yourself with a group that held those views? I am going to go out on a limb and say probably not. That is why asking Alito about his past association with a group like that is certainly appropriate in a confirmation hearing.

2. In case you have not turned on a television, listened to a radio, or even picked up a newspaper in the last month or so, there is big debate going on right now about the Presidents Executive authority and the legality of his administration’s assertion that they do not need a court order for domestic wiretaps. Moreover, the Bush Administration has also via executive order asserted that it has the power to ignore the anti-torture law that congress recently passed. So questions pertaining to Alito views on the extent of Presidential powers are certainly appropriate in a confirmation hearing.

3. Alito is a very well qualified candidate for the Supreme Court, but its no secret that he is a very conservative candidate who is ideologically in line with Scalia and Thomas.

It is the job of both Democrats and Republicans to thoroughly question any nomination for the Supreme Court. If his nomination is confirmed, and as qualified as he is, I am sure it will be, then he will be on the bench for life or at least until he chooses to retire. In light of that, it’s certainly appropriate for members of the Judiciary Committee to question Alito on a wide range of topics, especially those topics that relate to current events, his past rulings, cases he has argued in the past, public positions he has taken in the past, and his past associations.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It is probably a good idea for you actually spell the word “intelligent” correctly when using it to describe someone.

Click to expand...

That was a stupid comment. I don't go around pointing out all of your typos. You're here to debate the issues, so I'd appreciate it if you'd back off about a single word in a substantial post.

SouthernDemocrat said:

1. Do you have any associations with any groups that believe that women and minorities should not be allowed in certain Universities? Would you ever consider associating yourself with a group that held those views? I am going to go out on a limb and say probably not. That is why asking Alito about his past association with a group like that is certainly appropriate in a confirmation hearing.

Click to expand...

I must be on tons of lists that I don't even know about. I have worked with several political candidates, and it is possible that one day they will get involved with something that I don't want to be associated with. I bet that if the democratic party turned its opposition research operatives onto anyone, they'd be able to find some juicy information.

Am I to understand that you actually belive that Alito is against women and minorities in education? If not - then why make a big deal about this?

SouthernDemocrat said:

2. In case you have not turned on a television, listened to a radio, or even picked up a newspaper in the last month or so, there is big debate going on right now about the Presidents Executive authority and the legality of his administration’s assertion that they do not need a court order for domestic wiretaps. Moreover, the Bush Administration has also via executive order asserted that it has the power to ignore the anti-torture law that congress recently passed. So questions pertaining to Alito views on the extent of Presidential powers are certainly appropriate in a confirmation hearing.

Click to expand...

I am very well aware of the issues here, and the senate would be negligent to fail to bring it up. However, to suggests as some democrats have that Alito wants an all-powerful executive with no checks and balances is false, and it plays in quite well with their scare tactics about the Republican administration.

SouthernDemocrat said:

3. Alito is a very well qualified candidate for the Supreme Court, but its no secret that he is a very conservative candidate who is ideologically in line with Scalia and Thomas.

Click to expand...

It's sham that democrats consider themselves to be in the mainstream when they were voted out of power by a majority of the American people. Part of the reason why Bush won the election was because people wanted him to appoint these types of judges.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It is the job of both Democrats and Republicans to thoroughly question any nomination for the Supreme Court. If his nomination is confirmed, and as qualified as he is, I am sure it will be, then he will be on the bench for life or at least until he chooses to retire. In light of that, it’s certainly appropriate for members of the Judiciary Committee to question Alito on a wide range of topics, especially those topics that relate to current events, his past rulings, cases he has argued in the past, public positions he has taken in the past, and his past associations.

Click to expand...

You can do all of this without stooping to the level that the democrats are at right now.

Connecticutter said:

Yep, that's how I see it.

The democrats are digging at the bottom of the barrel in order to find dirt on Alito, who is clearly an intellegent and qualified judge. Let's look at some of the allegations:

1. The "Princeton Group" - the democrats were so desperate that they brought up a group that appeared on Alito's resume at one point. The group had opposed allowing women and minorities into Princeton, so the democrats are trying to say by association that Alito doesn't want women and minorties to have the same rights in education. This is clearly not what he believes, so the only reason for bringing this up is to confuse the public and personally attack the charater of a person who doesn't deserve it.

2. Executive Power - the democrats have also suggested that Alito wants unrestrained executive power and is against seperation of powers. No self respecting judge as educated as Sam Alito would take that position, and he said so. This is just another attempt to scare people into believing that Alito will help create the mythical future Bush dictatorship.

3. When all of those fail, opponents say that Alito is "moderate in speech" but "actually out of the mainstream." Well gee wiz. How can anyone disprove that?

Honestly, what do the democrats have to gain by attacking this guy? Remember, they only have a certain amount of political capital. Maybe they should spend it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

It just makes me sick. The GOP guy gets up and gives the rah rah speech and then Ted Kennedy gives his usual blather. I just get sick of the same old guys. That is why there needs to be term limits so we can move Kennedy, Byrd, Stevens, and all those ***holes from both sides on their way.

The two things that stood out most to me were

1) That they tried to spin his vagueness as evasive maneuvering when they know damn well that if he says anything specific then he won't be able to rule on any case involving that subject.

2) They assert that he is an anti-abortion ideologue based on his 3rd Circuit Court record, but he heard only three abortion-related cases on the 3rd circuit and voted against restricting abortion in 2 of them.

3) When Reagan was replacing White (conservative) with Ginsburg no one demanded that he replace White with a conservative, yet today, Biden demanded that O'Conner be replaced with a liberal. Do we have a new standard conveniently arrived at only when the Democrats don't want to play by the rules?


They are so full of crap it's almost not fun to correct them.

Axismaster said:

That is why there needs to be term limits so we can move Kennedy, Byrd, Stevens, and all those ***holes from both sides on their way.

Click to expand...

I gotta admit, I've never thought a great deal about term limits and have not had any particular leanings for or against. But this Abramoff thing and the confirmation goings-on with the Bush judicial appointees (not just Alito, but Roberts and the filibuster business as well) have me leaning very much toward term limits as at a partial solution to some of this stuff.

What do others think about term limits?

**** see new thread in Politics Forum ****

I thought Biden did the best thing for his party, used the time to make his case for president, and said, "screw this circus show". Of course Ted made a fool of himself, what else is new, I just can't get enough of this, from both sides. This stuff is pure solid gold baby, I'm talking.......Soul Train good, there is soooooo much to learn from hearing them all speak. I always change my mind on a few Senators after these confirmations are all over, and on both sides of the aisle.

oldreliable67 said:

I gotta admit, I've never thought a great deal about term limits and have not had any particular leanings for or against. But this Abramoff thing and the confirmation goings-on with the Bush judicial appointees (not just Alito, but Roberts and the filibuster business as well) have me leaning very much toward term limits as at a partial solution to some of this stuff.

What do others think about term limits?

**** see new thread in Politics Forum ****

Click to expand...

I am all for them, but I doubt they are constitutional. However, if either of the two major parties actually gave a damn about the country, they would simply adopt a party resolution of term limits.

For example, the Democrats or Republicans could just say that no one in their party will run for more than 2 consecutive terms. The problem is that if both parties did not adopt something similar, the other party would just use that against them.

KCConservative said:

Did anyone see Biden ramble on? He spoke for 12 minutes and never asked a single question. He just wanted Alito to sit and listen, I guess. :lol:

Click to expand...

Like an idiot I kept waiting for Biden to come to a point as well. I should have just slept for all that was worth.

aquapub said:

They are so full of crap it's almost not fun to correct them.

Click to expand...

Yeah. It becomes work after awhile.

What the Senate really should do is select a committee of lawyers, judges, and constitutional scholars to ask REAL questions of Alito. Then if the senators have any additional questions, they can ask them if they must. That way we might be able to actually learn something about Alito (and any future nominee), instead of going through this idiotic sideshow. The senators, Democrat and Republican alike, do nothing except grandstand.

Kandahar said:

The senators, Democrat and Republican alike, do nothing except grandstand.

Click to expand...

I agree totally.





"The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances"

SouthernDemocrat said:

1. Do you have any associations with any groups that believe that women and minorities should not be allowed in certain Universities? Would you ever consider associating yourself with a group that held those views? I am going to go out on a limb and say probably not.

Click to expand...

I serve in the military and the military does not allow gays to serve openly, does that mean I'm a gay basher? No

I serve on a submarine and women are not allowed do so, does that mean I'm against equal rights for women? No

I'm not guilty by association, and it's possible Alito is not either.

Here is that funniest thing about the confirmation hearing;

Judges have the duty to see each case before them with no pre-conceived personal or political opinions. But the Senators asking him if he can be fair and impartial already has their own opinions before the questions are even asked.

The might as well be asking "Judge Alito, can you be fair and impartial even though I am not?"

KCConservative said:

Did anyone see Biden ramble on? He spoke for 12 minutes and never asked a single question. He just wanted Alito to sit and listen, I guess. :lol:

Click to expand...

KC, Biden is famous for this horse$hit. Whenever he comes onto Meet the Press, my husband and I roll our eyes because Biden is going to talk, talk, talk, and talk. He says some interesting stuff, but on the whole, he bores me to death. The man is planning to run for president. He's in a dream world. That doesn't surprise me that he talked all about himself. The newspaper today said that he talked about his son applying to Princeton and how he went to U Penn instead. I'm sorry, but who gives a $hit about that? This isn't about Biden. Sheesh. :roll:

Connecticutter said:

Their jobs are to conduct an investigation and interview of the nominee and make independant judgements as to whether he should be confirmed to the court.

Instead, this is being used so that politicians can get free air time on network news, play party politics, and make unfounded attacks that hurt the nominee through guilt by association.

These people have SIX full years in the senate. You'd think that should be enough time to put away partisan politics and actually do your job.

Click to expand...

Connecticutter, I'm sorry, but how do their questions equate to playing partisan politics? No candidate is perfect. Many people have a problem with judges who have been associated with a group that discriminates against other people. What does that say about his character? What does that say about the people who come before him? It is appropriate to raise that issue during his hearings.

Alito made statemetns while Reagan was president, which would indicate that he found that the president had executive powers that seemed to go beyond what the Constitution states. It is wholly appropriate to ask him about that issue, particularly when we are currently in a situation where the president claims he has the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping.

This is all partisan politics? Yeah right.

ANAV said:

I serve in the military and the military does not allow gays to serve openly, does that mean I'm a gay basher? No

I serve on a submarine and women are not allowed do so, does that mean I'm against equal rights for women? No

I'm not guilty by association, and it's possible Alito is not either.

Click to expand...

I am sure that Alito does not hold those views either. However, your comparison is bogus. Alito had an association with an organization thats actually ADVOCATED those views. That is why it is an appropriate question to ask him about it.

ANAV said:

Here is that funniest thing about the confirmation hearing;

Judges have the duty to see each case before them with no pre-conceived personal or political opinions. But the Senators asking him if he can be fair and impartial already has their own opinions before the questions are even asked.

The might as well be asking "Judge Alito, can you be fair and impartial even though I am not?"

Click to expand...

There is a difference between a lawmaker who is elected on a specific ideology, and a Judge who should set his ideology aside while on the bench.

That's enough out of you Mr. Allito now let's listen to whay I have to say.

Connecticutter said:

2. Executive Power - the democrats have also suggested that Alito wants unrestrained executive power and is against seperation of powers. No self respecting judge as educated as Sam Alito would take that position, and he said so. This is just another attempt to scare people into believing that Alito will help create the mythical future Bush dictatorship.

Click to expand...

All I have to say is that it is a good thing I read that British WWII Guerilla Warfare manual. It'll help a lot in retaking this country from the impeding dictatorship that will come after Alito's swearing in. :2razz:

Connecticutter said:

1. The "Princeton Group" - the democrats were so desperate that they brought up a group that appeared on Alito's resume at one point. The group had opposed allowing women and minorities into Princeton, so the democrats are trying to say by association that Alito doesn't want women and minorties to have the same rights in education. This is clearly not what he believes, so the only reason for bringing this up is to confuse the public and personally attack the charater of a person who doesn't deserve it.

Click to expand...

Well the "guilty by association" position seems to be a favorite of all politicians. :roll:

Saboteur said:

All I have to say it that it is a good thing I read that British WWII Guerilla Warfare manual. It'll help a lot in retaking this country from the impeding dictatorship that will come after Alito's swearing in. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Executive, House, Senate, and coming soon to a Judiciary near you, the Supreme Court, the Dems are going to have absolutely no political power come Allito's confirmation, see ya in ''06.