posted January 13, 2006 03:18 PM            

Though Alito's record, demeanor and reputation bespeak of an extraordinarily humble, decent, ethical and scholarly man, senators Kennedy, Schumer and Co. have strained to convince us he is an unethical rogue, among other things.

Aside from their pathetic attempts to taint him with the now familiar Vanguard, Concerned Alumni of Princeton and 10-year-old strip-searching red herrings, Alito's circumspection over the abortion question drives them batty. It really frosts them that – in the words of Saint Theodore – "He didn't back away one inch from his [1985] statement that a woman's right to make her own reproductive decision is not protected under the Constitution."

Sen. Chuck Schumer was similarly exasperated, pressing Alito on how he could answer without hesitation that the right to free speech is in the Constitution but demur on whether the "right to choose" is.

But with an equal absence of hesitation, Alito enlightened Schumer that the right to free speech and press, as distinguished from the so-called right to an abortion, were expressly guaranteed in the First Amendment.

This dubious constitutional "right" ultimately owes its genesis to certain nebulous language of Justice William Douglas in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. In Griswold, Douglas divined that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."

It's much harder for me to comprehend Schumer's failure to see a dramatic distinction between the two sets of "rights" – those of expression versus that of abortion – than Judge Alito's recognition of the distinction. If anyone should have registered incredulity in that exchange, it is Judge Alito.

Indeed, it's counterintuitive to categorize a woman's "right" to abortion as flowing from her right to privacy since that formulation ignores the right of the baby, let alone the father. But couching this "right" in terms of privacy allows its proponents to perpetuate the illusion that a woman's decision to terminate innocent life growing inside her is as purely exclusive to her and inconsequential to anyone else as, say, her decision to undergo plastic surgery.

But apart from their angst over Alito's Neanderthal view of the "constitutional right to privacy," the senators seem convinced he is lying in professing he would approach the Roe precedent with an open mind.

They wouldn't hesitate to impose their pro-abortion policy views if sitting on the Court. So they have difficulty believing that justices who are personally pro-life would subordinate their personal preferences and be guided by dispassionate principles of constitutional interpretation.

I think it is entirely believable that Alito could write in 1985, as an executive branch advocate, that Roe should be overturned yet testify in 2006 that as a Supreme Court justice, he would approach abortion cases with an open mind.

The most ardent originalist scholars and judges generally have a deferential respect for Supreme Court precedent. They regard it as a monumental matter to overturn longstanding decisions, even if wrongly decided originally.

Equally significant, those with a restraint-oriented judicial philosophy are naturally predisposed against being predisposed on issues that might come before them. Engrained in them is the idea that the judiciary functions in a passive role. Before ruling on a matter, they await a real "case or controversy" between actual litigants.

It is against their philosophy even to flirt with considering how they might decide any case until it has come before them, they've become informed on the facts and law, and heard the arguments of the advocates.

I have little doubt that Judge Alito is personally against abortion and, as a matter of policy, probably believes it should be illegal, perhaps with certain exceptions. I further believe that he still thinks, like most legal scholars, that Roe was wrongly decided or wrongly reasoned.

But as a strong supporter of Judge Alito, and one who would like to see Roe overturned and the legality of abortion referred back to the several states, I think there's a good chance -- but am hardly sure -- that Judge Alito would vote to overturn it. I honestly don't think he knows, either, because he has no idea how such a case might eventually come before him.

posted January 13, 2006 03:22 PM            

Watching the Judge Samuel Alito Senate confirmation hearings should be sufficient to cause any self-respecting maggot to gag. The mean-spirited, cruel vitriol of Senators Kenney, Biden, Durbin, Leahy et al. exceeds even congressional standards for acrimony.

In the wake of making the nominee's wife cry, we should probably expect the frustrated Democrats to start pulling wings off flies and stealing toys from children.

Despite the mean-spirited, petty, partisan grousing on the Senate Judiciary Committee about the current Supreme Court nominee, the conventional wisdom is that Judge Alito WILL be confirmed to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ... and it is right and proper that he should be.

The usual suspects on the left are scared spitless.

Alito has (not surprisingly) said he would maintain an open mind if/when faced with the inevitable question of abortion. Sen. Dick Durbin said the nominee's work product and testimony suggested otherwise, with a "mind that, sadly, is closed in some instances." HEL-LO?!?

The Durbin diatribe is classic "pot calling the kettle black" stuff. If there was ever a group that flat-out did not want to be confused with ANY facts that contradicted their preconceived opinions and prejudices, it is the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Alexander Theroux, a novelist, poet and essayist, observed that "Hypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging." The ever-present denial of the Democrats is that they don't belong.

They don't belong to the majority (which still galls them).
They don't belong to mainstream thought.

They flat-out "don't get it"!

They are so self-satisfied with their dogma, they are incapable of acknowledging that they don't resonate with 'most' people.
Sen. Chuck Grassley was right when he said, "Your critics are grasping at any straw to tarnish your record." Duh!

Smarmy rhetoric notwithstanding, the bottom line here is the the Dems don't like Alito and don't want him confirmed.

He is a Republican (strike one), he is a constitutionist (strike two), and he is a Bush nominee (strike three).

However, the empirical reality is (and despite the itching and moaning, they have to know this) he WILL be confirmed. Failing evidence that he has had an illicit sexual relationship with a gay, black, Jewish, handicapped young boy or has been covertly performing illegal abortions, he gets confirmed.

The 'loyal opposition' (which is anything but) has even resorted to crashing parties. A recent press event was interrupted by desperate Democrats whining for another opportunity to impose their bulk in front of cameras. Smarmy Schumer, Distressed Durbin, Corpulent Kennedy and 'Leaky' Leahy shouldered their way into a pro-Alito event to scrape at scabs and kick over rocks. Their pitiful charges about some Princeton club Alito belonged to turned into an abbreviated tempest in a teacup.

Recognizing that eventually, inevitably, Judge Alito WILL be on the Supreme Court, it is beyond counterintuitive for Senate libs to continue their perpetual screeds.

Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. These sycophant, snarling Democrats just don't recognize the potential consequences to their pettiness. And (sadly) the myopic Republicans are too 'lofty' to exploit the obvious and exact a cost.

'Leaky' Leahy said, "A number of us have been troubled by what we see as inconsistencies in some of the answers." Bullfeathers! There are no inconsistencies ... and saying it doesn't make it so.

Durbin tried to get Alito to 'rule' that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and he failed.

The Dems are throwing stuff at the wall in the hope that 'something' might just stick ... maybe? I don't think so.

The latest manufactured kerfuffle over membership in some Princeton club has eve caused Joe Biden to again reveal the depth of his duplicity. Biden has now dissed Princeton as a university despite previous comments that were hugely laudatory.

The American Bar Association (which, according to the Democrats, is the gold standard ... when it agrees with Democrats) is satisfied with Alito. However, for the usual suspects this is another classic case of "facts that contradict a preconceived opinion or prejudice."

Somerset Maugham once noted: "Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirt. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments, it is a whole-time job."

Granted, liberal Democrats are well acquainted with vices, such as adultery and gluttony (Kennedy does not appear to be a man without vice.) However, the disingenuous duplicity of their hypocrisy is really something to behold.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/13/141824.shtml

posted January 13, 2006 05:37 PM              

EIR News Service
1-13-6

Speaking to an international webcast on January 11, Democratic leader Lyndon LaRouche issued an urgent warning to the Congress, and the nation, that the continued existence of the Untied States as a republic may depend upon the defeat of the nomination of Federalist Society member Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

`This is truly a matter of national security,'' LaRouche said, and therefore LaRouche PAC is rushing the full transcript of LaRouche's webcast into production, to be circulated along with its latest `Children of Satan IV' pamphlet, which exposes the fascist roots of the Federalist Society. The webcast pamphlet will hit the streets of Washington, starting on January 17. LaRouche's webcast warning should be a call to immediate action for all patriots concerned with saving the Constitution of the United States. He opened his statement with the following theme:

As a great American patriot once said, `These are times that try men's souls.' These are {grim} times. We have presently going on, in the Senate, a hearing of a man who {lies}: Sam Alito. The man's a liar. He's a member of the Federalist Society, which is a society assembled around the ideas and influence of a man, Carl Schmitt, who crafted the {Adolf Hitler administration}.

Carl Schmitt, who lived in this country for some time, and influenced the formation of a Federalist Society, which now controls {four} of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. And a fifth member of the Federalist Society, who, lying his head off up there on Capitol Hill, is about to be confirmed! And you would have five, out of nine Supreme Court Justices {prepared to endorse a fascist government in the United States}! And you have Senators who should have more guts, who are waffling, or being weak, in dealing with this fact. {There is no honest debate about bringing Adolf Hitler and his tradition into the government of the United States!}

Most of the American people are becoming extremely angry about this situation, but some people who at other times are leaders--in the moment of crisis, {when men's souls are tried, grim events grip them,} and for the sake of learning to get along with the enemy, they compromise. And then, they are compromised. And then, our system of government is compromised.

Later, LaRouche continued: ``I see strong men--men and women I've regarded as strong men, in the Senate--{flinching!} When the issue is: Are you willing to defend this nation from a takeover by Nazism?

The issue is not opinion. {The issue is Hitler!}

``And we can't have him here.''

And as the webcast concluded, LaRouche made the point again:

What I'm thinking today, as I worry about what's happening in the Senate today and tomorrow, will they capitulate and let this Alito pass? If they do, the existence of this nation is in jeopardy. Everything hangs on it. Often in the course of events, you come to a battlefield where you must win the war on that battlefield. That battlefield will not decide history as such, but the outcome of that battle will determine whether you {can} decide history or not.''

posted January 13, 2006 07:19 PM              

I don't know why... but I had a twinge of enjoyment from that.

Such a horrible question... "Are you a closet bigot?"

posted January 13, 2006 08:37 PM              

What did you think of the little woman collapsing into hysterics, jwhop? Is someone trying to pull at my heart strings? Those big blue meanie commies strike again.

posted January 13, 2006 09:48 PM            

But then, that's just hypocritical democrat leftists being hypocritical democrat leftists.

Chuck Shumer is a disgrace; not only to politics and New York but to America. One of the biggest shyster weasels in Congress.

posted January 13, 2006 11:22 PM            

Today's hearing wrapped up the testimony of Samuel Alito for his confirmation to the Supreme Court. After a short executive session, the committee came back into public session to take testimony from other witnesses. They began with a remarkable series of judges, colleagues of Judge Alito, who took the unprecedented step of defending their peer from the mudslinging that came from the Judiciary Committee this week.

One of the judges that came forward, and one of the first to testify this afternoon, was Ruggeri Aldisert, whose appointment dates back to the Johnson administration. Aldisert served in the Marine Corps in World War II and has spent 40 years on the bench. Aldisert also reminded the committee about who put him on the federal bench:

ALDISERT: When I first testified before this committee in 1968, I was seeking confirmation of my own nomination to the federal circuit court. I speak now as the I speak now as the most senior judge on the 3rd circuit.
And I begin my brief testimony with some personal background.

ALDISERT: In May 1960, I campaigned with John F. Kennedy in the critical presidential primaries of West Virginia.

The next year, I ran for judge, as was indicated, and I was on the Democratic ticket, and I served eight years as a state trial judge.

And as the chairman indicated, Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania was my chief sponsor when President Lyndon Johnson nominated me to the Court of Appeals, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York was one of my key supporters.

Now, why do I say this? I make this as a point that political loyalties become irrelevant when I became a judge. The same has been true in the case of Judge Alito, who served honorably in two Republican administrations before he was appointed to our court.

Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth.

I have been a judge for 45 of my 86 years. And based on my experience, I can represent to this committee that Judge Alito has to be included among the first rank of the 44 judges with whom I have served on the 3rd Circuit, and including another 50 judges on five other courts of appeals on which I have sat since taking senior status.

That contained a pretty unsubtle dig at the man who more than anyone else turned these hearings into a joke and a debacle. Judge Aldisert knew and worked with Ted's older and more accomplished brothers, supporting them and accepting their support when it came to working in politics and rising to the federal bench. In this case, the eighty-six-year-old man with 45 years of judicial experience flew all the way in from California, in an unprecedented show of support for a fellow judge before a Senate committee, just to state categorically that the dissolute younger brother of his political heroes had the nominee all wrong.

It reminds me of the Lloyd Bentsen moment in the VP debate in 1988 with Dan Quayle, when the VP nominee told the eventual VP that he was no John Kennedy. The difference in this case was that Teddy didn't have the guts to face Aldisert, having fled the scene when these witnesses came to the bench -- like almost all of his Democratic colleagues.

Thursday, January 12, 2006
www.captainsquartersblog.com

posted January 13, 2006 11:28 PM            

BTW, she left the Senate hearing room so she wasn't crying for the benefit of the cameras as you suggest.

posted January 14, 2006 01:14 AM            

quote:

---

What is striking and indicative of the hypocrisy of democrats is the insistence of democrats that Alito...and every other federal judge nominee that they keep an open mind...on abortion, on affirmative action and virtually every other leftist cause....when democrat minds are totally closed to ANY argument against same.

---

posted January 14, 2006 02:47 AM            

What did Justice Roberts have to say about it? Matter of precedence isn't it? It's a done deal. It's been heard and decided, it's over.

I alluded to this in the other thread, but I'll go ahead and spell it out here. I was raised in church. I wanted to be a pastor growing up. I've thought extensively on this subject, and can make as good an argument as anyone on for (in agreement with) the Pro Life side. However, as I said in BlueRoamer's thread to reduce the debate to something simpler than it truly is isn't really taking a comprehensive look at the issue.

posted January 14, 2006 11:35 AM              

I'm slightly - slightly - less disgusted with her public display of weakness than with the strong possibilty that she put on a show for gullible, gossip mongering Americans.

If someone questioned my husband's integrity, I'd let him take care of it. I didn't marry a weakling or an idiot. I can't for a minute imagine pulling a Camille in front of millions of people. What did this woman expect from this? Cake and cookies and pat on the back?

posted January 14, 2006 12:45 PM              

and with the Divine, a soul wouldn't choose
a Mother that was going to do this
that would be pointless, God is all intelligent..

nontheless, It's something I feel horrible about..
no soul, but still life, so there has to be some karma to that..

posted January 14, 2006 02:30 PM            

Where did you ever get the idea that abortion/infanticide is something new?

quote:

---

Republicans are far too close minded to new ideas

---

The entire thrust of what I said earlier was that it's democrats who have closed minds to any curtailment of abortion...and I stand by that.

quote:

---

What did Justice Roberts have to say about it? Matter of precedence isn't it? It's a done deal. It's been heard and decided, it's over.

---

Sorry acoustic, that's about as far from reality as it's possible to get when talking about precedence. Legal precedence is not a done deal at the Supreme Court level. Precedence of Supreme Court decisions will however rule in lower court decisions...or are supposed to...as both Roberts and Alito stressed.

Imagine if you will a Supreme Court decision which was wrongly decided and must forever more be the law of the land. No acoustic, precedence is given considerable weight and there must be some grounds, facts, legal arguments which trump the prior precedence to overturn a Supreme Court decision but it's been done almost 200 times in the history of the US.

posted January 14, 2006 02:32 PM              

With power comes responsibilty. And it is a great responsibilty that woman hold. Some will make a wise decision and some won't. But I do still believe the decision is ours and the governemnt has no place here.

posted January 14, 2006 01:37 PM              

yes, it's a choice that should be there,
God forbid women have to seek to do it illegally

it's a sombering experience, when I got pregnant the second time, I was 23, and there was no way, I could do that again
my X wanted me to have an abortion

I said no way, I can do this alone
he ended up asking me to marry him..

posted January 14, 2006 02:00 PM            

So TINK, with due regard to your husband, you should try to picture your husband bound, gagged and being staked out over an ant hill by barbarians. Think you could work up a little sympathy in that situation?

posted January 14, 2006 02:09 PM              

I can only imagine how hard it was for you to make that choice.

It is a very hard thing indeed for a woman to come to terms with the fact that she (at that point in time) should not be a mother.

I fully support anyone's choice to have an abortion. It is very important to be an effective parent. If you don't feel you are up to the task, appropriate measures must be taken.

I found myself in a predicament much like yours when I was 16. I chose to give the baby up for adoption. To this very day, the month of April (when she was born) is the hardest month to get through.

My sister-in-law was faced with this same problem when she was 18. When she came to me for advice, she expected I would suggest adoption rather than abortion... being that it was my choice in the past. She was quite surprised to find that I was willing to support her in anything she chose. Abortion or adoption... either is a very difficult choice with a lifetime of emotional implications. (She chose abortion.)

The most important thing is that the baby is not born to a mother who is not prepared to be a proper mother.

I'm sure you made an the right choice. There are enough children in this world suffering with parents who aren't capable of caring for them properly.

In my opinion, you, my SIL, and I all chose to spare these babies unnecessarily difficult lives.

posted January 14, 2006 02:18 PM              

thanks, I wish I had had the courage you had, and given up the baby for adoption
too selfish at the time

we Learn and Grow

all in different ways
it's amazing how much heart ache
we all go through in life

to big happy s
in ALL of Our Future's

can't change what we've done
But we can certainly be more careful
and undertake to do everything with
Love
from this point on. ...

posted January 14, 2006 03:35 PM            

As always you will see what you want to see, and nothing more. If you don't like a person's views you will continue to find ways to distort what is said into something that is ugly for you personally. You're always looking for that something ugly that you can get emotional about and react to. It's a sad way to live if you ask me.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, what other construction would you expect anyone to put on your statement which included the words...beneficial, abortion and progress?

---

I would expect that you would read it and interpret it's meaning the way it was said. I don't believe my writing style is difficult to comprehend.

What I said was not about abortion, but rather about close-mindedness. You twisted it into something about abortion. This is an example of the ugliness you seek out.

What I was saying with regard to abortion in my initial statement was that the issue has been decided, and that Republicans need to learn to move on. This goes back to things like the Serenity Prayer, and having the wisdom to know the difference. In my subsequent post I lined out my views on how anyone Republican or non-Republican can combat the practice of abortion. If Republicans were wise they'd be all over adoption. Can you think of the difference it would make if Republicans really showed proof of their pro life beliefs in this manner? I challenge any pro lifer to put their money where their mouth is.

http://www.achildswaiting.com/

www.adoptex.org/

http://www.nacac.org/

http://www.mapsadopt.org/

http://www.adopt.org/

quote:

---

Where did you ever get the idea that abortion/infanticide is something new?

---

I didn't say it was new.

quote:

---

The entire thrust of what I said earlier was that it's democrats who have closed minds to any curtailment of abortion...and I stand by that.

---

That's nice, but I'm living proof of the opposite.

quote:

---

Sorry acoustic, that's about as far from reality as it's possible to get when talking about precedence...

---

There's nothing really to say about this, but wait and see. I don't think they'll hear it again any time soon. I think it's unrealistic to think that it will be heard. We'll see what the reality is.

quote:

---

So TINK, with due regard to your husband, you should try to picture your husband bound, gagged and being staked out over an ant hill by barbarians. Think you could work up a little sympathy in that situation?

---

I'll never understand this belief of yours that you're the emotional police. How people choose to feel and express their feelings is entirely up to them. I'm quite certain TINK is not alone in thinking it an inappropriate response.