First of all I want to thank everyone who aided in the sacking of Kate O'Beirne's book
Women Who Make the World Worse over at Amazon. The overall book review is at 1.5 stars, and for reasons I have no clue about Amazon has now promoted the
General's review -- which has close to 4,000 votes -- to the Spotlight review.
In addition to all the fabulous 1 star reviews everyone contributed (and if you want to feel good about the existence of an active, engaged left go have a read-through, it's really quite inspirational), it probably had something to do with John Amato's
phone call to Amazon yesterday inquiring as to why they held their customers' views in such slight regard, for which the General has given him an
honorary Seahawkhood.
And bless their little racist, chickenhawk hearts, KKKate's Klan took notice.
Jonah:
If you doubt the persistence of nostalgic Marxist thinking in feminist rhetoric, check out the reader reviews of Kate's book at Amazon.com. You'll learn that Kate is a self-hating woman and a fascist doing the work of her knuckle-dragging male paymasters. Anyone who's met Kate (or actually read her book) knows this is nonsense on stilts. A successful and independent-minded career woman and proud mom, she's equal parts Joan of Arc and mentoring den mother.
If Kate really wants to walk the talk, she ought to go home and start scrubbing toilets with her toothbrush like she counsels other women to do and STFU.
But she'd rather reap the rewards of a
law degree and a career made possible by the feminists she's paid to deconstruct, a grand hypocrisy that nobody who allowed her to pimp her book this week on their shows seemed capable of pointing out. And God forbid anyone suggest SHE get one cent less than her male counterparts, she'd unearth that hatchet from the middle of her face and land it in someone's back.
But thanks anyway, Jonah. Nice to know
we drew blood. Because, you see, it isn't about winning some sort of ultimate triumph, it's about making them fight for every inch. They know that, look at the full court press that they delivered to
Knight-Ridder over a heavily researched, factually based article. Everyone knows if they want to run a piece like Knight-Ridder did that they're going to have an uphill battle, have to devote money, time and man hours to defending the assault. It just makes them that much less likely to do it in the future.
Tim Russert may be incapable of pointing out the obvious, but Kate O'Bierne's screed has now spent three days on Amazon with incredibly funny, loud and negative opposition. It's the equivalent of having the movie theater marquee stacked with negative reviews on the opening weekend of your film, the time period you count on to reap the biggest boxoffice, and future market impact will be predicated upon it.
Believe me. I've released a book before. This is an unmitigated disaster for her and her publishers. They most certainly knew they'd have more than a few negatives, but probably anticipated something like the response
Bill O'Reilly gets, with his supporters eventually outshouting the opposition. Not for Kate.
Her page, which reviewers all over the country look to for their cues, is now a flaming shit heap.Marc Cooper once famously said that he joined
Chickenshit Bedwetter Media because
Republicans know how to run a business. Well given the success of that wilting fiasco that pearl of wisdom really speaks for itself. But people might be surprised to know that not everyone on the left is a braless pot smoking tree hugger; some of us have rather sophisticated marketing backgrounds. And toward that end I'm reminded of
this quote from Boss Tweed whose Tammeny Hall hijinks read like a 19th-century blueprint for BushCo.:
"Let's stop them damned pictures," the Boss supposedly said, "I don't care so much what the papers write about -- —my constituents can't read -- —but damn it, they can see pictures."
So all you photoshoppers out there who maybe don't have the time to devote to a daily blog but who want to spend a few moments throwing high-impact grenades, you know where I am.
Welcome to Late Nite on FDL. We'll be here regularly, having us some fun with the wingnuts and fightin' the good fight.
Update: Stealth Badger has
a quiz to let you know if you are Kate Bait.
|
While both the traditional media and the warbloggers like
Cap'n Ed are quick to dismiss the lives of 17 innocent people we accidentally bombed this morning ("
This is war, and unfortunately war results in collateral deaths by mistaken targeting"),
Phoenix Woman, from the comments, takes us back to yesteryear:
Note how a few years back, the GOP/Media Axis went into Froth-At-The-Mouth over "Bill Clinton bombing an innocent aspirin factory!"
They did so, even though:
a) the factory was indeed part-owned by Osama bin Laden (who Clinton was chasing down, even as the GOP/Media Axis was mocking him over it and hampering him with their "wag the dog!" crap)
b) the factory wasn't just making aspirin, but other, less charming substances, and
c) the attack took place at night to ensure civilians weren't harmed.
No similar mitigating circumstances exist for this bombing. None. Yet the GOP/Media Axis is still frantically trying to spin the murder of innocent men, women and children as a Good Thing.
One day I fully intend to finish Richard Clarke's book, I really do. Trouble is I read a couple pages and then hurl it against the wall.
(photo via
Dependable Renegade)
|
Murray Waas has
more on the GOP/Brent Bozell-financed Murtha smear:
The Post article in amplifying the allegations of the Cybercast News Service, also, in turn quotes an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was "pretending to be a big war hero" Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year old Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.
What the Post leaves out of its story is that Saylor is deceased, and well, has been for some time now. (Saylor died way back in 1973, something that the Cybercast "News" Service, noted in their news story-- not to impugn their reporting practices.) In short, the Washington Post is relying on something said by a person with an axe to grind (Fox), who is quoting someone who is deceased (but who the newspaper forgot to tell you is deceased.) But it is even somewhat worse than that: the Post is quoting the ever-so-reliable and unbiased Cybercast News Service, which is quoting a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, which includes an allegation by Fox... who is citing someone now deceased.
Don't forget the little tidbit about Fox that
Cybercast buried in the bottom of the article:
"Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate."
Fox made those comments about Murtha in a 1996 article. And now he can't be questioned about it either. And yet
Howie Kurtz lets Thibault get away with saying "We won't run anything against anybody if we don't have the goods."
There is just oodles of journalistic integrity spilling all over this one, no?
|
The Washington Post prove themselves the willing bitches of BushCo. this morning as they play a big part in spreading the pernicious lies salted by Brent Bozell's
Cybercast News Service hit piece yesterday.
Murray Waas asks a few questions they obediently didn't. I'm reprinting the whole thing because it needs to be heard, hope Murray won't mind:
The Washington Post gives major play this morning to an attack of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) on the website of the (until now) obscure Cybercast News Service. It accuses Murtha-- who won a Silver Starr and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam-- of purportedly saying that he had not deserved to win two Purple Hearts also awarded him for his service during the Vietnam war.
The Post story, by reporters Howard Kurtz and Shallagh Murray, quotes extensively David Thibault, the editor in chief of the (who ever heard of them before the Washington Post decided to give them such prominence?) Cybercast News Service, as saying that Murtha's medals from 1967 are relevant now "because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement."
But the article tells us very little about Thibault himself. Had the reporters done a simple Internet search, they would have discovered this biography of Thibault posted online which describes him as a "senior producer for a televised news magazine" broadcast and sponsored by the Republican National Committee. I dunno, but I for one, would have wanted to know that.
Thibault's background, it seems to me, and those engaging in the Swiftboating of Murtha would be relevant to any news story on this issue, I would think.
And so would some independent examination by the Post as to whether there is even any veracity to the charges.
The New York Times takes a day or two, or longer, before doing stories like this, as do other papers. They tend to examine the motives and backgrounds of those making such charges, and whether or not they have any basis in fact. That's how the Times handled the allegations that swirled around John Kerry's war service.
The Post's news ethic tends more towards that simply because an allegation is made it should be reported. To do otherwise, some editors of the newspaper argue, would mean putting aside one's objectivity. But simply giving prominent play to allegations that might or might not turn out to be true at some later day seems to me to be subjectivity by some other name.
It starts in some quote-unquote "news source" run by a GOP operative like "Talon News," which then leaks over into the sheeplike mainstream media where people like Howard Kurtz run with it.
But rather than point out that this is an obvious GOP shop, Howie facilitates a pre-emptive defense against any such assertion. He refers to them as a "conservative website" (much like WaPo Editor John WATB Harris referred to the website of GOP operative
Patrick Ruffini) and asks no probing questions about a story which even a monkey could see is conceived, bought and paid for by the GOP.
And now we have to spend our time beating it into the ground, because nobody in the "traditional media" is certainly going to do it.
Update: Murtha will be on
60 Minutes tomorrow
Update II: Murray adds this: "In my original post, I mistakenly reported that Rep. Murtha won a Silver Star and two Bronze stars. Instead, he won a Bronze Star; a Distinguished Service Medal of the United States Marine Corps, and six other military awards for his 37 years of service with the Marine Corp."
This Is How It's Done -- Pt. 1This Is How It's Done -- Pt. 2
|
As it turns out, one of the chief bribers involved in the Duke Cunningham mess is none other than Brent Wilkes, erstwhile airlines executive (and I mean that in the snidest of ways). Seems Mr. Wilkes owned
a 1/16th share of a private jet that he used to ferry Duke, Tommy Boy DeLay, Roy Blunt and other pols
around the country.
Of course, every flight was *cough* legitimately paid for according to the parties involved and there was no *cough* quid pro quo expected. Hence the multi-count guilty plea from Mr. Cunningham, I'm sure.
Just who is Mr. Wilkes, you ask?
Well...Since launching ADCS in the late 1990s, Wilkes has built relationships with key legislators on Capitol Hill. He and his close family members and business associates have donated more than $600,000 to congressional campaigns, mostly targeted at members of the Senate and House appropriations and armed services committees, which oversee the Pentagon budget.
In addition, Wilkes has spent $440,000 on lobbying activities, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that monitors government ethics issues. He also has repeatedly provided the use of his corporate jet to Cunningham and DeLay.
But no quid pro quo expected whatsoever for contracts or otherwise. Just some favors among...erm...hunting buddies. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.
Nothing like making a corporate jet available so the pols can travel like fat cats...because you don't expect that to ever pay off in favors, now do you? You want to know how the palm greasing gets its start? Here it is.
And its one of the main reasons that Republican strategists started putting feelers out earlier in the week to push a non-Abramoff-connected House member into the Majority Leader race. Ed Rogers was going on and on about a potential dark horse getting into the race on January 10th's Hardball, and the name I heard batted about at that time was John Shadegg (R-AZ). Seems Shadegg entered the race on Friday, and Blunt is hitting back with a swift claim to the throne, according to
The Hill today.
Secret ballot votes will be cast on Feb. 2 by the House Republican caucus. Guess we'll see whether Graft Air is still flying high.
(Hat tip to
Josh at TPM.)
|
Seems we
bombed Pakistan yesterday. The strike killed at least 17 villagers in the remote northwestern part of the country along the border with Afghanistan, including a number of children. Just not our target -- Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama Bin Laden's second in command.
Ayman was out for the evening. Well, actually, it seems he'd been out for a while -- or hadn't been there at all --
according to reports from Pakistan.
And there is a legal problem: Pakistan has not granted the United States authorization to cross the border,
for bombing or any other combat purpose.
Pakistan has not granted American forces in Afghanistan the right to cross the border, even in pursuit of militants. American-led coalition forces clashing with militants in the mountainous province of Kunar say they have often been frustrated by their foes' use of Pakistan as a sanctuary....
This is the second report of an American attack on civilians in a Pakistani tribal region in recent days. Eight people, including women and children, were reported killed last Saturday when a helicopter fired at the house of a local cleric in North Waziristan close to the Afghan border.
Pakistan lodged a strong protest with coalition forces on Monday, but said it was still investigating whether the missiles had been fired from Pakistani airspace or from Afghan territory.
AP is reporting that the Pakistanis have filed a formal protest with the US Ambassador today, but that an investigation into what happened is still ongoing. Senior Pakistani officials
tell another AP reporter that the CIA was acting on false information, and that thousands of local tribesmen have been protesting the US action.
More from
Newsday,
The Age, and
Reuters, who is reporting that Zawahiri has been confirmed alive by Al Arabiya television.
Zawahiri is certainly a worthy target for capture, having participated in a substantial amount of the planning for al Qaeda operations with Bin Laden for years. But we've had enormous problems with intelligence in this region of Pakistan, where tribal rivalries and desire for obtaining monetary rewards have played a large part in several retribution tips that have not panned out.
This sort of substantial action, if it turns out to have been based on a false tip, won't make things any better -- and, in fact, may drive more of the tribal elders who have been sitting on the fence into the anti-American camp. Just what we don't need, with so many of our intelligence assets engaged in our Iraqi Adventure at the moment.
Guess we can call this one "Shock and...Oh, Crap."
(Photo by
Thir Khan via NYTimes.)
UPDATE: Attaturk has more at
Rising Hegemon from the Doughy Pantload. Shorter Jonah: "Oops, we missed. And when we kill innocent civilians, I'll just ignore it." Will morons never cease?
|
Typhoid Ralph Reed's friend aren't returning his calls. They aren't hanging out with him in public. And they certainly aren't passing out endorsements after Jack Abramoff's plea on January 3. Seems folks in Georgia no longer want to take Ralphie to the dance.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Reed's fundraising is lagging behind his no-name-recognition opponent, and that the bulk of the monies raised by Reed over the last six months have been
from out-of-staters. Reed has support from only 5 of Georgia's top pols, to his opponent State Sen. Casey Cagle's 63 -- out of a total pool of 133 Republican lawmakers in the state capital.
And to make matters worse for Reed, even his supporters are saying things
like this: "We don't need another four years of ethics inquiries." and "What should have been a shoo-in is a tough uphill battle." Ouch.
What has made such a dent in the
Christian Coalition Poster Boy's halo?Documents released by the committee also shed light on Abramoff's relationship with Reed, currently a candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia. The committee included Reed in its investigation after learning that Abramoff and Scanlon paid him to lobby the Texas Legislature to close the Tigua tribe's casino in El Paso. The Tigua tribe had paid Scanlon roughly $4 million to help it win back a casino license.
"On the political front, did Ralph spend all the money he was given to fight this _ or does he have some left?" Scanlon asked Abramoff in an e-mail, the subject of which is blacked out on the documents released by the committee.
"That's a silly question! He 'spent' it all the moment it arrived in his account. He would NEVER admit he has money left over," Abramoff e-mailed Scanlon. "Would we?
Oh yeah. That's some ethical company to be keeping, now isn't it? Of course, Reed can blame it all on Abramoff and company and claim to be duped, right? It was never
about the money for Ralphie Reed, right? Well...erm...Ralph's own words and actions tell a
different story.
"I need to start humping in corporate accounts," Reed wrote to Abramoff in 1998. "I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts."...
Reed also depended on Abramoff to help his political campaigns. In one e-mail exchange in 2001, he asked Abramoff to contribute to his successful bid to become state Republican chairman in Georgia. When Abramoff asked where to send the donation, Reed joked, "The actual committee is `The Reed Family Retirement and Educational Foundation.' The address is 200 Bay Drive, Grand Cayman, BCI, R59876."
Well, praise the Lord and pass the collection plate, that's a pretty damn good retirement scam. (Reed says he was joking, just FYI. Some joke. I'm sure the Tiguas think it's hilarious.) Kind of tough to claim you didn't know where the money was coming from when there's a big, long e-mail trail, isn't it? Hypocrisy much?
Typhoid Ralphie is having some trouble finding political dance partners these days. Could be because the latest polling has him trailing a Democratic candidate -- ANY Democratic candidate -- should he make it through the primaries. And right now the primaries are looking like a bigger and bigger "if." Or maybe it's just because no one in Georgia is in the mood to dance the two face.
|
Yes, it's that time of the night again, have a little fun with Kate.
Despite
last night's valiant attempt to get
the General (and other one-star reviews) on the front page, those Amazon fuckers have promoted the two lone "5 star" reviews that weren't total piss-takes to the front. They have dumped the General's review way in the back. So much for caring about their readers' opinions, they must be French or something.
Rena's got a
great diary up at Kos (she kicked the whole thing off with her superb rant the other night) so
please go recommend if you're feeling like stirring the shit a little on a Friday night. Or even if you're not. Just hit the "recommend" button.
Kate REALLY NEEDS a Kossak encounter.
In the mean time Amato and I were having a good yuck over some of the
C&L comments the other night so I thought I might share some of the touching sentiments felt toward Kate by our fellow residents of Upper Blogistan:
. Isn't it interesting that we've never seen Kate O'Berine and Bernie Goldberg in the same room at the same time?
. Kudos to Kate. It's about time someone pointed out what's really wrong with this country -- a cancelled HBO series about 4 fictional single women. Forget hunger, forget nepotism, forget crony capitalism, forget corrupt politicians, forget corporate destruction of the environment and the disappearance of well-paid jobs and a social safety net. Fuck that petty shit. "Sex and the City" is destroying this country.
. Got teeth?
. Kate O'Bierne is not related to Kato Kaelin.
. Hey, did anyone read the OTHER review on the site? Seems this Craig Matthieson is a PAID reviewer!! So i reported that review as inappropriate. I highly recommend that everyone go back to that review and report it, as well. Most unseemly for a paid reviewer to present his (??) thoughts without noting he was paid.
. "I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement."
full quote: "....and then i would have had a date and not had to sit around with my creepy uncle phil all night long who always wanted to 'help' me take a bath. but no, they didn't do this, they only ask out the 'pretty' or 'easy' girls. no, i'm not bitter. why, do i seem it? "
. Beauty might be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone!
. Kate O'Bierne has a MUCH larger penis than Bernard Goldberg.
. So, I guess that quote means Kate thinks she's NOT homely. Hard to imagine...I mean, that's really baffling.
. Kate's going to a prom? Isn't she a little old for that?
. She's kind of ugly to be writing that. Especially in that Gloria Steinam, Gloria Allred, Hillary Clinton and many of the "homely girls" look a hell of a lot better than her and Phyliss Schafley.
. Katie, you could split pine with that face.
. Won't it be funny when she is exposed as a dyke and sued by a bitter ex- girlfriend.
If you haven't written your one-star "Ode to Kate,"
please do. Despite the horribly misleading 5 star reviews that the publisher no doubt shit large bricks on Jeff Bezos' desk to get punted to the front so quickly, and despite the banishment of the General's brilliant political satire to the hinterlands (ungrateful wretches), I'm sure Kate is quite miserable about her current two star rating as any author with a brand new book would be.
May her misery -- and our amusement -- increase by one.
|
This really tears it. First we are to believe that in the Post September 11 World Where Everything Changed Dubya needed warrantless wiretaps to carry out the War On Terra that wasn't really a war but whatever. Now according to
Jayson Leopold, who also obtained recently
declassified documents (PDF), Bush has been illegally spying on people ever since he was sworn into office. (
Update:
Emptywheel disputes this article, well worth reading.)
Since at the time he was for the most part ignoring Al Quaeda but was already quite comfortable with the thought that libruls were the enemy, I find no solace in this knowledge.
Glenn Greenwald has quite perceptive piece up today about the proposed congressional inquiries into the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. It comes on the heels of what I believe to be
Peter Daou's quite foundational piece about how the Democrats need to change their MO in politicking future issues. While Democrats on the Judiciary Committee probably did better during the Alito hearings than we had any right to expect based on past past performance, it was not good enough. And it most certainly wasn't part of any larger, coordinated full-court press that could have gained them some public traction to oppose the nomination.
Well intentioned though they might be, the members of the Judiciary Committee could bore the comatose. They are a standing committee rife with internal bickering whose members have other commitments that keep them from devoting the time they need to understanding the issues at hand, and they don't necessarily have the background or the expertise to be conducting this kind of investigation.
Digby
concurs:
These hearings are going to be about a fundamental constitutional understanding of how our system of government works. The stakes are very high. We could be setting a precedent for a unitary executive that completely abrogates the system of checks and balances. The committee will interview legal experts who are going to make arguments that the president has a right under the constitution to ignore the laws and I don't want Dianne Feinstein being the one to challenge them.
Glenn argues, and I agree, that a Select Committee which includes experienced lawyers accustomed to conducting these types of investigations is desperately needed given the stakes -- much as Sam Dash or Arthur Liman performed during the Watergate and Iran/Contra hearings. I really don't need to hear Goober Graham's Hee-Haw jokes or watch Joe Biden loving the sound of his own voice as the mediocrity of the Judiciary Committee hijacks the gravity of the situation and sends people lurching for the remote. A committee of this kind was already created to investigate the government's role in Hurricane Katrina, so it is certainly within recent precedent.
As Digby says:
The other side is going to question opposing views with a simple bullshit rationale about saving the babies from the bogeyman. We cannot leave the much more complicated opposing argument to gasbag senators questioning much more agile legal minds than theirs. We need real, practicing lawyers who know the issues and know how to question a witness.
Just ask yourself -- given the fact that we're all probably just one terrorist attack away from populating Michelle Malkin's fantasy camps, would you rather have a Patrick Fitzgerald or a James Comey do some legitimate questioning, or watch Tom Coburn speaking in tongues for the cameras once again?
The people who show up here to comment are some of the most reasoned and articulate in the blogosphere, so I would really value your contribution to a "group think" on this one. I don't think I can underscore enough that this is really quite important.
(graphic by Monk at
Inflatable Dartboard)
|
Patrick Fitzgerald held a
press conference (viewable online) in Chicago today after charging Chicago City Clerk James Laski with receiving $500 a month in bribes to give city business to a company in the Hired Truck scandal.
Best moment:
QUESTION: Given the risk to Mr. Laski's career and his reputation, his sense of honesty here, it doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot of money.
FITZGERALD: I'm not going to disagree with you. If what we allege is true, it's wrong for people to take bribes -- it may also be stupid, but we're in the business of what's prosecuting what's wrong.
Fitzgerald was evidently spotted in Chicago on Wednesday and Thursday, making it less likely (though certainly not impossible -- that is after all what planes are for) that The Hill was right and he was with the grand jury on Wednesday of this week.
He looked awfully chipper and at ease. According to the NYT, Camp Rove does not yet know what Fitzgerald plans to do. Evidently Turd Blossom does not match the Special Counsel for high spirits these days.
|
Wolcott yesterday:
I understand Fumento's jealousy of Vanity Fair. Like so many rancorous rightwing underachievers, he resents a magazine--any magazine--that is successful on its own and carries actual advertising rather than being bankrolled by some billionaire madman or non-profit think tank itself dependent on corporate slush funds.
Editor and Publisher today:
Scripps Howard News Service (SHNS) announced Friday that it severed its relationship with Michael Fumento -- a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute -- for not disclosing he had taken payments in 1999 from agribusiness giant Monsanto. The payola was revealed by BusinessWeek Online, which also broke the story about columnist Doug Bandow. Copley News Service subsequently dropped Bandow.
In a statement released Friday, SHNS Editor and General Manager Peter Copeland said Fumento "did not tell SHNS editors, and therefore we did not tell our readers, that in 1999 Hudson received a $60,000 grant from Monsanto." Copeland added: "Our policy is that he should have disclosed that information. We apologize to our readers."
Roger Simon's blog traffic since forming wingnut-welfare subsidized
Piss Puddle Media:
Tisk-tisk. Some people are always looking for a handout, and look what happens when they get it.
|
Let the
Swift Boating of Murtha Begin:
Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question
By Marc Morano and Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff
January 13, 2006
Read Article About Murtha's Links to Abscam
(CNSNews.com) - Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.
Suggest the ominous in a big buildup -- people who don't read closely will think there's a lot of shit on this guy and it's been going on for a long time, it's not something that just got dragged out now.
Then find some old veteran to do your dirty work for you so the criticism won't be laid at the feet of chickenshit bedwetting BushCo. hatchet men:
World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.
Make sure your story is unverifiable:
Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate.
Bury this caveat in the bottom of the story. People will not read that far.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Update: Per Jeff B. in
the comments: "Marc [Morano] was also a reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show from 1992 to 1996."
And from
DKos: "Murtha turned down the [ABSCAM] bribe. The video of him being offered the bribe, refusing it, and getting up and walking out was shown on national TV. He even testified against two Congressmen in their trials." (thanks Slothrop)
Update II: Someone mentioned Steve Gilliard would have a good smackdown of this.
He does.
|
Crooks and Liars has video up of
compassionate conservative caring hubby Samuel Alito leaving yesterday's hearing. And leaving
Mrs. Kodak Moment to fend for herself in the crowd.
Never mind that Republican Lindsey Graham made her cry. Never mind this has clearly been stressful on her and the rest of the family. Never mind that she's left back there to take care of the kids, the in-laws and the sister while Sammy gladhands his way through the crowd.
She got that sympathetic headline for him to start the day yesterday, so she can just fend for herself. Classy.
|
Via
Roger Ailes, I find this story that I missed from
Rolling Stone. It is worth pointing out because
the Moonie Times (via Crooks and Liars) has been doing its darndest to find a Democrat -- any Democrat -- to tie to the Abramoff mess. (Hint to the WaTimes:
NRO says stop it. It makes you look bad.)
According to
Rolling Stone:
He chose Susan Ralston, who came highly recommended from a friend: Jack Abramoff. Ralston performed similar duties for the Don of K Street -- that is until Abramoff realized she'd be far more useful embedded in the West Wing. (Ralston had also previous worked for Abramoff and Rove's fellow College Republican crony Ralph Reed.)...
According to the Washington Post, Abramoff later bragged that he'd been able to lobby Rove directly on the issue. The article targets Ralston as the only likely conduit.
The WaPo article which Rolling Stone referencs can be found
here. While it is older news that Ralston came to Rove's office via Abramoff, it is worth pointing out over and over while the Preznit has his staff
rounding up all the pix of him and Abramoff that can be found: the WH is not insulated from the Abramoff mess. And it should not be given a pass by the media.
This is not a Congressional scandal -- it is a Republican scandal. And Republicans in the White House that were riding the Jackpot Jack fundraising gravy train should be on the hook for their actions as much as anyone on the Hill. That includes Karl Rove and all his connections to the KStreet Project.
Funny how the same names of the same College Republican buddies keep coming up, over and over again, regarding ethical lapses and problems in the Republican party, isn't it? Actually, it's not so funny.
UPDATE: Oh, and speaking of Jackie Boy Abramoff, have I said lately how much I heart Billmon? No?
Well, go. Read. Enjoy.
|
Having forced myself to slog through the entire Tivo-ed questioning of Judge Alito in one fell swoop, I've learned a few things.
Number one: A number of the Democratic Senators were using their bully pulpit in these hearings to educate the public, sometimes in not so subtle ways, about executive power, and the overreach of the Administration in a number of areas, particularly in the area of controlling government through the administrative agencies regardless of Congressional legal mandates and in areas of national security and military policy.
This says to me that Democrats were certain they could actually get air time to discuss those views and did not want to waste the opportunity, since they might not get it otherwise, with the talking head shows booked up with the likes of Lanny Davis and Joe Lieberman and all. Interesting commentary on the state of the media all by itself, isn't it? Or perhaps they were trying to educate the media -- trying to wake them up a bit? We'll see. But there was something going on above and beyond questioning the nominee, and I think it was a direct reaching beyond the media filter into the living rooms in America.
Number two: Senators of both sides of the aisle felt that they had to constantly give history and civics lessons as they set up their questions -- not for the nominee or themselves (although I do wonder about Cornyn and Coburn's ability to follow things without flow charts), but because anyone in the public who was watching could not be assumed to know the history of things like the illegal abortion versus how things are after Roe, or that Supreme Court justices sit on the bench for life after they are appointed.
We do a piss poor job of education in this country if that is the case -- and Democrats really suck at getting any message out if young-ish women in this nation have no clue what they are talking about when they say Roe. We have to do better, because ignorance only helps people to be lemmings.
Number three: When you Tivo the hearings, you can forward through the dull parts. And I'm going to do that for you, too, in the summary. What follows are my highlights of the issues which were brought up but not remotely resolved in Thursday's session -- or that need further discussion (in later articles here).
I thought Sen. Leahy brought out two important points to start the day's questioning: death penalty and general criminal law framework and philosophy, by talking about "The Rule of Four;" and further discussion on the Unitary Executive theory -- about which Alito gave a speech to the Federalist Society in 2000.
Unitary executive issues came up repeatedly throughout the questioning, which I felt was often being used as much to do public education on the issue and, perhaps, to pull the media into the importance of the question as well, as it was an attempt to determine where Alito falls in the philosophical curve.
I thought Sen. Kennedy's questions regarding executive power and the line between Congressional law enactment and Administrative enforcement was excellent -- I just wish that Kennedy could have spent more time on this issue and less on Vanguard, because I think it would have been more beneficial. (But maybe it' because I'm a wonk -- and I can see Alito hedging around the edges on this, and I got the feeling that, if pressed, he might have been less coached, less boilerplate, less black and white in his answers today, since that slipped a slight bit in his back and forth with Sen. Schumer.
Was very pleased that Biden raised the Yoo issue -- it needed public mention in these hearings -- and that Feinstein and Feingold then went the next step forward with it to specific questions on plenary authority for the President in a time of war and the consequences for ilegal activity on prosecution of terror suspects. (Feingold's questions on evidence gained through torture being inadmissible was clear and straight-forward -- would that all of the questions had been that way.)
I was also pleased that Feingold raised the issue of the people prepping Alito and how many of them were involved in shaping Administration policies that are being called into question currently. I want to do more digging on this for later, but this troubles me a great deal -- given names like Harriet Miers and Ted Olson and others on the list. It's sloppy and wrong, and stinks ethically on the Administration's part.
The most pointed exchange today was with Sen. Schumer, who did a good public PR thread on the logical next step from overstepping on wiretapping to next doing it with entering people's homes and elsewhere without warrants by order of the Preznit. That's something that even Joe Sixpack can understand, and get pissed about if he's sober enough to think about it.
But my overall impression is more of an esoteric one. After watching Alito for four days now, he strikes me as a very intellectual, analytical, black and white world kind of guy. He doesn't strike me as someone who weighs things out in shades of gray -- based on his answers to the myriad of questions, he's either an automaton who has been repeating rehearsed lines from the murder boards sessions, or he prefers to think about the law in terms of how things are in the Constitution, in his philosophy and in the statutes -- and the practical world be damned because it's outside fo his purview to think about that sort of thing.
But in my experience, it is the real world consequences of legal actions that can be so devastating. And this detatched view of the world as not being a part of how you think about the matter at hand really goes to the heart of the differences in conservative and liberal philosophies, I think. And is why I fear what the Court will become with Alito, if he is confirmed.
His approach is inherently conservative -- don't color outside the lines, what can I say to make the whole committee happy, what should I put on my job application to make them impressed and me likeable. Not exactly someone I can see standing up to Scalia in the deliberation room.
Alito never foreclosed overturning Roe -- he left that door wide open. That in and of itself is frightening to me. But when you add in the deference to government interests over those of individual citizens at a time when there are so many individual liberties being tested, I'm not willing to come close to giving Samuel Alito the benefit of the doubt.
And I hope that enough other Senators see it my way. I hope.
The other observation is a brief one, but it bears mentioning: Senators sure do like to talk, and to hear themselves talk. But in the context of these hearings, that is detrimental -- especially for Democrats, who are already at a disadvantage getting their message out given that networks like MSNBC booked only conservative guests for Day One of the hearings. And I'll not even mention Faux News except to say fair and balanced, my ass.
We need a message. We need to be better about getting our message across.
All of that said, a full transcript is available via
the WaPo, should you wish to know the entirety of the hearing.
The NYTimes and
the WaPo have articles discussing Alito's conservative leanings as well.
(The lovely picture is by an artists named
Anthony Gonzalez, and is entitled "Gathering Thoughts." There are other equally lovely paintings through the link, but the use of layers of color in the depiction of the draped fabric is just exquisite in this piece.)
UPDATE: I meant to mention that the hearings begin at 9:00 am ET this morning, with more witnesses and testimony to be heard. And second,
Scotusblog has been doing amazing work on these hearings -- including having a wonderful play-by-play from yesterday's testimony, as has
the Supreme Court column in the WaPo.
|
Some people have been wondering why I don't just ignore Kate O'Beirne, as if paying her no mind will just make her go away. The argument seems to be that to acknowledge her is to empower her.
Not going to happen.
It is a dangerous time to be an American. We live under virtually unchallenged one party rule, and that one party is on a rampage to make torture morally acceptable. Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman invite screaming racist
Michelle Malkin to lunch, and today
Peter Kirsanow is paraded before the Senate by the GOP as an "expert." Both of these people applaud rounding up American citizens and putting them into concentration camps.
ralphbon said something good in the comments yesterday:
Hate-list books like O'Beirne's, Bernard Goldberg's, and especially Ann Coulter's are the leading edge of something ugly and scary and are softening up the public discourse for increasingly eliminationist rhetoric.
Nazi antisemitism was a ludicrous distraction too, at the start, barely worth the energy to ridicule, much less refute.
The principal target needs to the media who give these scapegoaters the time of day -- from Time putting Coulter on its cover to the endless cable interviews with O'Beirne and Goldberg. The utter lack of shame and judgment by major media scares me far more than the pipsqueak wingers to whom they give a platform.
People of common sense and good will need to be able to do two things at once: smack down the scapegoaters and their media enablers while keeping our eye on the real ball of the Bush administration's fascist power grab.
These people are given air time far in excess of anything their extreme views justify. And ordinary people who don't think too hard tune in and watch them and are lulled into thinking that these positions are reasonable and that these people are reasonable, because they see them all the time and they are continually granted a legitimacy they do not deserve.
Now I'm as big a photoshop fan as the next person, but those caricatures
on the front of O'Bierne's book look like nothing so much as the hideous caricatures of Jews in Nazi paraphernalia of the Third Reich. Women's rights are under attack in this country, a man is being put forward to sit on the supreme court who will very likely take us even further into the dark ages if given the chance, and it all seems "reasonable" because some asshole who actually knows better doesn't want to sully their fine manicure to scrap with the likes of Kate O'Bierne.
Being virtually manicure-free, this is not a problem for me.
Her book will sell, Regnery will ship it out to all the right-wing book groups and it will climb the charts and angry women-haters everywhere will hail it as the clarion voice of reason in a wilderness of liberalism. But
Jesus General's review is at the top of her Amazon page tonight thanks to blogtopia, and maybe someone in Iowa watching Kate on Meet the Press will look her book up on Amazon and see on the biggest bookseller in the world that there is a culture which does not accept her as "okay."
Amazon reviews are prioritized based on how many "positive" ratings they get. There's still one "five star" rated review on the front page and it is my most solemn wish that it get knocked off tonight. It is my second most solemn wish that enough single star reviews are written to knock the overall rating down to an overall single star. Anyone feeling motivated can scroll through the pages of reviews and vote "yes" on all the one-star reviews
here, and write their own review as well (one sentence reviews are weighted as heavily as long-winded tomes).
Someone from Regnery is probably calling up Amazon right now wailing like a banshee. Good. Make 'em pay, make 'em spend energy, make 'em fight. If Amazon takes a legitimate review off their site, political satire of an openly political book, I will scream blue bloody fucking murder. It'll give me something to do anyway.
It is not okay to have this foaming fascist omnipresent in the public consciousness, and I'm making it my personal crusade to kick up a stink about it. So I'll say it again for those who weren't offended enough the first time: The bitch is dead meat.
|
Dear
Michael Fumento:
Good God, man. Not
Wolcott.
Concerned,
Christy
PS: Will they never learn. And to the the FDL readers, once you've stopped laughing convulsively,
Wolcott also offers insight on
Jane's earlier discussion of
Daou by critiquing the talking head set. To be continued...
|
You knew they'd have to find some person of color to trot out sooner or later to give Alito a pass on the privileged bigot thing. How desperate are they to drag out
Peter Kirsanow:
Bush's pet commissioner....can be considered somewhat of a White House mouthpiece on civil rights issues. So you can understand why the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee are calling for Kirsanow's resignation after remarks he made July 19 at a commission hearing in Detroit.
Speaking on homeland security and the administration's call for tougher measures, Kirsanow did not beat around the bush.
"If there's another terrorist attack, and if it's from a certain ethnic community or certain ethnicities that the terrorists are from, you can forget civil rights in this country," said Kirsanow.
Heard enough? There's more. "Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling," said Kirsanow.
Comforting words from a man appointed to uphold your civil rights in America.
Kirsanow was one of Dubya's recess appointments last week to be a member of the NLRB. When not writing for the
NRO and making white bigots feel good about suppressing African-American votes, he's
applauding Korematsu v. the United States, the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the government's use of internment camps.
Malkin's getting tingly all over right about now.
|
Oh this is just absurd. Via
MyDD:
Today, from Nancy Pelosi:
Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, the newly and unanimously elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus who has lived his life with a commitment to a high ethical standard, will head the Clean House Team.
From NPR:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay isn't the only politician facing ethics charges. South Carolina's James Clyburn and Mississippi's Bennie Thompson, both Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, also had to answer tough questions last week. In 1997, both men traveled to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth. The trip -- and an earlier trip to the Marianas by two associates of DeLay -- appears to have been paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. It is a violation of House ethics to accept gifts from a registered lobbyist. Abramoff is now the subject of a federal corruption probe.
We're not Michelle Malkin or the Powertools sitting here, please don't expect us to line up behind this shit just because you Say So. I'm not going to look for excuses to make this right. It undermines every argument we're trying to make about Abramoff and the architecture of the dirty GOP money machine.
This is just so stupid and wrong in so many ways I don't have words for it.
|
The jingosphere was
irate yesterday with those of us who presumed to opine that Mrs. Sammy's tears looked somewhat
staged.
Per
Jeralyn, maybe the tut-tutters can explain the immediate post-caterwaul release of this:
The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."
And who would Creative Response Concepts be? According to
Will Bunch, they're the same crack team that insta-pimped the Swift Boat Veterans and that TANG/Buckhead nonsense.
Quelle coincidence, as we traitorous French would say.
|
It is remarkably frustrating to blog the Alito hearings, feel the righteous indignation of people in the comments sections all over the blogosphere that the supreme court is in danger of making a major lurch to the extreme right with the potential appointment of a bigoted, sexist, entitled, slavering chickenhawk like Alito, and see it reflected nowhere in the traditional media.
Every time it feels like some momentum is being gained, CNN blows it all away with the sweep of a facile headline. Pick up a paper or turn on cable news and on cue they are parroting all the GOP's talking points -- Alito's a moderate, he'll keep an "open mind" on abortion, and oh the poor frumpy sobbing wife.
How does the GOP keep them all in such abject subservience? An article from the
Knight-Ridder news service shows the extremely organized pressure they bring to bear on anyone who deviates from their party message:
On Dec. 1, Knight Ridder's Washington bureau sent a story analyzing the record of Judge Samuel Alito to our 32 daily newspapers and to the more than 300 papers that subscribe to the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. Written by Stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder's Supreme Court correspondent, and Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News, the story began:
"During his 15 years on the federal bench, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has worked quietly but resolutely to weave a conservative legal agenda into the fabric of the nation's laws."
Assisted by Washington bureau researcher Tish Wells, Henderson and Mintz spent nearly a month reading all of Alito's 311 published opinions, which are available in a commercial database or in the archives of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, where Alito has sat for 15 years.
Henderson and Mintz cataloged the cases by category - employment discrimination, criminal justice, immigration and so on - and analyzed each one with help from attorneys who participated on both sides of the cases and experts in those fields of law. They interviewed legal scholars and other judges, many of them admirers of Alito.
They concluded that, "although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business."
You might find this neither surprising nor controversial. Alito, after all, was nominated by a president who said that his ideal Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the high court's most reliably conservative members.
You'd be wrong.
Within days, the Senate Republican Conference circulated a lengthy memo headlined, "Knight Ridder Misrepresents Judge Alito's 15-year record."
Their talking points in place, they sent out the foot soldiers:
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a leader in the Alito confirmation process, sent a letter to the editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, a Knight Ridder paper, denouncing the story as "neither objective nor accurate." The Inquirer published it on Dec. 7.
Trot out some "expert" and demand equal time:
The White House offered an opinion piece by Jeffrey N. Wasserstein, a former Alito law clerk who identified himself as a Democrat and said his former boss "is capable of setting aside any personal biases he may have when he judges." Knight Ridder/Tribune distributed it to all of our papers and its subscribers on Dec. 11.
Get the hacks into the act:
A conservative columnist, whose glowing tribute to Alito is now featured in television advertisements supporting the nominee, declared the Knight Ridder story "illiterate."
Then when anyone brings it up, cite all your previous bullshit as proof irrefutable that the story has no merit:
The controversy erupted again this week at Alito's confirmation hearings. After Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., referred to the Knight Ridder story, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., introduced a critique of the story by the Republican staff of the Judiciary Committee into the record of the hearings. Kyl said the story, "has, to my understanding, been rather completely discredited." The first paragraph of the Republican critique, however, said the story was based on "dozens" of Alito's opinions, creating the false impression that Henderson and Mintz didn't examine the judge's entire body of published work.
Don't forget the ad hominum attacks on the author as a cautionary tale (a la Joe Wilson) to anyone else who might think to step out of line:
The Republican National Committee circulated a blistering personal attack on Henderson to some reporters, taking quotes out of context in an attempt to portray him as biased.
Bugger the truth:
The RNC said Henderson "admitted he was previously an editorial writer," as though that very public part of a distinguished reporter's career was a secret that he'd been trying to hide. The RNC statement then linked Henderson to editorials he didn't write.
And let's just remember the fact they were trying to dispute -- that
Alito is a conservative:
This hysteria over a carefully researched article that documents the obvious - that Samuel Alito is a judicial conservative - is the latest example of a disturbing trend of attacking the messenger instead of debating difficult issues.
Fact-based reporting is the lifeblood of a democracy. It gives people shared information on which to make political choices. But as people in new democracies risk their lives to gather such information, in this country fact-based reporting is under more relentless assault than at any time in my more than 40 years in Washington.
Peter Daou has an
important post up entitled "Bloggers in the Wilderness" about which he says:
This, then, is the reality: progressive bloggers and online activists - positioned on the front lines of a cold civil war - face a thankless and daunting task: battle the Bush administration and its legions of online and offline apologists, battle the so-called "liberal" media and its tireless weaving of pro-GOP narratives, battle the ineffectual Democratic leadership, and battle the demoralization and frustration that comes with a long, steep uphill struggle.
Peter's absolutely right. And this is what we're up against.
|
MoDo:
You don't have to know the difference between horizontal and vertical stare decisis, or between emanations and penumbras, to see that the man who could take Sandra Day O'Connor's seat and yank back women's rights was, in a word, shifty.
Or in three words, shifty, sapless and sighing.
To offset his reputation on women's rights, he even played the henpecked husband. When Republican senators used the expression "When did you stop beating your wife?" about Democratic questions, Judge Alito riposted, "I wasn't asked whether she had stopped beating me."
His basic defense to Democrats boiled down to: "I was just saying what my boss wanted to hear at the time." Haven't we had enough yes-men mangling government for the last five years? Heck of a job, Sammy.
I understand why the president is drawn to the judge. Mr. Alito is dubbed "Scalito" - a conservative senator, John Cornyn, accidentally blurted out the nickname - because he's so much like Antonin Scalia. And W. loves Nino.
Judge Alito has supported imperial powers for the presidency, not strong checks and balances; he approved the strip search of a 10-year-old girl but is not probing too deeply into what the executive branch is doing. That's W.'s philosophy, too - a pre-emptive right to secretly do everything from war to torture to snooping.
Like the president, the judge loves baseball. Mr. Alito once vacationed at a fantasy baseball camp (O.K. fielder, hopeless hitter), wearing the red and white Phillies uniform. W. has spent five years in fantasyland on Iraq, on occasion donning military costumes.
His fingers in his ears, W. didn't want to hear that we had too few troops in Iraq - ignoring advice from Viceroy Paul Bremer and Gen. Eric Shinseki - or that the troops didn't have enough armor. But the president continues to fling blame outward.
In a speech yesterday before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he warned the Democrats that they should take care not to bring "comfort to our adversaries."
Judge Alito was evasive, disingenuous and deferential. He fits the Bush era like a baseball glove.
More like a used condom.
|
Fearful that grassroots groups like MoveOn and DKos are organizing to oppose him in the upcoming election, Joe Lieberman has been feeling the heat. He's been meeting with the DFA hoping to keep them out of it, and
Bill Scher now says that
according to DFA reps he is claiming that "filibuster is definitely on the table."
If Lieberman is serious this could go a long way toward molifying liberal anger at him for his cuddly ways with BushCo. And if he's just yanking everybody's chain that is a really ill-advised move at this point. Hopefully we will hear more on this soon.
|
ABC News is reporting that former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith has presented the Senate Intelligence Committee with a 14-page brief on why the Preznit's authorization for NSA domestic spying without a warrant is illegal.
As ABC points out, Smith is a Democrat. But if you think that means he's a partisan hack who is soft on national security matters, you can think again: he is a hawk who worked with Sam Nunn (D-GA) on the Armed Services Committee as their counsel before moving over to the CIA's legal department. (ABC conveniently fails to point out that Smith has been a defense and intelligence hawk throughout his career, and sticks to the Democrat label only. Convenient.)
ABC reports that:
...Smith argues "it is not credible that the 2001 authorization to use force provides authority for the president to ignore the requirements of FISA."
He said that if the president's arguments for the wiretaps are sustained "it would be a dramatic expansion of presidential authority affecting the rights of our fellow citizens that undermines the checks and balances of our system, which lie at the very heart of the Constitution."
Let's see, hawks on the left and right are appalled by the Preznit's power grab. Senators are pissed. Constitutional scholars are outraged. The only people backing up Bushie on this are the ones on his payroll -- well, and Yoo, who is on the hook for coming up with the idiotic idea in the first place, but let's just call that CYA support, shall we?
So much for the "everybody does it" defense. Can you say "illegal?" Thought you could.
(Hat tip to reader Stephen Parrish for the link.)
|
The WaPo appears to be getting part of the message today, and announces that Alito left the door open for reversing Roe. Well, duh. But it's nice of them to notice.
Especially since
the NYTimes is blaming Democrats for Mrs. Alito's sobfest -- never mind that Republican Lindsey Graham was the one making her cry.
It was an old trial attorney trick that Graham pulled out of his briefcase yesterday, and the NYTimes and the teevee media are lapping it up. Suckers.
The trick goes like this: when you have bad information about a witness who will be testifying for your side at trial, you get out in front with the information by bringing it out yourself rather than let the other side pull it out. That way, when the other side gets around to it, the bad stuff seems like old news.
You know -- the fact that CAP was a bigoted, white boys only club, kind of organization. The kind of group that thought it was appropriate to call a female student's mother to inform her that her Catholic daughter was using contraception...talk about respecting privacy rights and individual freedoms. Hoo boy!
And that Alito was a proud, job-application-bragging member -- despite his ROTC protestations to the contrary, the facts on that score just don't add up. Republicans know that the facts, if they get traction, pose a problem -- hence, the bigot maneuver.
The Today Show fell for it hook, line and Kleenex this morning with their "Have Democrats Gone Too Far?" reporting. Incompetent saps. Here's a clue: Lindsey Graham is a RE.PUB.LI.CAN. (
Wolcott calls baloney. Or maybe just canned ham.)
The hearings start this morning at 9:30 am ET -- and should include Senators questioning Alito, along with the first round of witnesses. Witnesses like the very special
Peter Kirsanow, coming soon to a Muslim internment camp near you -- a man who told an Arab-American group in July, 2002, that if another terrorist attack occurred involving Islamic militants, the Muslim-Americans "could forget about civil rights." Nice friends, Sammy.
But do Republicans on the Committee support a full and fair hearing of all sides of things? Guess not, if their treatment of
Cathy Fleming is any example. Sen. Brownback initially had her on his witness list -- until he found out that she had critical things to say about Alito. She was uninvited at that point.
Guess the Republicans are hoping for that homey, hand-picked Presidential Kool-Aid style for the hearings -- no dissent is good dissent, I always say. (Oh wait, no I don't. That's Bushie's department.)
(Photo by
John David Geery. Some lovely photos, some available for purchase -- take a peek.)
NOTE FROM RH: My toddler has hit the Alito hearings wall this morning. Am Tivo-ing the hearings to do highlights, but am unable to do play-by-play at the moment.
Leah at Correntewire is doing play-by-play this morning, and I'll be following along with her narrative and doing some comments here until I can switch over to C-Span from my current viewing of Veggie Tales. Sorry, but toddler happiness has to trump unitary executive theory for the moment. But I'll likely get back to C-Span soon, so it may only be a short blip.
|
This is just horrible. Those creeps at Amazon have censored
the General and are refusing to run his review of Fair Kate's book. The nerve:
I found many truths in Mrs. O'Beirne's book, truths so self-evident that I have to wonder why no one has stated them until now. For instance, how could anyone argue with her assertion that feminists exploit female war casualties to "advance the feminist agenda of androgyny and abortion." Even I have to admit that every time I hear that another woman has been sacrificed in our glorious Iraq adventure, I'm tempted to tell my wife, Ofjoshua, to throw on a pair of jeans, head for the nearest women's health clinic, and help them slaughter a whole passel of blastocyst-Americans.
But I think it's her frequent attacks against the television show, "Sex in the City," that I value most about this book. By promoting the myth that women should enjoy sex, that show has done more to destroy the institution of marriage than even homosexual unions. I think most men will agree with me when I say that there isn't a woman alive who isn't thoroughly repulsed by sex. Telling them that it should be a pleasant experience rather than a vomit-inducing one only serves to cause them to resent their husbands when the impossible isn't delivered. Hopefully, this book will help destroy that myth.
As much as I enjoyed this book, I can't give it more than a single star because it has a fatal flaw. It promotes the most destructive myth of all, the existence of lesbianism. Mrs. O'Beirne discusses it throughout the book as if it is something that is real. She doesn't seem to be able to understand that women can't have sex with each other. They don't have little soldiers.
Kate's Amazon page has been heavily freeped. Anyone so inclined can
freep back here.
TBogg caught a few more gems, however, before those Amazon fuckers pulled the plug.
Betsy's Muse says Kate has the IQ of a tapeworm and reminds her she better thank the feminists every time she wears pants.
Our good friend
Heretik Joe has superb visual aids, and points us to
Amanda who gives us a Kate, Jonah and Derb three-for-one and the memorable line "I’ve yet to meet a feminist who said something like, say John Derbyshire’s proclamation that because he finds bona fide boobies repulsive, all men want to fuck high school girls." Pretty much sums up Sex and the Corner right there.
And as
Attaturk says of the meagerly literate women of Pantload Junction: "If their ability to make an income isn't a demonstration of the effectiveness of the feminist movement I don't know what is."
Stealthbadger coins a new phrase for Kate's oeuvre -- "literary turd"
Mike at
Mike's Well Hidden Genius says Kate displays all the DMS-IV symptoms of Asperger syndrome. Never heard of it but it fits her like a glove.
And Lons at
crushed by inertia wonders what's up with conservatives always making enemies lists.
That is a very good question.
(graphic courtesy of the talented Berkeley -- I think it's destined to become a bloggy classic)
Update: The General's review is now up! The French have heard our plea. It's every patriot's duty to go
vote. And vote up some of the others while you're there.
|
Jonah Goldberg tells the one about when his mom got tired of watching him eat paste in the basement and bought his way into college:
I went to an all-women's college. Mine was the first "integrated" class at Goucher College, a fine, historically single-sex liberal arts college in Baltimore. As you might imagine, many of the young women there, some egged on by very ideological feminist professors, had opposed the decision to admit men. The fact that my freshman year was also the year Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court and Glenn Close boiled a bunny in "Fatal Attraction" might give you a sense of the larger cultural climate as well.
While my undergraduate experience was not exactly the late-night Cinemax adventure some imagine when they hear that there was a roughly 30-to-1 female-to-male student ratio, I did find the experience rewarding on several fronts. One of them was that I learned quite a bit about feminism and feminists (I was certainly exposed to more feminist theory than I was to, say, the U.S. Constitution or the American founding).
I went to a women's college too and I know the type -- they show up thinking that under the law of averages even
they might get lucky and become angry for the rest of their lives when they discover nobody's ever that hard up. Somehow it becomes Betty Friedan's fault that they never got a bj when the meter wasn't running and the result is pretty much the entire NRO masthead (a group to which, it seems,
Brian Williams now aspires).
TBogg envisions Jonah's days as a puffy young coed and yes, sweaty man boobs are mentioned.
|
Mrs. Strip Search Sammy sure had herself a
Kodak moment today, didn't she? Goober Graham left off his corn-pone homilies and played the hick card just long enough to set her up by using the B word -- the word they're all terrified of, the word they wanted to use before the Democrats did -- BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT -- that sent the low-rent Sarah Bernhardt shrieking for the cheap seats.
I've worked in the biz long enough to know a poorly executed little melodrama when I see it and that was the worst, the most shameless, most obvious. It's the role you give a really bad actress, one that can't even be counted upon to cry with conviction. The mad dash will obscure the crocodile tears and ensure that all the cameras follow, and any attempt at intelligent discussion of quite serious and weighty matters will undoubtedly get trumped by a moment of quick burlesque ripe for the evening news. A slavish press will need no coaching to play along.
Pure setup 101.
Somebody sat down last night and decided ol' Strip Search was coming off cold and vaguely sweaty and creepy. But how to soften him up, make him sympathetic, get the public on his side? Anyone with an IQ over 52 was doing an eye roll over that one, so it ought to have had some sort of GOP trademark stamp atop it.
Democrats are now effectively warned away from inching near the "B" word lest they look like cruel Snidely Whiplashes taunting Dainty Sensitive Nell.
These boldfaced crooks are absolutely desperate to stack the court and keep all their bacon out of prison.
Update: TBogg says boo-fucking-hoo.
Update 2: Wolcott and
Watertiger are equally moved.
|
Washington Post staff writer Marcia Davis had the long knives out today for the Democrats questioning Strip Search Sammy, quick to mock them as girly men in an
article entitled "For Democrats, A Most Tender Roast of Alito":
It was beginning to look as if the Democrats had shown up to a knife fight without a knife yesterday.
It was beginning to look as if they'd just been woofing when it came to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. That they'd written a check full of bluster that a lackluster series of questions couldn't cash.
There were some deft jabs, for sure, and Democrats did visit the territories they had promised -- from abortion rights to executive power to issues of discrimination and the appellate judge's ethics. But the Dems didn't rampage, didn't storm the barricades as all their tough talk had promised.
In fact, most of the day was so quiet that by mid-afternoon you had Republicans such as Texas's John Cornyn going before reporters and essentially declaring victory.
That's hard to take when Americans have been promised a smackdown. This is a reality TV nation, a WWF kinda country, where we like to see a fight even when we know it isn't real, even when we know the stakes might just be a bag of Cheetos.
Now the Post and other papers are perfectly entitled to print one-sided opinion pieces as just that -- opinion. You'll remember all the harumphing that was done recently by John WATB Harris and others about how
Dan Froomkin's column was not "news" and as such had to be relegated to the "opinion" page so as not to taint the genetic purity of the news division?
He’s entitled to his opinion, and he’s entitled to be proud of what is obviously a devoted audience. But you know how I feel—his column, under its current title and display, does dilute the Washington Post’s reputation, and more serious care should be given to its editing and presentation.
I've never seen anything as nasty and one-sided coming out of Froomkin's pen as this Marcia Davis hatchet piece. But it isn't on the opinion page -- it appears on Page C1 in the Nation section, leading off the paper's Special Report on the Supreme Court.
Thanks, Washington Post. Your policies remain perfectly clear.
(thanks to reader Teddy)
|
Despite the fact that Strip Search Sammy is suffering from a bout of the dreaded DC Can't Remember Shit Disease, his membership in the
uber-wingy CAP is proof that he is either a) a BIGOT or b) has no principles he wouldn't readily sell out in an attempt to curry favor with power. Neither belong on the Supreme Court.
And the Republicans know this CAP stuff is toxic. They've been stonewalling any legitimate inquiry into creepy Sam's history with the group, and Specter is either so ignorant of what's going on within his own committee that he's in no position to be chairing it or he's just a lying shill for the Bush administration when he says those documents were never requested.
Think Progress has a
video of the dust-up with Ted Kennedy.
This is a history of the back-and-forth with the Kennedy office, according to Kennedy staff:
November 30, 2005: Senator Kennedy requests Congressional Research Service to ask Rusher's permission to examine CAP documents at Library of Congress.
Week of December 5, 2005: Rusher turns down CRS request.
December 22, 2005: Senators Kennedy sends letter to Senator Specter asking for Committee request of Rusher documents. Delivered by hand to Judiciary Committee.
Date unknown prior to 1/5/06: Kennedy staff and Specter staff discuss December 22 request.
January 5, 2006, 7:29 pm: Kennedy staff request status report from Specter staff on request regarding Rusher documents.
January 5, 2006 7:50 pm: Specter staff replies that they are not inclined to grant request because they are personal documents.
January 6, 2006, 12:01 am: Kennedy staff asks Specter staff to reconsider on basis that there are not personal documents but business records of a very public organization.
January 11, 2006: Senator Specter says he's unaware of the request.
If Specter's got a different version of events, let's hear it.
My inbox has been stuffed with emails from Princeton graduates who are outraged that CAP would be characterized as anything but a bunch of raving, elitist racists, and their publications most certainly back that up.
According to
Bill Scher, Specter has now agreed that they will get the records. But it's indicative of the lengths they'll go to in order to keep the spotlight off Sammy's Dirty Little Secret.
|
Rich Lowry, National Review, coming out of his Kool-Aid haze
for a moment:
But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.
Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.
Well, hallelujah and pass the ketchup. I'm not saying this sort of sanity will hold...but let's celebrate the moment while we can.
And just so the Administration doesn't think it can sneak one by in an Alito-hearing media dump: psssst...the WH was buddy buddy
with Abramoff, too.(Graphics love to
AmericanIdle.net.)
And this programming note: I've confirmed with
Air America's The Majority Report that my segment will start around 7:50 pm ET. You can listen to the segment
here online if you don't have an Air American station in your area.
|
FEINGOLD SECOND ROUND: Death penalty cases and effective representation. Alito agrees that effective representation is of utmost importance – must apply habeas statute as determined by Congress – must look at it via unreasonableness standard. Your record has been overwhelmingly pro-government, even more than other Republican appointees. Alito says he has only sat on a limited number of these cases and has also ruled, on occasion, for defendants. Questions with regard to fair procedure on jury selection, judicial elections and other issues which can skew death penalty cases. Alito definitely more deferential to government interests than the reasoning from Stevens quoted by Feingold. Then on to Vanguard. (Smack at Hatch for grandstanding.) Ethical rules apply, period.
GRAHAM SECOND ROUND: Gosh, you sure are ethical. Princeton eating societies – OMG, this is dull. Blah blah blah people "of color" or "of boobs" like you blah blah blah. (RH: Lindsey’s getting pissy about people questioning associations.) Protracted discussion by Graham about Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s confirmation process and how Roe can’t be the sole rationale for voting. (RH: I would note that the Republican party shouldn’t have tried to spilt the political landscape to grab power using religion as a political tool, then – because this is what we are reaping from what the GOP has sown.) Then reads a nice letter from someone who like Alito.
SCHUMER SECOND ROUND: Pressing Alito to give straight answer on Roe and whether or not it is settled or not. Alito: Perhaps I’ve said to much on Commerce Clause cases – but I’ve drawn the line in answering things where I felt it was appropriate. Schumer finds that unsatisfactory, given the fact that Alito has very clearly answered other questions of law on other issues – and he finds it disingenuous. (RH notes: Alito and Schumer don’t seem to like each other very much. Both are a bit edgy.) On to CAP: why put CAP on your application when you have such a vague recollection of it now? Why not put one of your other organizations – ABA? Community groups? Etc.? Glad committee will look into documents – says this is important. Alito says that racial discrimination and bigotry and discrimination against women are things that he has always been opposed to throughout his life.
CORNYN SECOND ROUND: Gosh darn it, I like you. And everyone else should as well. Blah blah blah grandstanding crap blah blah blah I’m not asking you any questions blah blah blah Christy needs coffee (RH: Ooops, that was me. Just slipped out.) Blah blah blah. (RH notes: Weirdest question of the hearings: Are you a clone? Cornyn – the intellect that keeps on giving.)
Break until 5:00 pm ET.
DURBIN SECOND ROUND: Unitary executive – important because it gives President extraordinary power, and allows him to violate laws during time of war. Alito says question of scope of executive power – but no question that laws must be faithfully executed. Alito says he is only referring to President’s control over the executive branch – not discussing Commander and Chief power, says that has nothing to do with Unitary Executive. Freedom of exercise of religion and establishment.
Lemon test. Coercion theory – and Alito brings up endorsement test as a third test. Alito says court hasn’t settled on a single theory that applies – depends on facts of case. (RH notes: That’s my understanding as well. Any Con law folks read this differently?) Role that personal religious and moral beliefs play in judicial process. Important in personal life, but as a judge, you apply the laws and Constitution – does not involve religious or moral views on the rest of the country. Extended discussion of Lemon test factors and school prayer issues. Establishment Clause from Warren Court that troubled Alito in his law review note?
BROWNBACK SECOND ROUND: Gosh darn it, I like you.
COBURN SECOND ROUND: More charts - can’t they make these things readable? - and a discussion about why Coburn disagrees sometimes with articles in
JAMA. And then right back to abortion. Blah blah blah abortion blah blah blah abortion blah blah blah. (RH: Good ole One Track Mind Tom. You can’t say he never talks about abortion, can you?) And gosh darn it, people like you.
Alito Ques. -- Day 2, Part IIIAlito Ques. -- Day 2, Part IIAlito Ques. -- Day 2, Part I(And as a personal note, man could I use a cappuccino.)
|
What happens when you put words in Jehovah's mouth? He takes away your right to build a
Jesus playground.
Israel no likey Pat Robertson.
|
BIDEN SECOND ROUND: What basis do you look at with regard to abortion cases and rationality and undue burden? Alito answers re: informed consent. Biden getting at disagreements between Alito’s and O’Connor’s interpretations of this. Biden gets to issues of economic and power disparities between men and women, and question of disparity between protection of physical versus emotional threats for notification protections in abortion laws. Questions on medical leave – and disproportionate gender issue. Then CAP – goes into history that it was well known that Princeton was an Ivy hold out on admissions for women and minorities in that time frame. Was part of rationale in listing it on application that it would appeal to the crowd at DoJ at the time? Alito says he just must have been a member at the time and that’s why he put it on the form.
DURBIN PRIVILEGE: Correcting record from other Senators’ statements made regarding Durbin’s previous statements.
KYL SECOND ROUND: Sen. Kennedy’s accusations are scurrilous. (RH: And then my local cable company decided to have a long storm warning, which stopped when...) Kyl reads a letter from some person who says the CAP issue shouldn’t apply to Alito and that Democrats are mean. (RH: So maybe I didn’t really miss anything.) Then Kyl cherry picks positive statements about Alito to highlight. (RH: Nope. No hypocrisy here. Or grandstanding.)
KOHL SECOND ROUND: Start with Roe questions and rationale for not giving an answer. Kohl points out inconsistencies in what Alito has said in the past versus what he is saying today. Much discussion about Alito’s record – and giving Alito an opportunity to explain record on immigration cases, and why his record was at variance with norm. Alito talks about reasonable person standard. Kohl reiterates that Alito’s record was 1 out of 8, national sample was app. 50%.
SPECTER: Regarding Kennedy’s CAP letter. Specter says Chief of Staff got computer letter plus letter delivered to staff – but Kennedy’s letter never properly logged in. Specter says he hadn’t seen the letter, but did speak to his Chief of Staff about it over New Year’s break on the phone. Specter says he found matter un-meritorious at time of conversation. Specter now saying that Kennedy ought to have brought the letter to his attention while they were working out at the gym. Now pointing to NYTimes reporting on the matter – as evidence? Records coming from Library of Congress for committee’s review. Kennedy says he hasn't been to the gym (again...shocker...)(RH notes: Looks like the Republicans are now going to try and make this all about Kennedy, rather than being concerned whatsoever about the fact that Alito was involved with an organization which supported views that were against women and minorities being allowed to attend at Princeton, as well as anti-homosexual and other offensive views of a number of its members that were published in the group’s magazine. Clearly being offended by Kennedy doing his job and following up on things is more important than whether there is a question of bias on Alito’s part – or whether he is the sort of person who would join such an organization to curry favor.)
DEWINE SECOND ROUND: Questions about Olmstead. Alito says he has no concerns on this. Antitrust cases? Alito says he is not antitrust expert – talking about specific antitrust case re: 3M/monopolization case. On to search and other criminal law matters. Definitely a prosecutorial perspective – without much discussion on the defense end of things. Free speech questions – questions about restrictions of speech in public places. (RH: Ten commandments monuments, anyone?) Alito says freedoms of speech and the press are most important in public arena. DeWine argues that there is a shrinking public forum. Commercial speech? Pitt News case. Alito talks about need to narrowly tailor any restrictions on speech.
FEINSTEIN SECOND ROUND: DiFi – you said precedent is not an inexorable command – did you mean it like Rehnquist meant it with regard to Roe? Alito brings up Plessy again – need to have an open mind on the judiciary. Can’t reach a conclusion until you have gone through the factual process. Alito says that he agrees emphatically with Roberts’ statement that he would keep his personal views separate from his decisions on the court – that is role of judge. Agrees that stare decisis – and reaffirmation of decision strengthens its value for precedent. Long line of precedents relating to Roe – logical that overruling would take a special justification. And then DiFi says “Why can you say you are for one man, one vote, with four cases pending before the Supremes, but you can’t say how you feel on Roe? Makes no logical sense that you can comment on one litigated issue but not another.” Magnesium Electron (clean water act case) – questions about Alito’s vote on appeal. Then hits end of life decisions (Schiavo) issue. Alito says mainly state courts and
Cruzan.
SESSIONS SECOND ROUND: Blah blah blah. You are an independent judge and I like that, and I sure like the way that you think. Blah blah blah. People who are mean to you are unAmerican – I’m not saying this, though, Mr. Chairman, I’m just reading this from other folks. Blah blah blah. Sessions is pissed about property takings case and pledge of allegiance case. (Hello, religious right.) Marbury v. Madison – judicial review, not contained in Constitution, question of how this tips balance of powers.
Recess until 4:20 pm ET.
Alito Ques. -- Day 2, Part IIAlito Ques. -- Day 2, Part I
|
HATCH SECOND ROUND: Begins by covering Roberts’ ass. (RH: And I do mean Roberts -- he was talking about something that was said earlier about Roberts' testimony re: abortion.) Blah blah blah left wing groups are mean blah blah blah let me allow you time to talk about how mean they are blah blah blah what do you think about people who say mean things about you blah blah blah. Chidester. Blah blah blah mean people make me sad blah blah blah. Can President immunize violations of law? (RH: Hello, straw man?) Alito says Mitchell v. Forsythe case talked about immunity for civil damages – not dealing with criminal liability. More Hatch attestation to Alito’s character without being sworn in as a witness – and then Hatch cherry picks only those cases which are favorable to Alito to discuss with regard to racial and employment issues. (RH notes: Hatch needs to work on his faux surprise at Alito’s answers. Bit too hammy.) And back to Vanguard – Hatch clearly has this issue stuck in his craw, which means he thinks it might gain traction. (RH: BTW, what I find offensive is Hatch’s throwing out whatever ethics scruples he may have had in order to obtain a seat at the power table by rubber stamping the party line.) Then on to moot court sessions with the Administration – again, Hatch worried about traction? Discussion of divided court opinions and dissents.
KENNEDY SECOND ROUND: More Vanguard – Alito, no real answer, but generally feels bad when Kennedy is asking him about it. Color Kennedy unconvinced. (Color Hatch peevish.) You have no specific recollection of joining CAP? Kennedy then reads from an article from the CAP magazine – Alito says he disagrees with all of the assertions contained in the article – Kennedy goes on to talk about other patently offensive statements in other articles. Kennedy then reads letter from CAP from 1984 – year before Alito put reference to CAP on his application to DOJ – talking about women being admitted – which would have been about the time that Alito joined CAP – Kennedy also referencing WSJ editorial about CAP at the time. Alito says that he can’t recall any of these things in reference to him joining CAP – says the only thing he can recall was treatment of ROTC as catalyst for joining this group. Kennedy’s staff has done some ROTC research on Princeton – doesn’t match up with the time frame description for Alito. Alito says it is his recollection that this was a continuing source of controversy – credit for courses, etc.
**Then an argument between Specter and Kennedy – over documents, over procedure, and over executive session questions. Quite heated, and I’m certain we’ll get more on this later.**
GRASSLEY SECOND ROUND: Let’s begin by my talking about how much I like you, I really like you. And then let me take time to testify as to why I disagree with anyone who criticizes you. Let’s now talk about equality under the law – isn’t it neat. Alito: sure is. Do you believe in one person, one vote? A: Yes. (RH: Ooooh, shocker.) Blah blah blah you hired minorities and women blah blah blah gosh, that’s neat blah blah blah more complimentary statements, but nothing critical to put in record blah blah blah. What role does long-standing practice have in assessing case? A: Can be very relevant. Legislative history also important. (RH: Good answer when talking with legislators.) Plain language of statue first, then history – but carefully done. Now questions about Mystic – and about legislation that Grassley authored that was involved in that case – and false claims.
Recess until 2:00 pm ET.
Kennedy requests that Specter’s staff’s response to Kennedy’s letter be included in record. Durbin also asks that he be given 2 minutes time to respond to things said about Durbin after he left the committee – will speak later. Discussion about giving everyone an opportunity to respond when they want it. Defer until the afternoon – now lunch. DailyKos has Kennedy's letter to Specter posted
here.
Alito Ques. -- Day 2, Part I
|
Hearings begin this morning at 9:30 am ET. You might ask yourself: how is it that a reporter can re-cap Tuesday's hearings in a story about the Democratic performance, and not mention either Russ Feingold or Dianne Feinstein? Because the story appears
in the WaPo. Wankers.
For something amusing this morning, I suggest
Prof. Bainbridge. Mwahaha.
DURBIN FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Explicit versus implicit constitutional protections – Brown v. Bd. versus Griswald, and Alito’s failure to answer Schumer’s question yesterday. Roe is “very important precedent” – won’t say settled law of the land as Roberts did. (RH: The dance of the seven veils has nothing on this tap dance.) On to CAP – former AUSA colleague calls Alito on the fact that he was no longer a young man in 1985, touting CAP on job application was a marker for a certain mind-set. Alito’s answer is that he doesn’t recall much about the group (but that he remembered it enough to put it on his application to get the job). Then on to the “little guy” line of questioning – Durbin hits a jury/race issue from an Alito opinion. Alito discusses it in relation to statistics and the habeas standards on black letter interpretation grounds. Question relating to Alito’s mine safety case – construing statute narrowly in favor of corporate interest against workers – Durbin says this is pattern for Alito.. Alito responds that it is statutory interpretation, and that there are a number of cases where he does come out in favor of the little guy, including a case for a kid who got to transfer schools due to excessive bullying.
BROWNBACK FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Starts with Plessy – was precedent for a long period, then overruled. Reconcile stare decisis. Brownback then goes on to talk about cases that he thinks are wrong (Buck and Korematsu) – some precedents are not entitled to respect because they are repugnant to the Constitution. Blah blah blah Roe bad blah blah blah activist judges bad blah blah blah. How do you interpret the Constitution? Shorter Alito: I’m going to give a vague answer so as to not offend anyone, but I will say I will look to text and precedents. And now on to religious liberties. (RH: Anyone else get the feeling that Brownback is using his time on camera to play to the religious right in preparation for a Presidential run? Nothing like a big, fat bully pulpit to jump start your campaign fundraising, I always say. Of course, it may just be my cynicism – he may be personally vested in this
as well as using it for fundraising.) Art. III, Sec. 2 of Const. – appellate jurisdiction and exceptions clause. Then onto gay marriage. (RH notes: Did James Dobson write Brownback’s questions today?) Finishes with concerns on public takings case.
COBURN FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Starts with entry of more supporting documents to buck up Alito. On to foreign law questions, making Pat Buchannon happy. (RH: Oh, and fuck Coburn – “pro the destruction of human life” – what an ass. I dare him to say that to a 14 year old child who has to make the impossibly difficult choice between carrying the child conceived in rape by her own father and terminating it...I’ve seen that occur, and it is so wretchedly painful, whichever way the decision goes. As much as I went through to conceive a child, the difficult miscarriages and all those years of wanting a child so badly – and yet I can still have understanding and compassion for a woman in a difficult situation who has to make this supremely tough choice. There is a reason that this choice cannot be made by anyone but the people involved in the individual situation – we cannot know all the facts. Tom Coburn sure as hell doesn’t know them – it is a decision between the woman, those involved around her, and her interaction with God, if that is her faith persuasion. The hubris of speaking for God, as Coburn is doing, is just wrong. And is it me, or should the concern stretch outside the womb to the cutting of safety net programs and support programs for poor, abused and neglected children – which just underwent a massive budgetary cut from the Republican Congress. Pro life my ass – life has just as much value outside the womb – start acting like it. /soapbox) Oh, and in case you were wondering, Coburn doesn’t like abortion. Now, allow me to lob the softball “Talk about what’s in your heart.”
SPECTER SECOND ROUND: Question of Court usurping Congressional power – where is the line for separation of powers? Shorter Alito: Depends on the facts. ADA question – and questions of Commerce Clause interpretations and other standards for interpretation – “rational basis” standard for commerce? Alito discusses history on this and essentially declines to answer how he feels because of potential for future cases. Specter is peeved about the Court usurping legislative power (his thoughts). On to habeas issues and legislation to alter jurisdiction. (RH: And then my cable network decided to conduct a very long test of the emergency broadcast system.) Open court to television? Alito for it. (RH: this is a pet issue for Specter.)
15 minute break – reconvene at 11:35 am ET.
LEAHY SECOND ROUND: Concerned Alito is retreating from a part of his record – answers inconsistent with past statements. Checking Presidential power – Youngstown case. On to Hamdi – who was right, O’Connor or Thomas? Alito responds by going through fact pattern, dodging question. Unitary executive theory: In past you’ve criticized Morrison, now you say you respect it? Alito – entitled to stare decisis consideration. Presidential signing statements – what weight? Alito: Unitary executive entirely different question from signing statements. Leahy – could President order FEC to stop investigation of contributor? A: Court adopted functional approach. President is not above the law. L: Could President order FBI to conduct surveillance in a way not authorized by statute? A: If statute is constitutional, then President is bound by the law. Questions on standing issues for corporate pollution case.
And a note: I've been asked to appear Wednesday evening (tonight) on Air America on
The Majority Report with Janeane Garafalo and Sam Seder to talk about Alito, among other things. I'm scheduled for around 7:50 pm ET. If that changes, I'll let everyone know.
(Graphic courtesy of
Raytrace Rendering.)
|
FEINGOLD FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Starts right off at a gallup – FISA/AUMF/liberty issues. Can President violate or authorize others to violate the laws of the US? Alito: President must adhere to Art. II requirement to execute the laws and follow Constitution. Altio gets a point for using a Brennen opinion (Baker v. Carr) – so good prep from Lindsey Graham. Separation of powers fall within political question doctrine, according to Alito. Feingold then gets into moot court practice sessions. (RH:BAM! And Feingold drops the hammer here – was Alito prepped by Executive branch officials and others on how he should respond to this potentially justiciable question – and, if so, doesn’t that mean that Alito has a bias and ethics issue with this now? Can you say big fat problem for the WH, either way? I thought you could.) Alito is visibly uncomfortable answering this – “I don’t recall if this specific issue was covered” – the general area of wiretapping and FISA may be justiciable. Persons present? Dodged the answer, said no one has ever told him what to say. Did anyone give you feedback or suggestions on practice session answers? Again, Alito uncomfortable. Says that Administration folks only gave hints on style, not substance. Did anyone talk about President’s legal bases that Preznit was asserting? “Nobody actually told me...” (RH notes: Hmmm...did they inadvertantly tell you? How about indirectly? Indecisively?) Says he researched the issue from information he found online from reporting and releases. Says no one in WH has briefed him on how to handle those questions. Alito says it would be very inappropriate for them to tell him what to say, and that no one did so. (RH: I’m thinking Russ is going to dig into this further with someone, or he would nt have brought it up.) Brings up Mitchell case: no absolute immunity for officials in a national security context. Alito says some high ranking officials in all 3 branches have immunity from civil damages – but it does not preclude criminal liability, impeachment or removal from office, or from injunctive relief (ordered to comply with law). Feingold digs into a course Alito taught at Pepperdine – in reference to Padilla case, and question of veracity of executive in times of national crisis. Alito brings up Japanese internment case as example where executive branch gave false representations. Problem of judicial fact-finding. Then on to Vanguard – you promised committee that you would recuse if Vanguard, Smith Barney or other investment issues, or for any issues involving sister’s law firm. Statement was clear, unambigious and not time-limited. (RH: Again, BAM! Feingold on fire today.)Then brings up fact that clerk keeps list for all cases of recusal issues – including for pro se cases. Alito just doesn’t know how companies and his sister’s firm got on or off the recusal list, and can’t explain his prior differing explanations, other than the one case where he had an ethical complaint about a refusal to recuse. Sen. Hatch then tries to step in an explain to Alito what Alito should have said in response to Feingold’s questions. Feingold politely calls bullshit.
GRAHAM FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Lindsey starts off with an Abramoff joke. (RH: Who knew that was funny in DC these days?) Then begins by discussing differences of being at war and criminality. Alito doesn’t answer based on fact that he’d be dealing with some of those questions from bench, either in 3rd Circuit or on Sup. Ct. (RH: Am interested to know what “legitimate government interest” Graham thinks exists to allow the Preznit to trample on the Constitution whenever he likes. My understanding is that there has to be a legitimate purpose that is narrowly drawn to meet only that purpose, not wide-ranging, whenever the hell you feel like actions.) Going on to enemy combatants with Graham justifying WH actions in that regard. (RH: For public info., Graham is a JAG attorney, so the military jurisdiction questions have significance for him. I would note that some of our more shameful actions have also occurred during wartime decisions – see
Korematsu.) Alito walks Graham back to Milligan. Then onto Geneva Convention. And FISA court and application of law to the President. Alito says the President is not above the law – are you a strict constructionist? Alito: I think that depends on what you mean. And goes on to dodge whether the FISA opinions (from Yoo) would be considered strict construction. Graham then goes on to detail how this Preznit’s overreach could have chilling effect for future conflicts. Graham then goes on to set things up in terms of the counter-argument to filibuster, should Democrats launch one. Alito gives
quote of the day.
SCHUMER FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Roe statement in 1985 was accurate statement of what he thought at the time, now have to look at stare decisis from the bench. Schumer then asks about whether Alito believes or not the Constitution gives right to privacy for abortion. Alito says he would use judicial mindframe/stare decisis. Alito refuses, over and over, to answer the question on what he personally feels, since he stated it once before -- my reaction is that the weaseling and refusing just looks bad. Then on to stare decisis. And Judge Bork. Schumer then goes on to note a number of cases where Alito's dissents and opinion goes outside of precedent -- noting concern that there is a pattern of disregarding precedent by pointing out the large number of cases involved that raise concerns. Alito's response: Nuh-uh (while looking angry).
CORNYN FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Arrrrgh. (RH: Sorry. Couldn't help myself.) Let's start with abortion. And strict construction. And whether you are one of us. *wink* Alito discusses Griswold and protection of liberty. (RH: Okay, I'm calling bullshit on the "some people are going to vote against you" crap. Sure, and some people have made up their minds to vote FOR him. Maroon. Stop grandstanding.) Then Cornyn gives us a lecture on how thankful he is that Plessy is no longer valid. Blah blah blah competent blah blah blah Democrats shouldn't be mean to you blah blah blah your friends like you blah blah blah. And yet more abortion -- this time Casey and undue burden. No litmus test, though. Nope.
Alito Ques., Day 1, Part IIAlito Ques., Day 1, Part IAnd a note: I've been asked to appear Wednesday evening on Air America on the Majority Report with Janeane Garafalo and Sam Seder to talk about Alito, among other things. I'm scheduled for around 7:50 pm ET. If that changes, I'll let everyone know.
|
We, like
Digby, feel slightly dirty for having been linked by
The Corner today. But dirty
good. As TBogg says, it's no fun lobbing grenades all day unless they show up every once in a while and take one in the face. Okay it was the result of a deliberate misreading of what we said -- they interpreted a rhetorical statement about the
verbal lashing we have in store for Ms. (and I use the term loosely) O'Beirne as a death threat -- but what can you say, logic is not their strong suit.
Anyway we have much planned for Fair Kate. The General is on the case (he's written one of his famous
Amazon Reviews which is up on his site but not yet on Amazon -- we will be sure to let you know when it is so you can vote for it) and I am attempting to lure the talented
Monk into the fray. But hey, why keep all the fun to ourselves? If you've got a blog and you would like to show Kate just how much you appreciate not only her
new book but her continued presence on Hardball, Meet the Press and other major media outlets despite the fact that she writes for a publication with roughly the circulation of
Chicken-Sexer Weekly and her views are representative of almost nobody outside that subsidized bughouse known as The Corner or the chemically unbalanced
Catholic League, leave your link in the comments and I will link you up in the upcoming days.
Just remember that this...
...is the woman who said this:
I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement.
So sharpen those daggers to a steely point (RHETORICAL daggers, KJ you fucking nitwit) and show us what you can do.
Oh and cue the concern trolls.
(graphic courtesy
Professor Leo Strauss)
|
After weeks of uncharacteristic silence leading many to conclude he had either a) been fired as Karl Rove's attorney or b) become so much a part of the case that wiser heads demanded he STFU, there has been a Robert Luskin sighting.
This time he spoke to
Jayson Leopold:
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said in a brief interview Monday that he has not heard anything about the grand jury requesting additional information about Rove and is unaware that Fitzgerald has been building a case against his client.
(snip)
"I think it's fair to say that there is no change in [Rove's] status. He is not a target of the investigation, but there remains an open investigation," Luskin said.
But sources knowledgeable about the case against Rove say that he was offered a plea deal in December and that Luskin had twice met with Fitzgerald during that time to discuss Rove's legal status. Rove turned down the plea deal, which would likely have required him to provide Fitzgerald with information against other officials who were involved in Plame's outing as well as testifying against those people, the sources said.
Luskin would neither confirm nor deny that a meeting with Fitzgerald took place last month. "I am simply not going to comment on whether I was or wasn't talking to Mr. Fitzgerald," Luskin said. "I am not acknowledging that it did or didn't happen, I am just saying that I have never commented about that before and I am not going to start doing that now."
Old "Gold Bars" just really isn't his usual chatty self these days. Wonder what put him off his feed?
|
In the newly released documents that detail Tim Russert's battle to refuse to testify about his conversations with Scooter Libby in the CIA leak case, Russert claimed that the waiver signed by Libby allowing him to do so was coerced and that if he testified his "sources" would no longer trust him as a journalist.
It's great that bloggers are on the scene to smack down the disingenuous hypocricy of Russert's all-too-willing defense of his good friend Scooter:
It is also relevant to note that Russert has treated an asserted waiver of the reporter's privilege quite differently when convenient. When Richard Clarke published his book Against All Enemies and testified before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the September 11 Commission), Clarke became subject to intense media scrutiny. On March 24, 2004, the White House disclosed Clarke's identity as the "senior administration official" who gave a "background" briefing in August 2002. When Clarke appeared as a guest on Meet the Press on March 28, 2004, Russert noted the White House had been aggressive in attacking Clarke's credibility and had identified Clarke as the source for the background briefing -- without indicating any concern about the "voluntariness" of the waiver, in which Clarke apparently played no role. (Copy of the March 28, 2004, Meet the Press transcript, Exhibit 1). Russert did not hesitate to broadcast out of any concern that such disclosure might chill future background sources.
Did I say blogger? Sorry, I meant Patrick Fitzgerald (Page 33, footnote #13,
Government's Response to Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena).
So Tim -- I think you're full of shit,
Tom Maguire thinks you're full of shit, and the Special Counsel thinks you're full of shit. That's left, right and center. Your appearances on
Don Imus notwithstanding, who
exactly is it that's supposed to be trusting your journalistic integrity these days?
(thanks to Jeff for the tip)
|
Sammy's getting hinky under the glare of the hot lights, isn't he? He verily bristles about being called on his rapidly shifting stories about
oh so many things.
His CAP story
makes no sense. He graduated from Princeton in 1972, the same year the ROTC had already returned to Princeton, and yet he now maintains that it was his grave worries over its exclusion from the campus that caused him to join the Concerned Alumni of Princeton in the first place.
A reader who is also a member of the Princeton alumni sends the following:
Oh please -- the notion that the "concerned alumni" of Princeton gave a rat's ass about ROTC is absurd. It's not like any of their kids were going into the military. I was two classes behind Alito (Andy Napolitano was there too, another prize), and the only thing I remember CAP getting exercised about was the invasion by us girls.
Sammy bragged about his membership in CAP in 1985 when he thought it would give him an "in" with the Reagan administration, so he must've been on board with this statement which appeared two years earlier in a
CAP newsletter:
People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns black and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.
Sammy's never mentioned the ROTC thing before. That's something GOP Senators seem to have unearthed in his defense, although really it just points the finger at the fact that Sammy's simply another bedwetting GOP chickenhawk who found a way to stay out of Vietnam.
Jonah,
Taranto and
the Freepers are getting pretty testy with Digby who thinks that they're all a bunch of crybabies pissing themselves (and our civil liberties) down the drain, and Digby is now being
challenged to a fight.
I know Digby. Digby could kick all their asses. Jonah would be rendered a blubbering heap of chickenshit in a pile Ding-Dong wrappers post haste. Not that Digby finds it necessary to respond to that kind of macho bravado posturing that will never have to be backed up. Still, be careful what you wish for.
|
WaPo:
Lawyers for NBC News reporter Tim Russert suspected in the spring of 2004 that his testimony could snare Vice President Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in a lie and Russert resisted testifying at the time about private conversations with Libby, according to court papers released yesterday.
(snip)
It "appears that Mr. Russert's testimony is sought solely because the Special Prosecutor believes that his recollection of a telephone conversation with an Executive Branch official is inconsistent with that official's statements," they wrote.
How exactly did Russert know that his testimony would contradict Libby's story? Are we supposed to believe Fitzgerald called him up and said "hey, Scooter just unloaded a big pile of shit on my doorstep and I'd like you to come over and clean it up?"
Sure sounds like Scooter call Russert up and say "hey Timmeh, cover for me old bean." While Russert might have fought testifying on any account, it certainly appears that he knew well in advance that his story didn't match up with Scooter's and there is certainly good reason to suspect that this information didn't come from Patrick "leak tank" Fitzgerald.
Atrios is right. That Russert continues to quote-unquote "cover" this story without answering a few basic questions about his own involvement is really beyond the pale.
Update: Tom MaGuire asks the same question.
|
Bowers:
Alito is lying about his involvement with Concerned Alumni for Princeton, and the reason he is lying is because membership with such an organization demonstrates an embarrassing level of opposition to civil rights in this country that should disqualify someone from being a Supreme Court Justice. That he is unwilling to be truthful during his confirmation hearings further demonstrates just how unqualified he is.
Digby's right, I'm sure Sammy just wanted to keep women out of Princeton because they wouldn't have "felt comfortable" there.
Superwanker.
|
Questioning of Judge Alito will continue at 2:15 pm ET, after the lunch break, continuing with Sen. Kyl.
KYL FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING CONTINUED: CAP letters entered into the record – found some Democrats to say Alito is nice to women and minorities. (And perhaps a picture of the Judge petting a kitten, I’m not sure.) And now I’d like to talk for a while about something that has absolutely nothing to do with your thought process to make a political point about the Ginsberg/White issue Brownback brought up yesterday. And now let me throw you a softball so that you can talk at length about your minority/women/discrimination rights history – especially by pointing out specific cases which I think make your point for you. (But these haven’t been choreographed between the Judge and Sen. Kyl. Nuh uh.) And now, allow me to give you a softball platform to discuss the machine gun case and compare it to Lopez, and it’s all Congress’ fault. (RH notes: Interstate commerce versus jurisdictional elements – again, using the “reasonable interpretation” meme and trying to box out anyone who disagrees as outside the “reasonable” mainstream. It’s a good political tactic, but I’m hoping someone will call him on the fact that his position is, in fact, outside the judicial mainstream. And Kyl is consistently cranky looking. I’m just sayin’.)
KOHL FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Alito says judges should not put their own personal belief in as to how the law ought to be, but ought to be bound by how the law is. Raising the Bork specter – the philosophical dividing line of liberal/conservative ideology in the jurisprudential context. (Or, alternatively, are you a Bork?) Alito’s answer: I was trying to keep my bosses happy. (Or, alternatively, I’m willing to say whatever it takes to make myself look good to my audience at the moment. Ahem.) On to a discussion of Alito’s thoughts on the
Warren Court. What are traditional values? Lots of nice points about kids and safety. Well, what about your Casey dissent, then? Alito talks about the “undue burden" application – and how tough it was for him in applying it to this case. Alito then says that “one person, one vote” wasn’t practical based on statistical population variation problems that his father had working for the NJ legislature. (RH notes: boy, isn’t a voting district statistics discussion a real turn on? *cough*) Kohl then brings up Chidester, and it being repudiated by Hibbs. Shorter Alito: Family Medical Leave Act blah blah blah Nuh-Uh. Getting into gender stereotypes and other issues relating to this particular case.
DEWINE FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Starts by quoting Stewart Taylor, paragon of fair-minded legal journalism. *cough* (Ouch, that hurt to type.) Goes on to testify on Alito’s behalf on discrimination cases and the Vanguard question. (RH notes: Shouldn’t they swear him in if he’s going to be a character witness? Shorter DeWine: Thinking that you would keep your word on Vanguard is absurd.) Let me testify again on your behalf about employment discrimination cases. Allow me to give you an opportunity to stroke Congressional egos and explain how deferential you look forward to being to us. Asking about Spending Clause power and what Alito thinks about SD v. Dole, wherein Congress is allowed to hold monies as a cudgel to get states to do as it wishes. (Do I hear the states’ rights people squeaking?) Wow, in a surprising move, DeWine brings up Roe. Color me shocked. No litmus test here. Nope. “Hello, evangelical base? I’m phoning home while I’m on teevee.” On to Supreme Court docketing question and circuit splits – Alito ducks question so as not to offend his boss (Wow, that’s new...snark intended. Although, all kidding aside, I’m not certain what DeWine was thinking in asking him this question because he really can’t answer it in his current job.) Then on to online porn. (RH notes: Suddenly, couch potatoes everywhere perk up their ears.)
FEINSTEIN FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Begins with Commerce Clause and federalism issues. Good on Di for calling Alito on his attempted dodge earlier on lack of Cong. direction. Lopez – talking about Kennedy’s opinion, and state level issues. Dodging DiFi’s question on the Calibrese law review article that he cited in his machine gun case – but shows hint that Alito already feels that Commerce Clause has peaked. (RH: Intriguing. Hopefully more on this later.) On to Chidester, invalidated the law despite findings of fact – contradiction? She’s really hammering him on his “findings of fact” dodge from earlier...and on lack of deference to Congress – why one case and not the other? On to woman’s right to choose and Roe, emphasizing Specter’s discussion of precedent – throws Alito’s quote on stare decisis back at him. (RH: Again, good one. Excellent prep.) Alito tries to dodge, and DiFi calls him on it and re-asks: what special circumstance could you foresee to overcome protracted testing of Roe of 30 year period – what analogous cases? Alito refers to National League of Cities case string through to Garcia. Says Constitution does provide for right of privacy. In Casey decision, explain why you were so far off from O’Connor? Alito – never equated adult woman to that of a minor who was required to provide notice for abortion. Health of mother exception – do you agree that this must be in statute in order to be constitutional? Alito only says compelling interest in case law – not that he agrees with the concept. Goes back to Alito memo outlining strategy to overturn Roe – what was your view of precedent at the time you wrote memo? (RH: BINGO! Great question.) Alito says he was trying to achieve a result, not follow stare decisis as the judiciary must – but not saying what he thought at the time other than the “I was just representing a client” dodge. Electronic surveillance/FISA: Alito said this morning that “generally there has to be a warrant” – DiFi says ALL surveillance within the US has to be done via warrant. What sort of exception are you providing with “generally?” Alito says exigent circumstances can be an exception. Youngstown precedent? Alito says he recognizes it, and finds it to be a useful framework for addressing issues of executive power. But have to address it via statutory questions on what Congress did and meant – both via FISA and the AUMFA. (RH: Shorter Alito: Yep, I’m leaving a loophole.)
SESSIONS FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS: Other Senators are being mean to you and it makes me sad. Wow, today I learned from Sen. Sessions that Judges actually read briefs along with the law when they make decisions. Fascinating. Tell me more about this thing you call “l-a-w.” (RH notes: I’m sorry, but Sessions puts me in a coma.) “Young staff attorney” (RH: um, hello? He had graduated from law school and served as an AUSA for a time before going to the AG’s office. Did he have no brain, no integrity of his own for his job application or personal statements of belief? He wasn’t exactly a babe in arms – he was late 20s/early 30s.) And we’re back to abortion, and horses and burros, oh my. Suddenly, Sessions finds his excitement over state’s rights, and decides to testify himself about Alito’s judicial philosophy. Will you swear to be a strict construction kinda guy? I will.
Break until 4:55 pm ET.
Alito Ques.: Day 1, Part I
|
Questioning has begun of Judge Alito. Some short summaries below for those who don't have access to the hearings this morning.
SPECTER FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS: Alito dodged question on Griswald from Specter, but says he agrees with result in Eisenstadt. Then going through Casey, but not really answering questions. Doctrine of stare decisis is important. (Again, not completely answering the question. Specter didn’t ask for a definition – he asked about specifics.) Constitution embodies concept of “a living thing?” Sets up framework, but is not very specific on a number of things so each generation can apply them to problems as they come up. Extensive questions on FISA and signing statements – got into the 1986 memo from Alito. Not too many answers, lots of vague pronouncements. (RH notes: Looks like Lindsey Graham's coaching job included some insight into what his fellow Senators might be asking. Wonder how they feel about that?)
LEAHY FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Great job questioning on FISA and limits of Presidential power. Want to see more of this. Good job getting into Strip Search Sammy case. Completely slammed him on reasonableness of strip searching a 10 year old girl. Membership in CAP addressed -- Alito retreating to "I don't really recall" excuse. Hope they have time to get into this more substantially, because a defense based on anger at ROTC being thrown off campus when that was clearly not the stated purpose of CAP doesn't fly with me. [
UPDATE:
LiberalOasis is questioning the truth of the ROTC excuse. Alito may have been dishonest in his answer/excuse on CAP. More as I get it.]
HATCH FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Starting out with a prosecutorial style of questioning. Whipping out questions – yes or no. Mostly a lot of statements with which Hatch agrees, and then some Alito ass-kissing and softball questions.
15 minute break. Will reconvene at 11:20 am ET.
KENNEDY FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Starts out with Vanguard right off the bat. Alito’s excuse - “oops, I forgot that I promised the Senate not to rule on anything involving who handles my personal investments.” On to question of executive overreach – torture, library records, spying without warrants, imperial presidency, independent judiciary. Goes on to discuss Alito’s record on executive and governmental power at the expense of individual liberty. Alito retracts prior statement – says branches of government are equal, not what he had previously stated. (Although there was a slip of the tongue and Alito almost said the people leave it up to the “executive” to make decisions.) (RH notes: The Judiciary Committee has a clubby atmosphere – it’s nice to know they can joke with one another outside the nasty, political infighting context we usually see.) Questions on case where Alito overrode jury. More on Strip Search Sammy case and (un)reasonableness of Alito. Gets into excesses of Presidential power – McCain amendment on torture. Signing statement – Alito now saying he disagrees with them. On to unitary executive theory – in past statement, Alito referred to this as “the gospel” and affirmed belief in it – Kennedy asks him to reconcile this. Alito dodges a bit.
GRASSLEY FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Anyone questioning your ethics is a poo-poo head. And gosh darn it, people like you. Have I mentioned that I think you are awfully ethical? It’s good that you think the President shouldn’t have a completely blank check on power (but I won’t ask you where you think the limits actually are). Now, let me only ask you questions for which you have ready answers: judicial restraint, extra-Constitutional problems, personal bias of judges, “majority rule” and individual freedoms (because Grassley can’t seem to say “tyranny of the majority”). (RH notes: shouldn’t we be beyond basic Con Law questions for a man who wants to sit on the Supremes? I’m just saying. And let us take a moment to be grateful for the miracle of coffee.) And apparently bloggers and interested citizens who comment on the hearings make Grassley annoyed – boy, do I feel bad for having an opinion of my own. (Not.)
BIDEN FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Biden starts with getting to the heart of Vanguard and cutting through GOP spin: did you keep your word or not? And then goes on about CAP. Makes point on ROTC being back on campus, contrary to what Alito said – and then ruins it by going on and on with Biden’s own personal history. SIGH Blah blah blah Roberts blah blah blah O’Connor fulcrum real world blah blah blah history of real world discrimination blah blah blah. (RH: Did I mention the miracle that is coffee?) Judge, I don’t mean to interrupt, but I’d like to talk again instead of getting your view on discrimination. (RH: Man, I’m sorry. I try not to harp on my own team, but for the love of pete...Biden’s staffers pulled two great illustrations of discrimination opinions from Alito that deserve questioning, and I’ve lost the ability to pay attention because Biden is just blathering. What a way to head into lunchtime.) State versus the individual – Biden says Alito leans toward the government’s power.
KYL FIRST ROUND QUESTIONING: Starts with unitary executive. Then raises Bork’s name (hello, winger base!) and throws a softball asking why Alito wants to serve.
I wish for world peace. Erm...it would be an honor to serve. On to question of relying on foreign law for US jurisprudential interpretation – and Alito agrees with Kyl’s position that foreign law is not helpful. Does say that Youngstown is precedent, and that judiciary should hold fast on Constitutional principles – but Kyl asked it in a fairly softball context. (RH note: sure hope someone else goes into more depth on Youngstown.) Then Kyl finishes with some lovely blurbs from the ABA. (Kyl to continue after lunch.)
Lunch recess until 2:15 pm ET.
UPDATE: Just for fun,
MyDD has a "Guess Alito's Freeper Name" game going on. Thought it would be a fun way to pass the time as we watch the Alito 20 questions here as well. So guess the freeper nickname of Scalito -- and do share if you have a better question for the Judge than the ones you've heard. I've been thinking about ways to focus the questioning myself and am planning on e-mailing some of mine to some staffers this afternoon. I'd appreciate any input our commenters have on this.
UPDATE #2: For those experiencing Haloscan problems: Gang -- I'm told that google had a recent update that has made haloscan a little wonky. Reader T- tells me that "If you right click on the toolbars, deselect Google toolbar then refresh, the comments link reappears." Hope this helps everyone who is having a problem.
|
The Alito hearings are scheduled to resume this morning at 9:30 am ET, with the questioning set to begin with Sen. Specter and, as far as I can tell, making its way through the same order that was used yesterday for opening statements.
One issue that was clearly on the minds of everyone yesterday (With the exception of Tom Coburn who pretty much only thought about abortion...no litmus test here...) was that of an
Imperial Presidency, restoration of separation of powers, and where Judge Alito would come down on issues that are almost certain to make their way to the Supreme Court in the next few years. With Alito's history of deference to Executive power, this is shaping up to be a tough day of questioning today.
It was certainly on the minds of the FISA Court judges who, yesterday,
received a briefing on the Preznit's
illegal Fourth Amendment violations and power grab actions in spying on Americans without a warrant by DoJ attorneys. No word on what was asked, but my money is on someone saying "What in the hell were you thinking?"
Seems the Congressional Research Service says that the Preznit and his legal advisors were off base as well. (See
here and
here.)
We are likely to see a lot of questions on civil rights, privacy issues, separation of powers -- you know, the fundamental issues of our time. Should be an interesting first day of questions.
(Photo of the statue of Contemplation of Justice in front of the Supreme Court.)
|
Just saw the cover of Kate O'Bierne's new
steaming pile of offal.
The bitch is dead meat.
|
In an effort to convince us that Alito is a "moderate" they hauled out
erstwhile frisking enthusiast Christie Todd Whitman and allowed her to try and
crawl back into the GOP's good graces:
Former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who introduced Alito to the committee, referred to the nominee as "President Alito," then told the TV cameras she met Alito when she was "governor of New York."
Two words Christie: beta blockers.
Even
Dana Milbank thinks Strip Search Sammy is a bit of a second-rate oddball.
Digby thinks he's a closet freeper. He does have a bit of that "one handed typist" look, doesn't he?
|
The name of the reporter for the Christian Science Monitor who has been kidnapped in Iraq has been released. She's
Jill Carroll:
Carroll, a 28-year-old freelancer for The Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped Saturday in Baghdad, when gunmen ambushed her car and killed her translator. She had been on her way to meet a Sunni Arab official in one of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods.
In the February/March issue of AJR, Carroll wrote that she moved to Jordan in late 2002, six months before the war started, "to learn as much about the region as possible before the fighting began."
"There was bound to be plenty of parachute journalism once the war started, and I didn't want to be a part of that," she wrote.
(snip)
Unlike most Western reporters, Carroll is able to speak Arabic, "so she can operate pretty well in Iraq," Ingwerson said.
Despite her language skills, Carroll used an Iraqi translator. The translator was killed during the kidnapping, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.
There's a clip up over at CBS news that includes an old interview with the translator who was killed, Alan Ghazi, and it's quite heartbreaking. He opened up a music store because of his love of western music and was well aware of the dangers involved in working as a translator for an American journalist.
Carroll was friends with humanitarian aid worker Marla Ruzicka who was
killed in Bagdhad last year:
Marla was more than a source for a story, she was one of those quiet cheerleaders that kept me - and the Iraqis she touched - going almost from the moment that I arrived here three years ago.
I first met her in Jordan, just before the war. A reporter friend told me that I should get to know this young activist who made a name for herself working for Global Exchange, the US organization that sent field workers to Afghanistan to count civilian casualties.
After the Iraq war, she moved her push for an accurate count of civilian casualties to Baghdad. At a time when the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations were leaving Iraq, Marla started the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. Through that, she helped Iraqi families navigate the process of claiming compensation from the US military for injuries and deaths.
(snip)
I was always amazed at how composed Marla remained amid the violence and confusion of Iraq. One of my favorite memories of her was when I was sitting in the middle of the Palestine Hotel lobby in Baghdad, surrounded by a confusing swirl of soldiers, officials, and reporters. Fear swept over me. What was I doing here? I had come as a freelancer, with no experience covering a war. Just as I was quietly freaking out, Marla appeared in the dusty, harried scene. She was the picture of calm in a perfect French braid and long blue dress. She was like a breeze blowing through, so tranquil, so clean.
Later in the fall of 2003 when I moved here and was despairing of my sputtering freelance work she would always say, "Jill, good for you. You're working so hard. I'm so proud of you." She was the eternal supportive cheerleader. One night she slipped a note in my hotel mailbox. It was a small essay of encouragement and praise from out of the blue, scribbled in black ink on a scrap of notebook paper.
(snip)
The only thing we can say now is at least she died doing what she wanted, doing what she really, really believed in. If she were still here, she'd be most worried now about her driver's family and who will take care of all the other Iraqi families she was working with.
She would point out, this happens to Iraqis every day and no one notices or even cares. There are no newspaper articles or investigations into what happens to them. For most of them, there was only Marla.
Many people have risked much to assure that the true story of what is happening in Iraq is told, and not just the recycled
GI Joe cartoon jingles served up by the Pentagon. Let's hope that someone so young and idealistic does not wind up another casualty in this unbelievable mess.
|
Malkin: "The RNC is providing bloggers with an Internet connection and brown bag lunch. Nothing more and nothing expected in return."No worries, Michelle. Even us dirty-minded lefties never presumed this was some sort of trumped up excuse for a little horizontal mambo.
Just file that one under "image be gone."
|
Here's the full Coburn quote that puzzled those of us listening to the Alito hearings. I've read it twice now and I see what he's getting at (sort of, anyway): the Court has been all over the map in terms of what is or is not entitled to privacy protections, for various reasons. At least, I think that is what he means. But the whole sodomy versus prostitutes thing is just weird. I'm just saying.
Anyway, here's
the full passage:
How is it that we have a right of privacy and due process to do that but you don't have the right, as rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court in 1997, to take your own life in assisted suicide?
COBURN: You know, how is it that we have sodomy protected under that due process but prostitution unprotected? It's schizophrenic. And the reason it's schizophrenic is there's no foundation for it whatsoever other than a falsely created foundation that is in error.
I don't know if we'll ever change that. It's a measure of our society.
But the fact is that you can't claim, in this Senate hearing, to care for those that are underprivileged, to those that are at risk, to those that are vulnerable, to those that are weak, to those that suffer and, at the same time, say I don't care about those who have been ripped from the wombs of women and the complications that have come about throughout that.
So, the debate, for the American public -- and the real debate here is about Roe.
Am I wrong, here? Is there some other hidden meaning other than Tom Coburn would like Roe overturned and he's willing to talk about whatever else he needs to talk about to do it? No litmus test for him, though. Nuh uh.
The WaPo has helpfully put up the full transcript of today's proceedings. (Hat tip to reader SaltinWound for the heads up on the transcripts -- most helpful.)
Update: John from Crooks & Liars has the rather
amazing video of the Coburn outburst.
|
Much prognostication today about how the Alito hearings will progress. The wonkosphere, in an attempt to look moderate if not reasonable, is limply flapping about with predictions of his
inevitable confirmation. But I think this attempt to make themselves look like wizened elves results from a serious misreading of the current political terrain.
Chris Bowers, who is in DC blogging about the hearings for MyDD,
says:
I am in DC today, as I will be for the rest of the week. While I am down here, one of the main things I will be working on is to defeat the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
I want to make that last sentence clear. I believe the Democratic goal for the Alito hearings should be to defeat his nomination through a filibuster of 41 votes or more, and then to defeat the nuclear option with a vote of 51 votes or more. Samuel Alito is an unacceptable choice to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Strip Search Sammy is an altogether different beast than John Roberts, and his hearing comes at quite a different time. The public is starting to get their first tastes of the corruption scandal growing like a cancer on the Republican party who are vulnerable just at the time they are the most visible. Despite his bluster, John Cornyn is
rightly terrified that the free pass given him by the press in the Abramoff matter will
end any day now. He's not the only one. There is considerable cover for an attack that didn't exist only months ago.
And Alito himself is personally unappealing. Stiff, humorless, and comes off as a bit of a weirdo. People like Ron Wyden were afraid to go after Roberts because he was likeable, and Joe Biden learned to his peril that shredding the "nice guy" is the wrong place to try and make your bones. There is an opening for Democrats to capitalize on this as they try to tie unpopular Bush measures like the illegal NSA wiretaps to Alito's tail like a tin can.
And the RNC knows it. Ken Mehlman himself is
meeting today with Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Cap'n Ed, Red State, Political Teen and others to try and control the quite critical message in the blogosphere, and seeding the notion of inevitable failure into the opposition narrative is one of the tricks that plays well for the GOP.
So encourage your local wonk to go back to debating the finer points of interstate commerce regulation this week. They need to stop doing Ken Mehlman's work for him.
|
SHORTER BROWNBACK: Entering four cases into record where Alito ruled in favor of employment discrimination plaintiffs. Role of judges and courts was to be limited, according to Hamilton (again referencing Fed. 78 – but not referencing any of the counter-arguments from other Founders...just saying). Quotes Justice Frankfurter – judgments must be informed, but within narrow limits. No seat is reserved in the Supreme Court for certain philosophies. Make-up of Court has changed, just as elected branches have changed. Oooh – Brownback has a prop – a chart showing changes in decisions between Ginsberg and White (whom she replaced). (Prop critique: can’t read it. And a big blue poster with white writing on it looks hokey.) Cites Roe and Doe v. Bolton. Jumping on the pro-life bandwagon – talking about strict construction. (RH notes: why is strict construction only applicable when you disagree with the question at hand, but not applicable when it allows the Preznit to act outside the law? I’m just asking.) Goes on to talk about Downs Syndrome decisions for abortion and how the test for this can often be wrong. Oh, and people like you.
SHORTER COBURN: Going on and on about abortion and how wrong it is, because he’s a physician and he knows best. But no litmus test for him. Uh uh. (RH: Man, he is a one-track mind kind of guy, isn’t he? He’s been talking ad nauseam about abortion and how it applies to every other question for Alito.) Blah blah blah destroy unborn children blah blah blah abortion blah blah blah abortion is wrong blah blah blah disturbed that Sen. Kennedy would question your integrity. Answer where you can.
Now Alito is being introduced by Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) and Christine Todd Whitman (R-Former Gov. NJ).
Alito now about to be sworn in to give his statment.
SHORTER ALITO: One note to start: his wife is clearly very proud of him, as I can see her sitting behind him to his right. He starts by thanking Senators for discussions, and expressing his admiration for O’Connor. Shares anecdote about how he got there. Says parents made a great impression on him – father was brought to this country as an infant. Very poor circumstances. Mother is first generation American – their story shows the power of one good deed. Saw late 60s/early 70s activism on the campus of Princeton as these people acting badly, and contrasted it with the good acts of the people in his home town experience. (No explanation of involvement with Princeton group.) Says he has learned from his wife’s experiences; his children’s; his family’s, especially as they get older; his sister’s, as a trial lawyer in a profession that has been traditionally dominated by men; has learned by doing in sitting on all of his cases, and learned by example via his colleagues. Has learned the difference between his attorney/client relationship – when you were outcome driven – and his role as a judge, which is solely to determine the case based on the facts and the law in front of you and nothing else.
Has been an honor to spend his career in public service, and especially to be a judge. Nothing is more important to the republic than the rule of law, no person is above the law nor is any person beneath the law. (And sorry, I missed the last couple of sentences due to a tantrum -- the toddler's, not mine. Can anyone fill me in?)
(Somehow a song and dance picture seemed appropriate. Snark intended.)
UPDATE: And it seems that I was not delusional, Coburn did say something along the lines of "we protect sodomites and prostitutes, but not the unborn." I've e-mailed Crooks and Liars, and John is nice enough to look for the clip for me. If he can pull it, hopefully it will be up at some point soon so I can get an exact quote.
UPDATE #2: Leah at Correntewire also liveblogged
here.
Alito Part IIAlito Part I
|
SHORTER KOHL: Individual liberties and equal opportunity are important to me – the little guy deserves consideration, too. Rights of individuals must be upheld. As a Justice, must stay above the political fray – how will you wield that power if you are given a seat at the table – will you be independent or results oriented? Details a number of concerns based on prior opinions from Alito: Casey dissent, worker’s rights, past history at DoJ (no Const. Protection for right to abortion) – and philosophically opposed to Warren court history. Kohl details why Warren decisions of protecting minorities against majority tyranny are important, and why it is troubling that opposition to them as a foundation for pursuit of legal career is Alito’s stated reason. Test will be of judicial excellence: competence and temperament; sense of core American values – *ahem* no extremes; understanding that the *ahem* decisions affect *ahem* real people – justice may *ahem* be blind, but not deaf; what is in mind and heart. (Little bit of a frog in Kohl’s throat for a while.)
SHORTER DEWINE: Constitution important as the people’s document. Troubled by recent cases, and wondering how Alito’s insertion in place of O’Connor would change some of these issues. Multiple concurrences and dissents make things difficult for interpretations for lawyers and lay people. Blah blah blah. Now bringing up conservative talking point that courts have been inserting themselves into making laws – role of judge should simply be to decide cases. (RH: You know, it’s funny how the only time people say judges are legislating from the bench is when they disagree with the outcome. Conservatives don’t complain about Thomas’ dissents which are often results oriented. I’ll be interested to see if DeWine or any other Rep. Sen. asks Alito where in the four corners of the Constitution he finds the Presidential right to issue signing statements on legislation.)
SHORTER FEINSTEIN: Be straightforward, don’t dodge questions. Concerns: Deep concerns on Court adopting narrow view of Commerce Clause and 14 Amendment, encroaching on Congressional authority. Addresses machine gun case, wherein Alito had narrow reading on Congr. Authority. Executive powers are enormous concern – and Alito’s history of opinions give her great pause – based on Administration’s expansive reading of the law, disregarding due process, spying on Americans without warrant, etc. Also concerned on impact Alito could have on women’s rights, particularly right to choose and Roe – your opinions raise concerns about how you would rule when not bound by precedent. Also concerned about civil rights – based on statements made in 1985 job application regarding Warren court decisions and other items in Alito’s history.
SHORTER SESSIONS: I have an irritating, nasal voice. And I like you, Judge Alito, because you are one of us. *wink* Judge Alito, you have a large brain. Having a federal prosecutor on the bench could be of great value, due to prior cases that may have been incorrectly decided because past judges had little to no criminal experience. (RH: Okay, I’ll agree here that could be useful. But it depends on how broad-minded you are. I’m sure Jeralyn would have some comments on this as well.) People like you, they really like you. We don’t want an activist judge – unless, of course, he’s a conservative one, in which case, good on ya. (RH: Again, someone needs to ask about the signing statements and where that is allowable in the Constitution – and how that squares with a strict constructionist philosophy.) Blah blah blah. Now I’m going to use my bully pulpit to cover your flank and cite only cases which I think make you look good. (Cathcart, Brenson, and others – not sure on spelling on these, so YMMV)
SHORTER FEINGOLD: Thanks for being here. Allow me to proceed to needle you. We need judges who see themselves as custodians of the laws that this nation holds, even when a Preznit is telling the nation that the Preznit alone should be able to decide how far the executive should go. Concerned that Alito is to deferential to the Executive. Must be fair and objective – need judges who can ensure that Judicial branch is an independent check on the power of other branches, as the Constitution requires. Raises character questions on Vanguard mutual company – still has investments, and did not keep his word on recusing himself on Vanguard cases (shifting explanation and justifications – wants full and final story – oooh, good one). Must have highest ethical standards, stakes for this nomination could hardly be higher. Outcome of this could shape our society for generations to come. Senate has the right to know what a nominee feels about past court decisions. Executive power, death penalty, employment discrimination, etc., to be questioned. Expect complete answers – we have right to know if past legal opinions still stand as Alito’s opinions today.
15 minute recess now until 2:15 pm ET.
SHORTER GRAHAM: Allow me to kiss your ass and talk about how well-qualified you are (since I’ve been doing your debate prep, and all). Questions about Executive power and time of war. Graham’s main concern is for the committee’s reputation as to how the hearings go. Now, allow me to cover your flank on issues that I know you will not really answer questions on (since, again, I helped you do debate prep this past weekend). Now threatening about abortion (RH: Hmmm...my base needs some shoring up after I joined the gang of 14, and this gives me an awfully good platform to do so.) – if we go down that road, there will be no going back (referencing filibuster on abortion issue alone). The Preznit gets to appoint whomever he wants because the people elected him knowing that he would do so. Then says he wouldn’t vote for anyone who ever represented the ACLU. (RH: Lovely. So defending the Constitution is offensive to him?) And gosh darn it, people like you. Hopes everyone in Senate will treat Alito fairly.
SHORTER SCHUMER: Laying out why extreme right wing got a veto over Miers, but rolled out red carpet for Alito – and that Dems. Have an obligation to find out why. (“miers” precedent) While O’Connor has been the fulcrum of the Court, you appear to add weight only to one side. Are you in O’Connor’s mold or, as Preznit says, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? You are most prolific dissenter in 3 Circuit. You give impression of being fair minded, while always deciding in a way that has a rightward tilt. “We need to know that Presidents and paupers will receive equal justice in your courtroom.” Back to the umpire analogy again. The President is not a King, the court is not free to substitute its judgments for those of legislatures, and the people are not subjects without rights. Where does your philosophy on this place you? Brings up wiretapping – “will you check the President’s power – or will you be a blank check?” Then on to past statements regarding Roe and whether Alito still believes very strongly that the Constitution does not protect women’s rights. Will you be bound by precedent – or overrule it as you stated in 1985. You ought to answer questions – you have an obligation to answer questions on topics about which you have written. And you’ve written about a lot of stuff.
SHORTER CORNYN: I’m going to start by blathering about fairness (because I’m such a big proponent of fairness *cough*). Cornyn now going on and on about people voting against justice nominees because of politics. (RH: I’m calling bullshit on this. It’s one thing to say someone votes a party line, it’s another thing to accuse Senators of this on a Supreme Court Justice nomination – which is a lifetime appointment – when enormous principles are at stake. And I hope Cornyn will be called on this, not only because he’s a hypocritcal ass, but also because he’s questioning the integrity of fellow Senators and ought to be called on the carpet for it.) I don’t like liberuls, and I’ve been assured you don’t either – you are one of us, Alito. *wink* But I’m not saying you are results oriented or anything. Nope. Oh, and the most important thing on my mind today is that people of faith are taken care of...well, people of my faith. Now, let me talk about the one case I argued before the Supreme Court as the TX AG – and it was about prayer at a football game, so it gives me an opportunity to kiss James Dobson’s ass for a moment by going on and on about how evangelical beliefs should be supremely important to you and everyone else in America.
SHORTER DURBIN: Test for Supreme Court nominee – will you use position to restrict freedom or expand it? The Court is the last refuge for freedom and liberty. Court opened schools from segregation – not Congress. Discussing Griswald – and privacy issues, reproductive rights and privacy, in the context of recent Shiavo positions taken by Republicans on the Hill and invading family rights at a private time. Abortion is difficult for most people – balance personal religious and philosophical beliefs and rights of women at a very, very difficult time. Should be woman’s decision. Question of American citizen’s rights being protected during time of war – checks and balances important. Will you stand with the Founding Fathers? Legislative construction questions. (RH: YES! It’s the signing statement and unitary executive theory issue.) What will you do with WH overreach on Constitutional and treaty obligations – torture, enemy combatants, rights issues, etc.? Will you be influenced by Federalist Society or O’Connor? Will you have the courage to stand up for civil rights – where does your Warren Court opposition and Princeton involvement fit in – Senate deserves an answer on this. Brings up mining case dissent.
Hearings Part I(picture courtesy
antiwarposters.com)
|
I'm going to be live-blogging
the Alito hearings as much as possible today (at least so far as the toddler can stand Senators listening to themselves speak, anyway). I'll update this post as things go along.
Introduction of Alito's family. Mom is there, so be nice.
SHORTER SPECTER: Concerned about Presidential power grabs and historical context of Constitutional system. Also, Congressional power issues -- Supreme Court insulting by suggesting that their reasoning power is superior to Congress. Brings up Separation of Powers. Methinks that Specter is displeased with the Preznit.
SHORTER LEAHY: Alito must demonstrate that he respects the rights and liberties of ALL Americans. Supreme Court nominations should not be done through a series of winks and nods toward factions who have narrow interests (read: religious right anti-abortion Dobsonites). Supreme Court belongs to all Americans, not just to WH or to narrow faction of a single political party. Public conversation in this hearing extremely important -- theme is that this is the people's rights and the people's Constitution. "The Court that serves America should reflect America." Reminds Alito of O'Connor's opinion holding that even in times of war, the President is not above the law, that no citizen is, and goes over the rest of O'Connor's legacy to show how important a single Supreme Court justice is. "Will you be an
independent jurist?" Question as to whether appointment is a results-oriented one for the far right -- and whether or not Alito is agreeable to that or whether he is prepared to be independent as a jurist based on facts and law before him.
SHORTER HATCH: Begins by kissing Specter's ass -- they must be a little worried about his vote. Goes on about Senate advise and consent powers versus Presidential power to appoint. (Funny how deferential Hatch can be when a Republican Preznit is nominating...don't remember him being this nice to all of Clinton's nominees.) Also, don’t expect Alito to answer any questions because as I remember it, Ruth Bader Ginsberg didn’t either. And his opinions for the DoJ aren’t Alito’s fault, so don’t blame him – consider them in their rightful context. (RH: Okay, I partly agree with this – certainly they should be considered in context. But Alito has to answer the questions about them in order for Senators to properly consider context and meaning – he doesn’t get a pass both ways.) Have lots of record – should only apply judicial standard to evaluation of them, not political. And then he goes into a lengthy comparison to umpires and application of rules and judges and applications of laws. Oh, and Alito is a baseball fan. Oh goody.
SHORTER KENNEDY: “Even one justice can profoundly affect the rights and liberties of the people.” Does your record hold true to the spirit and the letter of the law? Can you truly be fair and even-handed? Asked previously whether Alito could be open-minded and impartial in the arguments before him if placed on the 3rd Circuit. Now have record of 15 years on the bench – and record troubles Kennedy deeply. In an era when the WH is abusing power, finds Alito’s support for an “all-powerful Executive branch” deeply troubling. (Kennedy then goes on the smack the WH for the NSA/FISA mess.) Alito has clear record of support for vast Presidential authority, unchecked by other branches of government. Has supported Presidential power that is disturbing, frightening, and intrudes on privacy and rights and liberties of Americans. Most expansive view of Presidential authority – maybe that’s why Preznit nominated him. “Must be a check on liberties, not a cheerleader for an Imperial Presidency.” (Mwahaha) Acted in favor of government, large corporations and wealthy interests – average Americans have had difficulty getting a fair shake in his courtroom. Not one single opinion in favor of a person of color in race relations cases – not one in 15 years. When you put that in the context of Princeton alumni group to which Alito belonged, his history at DoJ, it is troubling. Especially when you look at the application that Alito made for the DoJ job. Also troubled by Alito’s responses to committee questions and others. Brings up Vanguard conflicting statements and credibility issues and character questions. The Preznit and interests groups on the far right demanded answers from Harriet Miers before her nomination was withdrawn – the Senate deserves no less than answers from Alito.
SHORTER GRASSLEY: More positive view of Alito than Kennedy. Justices should be fair and not impose their own values on cases, but rule based on law and facts. Alito has good record, academically and professionally. Yay, team. And gosh darn it, people like him. Umpire analogy again. Now reading off a list of “blurbs” from people who like Alito. (Hmmm...no critiques...funny, that.) Now attacking “outside the mainstream groups” who attack Alito, but then says glad to see everyone participate in the process. Supreme Court nominee should not impose what they personally think the law ought to be, but should be constrained to what the law is. Must respect equal roles of different branches of government. References
Federalist 78 – thinks Alito has commitment to judicial restraint. Constitution sets the standard. Blah blah blah up or down vote.
SHORTER BIDEN: Blah blah blah. You are in the middle of a significant national debate on substantial philosophical issues, and your vote is critical on the Court – and we aren’t just going to hand you this seat for life without you answering some questions. Blah blah blah. I know Justice O’Connor. Judge Alito, I fear you are no Sandra Day. Blah blah blah. Want this to be a conversation, not a minuet – we owe that the American people. (RH: note to Joe, most Americans don’t know what the hell an minuet is. I’m just saying.) Blah blah blah.
SHORTER KYL: I’m an experienced scowler, and Judge Alito is an experienced legal person. (Now, allow me a moment to kiss O’Connor’s ass because my constituents in AZ don’t really like me and I’m trying to surf some political points in her wake.) (RH: Uh oh – Kyl bringing up the immigrant thing (wasn’t there a news report that this was overblown in Alito’s background? Didn’t Kyl get the memo?) No sitting justice has served as a federal prosecutor – that should be useful. (Translation: you’ll give the Preznit a green light to spy on Americans without a warrant, wink wink, nudge nudge – Kyl, so unsubtle) Gee, Judge Alito, you sure are smart. And modest. We’d have to find out you murdered someone before I’d vote against you. Now I’m going to take a few minutes to tell Democratic Senators how they ought to do their jobs. Blah blah blah. My advice is don’t directly answer any questions. Blah blah blah.
|
The confirmation hearings will open today for Samuel Alito in the Senate Judiciary Committee, beginning at 12:00 pm ET.
They will begin with opening statements from the Senators on the committee of ten minutes in length each. After the opening statements, Senators will begin questioning Alito and other witnesses.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is hoping to wrap up the hearings this week, with a vote scheduled for January 17th. Yeah, I bet he's hoping things go smoothly. The last thing Specter wants to be remembered for is the
"Borking" of another nominee on his watch. (Or the "Harriet-ing," although I'm not certain anyone has mentioned the need for Alito to go through remedial Con Law at this point.)
Sen. Pat Leahy isn't making any promises on that, depending on how willing Alito is to actually answer the questions asked of him.
The NYTimes has a decent review of some of the issues, opinions and past memoranda Alito has authored, and that are likely to raise some questions from the committee members: abortion, privacy, Executive powers, and Congressional authority appear to be looming large.
For a glimpse of the evangelical support base for Alito's nomination, take a peek at
this article. Kind of brings the whole
"anointing the hearing chairs" into more perspective, doesn't it?
The NYTimes also has some background on the years that both Alito and Roberts spent in clerkships and the AG's office. As does
the WaPo, with the second of its two-parter on the Alito formative years in the Reagan DoJ.
As for the whole "Democrats are politicizing the hearings," I'm calling bullshit. Texas Senator John Cornyn (who I will be forced to listen to because he's on the damned Judiciary Committee) leaked his opening statement to the press already. (Can you say publicity hound? I thought you could. Maybe he gave it to
Timmeh yesterday.)
"I am reluctantly inclined to the view that you and any other nominee of this president for the Supreme Court start with no more than 13 votes in this committee, and only 78 votes in the full Senate with a solid, immovable and unpersuadable block of at least 22 votes against you, no matter what you say or do," the statement said.
Apparently, it's only principled opposition when the far right decides to take down the nomination of...say...
the Preznit's WH Counsel because she
wasn't nearly wingy enough and they couldn't be certain exactly how she would vote on Roe. But when Dems want answers to questions, it's political posturing? Malarky. Don't you love the sound of hypocrisy at high noon?
Discourse.net has a link to
Sen. Kennedy's questions on Alito's credibility problem. I think this is a good line of questioning for Democrats to get into -- and one that is well worth pursuing, given Alito's tendency to explain away his positions as "I'll say anything to get a job." Either you believe what you say, or you are willing to lie to get a job -- either way, some explanation is in order.
The WSJ reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham participated in a "mock moot court" Senate hearing prep session with Alito over the weekend. Interesting -- guess we already know Graham's vote and he can stop pretending to be open-minded about listening to all of the evidence before he makes up his mind, eh?
The WSJ also brings up Alito's involvement in a group at Princeton that worked for exclusion of minorities and women from the campus -- that should prove some interesting questioning from Sen. Feinstein, at the very least, and reveals that the WH is worried about this and the credibility issues. (
Slate had more on the "Alito treats women like girls" question back in November (via
Atrios), and I'm certain Di will be wondering about this and much more if her performance on
yesterday's talking head shows is any indication.)
All in all, the news is promising for some in-depth questioning at the hearings. Don't know about you, but I'm planning to pull up a seat to watch the shoot out starting at high noon today. Here's hoping it's more than the intellectual ass-kissing that Roberts got.
A lifetime seat on the nation's highest court should not be handed out for a pittance, because the cost of doing so is too high to the American public at this point in our history. Judge Alito has a lot to answer for, not the least of which is his long history of deference to executive power -- with
King George already operating with a rubber stamp Republican Congress in hand, we can't afford to hand him the Supreme Court as well without a fight.
|
House Speaker Dennis Hastert says that he will move swiftly to
reform ethics rules and clean up the House.
Color me convinced.
Now that Tom DeLay has informed Dennis Hastert that he is still calling the shots in the House and has
determined what committee he will be assigned to, Republican corruption in Congress is a thing of the past.
WSJ:
Earmarks are at the heart of the scandals surrounding Mr. Abramoff and Duke Cunningham, the former GOP congressman who admitted to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for earmarks. Military contractor Brian Wilkes not only lavished gifts on Mr. Cunningham but spent $1.1 million on lobbying others. The payoff: at least $95 million in government contracts. The Copley News Service reported that "Wilkes made no bones about where his money was coming from. His jet-black Hummer bore a license plate reading MIPR ME--a reference to Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests," the means by which his firm got paid.
Well, that was the Dukester. But he's gone. And congress will now be safe from Tom DeLay and his sticky-fingered ethics as he takes over the seat on the Appropriations Committee that is now open having been
recently vacated by DUKE CUNNINGHAM.
Meanwhile the Official White House Toxic DeLay Distancing Strategy seems to be fixing on the story that the Bugman was some sort of
low-rent cracker that a wealthy Brahmin like George Bush would never hang out with.
Classy.
|
On today's
Press the Meat some supremely ironic booker had the supremely ironic idea to have Texas Senator John Cornyn come on and talk about Jack Abramoff. Timmeh continued his tradition of superlative journalism by giving Cornyn just enough time to give his excuses about his personal involvement in the matter before skipping off to greener pastures:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Cornyn, your name surfaced as receiving $1,000 from associates of Jack Abramoff. And Ralph Reed, an associate of Mr. Abramoff, was quoted as saying that he helped "choreograph" a response for you when you were attorney general towards a tribal problem. Will you give that money back?
SEN. CORNYN: Tim, it was a legal contribution. I don't plan on giving it back, which is -- you know, to listen to Chuck and to try to have it both ways and say this is a partisan issue -- you know, Jack Abramoff and the people, his clients, made bipartisan contributions and throughÂas long as they're legal and appropriately reported, I don't see any reason to give them back. On the Reed e-mail -- and this is not Harry Reid, but...
SEN. SCHUMER: R-E-E-D of the -- yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition.
SEN. CORNYN: Exactly. Those e-mails came out three years after I, as attorney general of Texas, filed an injunction to enforce Texas law against casino gambling. We prevailed because the law was in our favor, and then after the fact, apparently, there were these e-mails I had no knowledge of where Reed and Abramoff were somehow claiming credit and then bilking their Indian clients for millions of dollars, apparently. And I certainly disapprove of that, did not know anything about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
And that was that. Tons o'time was then spent trying to pin Schumer down about hypothetical situations regarding filibuster as Timmeh turned the show over to speculative fiction about situations that Schumer himself can neither predict nor control.
Would you? Could you? In a car? But in the realm of realilty, John Cornyn was the Texas Attorney General at the time Abramoff was taking money from the Cochetta Indians -- funneling it to Ralph Reed who then aimed his flock o' fundie freaks like a missile launcher to give cover to Cornyn as he did exactly what Abramoff wanted him to do -- shut down the competition.
Did Cornyn do this at Abramoff's and Reed's bidding? According to
emails from Reed he did:
On November 12, 2001, Reed sent Abramoff an e-mail stating, "get me details so I can alert cornyn and let him know what we are doing to help him" [sic]. Similarly, on November 13, 2001, Reed wrote "I strongly suggest we start doing patch-throughs to perry and cornyn [sic]. We're getting killed on the phone." Also, on January 7, 2002, Reed sent Abramoff an e-mail stating "I think we should budget for an ataboy for cornyn" [sic].
Whatever fucking little dance of the seven veils Russert did with Cornyn today, it wasn't journalism. Either Cornyn is lying, or Reed -- currently running for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia -- is guilty of extorting money from Abramoff's clients based on making representations about being able to
play Cornyn like a violin:
"Cornyn is getting a pass that he doesn't deserve," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, referring to the lack of attention to the senator's involvement.
"My concern is that he's working with Ralph Reed, who's being paid by Indian gaming interests," Sloan said.
I'm aware that the strictly Republican aspect of this whole Abramoff thing makes Wolf Blitzer and his Sunday morning brethren
sigh like little girls at the sight of Aaron Carter, but eventually they might want to raise themselves to ask a few obvious questions.
Update: Cornyn's also been
threatening Sean-Paul Kelly of the Agonist for delving into the Abramoff/Reed/Cornyn connection.
Markos has more.
Update: Roger has more.
|
We're getting a bit worried about
Alec Rawls. He's been trolling around
TBogg's comment section for a couple of days now and as the quote-unquote "
sensible" defender of the
Red Crescent theory we think you should come and get him.
I want you to know that I'm calling
Steve Soto and taking up a collection to have Alec fitted out with one of
these. And not one of those cheap home-made jobs either, one of the good ones that are molded to fit your individual skull. While we are not entirely convinced of their theraputic worth we hear they are all the rage and our moral relativism make us open to other value systems.
Because we're liberals. And we care.
(tin foilery courtesy sans-culotte in the comments)
|
The Bush Administration has taken the
"imperial presidency" to new heights. Arthur Schlesinger's analysis of this growth of Presidential powers over the years was ground-breaking work in the early 1970s, but he had nothing to work with like we have seen the in the last five years, following the attacks on 9/11.
The argument that Presidential power is superior to that of the other branches is nothing new in some circles. In fact, it's an argument that was made again recently in
The Weekly Standard by conservative scholar Harvey Mansfield, who argues that the war powers and others written into the Constitution essentially make the President above the law -- because, Mansfield argues, the Preznit IS the law during a time of war. (Never mind that there is no conceivable end to what the Preznit calls the war on terror. Guess that will end for Republicans only when a Democrat is elected to the WH.)
That this is
so far from what the Framers envisioned for this nation is not even discussed or acknowledged. Funny how such pesky things as facts and written words get in the way when you are trying to legitimize an unconstitutional power grab.
Or that conservatives were jumping up and down and screaming about the Imperial Presidency and the rule of law throughout the Clinton Administration, like
this fine example from the Cato Institute. "Hypocrisy hotline...I need a six pack."
Glenn Greenwald has some preliminary thoughts on
this here:
So, to recap: The President is "larger" than the law. The "rule of law is not enough to run a Government." We must remember that a monarchy is "effective" and therefore, in times of "war" (like now), we must embrace "one-man rule." In sum, in emergencies like the one we have now and will have for the indefinite future, the "law does not apply."
Discussion of these theories is more important with the Alito hearings set to begin tomorrow. The Court's composition can be fundamentally changed should Alito be voted into the Associate Justiceship for which he has been nominated. With Roberts already installed as Chief Justice, the insertion of another member of the court as far right as
Alito's views are could have devastating long-term consequences for the nation -- and for the balance of powers.
One article which makes this very clear is the latest from Noah Feldman in today's
NYTimes Sunday Magazine. The entire article details Feldman's theories on separation of powers and the abdication of responsibility by the Republican Congress over the last few years (a theme that bears repeating ad naseum as the 2006 elections approach), and is certainly worth a read. Here's a sample:
The real reason, then, to hope that Congress will resurrect its lost powers is that the balance of powers remains, as the framers thought, the best guarantor of liberty in a constitutional government. The basic fact of presidential power is now irreversible. No one denies that a strong executive is needed to respond to the threat of terrorism. But this just means that the presidency requires greater vigilance than ever to prevent violations of liberty.
No court alone can do the job of protecting liberty from the exercise of executive power. For that most important of tasks, the people's elected representatives need to be actively involved. When we let them abdicate this role, the violations start to multiply, and we get the secret surveillance and the classified renditions and the unnamed torture that we all recognize as un-American. Our Constitution has changed enormously over the last two centuries, and it is sure to change much more in the future. Just how it changes, though, is up to us.
Powerful stuff, and worth not only a read, but some serious thought and discussion.
The question of the Imperial Bush Presidency and its long-term consequences is being raised more and more -- both around the blogs and by the traditional media. For examples, take a peek
here,
here,
here, and
here.
One of the latest examples of Presidential arrogance was
the signing statement that Bush inserted (via
War and Piece) as he was signing the bill containing the McCain anti-torture amendment -- you know, the one that Bush publicly said he supported, while
he added caveats and exempted himself from the law applying to him when he signed it into law. Another example of Bush putting himself above the law -- the arrogance of King George.
(Graphics via
OMB Watch.)
|
On Fitzgerald's career as a prosecutor:
Eager to get into a courtroom, Fitzgerald passed up the judicial clerkships and Wall Street factories for Christy & Viener, a New York litigation boutique headed by Arthur Christy, a former United States Attorney. Christy encouraged him to become a federal prosecutor, and he applied in both Brooklyn and Manhattan; the Brooklyn office offered him a job on the spot, forcing him to filibuster until the more prestigious Manhattan office followed suit.
(snip)
The US Attorney at the end of the Gambino trial, Mary Jo White, then made Fitzgerald chief of narcotics. But his tenure was brief because White needed him to assist on the most serious but difficult case in the office: the trial of Sheikh Abdel Rahman and nine co-defendants. It was a prosecution for which there was little law -- unable to find statutes covering bombings that never came to pass, Fitzgerald and his colleagues ultimately relied on a Civil War-era sedition statute -- and much of the evidence was diffused, from other countries, and in foreign language. Even when it was incriminating it could not always be used, for fear of compromising ongoing intelligence operations. Nor, initially, were there any cooperating witnesses. But, after nine months, all the defendants were convicted.
No cooperating witnesses...classified evidence that couldn't be used...all the defendants were convicted. I sure like the sound of that.
White then made Fitzgerald co-head of the organized crime and terrorism unit in her office, the nation's first. For the next two years, he immersed himself even more deeply in the shadowy world of Middle Eastern terrorism and the culture of al-Quaeda, poring over intelligence reports and translated documents, studying Islam -- including bin Laden's twisted version of it -- interviewing witnesses and defectors, and traveling throughout the Middle East, Europe and Asia. "He was working very hard to learn where bin Laden was coming from," says a close associate. Several times, Fitzgerald met with Janet Reno. It as fascinating and challenging work, but not something for anyone craving headlines. "He didn't go around saying, 'Hey, look at me, I'm investigating bin Laden,'" says the associate. "A lot of people might have been tempted to boast a little bit or tell stories out of school, but that wasn't Pat's thing."
Regarding the bombing of the American Embassies in East Africa which killed 224 people:
The case he eventually put together, against four defendants, went to trial in early 2001. It was complicated legally and logistically, what with bringing witnesses, victims -- nearly 5,000 people were injured in the two blasts -- and their families from Africa to New York. And bin Laden's world was still terra incognita to the west: at one point Judge Leonard Sand, who presided, had to ask Fitzgerald how to pronounce "al-Quaeda." Working from memory, availing himself of what Kenneth Karas -- a colleague of Fitzgerald's who went to Africa with him and is now a Federal District Court Judge in Manhattan -- calls his "mainframe-computer brain," Fitzgerald laid out what he had. In late May he got his convictions, failing only to get the death penalties he sought for two defendants. After the verdict, when he walked into the room filled with people whose lives were scarred by the bombings, the group saluted him with a tribal chant of praise. "He oozed sincerity, had extraordinary command of the facts, and advocated well for his client," says Fred Cohen, one of the defense lawyers in the case. "At the end of his summations, you'd sort of cringe and say, 'What do I do now?'"
Scooter, you listening? Come to Jesus, Scooter.
On Mother's Day 2001 -- the only day Patrick Fitzgerald could get away from the trial -- Senator [Peter] Fitzgerald unveiled his choice to the Chicago press. Patrick Fitzgerald took over the office,for which he earns $140,000 annually, on September 1; Karas, a Chicago native, gave him a quick tour of his new city, which included taking in a Cubs game at Wrigley field. Dozens of loyal colleagues, many on shoestring government salaries, traveled to Chicago when Fitzgerald was officially sworn in. He returned to New York to pack his things and flew back to Chicago the morning of September 11, 2001. He heard about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon while driving into the city -- the news, he later said, was like a sledgehammer into his stomach -- and then, in his hotel room, he saw the Twin Towers fall. More than anyone watching that day, Fitzgerald could have said, "I told you so." But he apparently never has, even to close friends.
(snip)
Fitzgerald also was consulted on crucial portions of the Patriot Act, specifically the provisions taking down the "wall" between the intelligence-gathering and prosecutorial functions of the government, and prepared for future prosecutions. "He was correctly recognized as the premier anti-terrorism al-Quaeda expert, sort of our go-to guy to bounce off ideas," says Viet Dinh, one of the principle draftsmen of the statute.
Regarding his aggressive pursuit of the kingpins of Illinois politics:
"Maybe the feds want to take over City Hall completely," the lawyer for one of the indicted officials has grumbled. "He goes after fleas and elephants with the same Bacchus," says David Axelrod, a Democratic political consultant and advisor to Mayor Daley. "At some point there's a line -- I don't know where it is exactly -- where you begin criminalizing politics in its most innocent form."
That David Axelrod is quite the idiot can be seen in this PBS clip on
Fitzgerald, and any so-called "Democrat" who has to rely on GOP talking points to defend their position probably hasn't got much of one. But this is a big problem in doing a story on Fitzgerald; nobody wants to speak ill of the man and that's probably not because nobody has anything bad to say. He's put far too many people in jail for that. More likely a network of very powerful friends in all aspects of law enforcement make people who would otherwise blast him (like opposing defense attorneys) quite reluctant to do so at the moment.
Margolick says as much:
But given Fitzgerald's clout, some of his lawyer critics in Chicago won't even talk about him. "Another puff piece, eh?" one of them, Joseph Duffy, remarked when I asked him to discuss Fitzgerald. He then refused to elaborate and would not return phone calls.
Writing an article on someone when you can't get their critics to return your calls and at least provide some context or perspective is extremely tricky.
In the meantime, Fitzgerald has settled into his new community of Chicago, which marks an upgrade for him; he lives in a brownstone close enough for him to jog around Lake Michigan. Its furnishings show a woman's -- or a least a designer's -- touch, but not much else has changes, and he is apparently as single as ever. "When you meet him, you can see that he isn't going to cancel any plans to see you or make it to a party you've been invited to," says one woman who dated him for a time. "He keeps waiting for the next assignment to be over so he can see his family, get married, get a life, but he just never gets there."
(snip)
Supporters and detractors alike agree that in Fitzgerald's Manichaean universe nothing is more heinous than lying, especially when the lie comes from a lawyer.
Hasn't Robert Luskin grown awfully quiet of late?
"Pat doesn't take the actions of a criminal personally," says David Kelley. "A criminal is expected to do that. A lawyer is not expected to lie." Perhaps, some speculate, this explains the fate of Scooter Libby, Columbia Law School '75, who claimed -- falsely, Fitzgerald insists -- that he had heard about Plame's C.I.A. ties only from reporters, and that he didn't even know if it was true. (Libby told Miller, according to the indictment.) Fitzgerald, his critics speculate, may be above partisan politics, but he is not above personal piqued.
They then go on to ruin a perfectly good article by introducing Joe DiGenova. I should restate my caveat about not being able to find a critic -- I mean a
reliable critic and not a political hatchet man.
What's next for Fitzgerald after Plame and Chicago is anyone's guess. In a sense, he is checkmated; no other job would give him the rush he now enjoys. All of the cushy perches to which lawyers of his ilk usually parachute -- the fancy law firms and large corporations -- hold little appeal for him. He hasn't the stomach for elected office, and a high-level political appointment -- to head the F.B.I. or the C.I.A., or to become attorney general -- would require a politician bold, or desperate, enough to tolerate someone clearly beyond his control.
Ain't that the truth. It would take a politician of extreme courage to appoint someone with so little regard for "That's Just How Things Are Done" to a position where there were no reins to be quickly tightened. I feel quite certain that of all the decisions George Bush has made in office none rankle him so much as having delivered power into the hands of someone so uncontrollable.
Fitz in Vanity Fair Pt. 1Fitz in Vanity Fair Pt. 2
|
Crooks and Liars has the video up from DeLay's presser yesterday, and it is worth a watch and then some. The DNC ought to pull clips from this and play them in districts all over the country, because hubris and failure to take any responsibility don't even begin to describe DeLay here.
Nothing like a huge crowd of clapping and cheering supporters behind an indicted Republican smarm-monger, while
DeLay says unbelievably false statements like "we have shrunk the size of this government." Oh,
really?The WaPo states the obvious: that DeLay has an ethics problem. (Is there a 12-step program for that, because I'm thinking there are a lot more folks on the Hill that may need it in the next few months...I see an enteprenurial niche for "Without Ethics Anonymous," I'm just saying.)
Meanwhile,
the NYTimes explores how skittish Republicans are becoming about the 2006 elections, fearing that DeLay will be tied to them like a big, concrete block. If Dems are smart, that's exactly what they will do, in my opinion, because the KStreet project is still going whether or not DeLay is its figurehead of the moment -- and the whole dirty, smarmy mess needs some
serious sunlight.
By 2003, the Republicans held a 2-to-1 advantage. Since 1998, the center found, more than 2,200 former federal employees had registered as federal lobbyists, as had nearly 275 former White House aides and nearly 250 former members of Congress. Many rules governing their conduct remain deliberately vague, and the House Ethics Committee has been paralyzed because of dysfunction and partisan disputes....
Of course, the record suggests that for every loophole any new law might close, lobbyists will find a way to open another....
This needs serious discussion, above and beyond whatever new indictments may come down over the course of the next few years. The way business is done in Washington needs some disinfecting. And I don't mean just by shutting out the Bugman.
UPDATE:
Micah Sifry has some good analysis on the NYTimes piece regarding KStreet, and the ongoing myths about the possibilities for change. It's a good start on the conversation.
|
The Alito confirmation hearings begin tomorrow, around high noon (fitting somehow...), and they are shaping up to be a clash of ideologies if the escalating rhetoric on both sides of the aisle is any indication today.
And if Dianne Feinstein's interview on Fox News Sunday is any indication, Democrats have been doing some serious planning for these hearings, which makes me very pleased considering the bloviating fiasco that was the Roberts hearings -- which might be better described as blab and bluster. Feinstein talked about multiple issues, but all of them were solid, case-based things that strike to the heart of both
conservative and liberal concerns:
FEINSTEIN: Well, there is a controversy with respect to that. And I think that will come out in the committee questioning. One case which is very sensitive for many of us, a case called Rybar, where he dealt -- he said that -- struck down a law having to do with the possession and transfer of fully automatic machine guns, when the Miller case in the 1930s had clearly said that it was legal for the Congress to regulate these weapons under the Second Amendment.
And he took this other restrictive use of the commerce clause to say that the Congress could not legislate.
HUME: Clearly...
FEINSTEIN: That causes major concern.
That's just one example, but if Democrats can continue to frame Alito outside the mainstream of jurisprudence on all sides, as advocating positions that threaten the balance of powers and go toward more of an imperial presidency than we already have -- I'm hoping these will gain more traction in the wake of the NSA/FISA mess that the Preznit has created for himself and which all of Alito's past opinions would appear to support.
The
WaPo's Supreme Court column has been doing a great job of tracking the latest news, and is certainly worth a read through today in preparation for watching the hearings tomorrow. Additionally,
the WaPo has a background article today on the foundations of Alito's conservative jurisprudence -- and worth a read, if only for the information that Alito is a
Justice Harlan,
Barry Goldwater, and
William F. Buckley, Jr., kind of guy -- when he was in Princeton in the 70s.
And in an odd move, it looks as though
sitting appellate court judges will be testifying on Alito's behalf, now that Sen. Specter has given them the green light to do so. I am not aware of any circumstance where that has happened in the past. Can you say conflict of interest? I know I can. If Alito is confirmed, he'll be sitting in judgment of opinions coming from these courts -- and won't he feel the tiniest debt of gratitude toward these judges for going to bat for him? Personally, that's over the line and unseemly, but maybe my sense of ethics is just...um..existant.
The NYTimes has a piece this morning on the hearings being a test for both Alito and the Democrats. And they are right. If Democrats can't mount an effective pushback on this nominee and his positions, then...well, I don't know what, but this is too important for falling down on the job. After reading through
the Feinstein transcript from this morning, I'm a lot more hopeful that I have been in days on this.
UPDATE: Via
Crooks and Liars, it seems the WSJ and
Jesus General have some information on some evangelical ministers sneaking into the hearing room to "anoint" the chairs for the hearings on Alito. Anyone ever hear of something like this being done in the past? This is a new one on me. And who let them in? After 9/11, the Senate hearing rooms aren't exactly easy to just walk into these days -- who wanted these ministers to come in an anoint chairs? Are they THAT worried about the Alito hearings? What's the scoop?
|
