# Alito confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187 "2006-01-09T18:25:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/1 "2006-01-09T18:25:50Z")
Today (1/8/06), the Senate Judiciary Committee begins its hearing on confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to take the Supreme Court seat now held by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060109/ts\_nm/court\_alito\_dc\_5](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060109/ts_nm/court_alito_dc_5) So we might as well get on with our fundamental Doper duty of second-guessing the decisions our elected officials will make: Should Alito be confirmed? If he is, what will that mean for the future direction of the SC? Will anyone try to filibuster? If so, will the Pubs resort to the “nuclear option” of changing the Senate rules to make judicial nominations unfilibusterable\*? Wikipedia article on Alito: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel\_alito](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_alito) Article on his nomination and confirmation-in-progress: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel\_Alito\_Supreme\_Court\_nomination](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination) To my way of thinking, the most troubling thing about Alito’s views is something not really covered in the above articles: The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. Alito supports a “unitary executive” view of the president’s powers, especially in “wartime”. In particular, he holds that the president’s “signing statements,” personal interpretations he puts into writing when signing a bill, have the force of law. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html) Bush has issued “signing statements” at least 108 times – e.g., when he signed McCain’s antitorture legislation, he wrote that he would abide by the amendment to the extent it was consistent with his duties as Commander in Chief. That’s a mighty big loophole to give oneself, and Alito apparently would be prepared to back him up on it. \*It is **too** a word! So there! ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/2 "2006-01-09T19:06:30Z")
I’m a conservative Republican. That said, I think he should be confirmed for the same reason that I thought Clinton’s nominees should be confirmed: because they are qualified and because the president chose them. I honestly support the power of the president to appoint any qualified nominee and have that nominee confirmed, regardless of whether the nominee seems likely to rule in ways that I prefer. I think that Alito would move the court slightly in the conservative direction. I believe that he will scrupulously apply his judicial, not political, philosophy when deciding cases. I believe that he will be reluctant to find new things in the Constitution, but also reluctant to strike down established precedent. I do not think that a filibuster will be used to stop his nomination. I agree with you that his view of the executive power has not been covered extensively. His views are not at odds with past executive practices, I don’t think, nor do they seem to be at odds with the Constitution. It will be interesting to read what he has to say about this during the hearing, because some of GWB’s recent actions have made this a more prominent concern than it would normally be. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/3 "2006-01-09T19:21:24Z")
I just wish they could dispense with the self-serving open statements by the Senators. Sheesh… we had to listen to those blowhards just a few months ago, and I can’t believe they have anything new to say. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/4 "2006-01-09T19:23:17Z")
**Crotalus** nailed this one. My feelings exactly. I happen to like Alito’s record and I think the court will be better for having him on it. However, even if I didn’t like him, it’s not my call to make. It’s a perk of being president that you get to decide this within reasonable limits. He’s clearly qualified, so he should sail through the process. The Democrats won’t fillibuster him. They can’t. He’s not an extremist. He’s not unqualified. Public opinion would be against a fillibuster, so we won’t be seeing one. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/5 "2006-01-09T19:30:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > To my way of thinking, the most troubling thing about Alito’s views is something not really covered in the above articles: The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. Alito supports a “unitary executive” view of the president’s powers, especially in “wartime”. In particular, he holds that the president’s “signing statements,” personal interpretations he puts into writing when signing a bill, have the force of law. I agree wholeheartedly This in and of itself shows that he is unqualified for the court. This is an extremist, dangerous position. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/6 "2006-01-09T19:59:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I agree wholeheartedly This in and of itself shows that he is unqualified for the court. This is an extremist, dangerous position. First of all I don’t agree that it’s extremist or even dangerous what he was suggesting. But, is that even Alito’s “position” in the first place? He made those arguments in the 1980’s when he was a lawyer for the justice department. Isn’t anything he did then only to be looked at in the context of what was best for his client, the executive branch? There’s plenty of on the record decisions that Alito has made while sitting on the bench as an actual judge. Why not look at that record? It’s much more clear that then we are viewing his actual opinion on the law, not just him arguing on behalf of a client. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/7 "2006-01-09T20:02:02Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > First of all I don’t agree that it’s extremist or even dangerous what he was suggesting. But, is that even Alito’s “position” in the first place? He made those arguments in the 1980’s when he was a lawyer for the justice department. Isn’t anything he did then only to be looked at in the context of what was best for his client, the executive branch? I doubt it. That is, I doubt it will be. Didn’t we go through something like this when Roberts was confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/8 "2006-01-09T20:02:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I agree wholeheartedly This in and of itself shows that he is unqualified for the court. This is an extremist, dangerous position. [Here](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm) is a DOJ memo by Clinton’s counsel, Bernard Nusbaum, on signing statements. I present it not to refute what you said, although I disagree with what you said. It is, IMHO, an interesting and useful introduction to the subject. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/9 "2006-01-09T21:18:28Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I agree wholeheartedly This in and of itself shows that he is unqualified for the court. This is an extremist, dangerous position. From the Washington Post article: > [@](#): > > In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress’s reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. How is it “extremist” if that position was taken by all the administrations in modern history? Sounds like it’s mainstream to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/10 "2006-01-09T21:34:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How is it “extremist” if that position was taken by all the administrations in modern history? Sounds like it’s mainstream to me. But, it is not a position actually taken by all of them. The article said all recent administrations “chafed at the reality” of Congress’ power over the law. Which is perfectly understandable, when a president wants to get something done (which they all do) and Congress is not entirely supportive. But chafing at it is not the same thing as **denying** it. The memorandum of Clinton’s Bernard Nusbaum, linked above by **Crotalus,** falls far short of actually supporting the position that a court need give any interpretive weight to the language of a presidential “signing statement”. From the linked memo: > [@](#): > > This memorandum provides you with an analysis of the legal significance of Presidential signing statements. It is addressed to the questions that have been raised about the usefulness or validity of a such statements. We believe that such statements may on appropriate occasions perform useful and legally significant functions. These functions include (1) explaining to the public, and particularly to constituencies interested in the bill, what the President believes to be the likely effects of its adoption, (2) directing subordinate officers within the Executive Branch how to interpret or administer the enactment, and (3) informing Congress and the public that the Executive believes that a particular provision would be unconstitutional in certain of its applications, or that it is unconstitutional on its face, and that the provision will not be given effect by the Executive Branch to the extent that such enforcement would create an unconstitutional condition.(1) > > ``` > These functions must be carefully distinguished from a much more controversial -- and apparently recent -- use of Presidential signing statements, i.e., to create legislative history to which the courts are expected to give some weight when construing the enactment. In what follows, we outline the rationales for the first three functions, and then consider arguments for and against the fourth function.(2) > > ``` > > \ > > II. > > ``` > Separate and distinct from all the preceding categories of signing statement, and apparently even more controversial than any of them, is the use of such statements to create legislative (or "executive") history that is expected to be given weight by the courts in ascertain the meaning of statutory language. See Marc N. Garber and Kurt A. Wimmer, Presidential Signing Statements as Interpretations of Legislative Intent: An Executive Aggrandizement of Power, 24 Harv. J. on Legis. 363, 366 (1987). Although isolated examples can perhaps be found earlier, signing statements of this kind appear to have originated (and were certainly first widely used) in the Reagan Administration. > > In 1986, then-Attorney General Meese entered into an arrangement with the West Publishing Company to have Presidential signing statements published for the first time in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, the standard collection of legislative history. Mr. Meese explained the purpose of the project as follows: > > ``` > > To make sure that the President’s own understanding of what’s in a bill is the same . . . or is given consideration at the time of statutory construction later on by a court, we have now arranged with the West Publishing Company that the presidential statement on the signing of a bill will accompany the legislative history from Congress so that all can be available to the court for future construction of what that statute really means. > > Address by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 25, 1986) (quoted in Garber and Wimmer, supra, at 367). > > ``` > We do not attempt finally to decide here whether signing statements may legitimately be used in the manner described by Attorney General Meese. We believe it would be useful, however, to outline the main arguments for and against such use. > > ``` > > \ > > Conclusion > > ``` > Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes. > > ``` IOW, no, this does not appear to be a position Democratic administrations have taken. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/11 "2006-01-09T21:45:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I doubt it. That is, I doubt it will be. Didn’t we go through something like this when Roberts was confirmed? Yes, we did. However, Roberts didn’t have much of a record to look at as a judge. He did have more of a record as an attorney arguing cases, so we were forced to look at that. Even so, many people pointed out that just because a lawyer makes a particular argument doesn’t mean that he believes that which he argues. He’s working for a client, and he’s representing the interests of that client, not necessarily his own. Alito, OTOH, does have a long record as a judge. It just doesn’t seem fair to look back to things he argued as a lawyer in the 80’s when we’ve got a lot more material that is more recent of him acting as a judge when there can be no such confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/12 "2006-01-09T22:11:21Z")
Election-year politics will, as a general rule, encourage politicians to maximize their public exposure. The vote will be split down party lines and any attempt at a nuclear filibuster will be met in-kind. After the first round of questioning I expect the process to be again delayed by at least one week so that opponents may further research their “concerns”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/13 "2006-01-09T23:50:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > IOW, no, this does not appear to be a position Democratic administrations have taken. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? Even if we accept that, it still doesn’t make it an extremist position, just a Republican position. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/14 "2006-01-10T01:48:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Even if we accept that, it still doesn’t make it an extremist position, just a Republican position. No, of course not. OTOH, it does mean that your argument that it is **not** an extremist position, that it is in fact a “mainstream” position, is a noisome steaming load of crap. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/15 "2006-01-10T01:53:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, of course not. OTOH, it does mean that your argument that it is **not** an extremist position, that it is in fact a “mainstream” position, is a noisome steaming load of crap. 🙂 For the last 25 years, the Republicans have held the executive branch of the government for 5 out fo 7 total terms. Sounds pretty mainstream to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/16 "2006-01-10T02:11:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > For the last 25 years, the Republicans have held the executive branch of the government for 5 out fo 7 total terms. Sounds pretty mainstream to me. Nice try . . . The “signing statement” legal tactic (if so it can even be dignified) in question was invented by the Reagan Administration (see link above), might or might not have been practiced by the first Bush Admin (no one’s brought a cite to the table yet), apparently was viewed askance by the Clinton Admin, has been practiced most enthusiastically by an administration of highly questionable legitimacy 😉 , and in any case, up to this very day has mainly depended for its success on flying low under the public-discourse radar. So you can’t really call it “mainstream” simply by virtue of apparent association with Republican administrations (as distinct from the Republican Party, which as a group appears, so far as we can tell, to be just as oblivious about it as anybody else). You might, perhaps, plausibly call it mainstream by virtue of a general consensus among con-law scholars . . . if such consensus existed . . . ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/17 "2006-01-10T03:02:32Z")
So help me out here. What exactly was Alito’s position on the reach of executive power (especially as would be relevant to issues like wiretapping American citizens without warrants) and when did he express it? We already have some sense that his track record on abortion is against it and that he will likely work to “incrementally” give states more ability to limit them. He is a religious right’s conservative. But so long as he follows Robert’s lead there and signals that he respects past rulings and “super-precedence” (without committing to upholding anything specific) he’ll not trigger a filibuster. But the public, including many inside the conservative “Big Tent”, is not behind an executive branch having authority to spy on us all without oversight, even in wartime. If he is found to be supporting those rights while a judge, then the public may support a filibuster, or he may even lose in an straight up vote. Just IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/18 "2006-01-10T03:13:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nice try . . . The “signing statement” legal tactic (if so it can even be dignified) in question was invented by the Reagan Administration (see link above), might or might not have been practiced by the first Bush Admin (no one’s brought a cite to the table yet), apparently was viewed askance by the Clinton Admin, has been practiced most enthusiastically by an administration of highly questionable legitimacy 😉 , and in any case, up to this very day has mainly depended for its success on flying low under the public-discourse radar. So you can’t really call it “mainstream” simply by virtue of apparent association with Republican administrations (as distinct from the Republican Party, which as a group appears, so far as we can tell, to be just as oblivious about it as anybody else). You might, perhaps, plausibly call it mainstream by virtue of a general consensus among con-law scholars . . . if such consensus existed . . . Clinton looked askance at it? Then why did he use it 105 times? [This academic paper](http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1031858822.pdf#search='signing%20statement') sheds some light on the subject. It’s a PDF docuement, and I can’t cut and paste from it, but from the conlcusion: > [@](#): > > For the Clinton Administration, the signing statement was an important cornerstone of presidential power, as outlined by Walter Dellinger in his 1993 OLC memo. It also shows that Carter, as well as Clinton used signing statements. The more I look into this, the more mainstream the signing statement looks. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/19 "2006-01-10T03:16:06Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > I’m a conservative Republican. That said, I think he should be confirmed for the same reason that I thought Clinton’s nominees should be confirmed: because they are qualified and because the president chose them. I honestly support the power of the president to appoint any qualified nominee and have that nominee confirmed, regardless of whether the nominee seems likely to rule in ways that I prefer. I completely disagree. I simply do not understand the notion that a Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed by the Senate simply because the President nominated him (or her). One would hope that person possesses a suitable list of academic and/or work related qualifications (but apparently even that is not always necessary). The Senate should not merely be a rubber stamp for the President regardless of who the President is or who the nominee is. This is a lifetime appointment to a position of great power and importance. That a candidate be scrutinized closely is appropriate. I doubt the founding fathers made this a Senate constitutional obligation just so they could get some free press. What I find amazing is people tiptoeing around the obvious. Alito did not get nominated for his brilliant legal mind…he got nominated for his impeccable conservative credentials. Mind you I am not saying he does not have a first rate legal mind…I believe he does and certainly to be a Supreme Court nominee the candidate had better have a pretty stellar resume. Nevertheless there are many fine legal minds out there to choose from. Alito did not get picked at random…he got picked because conservatives felt he would advance their causes. Remember Harriet Miers, apart from looking like a benefactor of cronyism, was rejected by conservatives almost as much (perhaps moreso) than by liberals because she could not provide a record of her conservative bonafides. Even Bush vouching for her strongly did not do it for them. Once Alito was put forward the political right seemed much happier and you can be sure they (and liberals too no doubt) scrutinized him more closely than he ever will be in a Senate hearing. Is that enough of a basis for liberals to try and prevent the nomination? Generally I would say no. Of course a President is going to pick a person from “their side” to put forth as a nominee and can’t really be faulted for doing so. Usually it isn’t too big a deal as long as the court has some balance. If Alito was being put forth in Robert’s place (i.e. one or the other) I think he’d be fine. Unfortunately in this case Alito is not just any old nominee but the 800 pound gorilla nominee. Replacing Sandra Day O’Connor the court will decidedly swing to the right. I think the country is ill-served by a noticeably lopsided court. I am a firm believer in the separation of powers and checks-and-balances our founding fathers built into our government. I do not think the public good is served when the pendulum goes too far right _or_ left. The repercussions of this will be felt not for a year or a presidential term but quite possibly for decades. Sadly I do not think the Democrats have the gumption to fight this one off. They’ll make speeches and then blame anything that is wrong on those in power and point to their earlier speeches to show that they tried to fight the good fight but lost. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/20 "2006-01-10T03:18:49Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What exactly was Alito’s position on the reach of executive power (especially as would be relevant to issues like wiretapping American citizens without warrants) and when did he express it? His (apparent) position on “the reach of executive power” **in general** is covered in the _Washington Post_ article linked in the OP. See also [http://online.wsj.com/article\_email/SB113642811283938270-lMyQjAxMDE2MzA2NDQwMjQ4Wj.html:](http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113642811283938270-lMyQjAxMDE2MzA2NDQwMjQ4Wj.html:) > [@](#): > > In November 2000, while the nation fixated on whether George W. Bush or Al Gore would emerge victorious from the electoral confusion in Florida, Judge Samuel Alito laid out his view of what powers the future president would hold. > > The Constitution “makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that,” Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel. “The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power – the whole thing.” > > Judge Alito was describing the theory of the “unitary executive,” an expansive view of presidential powers that he and his colleagues set forth while working in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Reagan Justice Department. Although the Supreme Court has not always agreed, he said in his speech, “I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution’s text and structure.” For background/context, see also this thread on a theory recently floated by William Kristol and Gary Schnitt, that the Framers intended the president to wield “extralegal but constitutional powers”: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350684](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350684) (Background/context only, as Alito is never mentioned, in the underlying story nor the thread; but the theory seems to reflect a general drift of ideas that accords with Alito’s, so far as we can know them, at this point.) But as for his view on the NSA wiretaps in particular – well, that’s not clear, and there’s no reason to expect it should be, since the story only broke a few weeks ago, and Alito has been a federal judge all that time and the issue has, AFAIK, never come up in his (or any) court, as yet. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=2)