# 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:** 2
**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, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/21 "2006-01-10T03:23:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Clinton looked askance at it? Then why did he use it 105 times? I beg your pardon. For a president to add a “signing statement” to a piece of legislation appears to have become customary, and useful too, for reasons covered by Nusbaum in his 1993 memorandum. But to expect a court to consider that “signing statement” to be part of the bill’s “legislative history,” to be given equal interpretive weight with the Congressional committee reports, etc. – as Alito was arguing back in 1986 and as the Bush Admin apparently strongly believes and will insist upon – that’s something else again; and something constitutionally indefensible. ---
**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, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/22 "2006-01-10T05:27:18Z")
**Brian** , really? That’s it? Nothing from any of his judicial rulings? Just that he, in his capacity of acting as a counsel to the executive branch, tried to come up with ways to give the executive more power? And an obtuse statement supporting broad executive powers? Hey, given that conservatives squashed Meirs for political viewpoint concerns, squashing Alito on the same grounds is very fair game, but to get it to play in the public eye we need more than this hint of potential viewpoints. He’s not going be so stupid as to spell it out in the hearings. ---
**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, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/23 "2006-01-10T06:08:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I beg your pardon. For a president to add a “signing statement” to a piece of legislation appears to have become customary, and useful too, for reasons covered by Nusbaum in his 1993 memorandum. But to expect a court to consider that “signing statement” to be part of the bill’s “legislative history,” to be given equal interpretive weight with the Congressional committee reports, etc. – as Alito was arguing back in 1986 and as the Bush Admin apparently strongly believes and will insist upon – that’s something else again; and something constitutionally indefensible. Did you read that paper I cited? Did you see the different types of signing statements, and that Clinton did indeed issue “constitutional” signing statements? Besides, Alito was advocating for the executive branch at the time. That was his job. ---
**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 10, 2006, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/24 "2006-01-10T12:56:58Z")
The first instance I can find of a Supreme Court decision which specifically cites a signing statement in a decision is United States v. Lovett(1946). It cites a signing statement by Franklin Roosevelt. > [@](#): > > When the President signed the bill he stated: ‘The Senate yielded, as I have been forced to yield, to avoid delaying our conduct of the war. But I cannot so yield without placing on record my view that this provision is not only unwise and discriminatory, but unconstitutional.’ H. Doc. 264, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. The decision is [here](http://www.thisnation.com/library/lovett.html). Obviously, the signing statement was not the entire, or even the main, basis for the decision, but it was treated as though it had some relevance and force. My point here is simply to suggest that this issue has been around for a long time. Nusbaum’s memo treats the most extreme use of it, in his view, as simply controversial, not heinous or wildly out of the mainstream. I have been unable to find an instance where a president (Reagan would be the most likely candidate, I guess) used a statement for “legislative history” purposes and it was challenged. ---
**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 10, 2006, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/25 "2006-01-10T13:13:20Z")
Thanks for the link, John Mace. It was fascinating. But no matter how much we all may admire Bill Clinton, not everything he did was correct. My understanding of the separation of powers is that Congress writes legislation and the president either signs it or vetos it in his entirety. Attaching the president’s opinions about what the law really says isn’t one of those choices. I don’t see a lot of difference between the line item veto, which was found unconstitutional (and which virtually every president has wanted) and the signing opinions. If it ever comes to a test in court, I’d like to see the signing opinions tossed out and I don’t think Alito would do it. This is, I believe, a thousand times more significant than Roe. ---
**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 10, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/26 "2006-01-10T13:22:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. The notion comes from one interpretation of the phrase in the Constitution which describes the appointment power, Article II, Section 2: > [@](#): > > …he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States… During the Constitutional Convention, there was debate as to whether the appointment power should reside solely in the office of the president, or whether the concurrence of the senate should be required. The debate over this, summarized in Federalist #76, written by Alexander Hamilton, indicates that the consensus view envisioned that the “advice and consent” power would be used as a check on presidential power to prevent egregious appointments of the unfit or the unqualified, not the idealogically undesireable. In other words, it was set up as it is to ensure that the president pretty much got the nominees he wanted, unless the nominee was demonstrably unsuitable. You can read Federalist #76 [here](http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/fed76.htm). I’m not suggesting that your view of the appointment power is unheard of, merely that there is a long history behind the contrary view that the president was intended to have a much stronger influence on appointments than the senate. ---
**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, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/27 "2006-01-10T15:05:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Brian** , really? That’s it? Nothing from any of his judicial rulings? Just that he, in his capacity of acting as a counsel to the executive branch, tried to come up with ways to give the executive more power? And an obtuse statement supporting broad executive powers? His judicial rulings are the stuff that’s already getting the attention and microdissection analysis, especially on hot-button issues like abortion (see linked articles in OP). I’m just trying to shine some light on what I consider an even more important and dangerous aspect of Alito’s thinking. ---
**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 10, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/28 "2006-01-10T15:28:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > His judicial rulings are the stuff that’s already getting the attention and microdissection analysis, especially on hot-button issues like abortion (see linked articles in OP). I’m just trying to shine some light on what I consider an even more important and dangerous aspect of Alito’s thinking. I for one am glad that you brought this up. It has led me to some interesting reading that I’m still digesting. What do you think of the 1946 Supreme Court decision I linked to? The case is pretty arcane, but I thought it was interesting that the opinion cited the signing statement. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/29 "2006-01-10T16:40:28Z")
I heard a legal scholar on NPR say that Alito, although he always couches his decisions in terms of law and constitutionality, somehow ALWAYS comes down on the MOST conservative side of any position. This is my great concern with Alito – that his “respect for precedence” is just some well-rehearsed cover that he has developed, all the while making decisions on the basis of ideology. My opinion is that the conservative end of the court has been doing this for years … see Bush v Gore. I’m not sure if it will come down to a filibuster or not, but I HOPE the Dems will do everything in their power to prevent Alito from getting a seat on the Court. He’ll be a real millstone around all the non-Neanderthal Americans for years if he’s allowed to become a Supreme. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/30 "2006-01-10T16:50:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Thanks for the link, John Mace. It was fascinating. But no matter how much we all may admire Bill Clinton, not everything he did was correct. My understanding of the separation of powers is that Congress writes legislation and the president either signs it or vetos it in his entirety. Attaching the president’s opinions about what the law really says isn’t one of those choices. I don’t see a lot of difference between the line item veto, which was found unconstitutional (and which virtually every president has wanted) and the signing opinions. If it ever comes to a test in court, I’d like to see the signing opinions tossed out and I don’t think Alito would do it. This is, I believe, a thousand times more significant than Roe. He and Kennedy are sparing about this right now… BTW, I’m not coming down on either side of this signing statment issue. I’m just trying to point that it’s does not appear to be an extreme position, but rather one that was shared by both Republican and Democratic administrations. At any rate, I don’t think any memo that Alito while an advocate for Reagan can fairly be used to decide whether or not he’s fit for the SCOTUS. I think we should go by his judicial record and how well he comports himself in the hearings. ---
**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 10, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/31 "2006-01-10T17:15:39Z")
[Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100328.html) is a link to a Washington Post anaysis of Alito’s judicial record, comparing his opinions to those of other judges. [Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/12/30/CU2005123001137.html) is a graph from the same source which illustrates the story. ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/32 "2006-01-10T17:40:33Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I heard a legal scholar on NPR say that Alito, although he always couches his decisions in terms of law and constitutionality, somehow ALWAYS comes down on the MOST conservative side of any position. This is my great concern with Alito – that his “respect for precedence” is just some well-rehearsed cover that he has developed, all the while making decisions on the basis of ideology. My opinion is that the conservative end of the court has been doing this for years … see Bush v Gore. So, if I can refute this argument, will you agree that Alito should be confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/33 "2006-01-10T17:48:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, if I can refute this argument, will you agree that Alito should be confirmed? It’s not my only problem with Alito. I also don’t like his sweeping vision of the powers of the Presidency and his opinion on Roe v. Wade and his conservatism in general. About the only likable thing about Alito from my POV is that he’s not a cannibal. I think. ---
**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, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/34 "2006-01-10T18:08:31Z")
I’m going to go on record now with two predictions. No Democratic Senator who voted against Roberts will vote for Alito. Alito will get confirmed, but will only get only 5 Democratic votes. ---
**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 10, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/35 "2006-01-10T18:55:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m going to go on record now with two predictions. > > No Democratic Senator who voted against Roberts will vote for Alito. > > Alito will get confirmed, but will only get only 5 Democratic votes. Will any Republicans vote not to confirm? I predice straight party line voting on this one- if a filibuster is avoided. ---
**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 10, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/36 "2006-01-10T19:13:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Will any Republicans vote not to confirm? > > I predice straight party line voting on this one- if a filibuster is avoided. I don’t think that any Republicans will vote against him, and I agree with **John Mace** that some Democratics will vote for him. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/37 "2006-01-10T19:20:26Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > I don’t think that any Republicans will vote against him, and I agree with **John Mace** that some Democratics will vote for him. p there is a filibuster coming his answers on executive power to leahy were totally disingenuous ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/38 "2006-01-10T19:25:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Will any Republicans vote not to confirm? > > I predice straight party line voting on this one- if a filibuster is avoided. Maybe one. There will be no fillibuster. If there is, the Republicans will either nuke it, or Bush will make a recess appointment. Either action, IMO, would be justified. I was expected to be a little disappointed with Alito after the Roberts hearings. From what I’ve hear so far, I find nothing to be disappointed about. I see a scrupulously dedicated justice whose only concern is the rule of law. His answers are every bit as reasoned and articulate as John Roberts’ were, despite more than a hint of a New Jersey accent. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/39 "2006-01-10T19:30:27Z")
I don’t see a filibuster in the future, either. He’s qualified, and though he’s conservative, that’s what happens when the President is a conservative. I predict at least 70 votes for confirmation. Unless he spazzes out later on: “You want the truth, Senator Kennedy? You can’t HANDLE the truth!” ---
**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 10, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/40 "2006-01-10T19:40:08Z")
A recess appointment to the Supreme Court? Someone please tell me that’s never happened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=3)