# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/141 "2006-01-12T01:31:58Z")
> [@KRM](#): > > I don’t think we can count on any of these guys to act with honesty and integrity. I’ve lost all faith that any politician has that capacity. ---
**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 12, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/142 "2006-01-12T02:12:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I can’t agree that they are non-issues. Being involved in CAP shows at least something about his personal beliefs. As much as Judges and nominees like to say that their personal beliefs don’t come into play thats junk. Its simply impossible to make a judgement without basing it at least somewhat on your personal perceptions and beliefs. > > The fact that he has “forgotten” and feels that is an acceptable answer makes me go: :dubious: Chris Matthews said it quite well on Hardball today. What is the point of this inquiry, other than to somehow insinuate that Alito is a bigot. Well, if he’s a bigot, and all you’ve got is some alumni organization that he joined 30 years ago, you ain’t got much. You don’t live your life as a bigot without leaving footprints all over the place. Wait until we see the personal testimony of his collegues. That will tell us more about his character than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/143 "2006-01-12T02:52:50Z")
Unfortunately this farce is telling us a lot about some other things as well. A lot of moderate Democrats I know are just disgusted at the grilling Judge Alito is getting over his reading material and his alleged “bigotry”. Of course, most Republicans are sickened by it as well. The only people getting a kick out of this is the infantile left. I certainly don’t expect Judge Alito to be confirmed without questioning (though I note that this was once common). However, is it too much to ask that those questions be intelligent and probing, and not just a vicious smear? Too much to ask, I guess, if your name is Kennedy or Schumer. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/144 "2006-01-12T03:11:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I certainly don’t expect Judge Alito to be confirmed without questioning (though I note that this was once common). . . . Hmmm? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/145 "2006-01-12T03:24:29Z")
> [@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. 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. Exactly. This is right in line with the current rhetoric about a right to an “up and down vote”. The purpose of a filibuster is to prevent the tyranny of a majority. If we accepted current Republican viewpoints on the way Supreme Court justices should be appointed, then when one party controls the senate and the presidency, they could put a child molesting, 18 year old crack head on the bench and no one could say anything about it. If that is the case, the rule should simply be, “if one party controls the Congress and the Presidency, then said President shall be declared dictator of the Supreme Court”. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/146 "2006-01-12T03:30:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Chris Matthews said it quite well on Hardball today. What is the point of this inquiry, other than to somehow insinuate that Alito is a bigot. Well, if he’s a bigot, and all you’ve got is some alumni organization that he joined 30 years ago, you ain’t got much. You don’t live your life as a bigot without leaving footprints all over the place. Wait until we see the personal testimony of his collegues. That will tell us more about his character than anything else. Is it that hard to say “I was a member 30 years ago but I no longer support their stance on issues” instead of claiming he has forgotten? Or something like “I no longer remember exactly what my involvement was with that organization” and then go on about his personal beliefs in terms of issues that CAP advocates for? ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/147 "2006-01-12T03:36:10Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Is it that hard to say “I was a member 30 years ago but I no longer support their stance on issues” instead of claiming he has forgotten? Or something like “I no longer remember exactly what my involvement was with that organization” and then go on about his personal beliefs in terms of issues that CAP advocates for? > [@](#): > > Alito said he disagreed with the entire quotation. “I would never endorse it,” Alito said. “I never have endorsed it. Had I thought that that’s what this organization stood for, I would never associate myself with it in any way.” > [@](#): > > But he has repeatedly testified to the committee that he does not recall his membership, and can only surmise that he may have belonged because of his ire over Princeton’s policy of banning the ROTC from campus. Alito was a member of the ROTC and later served for eight years in the Army Reserve. Happy now? ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/148 "2006-01-12T03:37:24Z")
> **[Dems link Alito with conservative Princeton group](https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Dems-link-Alito-with-conservative-Princeton-group-2506526.php)** > > Angry partisan shots broke the relative calm of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's... ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/149 "2006-01-12T03:41:28Z")
Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/150 "2006-01-12T05:28:46Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m thinking a little down the road, when Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Roberts – all Catholics, aren’t they (or at least Thomas went to Catholic school)? get to chewing on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. You know that there’s not a significant difference between American Catholic views on abortion and that of the general public, right? Here’s a Pew Research Center study from 2004 supporting that statement: [http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=88](http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=88) > [@](#): > > Despite the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion, Catholics are no different from the general public in their views on this issue. Overall, 56% of non-Hispanic Catholics, and 59% of Hispanic Catholics, say they oppose making it harder for a woman to get an abortion. However, there is a substantial difference among Catholics, depending on the frequency of church attendance. Half of white Catholics who attend church at least once a week favor further restrictions on abortions, compared with only about a quarter of those who attend church less frequently (50% vs. 26%). ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/151 "2006-01-12T11:27:19Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Exactly. This is right in line with the current rhetoric about a right to an “up and down vote”. The purpose of a filibuster is to prevent the tyranny of a majority. Of to prevent the will of the majority of voters? > [@](#): > > If we accepted current Republican viewpoints on the way Supreme Court justices should be appointed, then when one party controls the senate and the presidency, they could put a child molesting, 18 year old crack head on the bench and no one could say anything about it. If that is the case, the rule should simply be, “if one party controls the Congress and the Presidency, then said President shall be declared dictator of the Supreme Court”. The President is not the “dictator” of the Supreme Court, but he has always been in the driver’s seat in naming candidates for Supreme Court vacancies. ---
**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 12, 2006, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/152 "2006-01-12T13:11:46Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Um, actually one of the sources I cited was the Washington Post. The others were fairly partisan, but if you think you can dig up a cite that leads to different conclusions than the one in my cite with the same amount of background (i.e., the NOW site at least listed the specific decisions Alito made that gave rise to their concern) feel free. Otherwise, you pretty much have to take my word for it, arm-waving notwithstanding. > > Did ya read that graph? With your eyes? On the topics that’s gemane here: Age, Race, Sex and Disability discrimination, Alito voted against the claim on 75 percent of the time. That’s 40% more often than Democrat appointees opposed discrimination claims, and 20% more often than REPUBLICAN appointees did. This indicates to me that the guy continues to be a partisan hack. > > I understand that you want to minimize that. But along with everything else, it certainly creates a pattern. Yes, I read the graph, with my eyes and my brain. Did you notice that on the subject you mention, Age, Race, Sex and Disability discrimination, that Alito voted with the majority of his court on 71% of the cases? Does that strike you as unduly partisan or out of the mainstream? Do you think that it might mean that the cases he voted against might have deserved a no vote? Do you think that any vote against one of these cases proves, or even suggests, a bias in any direction? I’m sorry if I came across as “arm waving.” My problem with using sites like NOW as a cite is reasonable, I believe. They are advocates against Alito, and they are dishonest about it. Alito has been involved in just two cases as a judge which involved abortion. Inconveniently for NOW, and unmentioned by them, is the fact that on one of the cases, he voted in favor of the woman and against the Pennsylvania pro-life law, following his honest view of the requirements of the law rather than his personal opposition to abortion. [Here](http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=473) is a story on a Christian site describing that decision. ---
**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 12, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/153 "2006-01-12T15:02:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > . . . Hmmm? It’s only in modern times (last 50 or so years?) that there were Senate hearings in which the appointee testified. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/154 "2006-01-12T15:27:58Z")
And even when they started to testify, it wasn’t the circus it has become today. Justice Byron White had to endure a hearing that lasted about an hour and a half, most of which time was taken up by testimony from various bar associations. He himself answered questions for eleven grueling minutes. Eleven minutes. He then served the Court for 31 years. Now, did the Senate back in 1962 fail in its constitutional responsibilities, or did it merely meet them in a more civilized and mannerly fashion? ---
**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 12, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/155 "2006-01-12T16:38:24Z")
Things change, **Mr. Moto**. I don’t know what else we can say. Personally, I think it’s TV cameras that are the biggest catalyst for bloviation on the part of Senators. But that’s part of living in an open society. Alito has done a fnatastic job of staying level headed and calm. I probably would’ve snapped at least a dozen times myself, and said something snarky back to one of the Senators. ---
**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 12, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/156 "2006-01-12T17:36:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The Democrats should be so lucky that \*Roe \*is overturned. That would be the biggest electoral boom for that party since Watergate. It would. The Pubbies have chosen to ride the Religious Right tiger and it has carried them toward a door they really do not wish to open. But it’s the tiger’s wishes that are gonna rule, apparently. ---
**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 12, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/157 "2006-01-12T17:42:55Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > It would. The Pubbies have chosen to ride the Religious Right tiger and it has carried them toward a door they really do not wish to open. But it’s the tiger’s wishes that are gonna rule, apparently. And the Dems better hope that the SCOTUS doesn’t find a constitutional right for SSM. That would be worse for them, politically, than if the SCOTUS overturned _Roe_. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/158 "2006-01-12T17:44:49Z")
I’m just hoping for yet another day of fascinating discussion on the Vanguard recusal issue. :rolleyes: Boy that just went on and on and on. Maybe Senator Kennedy and his Portugese Water Dog should write a book about it. ---
**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 12, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/159 "2006-01-12T17:45:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That would be worse for them, politically, than if the SCOTUS overturned _Roe_. Sorry… that would be worse for them, politically, than **it would be for the Republicans** if the SCOTUS overturned _Roe_. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/160 "2006-01-12T18:19:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s only in modern times (last 50 or so years?) that there were Senate hearings in which the appointee testified. Cite? How did the custom start? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=9)