I’ve lost all faith that any politician has that capacity.
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.
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.
. . . Hmmm?
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”.
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?
Happy now?
Yes.
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
Of to prevent the will of the majority of voters?
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.
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 is a story on a Christian site describing that decision.
It’s only in modern times (last 50 or so years?) that there were Senate hearings in which the appointee testified.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sorry… that would be worse for them, politically, than it would be for the Republicans if the SCOTUS overturned Roe.
Cite? How did the custom start?