That About Sums It Up...

"Credibility" has rarely been an issue for Supreme Court nominees, but it is clearly a major issue for Alito.

- Senator Kennedy.

The views expressed there raise serious concerns about his ability to interpret the Constitution with a fair and open mind. When this embarrassing document came to light, he faced a difficult decision on whether to defend his 1985 views or walk away from them. When I and others met him a short time later, he appeared to be renouncing them -- "I was just a 35-year-old seeking a job," he told me. But now he's seeking another, far more important job. Is he saying that he did not really mean what he said then?

You really just can't beat that, but some things come close. I think this one will be an instant Frameshop classic:

Some say that Alito can chalk the statements up to job-application hyperbole that can be expected from someone applying for a political position. "The best thing he can say is that he was sucking up," says Rutgers' Baker.

...But Alito supporter Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute says, "He can't back away from the 1985 statements, nor should he."

If the best his supporters can say is that he must own his words," Sammy's got more than a few problems - it's not just credibility.

The university's most famous alumnus of the day, basketball star and later U.S. senator Bill Bradley, was invited into CAP initially but quickly found it "impossible to remain a member" because of CAP's "right-wing" views. A special committee of alumni, which included future Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, accused CAP of presenting a "distorted and hostile" view of the university. Alito joined CAP about that time, despite its purposes and reputation, and remained a member through 1985, when he cited his CAP membership as another qualification to join the Meese inner circle.

In 1987, when he was nominated to be U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and in 1990, when he was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, he did not mention his CAP membership to the Senate Judiciary Committee or to then-Sen. Bradley, who introduced him to the committee at the nomination hearing and endorsed him "100 percent." Bradley says today that had he known about Alito's long membership in CAP he would have had serious questions about it. Alito now says he can't remember anything at all about CAP.

Not that I would expect such details to stop the theocrats from mewling about how he was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate before - as if U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is somehow comparable to being Supreme Court Justice. They'll probably declare CAP irrelevant and otherwise do whatever it takes to get their man on the bench. After all, he passed the litmus test with flying colors.

One really has to wonder if these people see anything beyond their rigid social agenda. As usual, they've been hoodwinked by subjectivity and so blithely assume that because abortion is their only concern, that will be the only impact of Alito's rulings. Or something. They are an extraordinarily dangerous sort - so focused in their zeal for implementing their social agenda that they are blind to any other concerns, oblivious handmaidens of a totalitarian state.

His pledge to be absolutely impartial where the government is concerned : While chairing his confirmation hearings in 1990, I asked Alito how he could remain neutral in the cases that would come before him as a 3rd Circuit judge after his more than a dozen years of service representing the U.S. government. He stated that he would be "absolutely impartial" in all his cases. But in case after case involving the actions of U.S. marshals, IRS agents and other government officials, he has sided with the government and against the citizens, even when his fellow judges have told him he was off-base.

Executive power. Alito is Roman Catholic, but don't be surprised if he is accused of being a Unitarian this week -- not of the Protestant sect, but an advocate of the theory of the "unitary executive." In a November 2000 speech before the Federalist Society, Alito expounded on this theory, which holds that the Framers of the Constitution wanted all executive power to be in the hands of the president and not to be shared with administrative agencies or with Congress. The Framers advocated this approach not only for efficiency and accountability, he said, but "to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it."

In the wake of revelations about Bush administration domestic eavesdropping, Alito has also been taken to task for a 1984 memo he wrote in the solicitor general's office suggesting that government officials deserved immunity from liability for authorizing illegal wiretaps.

This, of course, makes him every bit as dangerous as his Wingnut™ supporters. Yet, somehow, he's apparently expected to just charm his way through the judiciary committee. What a load of dreck!

"Sam will be home free when his most ardent political opponent cannot resist genuinely sharing in Sam's dry, laserlike humor..."

What the !@#$%& ever. I'm sure Thomas has cracked a few good jokes in his day. Hell, even Hitler probably did. But that doesn't make them suitable for their respective positions any more than shrubya's faux folksiness qualifies him to breathe my oxygen.

If this issue gains traction with the public and with Republicans -- some of whom, such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, Pa., are concerned about the erosion of congressional powers -- then it could spell trouble.

Now that's more like it. These are going to be some mighty interesting hearings...




wing tip to dailykos!