Alito Regardless

 What is the point of judicial hearings on Supreme Court nominees if it is unwritten law — since Bork, anyway — that a candidate is not obligated to give direct testimony? Stock replies such as I cannot comment, even on a hypothetical case since it could very well become a reality before the court and I would therefore be prejudging a case. Or: Without having all the briefs and facts before me it would be indiscreet for me to conjecture.

Why, then, have hearings at all inasmuch as it is but a show of star power for nominee as well as senators? After all, it boils down to display — as in Roberts’ hearing — the justice as knowledgeable, likable, and seemingly trustworthy.

The upshot of absurdity was in the questioning of Alito’s colleague from the same circuit. Justice Lewis, a black, civil rights advocate inferred that although they differed often on civil rights cases, Lewis acknowledged the sincerity and judicial integrity of Alito’s opinions. Yeah, right. That is like saying though you hate your father for being an Italian immigrant, I respect the sincerity of your hatred.

Judicial integrity presupposes cold constructionist assessment of the Constitution, which in itself is a commitment to prejudging cases of variables; that is, ignoring the humanside of reality. Were the Constitution set in stone as the Ten Commandments, then there would be no need for a Supreme Court — thou shalt or shalt not, period — even to the extent of revisiting “settled” cases such as Roe v. Wade, not perhaps to be rejected, but to install certain conditions as the ostensibly conservative court has been doing, or as Alito himself displayed in his dissent that prohibiting the interstate sale of machine guns is unconstitutional.

Another absurd moment during the hearings was Kennedy’s fetish over Alito’s membership as a student in Princeton’s CAP restricting minorities and women on campus. There was no evidence that he actively subscribed to the campus organization and yet Kennedy harped on Alito’s having entered this membership long ago on an employment application for a Reagan administration position. Anyone in a search of a job, whether ill-advised or not, is going to suck up to a future boss. It is a forgivable humanside experience, and Kennedy, no less than a justice, should not take it literally and ominously. If Jonah had swallowed the whale, one should laugh it off as simply Jonah’s wishful, vengeful thinking.

Personally, I feel Alito is a cold fish, but so what? He is obviously competent, though at times evasive to the point of cutesy by extremely rationalizing fine points in his judicial record without blinking an eye — after all, drug lords have been known to plant contraband on children! Furthermore, he has a nice family and therefore must have a sense of family values. He also has an immigrant background — who doesn’t — which in itself is sufficient reason that he may indeed have sensitivity for the “little guy,” although in some instances because of this background the inverse is true by denial.

In the last analysis the President invariably gets what he wants even though it is no guarantee that whatever the extent of the examination the President could still wind up with a pig in a blanket. The political reality is that the pendulum of the Constitution arcs to the constructionist and back to the humanist throughout our history — and that’s all we need to know.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 14, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

9,005 views 25 replies
Reply #1 Top
In the last analysis the President invariably gets what he wants even though it is no guarantee that whatever the extent of the examination the President could still wind up with a pig in a blanket.


Crybaby.

Tell that to:

Harriet Myers
Priscilla Owen
Miguel Estrada
Alberto Gonzalez
Leon Holmes
William Pryor

The Constitution prescribes the process and it's been followed. I guess you just don't care for the Constitution.

Furthermore, predicting, pre-appointment, the decision-making of SCJ's in particular has been a rather losing proposition over a long period of time.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #2 Top

The Constitution prescribes the process and it's been followed. I guess you just don't care for the Constitution.
Unwarranted comment--then again coming from you, it is expected.

Tell that to:

Harriet Myers
Priscilla Owen
Miguel Estrada
Alberto Gonzalez
Leon Holmes
William Pryor
I stand corrected.

Reply #3 Top
Crybaby.

Tell that to:

Harriet Myers
Priscilla Owen
Miguel Estrada
Alberto Gonzalez
Leon Holmes
William Pryor

The Constitution prescribes the process and it's been followed. I guess you just don't care for the Constitution.

Furthermore, predicting, pre-appointment, the decision-making of SCJ's in particular has been a rather losing proposition over a long period of time.

I thought we were trying to put an end to the trolling. Stevendedalus made a thoughtful post about the supreme court nomination process and here we have this sheepish rhetoric stemming from ingrained hatred of anyone who isn't willing to follow blindly.
Reply #4 Top

since Bork, anyway

Uh, no.,  Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg set that precedent.  And now that conservative nominees are using it you cry fowl?  Where were you in 93 when she was trying to get NAMBLA mainstream?

Reply #5 Top

I thought we were trying to put an end to the trolling. Stevendedalus made a thoughtful post about the supreme court nomination process and here we have this sheepish rhetoric stemming from ingrained hatred of anyone who isn't willing to follow blindly.

And we are commenting on it.  Why are you not?

Reply #6 Top
I thought we were trying to put an end to the trolling. Stevendedalus made a thoughtful post about the supreme court nomination process and here we have this sheepish rhetoric stemming from ingrained hatred of anyone who isn't willing to follow blindly


So why are you commenting on this instead of the original? A reply was given to his post yet, you call it hatred.
Reply #7 Top
Come, come, Steve. You know you love me.

Ben (& Steve) -

The point of "advice & consent" is to be sure a President's nominee is qualified to serve as a Justice. Not to determine in advance how he or she will rule on individual senators' pet issues. If the latter is the point, just scrap the Court & let the Judiciary Committee do the Court's job. The Court is not, nor was it ever intended to be, "balanced" in the political sense - it "should" be apolitical.

The point you missed was that Steve's central contention - that the President always gets what he wants, anyway - is bogus. The "pendulum" Steve refers to has hardly been influenced in the way the appointers had intended - time and again pre-appointment assumptions have been demonstrated by history to have been way off.

I actually agree with Steve in one sense - look what being direct and responsive did for Bork. And who was responsible for teaching nominees that lesson? Anyone? Anyone?

Finally, Ben, you really need to seek help for this sheep fetish of yours. And, for the record, I have no "ingrained hatred" for anyone, not even you. I'll leave it to others to make up their own minds about who is or is not a troll.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 Top
Finally, Ben, you really need to seek help for this sheep fetish of yours.


Kind of creepy if you ask me!
Reply #9 Top
Kind of creepy if you ask me!


no creepier (and a lot more honest) than your persistent dishonest characterization of ginsburg. you've been provided with the truth yet you continue to spread the same stupid lie every chance you get.

ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
Reply #10 Top
no creepier (and a lot more honest) than your persistent dishonest characterization of ginsburg. you've been provided with the truth yet you continue to spread the same stupid lie every chance you get.


Or your insistance on an illusion? Guess you cant keep people straight, and that is kind of creepy.

Are you ok? DO you need a shot of reality?

Did you cry wolf?
Reply #11 Top
kay doc...here's a shot of reality...for like the third time aint it?

Link

but don't let me interfere with your determination to morph yourself into your own worst enemy by continuing to spread the big lie.
Reply #12 Top
but don't let me interfere with your determination to morph yourself into your own worst enemy by continuing to spread the big lie.


Come on kb, you know truth and reality have no standing with him and his ilk. Why bother with silly old concepts like those when you can rely on smears and lies?
Reply #13 Top
Uh, no., Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg set that precedent. And now that conservative nominees are using it you cry fowl?
If you must pursue this it was Thomas, Bork's alternate. My point was Bork's openness was the catalyst to keep a stiff lip. I am not crying fowl--that's simply the way it is regardless of who the nominee is.
Reply #14 Top
Kind of creepy if you ask me!
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Why not discuss Kennedy's "fetish"?

The point you missed was that Steve's central contention - that the President always gets what he wants, anyway
Not really central; besides, I suggested that what he wants and what he gets are two different aspects of the process--that's a given.
Reply #15 Top
Kennedy’s fetish over Alito’s membership as a student in Princeton’s CAP restricting minorities and women on campus. There was no evidence that he actively subscribed to the campus organization


i'm not sure why you chose to characterize it as a 'fetish'; inquiring about alito's decision to incorporate his cap membership when compiling a resume in hope of securing a desired position would seem a lot less germane to me if he hadn't the benefit of 13 subsequent years in which to wonder what the hell he'd been thinking when he signed on. in 1985, he was no longer a chucklehead schooolboy. for that matter, one might expect alito to used slightly better judgement (heh) some 34 years down the line when called on the issue.

btw, it took bill bradley less than a year to realize cap was fulla unamerican crap.
Reply #16 Top
btw, it took bill bradley less than a year to realize cap was fulla unamerican crap.
I am in full empathy here. It's just that Kennedy made too much of it, rather than zooming in on more approps stuff--and there was plenty. I'm not saying bringing up CAP was wrong to show how devious Alito is but when Biden threw in the monkey wrench that Alito didn't strike him as that kind of guy, Kennedy should have laid off. My point is that the hearing was a an exercise in futility because everyone knew beforehand that Alito is an evasive, constructionist prig.
Reply #17 Top
Kind of creepy if you ask me!


no creepier (and a lot more honest) than your persistent dishonest characterization of ginsburg. you've been provided with the truth yet you continue to spread the same stupid lie every chance you get.

ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?


Oh really?


"A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."


Then just what would you call this?
Reply #18 Top
"A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."


Then just what would you call this?


You've shown time and time again that you have difficulty with reading comprehension. What you just quoted was a proposed law that she was examining. She didn't write that law,

Do you really think that all those conservatives would have voted to confirm her if they really thought that she recommended the age of consent to be 12? No, they did not think that because the majority of them and their staff were able to comprehend that it wasn't her position. Do you know who recommended Ginsberg to Clinton? That would be one of the most conservative Senators in the land, Orrin Hatch.
Reply #19 Top
You've shown time and time again that you have difficulty with reading comprehension. What you just quoted was a proposed law that she was examining. She didn't write that law,


I believe that you are the one with the comprehension problem. Either that or you're to lazy to read a link! This is from kb's link fool.


In the course of making this point, Ginsburg's 1974 paper praises and then quotes a draft Senate bill that never became law. The proposed law has, she writes, "a definition of rape that, in substance, conforms to the equality principle." She then quotes the bill's language:
Reply #20 Top
Ignoring the epithets, point to drmiler.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 Top
You are just too much dm! You provide us with greatly needed comic relief.

Reply #22 Top
You are just too much dm! You provide us with greatly needed comic relief.


And I believe you to be a complete idiot!
Reply #23 Top
point to drmiler


more like point-edly ignoring the thrust of the linked article and selectively quoting a single paragraph outta context.

when did we start awarding points for dropping the ball?

"The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" is a paper advocating that federal statutes be rewritten so that, wherever possible, gender-specific references be replaced with gender-neutral references. That's the entire point of the paper, and, apparently, it's the entire point of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code as well. The paper's discussion of statutory rape objects to the fact that the relevant federal laws define the victim as female and the offender as male. Ginsburg and her coauthor argue that the law should be rewritten to outlaw sexual abuse of any minor, male or female, by any person who is significantly older, male or female (thereby obviating the absurd possibility that a 13-year-old boy would be prosecuted for seducing a 15-year-old girl). I would be very surprised if Sen. Graham disagreed with a word of this.

In the course of making this point, Ginsburg's 1974 paper praises and then quotes a draft Senate bill that never became law. The proposed law has, she writes, "a definition of rape that, in substance, conforms to the equality principle." She then quotes the bill's language:

"A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."

Yes, the language Ginsburg quotes with approval puts the age of consent at 12, which does seem awfully young. But she isn't addressing herself to the age issue; she's addressing herself to the gender issue. Is her praise meant to constitute an endorsement of the entire bill? Of course not. Ginsburg makes this explicit in a footnote in which she complains that even this language "retains use of the masculine pronoun to cover individuals of both sexes," which at the very least is confusing if it's intended to outlaw statutory (and other) rape by women, too. I would further guess that neither Ginsburg nor her feminist cohorts at the Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project were particularly crazy about the quoted language's get-out-of-jail-free card for married men who raped their wives


With this in mind, let's proceed to the language in Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, as described by the eminently reliable (though in this instance, I believe, analytically faulty) Eugene Volokh. Once again, Ginsburg objects to the fact that the law, as written, makes gender distinctions that she doesn't consider legitimate: "[T]he immaturity and vul[n]erability of young people of both sexes could be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions." According to Volokh, on page 102 Ginsburg makes the following "suggestion":

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

From this, Volokh concludes that Ginsburg does indeed favor lowering the age of consent to 12. Exasperatingly, though, Volokh leaves out precisely how Ginsburg has worded her "suggestion." Since the topic, once again, is sex bias rather than age bias, I think that's important to know. Even if Ginsburg's "suggestion" is unqualified, it ought to be clear that, even in the swingin' 1970s, nobody would have proposed lowering the age of consent to 12 without offering up some sort of argument as to why this should be done. Yet Volokh does not cite any language elaborating on the point. From this I conclude that none exists. At the very worst, Ginsburg would seem to be guilty of a sloppy cut-and-paste job that muddied her meaning. Here's how she frames her recommendation in the 1974 paper (page 76):

A sex neutral definition of rape, such as the one set forth in S. 1400, §1631, should be added to Title 18 or Title 10 and referred to throughout for the definition of the offense.
Reply #24 Top

more like point-edly ignoring the thrust of the linked article and selectively quoting a single paragraph outta context.


Sort of like you have a tendency to do, huh?
Reply #25 Top
What you just quoted was a proposed law that she was examining. She didn't write that law,
Good counterpoint.

the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."
This is simply to stress the outrageous invasive act upon one not even of pubic age. The rule of statutory rape is a GIVEN. The rest of the reasoning makes it clear that a non-consensual sexual act is by no means ever condoned.