Guest-Blogging: Low Blows From The Schumer Crew
Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters
http://www.nysun.com/article/23867
The former U.S. solicitor general who authored a Reagan-era brief against the abortion ruling Roe v. Wade lashed out yesterday at one of the Democratic senators who will be voting on Judge Samuel Alito for saying the Supreme Court nominee should have told senators about work he did on the brief.
Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School and President Reagan's lead attorney in front of the Supreme Court from 1985 to 1989, told The New York Sun that a 1985 memo in which a 35-year-old Samuel Alito offered him advice in arguing the administration's case against Roe v. Wade does not qualify as the kind of work a nominee should send to the Judiciary Committee for review.
"This is a real red herring because the solicitor general's office is a small one," Mr. Fried said. "We all helped each other and looked over each other's work. He had no formal role in writing that brief, and I can't imagine anything sillier than someone taking credit for a brief where that's the role they had." ...
Mr. Fried, who supports abortion rights, said that while he does not think memos from the solicitor general's office should be released, he also thinks Judge Alito was not being furtive in not mentioning his work on the 1985 abortion brief.
"I have never head of anyone who worked in the solicitor general's office who would list all the cases where they wrote memos," Mr. Fried said. "There are hundreds of these. It's just absurd. It's one of these typical cases, and I'm afraid Senator Schumer is guilty of this, that if you can't get someone on the merits, you bring up some phony lack of candor argument. He should be ashamed of himself, but he is shameless. And you can quote me on that."
This is the typical garbage that is being pulled by the Democrats right now. There's not one thing that is wrong, embarrassing, or extraordinary about Judge Alito, but they're going to dig, and dig, and dig until they find something. These tactics by Sen. "Chuckie Schmuckie" are no different than the dirty pool tactics he pulled against Michael Steele when his staff dug up Mr. Steele's credit records. And thia attempt is literally much ado about nothing.
Mr. Fried specifically states that Judge Alito had no formal role in writing the brief. And as for Judge Alito mentioning it, I question that move. As a person working within the solicitor general's office, he has the same attorney/client privilege that any lawyer possesses. We went over this sort of grandstanding over Roberts. Only then, it was a last ditch effort by the Democrats to derail his nomination because they couldn't find anything else. This is simply more of the same. This is the point where I lose interest in the irrelevant fools like Sen. Schumer. They've got nothing on Alito, but they play by the rules that if the charge is harsh enough, and they scream loud enough, it could turn public opinion.
Here is a memo I'm happy to share with Sen. Schumer: It's not going to work. Don't try to derail this man they way your party did on Estrada and Bork. The public is wise to such moves, and you be well to remember that the war in Iraq wasn't the only reason why your party lost more seats in the Congress, and didn't win the White House last year. You also lost it because one of the other GOP party platforms was the war for the courts. And we've already seen what happens the public speaks up on the nominees the president puts up.
Sites like this one and others leapt into action over the Roberts nomination, and defended a good and honorable judge who was elevated to his mentor's old seat. When the president nominated Harriet Miers, the battle lines were drawn within the party. The Democrats danced with giddy glee that the conservatives would tear the party apart over the nominee. It didn't happen because we, as a party, may have a reasoned, sound debate amongst ourselves, and still stay united. And we are. We didn't tear down the party. The debate over Miers actually strengthened the party. The base clearly had it's objections to her, whether it was over a lack of experience, her lack of Constitutional understanding, or the typical accusation of nepotism. And because of those objections--the fact that the base dug in it's heels--Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination.
That's not going to happen with Judge Alito. He will be confirmed. But for the schmuck from New York, he's willing to use documents that are privileged to launch a new assault on this nominee. The Democrats don't know how to play by the rules honestly. They have to drag out the dirty tricks book because they have nothing other than that to fall back on. The idea of a reasoned argument against someone or something is completely foreign to them. A good case in point is Justice Ginsburg. Despite my disagreement with her ideology, there was nothing that prevented her from her ascension to the high court. Like many in the GOP back then, I wanted to see her stopped. However, when one looked at the political landscape in the Senate, there was no way she was going to be stopped. Hey, we win some, and we lose some. This time out, we're going to win. And no one, like Sen. Schumer, is going to be able to stop him.
Mistress Pundit
Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters
http://www.nysun.com/article/23867
The former U.S. solicitor general who authored a Reagan-era brief against the abortion ruling Roe v. Wade lashed out yesterday at one of the Democratic senators who will be voting on Judge Samuel Alito for saying the Supreme Court nominee should have told senators about work he did on the brief.
Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School and President Reagan's lead attorney in front of the Supreme Court from 1985 to 1989, told The New York Sun that a 1985 memo in which a 35-year-old Samuel Alito offered him advice in arguing the administration's case against Roe v. Wade does not qualify as the kind of work a nominee should send to the Judiciary Committee for review.
"This is a real red herring because the solicitor general's office is a small one," Mr. Fried said. "We all helped each other and looked over each other's work. He had no formal role in writing that brief, and I can't imagine anything sillier than someone taking credit for a brief where that's the role they had." ...
Mr. Fried, who supports abortion rights, said that while he does not think memos from the solicitor general's office should be released, he also thinks Judge Alito was not being furtive in not mentioning his work on the 1985 abortion brief.
"I have never head of anyone who worked in the solicitor general's office who would list all the cases where they wrote memos," Mr. Fried said. "There are hundreds of these. It's just absurd. It's one of these typical cases, and I'm afraid Senator Schumer is guilty of this, that if you can't get someone on the merits, you bring up some phony lack of candor argument. He should be ashamed of himself, but he is shameless. And you can quote me on that."
This is the typical garbage that is being pulled by the Democrats right now. There's not one thing that is wrong, embarrassing, or extraordinary about Judge Alito, but they're going to dig, and dig, and dig until they find something. These tactics by Sen. "Chuckie Schmuckie" are no different than the dirty pool tactics he pulled against Michael Steele when his staff dug up Mr. Steele's credit records. And thia attempt is literally much ado about nothing.
Mr. Fried specifically states that Judge Alito had no formal role in writing the brief. And as for Judge Alito mentioning it, I question that move. As a person working within the solicitor general's office, he has the same attorney/client privilege that any lawyer possesses. We went over this sort of grandstanding over Roberts. Only then, it was a last ditch effort by the Democrats to derail his nomination because they couldn't find anything else. This is simply more of the same. This is the point where I lose interest in the irrelevant fools like Sen. Schumer. They've got nothing on Alito, but they play by the rules that if the charge is harsh enough, and they scream loud enough, it could turn public opinion.
Here is a memo I'm happy to share with Sen. Schumer: It's not going to work. Don't try to derail this man they way your party did on Estrada and Bork. The public is wise to such moves, and you be well to remember that the war in Iraq wasn't the only reason why your party lost more seats in the Congress, and didn't win the White House last year. You also lost it because one of the other GOP party platforms was the war for the courts. And we've already seen what happens the public speaks up on the nominees the president puts up.
Sites like this one and others leapt into action over the Roberts nomination, and defended a good and honorable judge who was elevated to his mentor's old seat. When the president nominated Harriet Miers, the battle lines were drawn within the party. The Democrats danced with giddy glee that the conservatives would tear the party apart over the nominee. It didn't happen because we, as a party, may have a reasoned, sound debate amongst ourselves, and still stay united. And we are. We didn't tear down the party. The debate over Miers actually strengthened the party. The base clearly had it's objections to her, whether it was over a lack of experience, her lack of Constitutional understanding, or the typical accusation of nepotism. And because of those objections--the fact that the base dug in it's heels--Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination.
That's not going to happen with Judge Alito. He will be confirmed. But for the schmuck from New York, he's willing to use documents that are privileged to launch a new assault on this nominee. The Democrats don't know how to play by the rules honestly. They have to drag out the dirty tricks book because they have nothing other than that to fall back on. The idea of a reasoned argument against someone or something is completely foreign to them. A good case in point is Justice Ginsburg. Despite my disagreement with her ideology, there was nothing that prevented her from her ascension to the high court. Like many in the GOP back then, I wanted to see her stopped. However, when one looked at the political landscape in the Senate, there was no way she was going to be stopped. Hey, we win some, and we lose some. This time out, we're going to win. And no one, like Sen. Schumer, is going to be able to stop him.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home