Buckle Up Kiddies: The Senate Circus Is Back In Town
The confirmation hearings for sam Alito will begin next week. Yes, I can hear the collective groan from our readers; you know we're going to be on top of it. I'm sorry, but this is relevant, and few on the 'Net can break down the hearings in the abnormally weird way that we do. So, just bear with us next week. We'll work on other subjects, but Alito will be our point issue. And yes, there's a reason I'm bringing this up now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501908.html?nav=rss_politics
Alito's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin Monday, will last a week if it tracks last year's confirmation process for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. A Democratic member, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said yesterday that senators will ask extensive questions and insist that Alito answer them fully -- even if it means pushing the hearing into the following week.
All judicial nominees are required to respond to senators' queries, Schumer said in a speech in Washington. "The obligation, however, is greater for some nominees," he said. "It is greater when a nominee has taken a clear position on a legal matter."
Time out! Schumer said that the greater burden fell on Roberts because he didn't have a long and established track record (which is bunk because he did). Now, Schumer claims that there is a greater obligation because Alito's taken positions on certain things? Which way is it Sen. Schumer? You can't have it both ways! This is one of the reason I'm lobbying Howling Mad Howie to change the DNC symbol from the ass to the flip-flop. Or, maybe I could suggest the yo-yo. At least that would be in line with their mood swings; up one day, down the next, Prozac in between.
But if you think that's bad, wait until you see what Uncle Teddy had to say after his usual twelve martini lunch.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501950_pf.html
"We here in the United States are not going to stand for monarchial tyranny," he said, protesting Alito's support for "unfettered, unlimited power of the executive." He faulted Alito for belonging to a group that was "anti-black and also anti-women." Kennedy wondered if "the average person is going to be able to get a fair shake" under Alito.
Briefly, Kennedy rewrote the outcome of the 1964 election. "This nominee was influenced by the Goldwater presidency," he said. "The Goldwater battles of those times were the battles against the civil rights laws." Only then did Kennedy acknowledge that "Judge Alito at that time was 14 years old."
A questioner pointed out that Kennedy sounded like a sure bet against Alito. "I haven't reached a final conclusion," the senator demurred.
First off, let me give Uncle Teddy a refresher in Constitutional Law. The president does have virtual unlimited power during wartime. The only way Congress can stop him is to cut off the funds. He doesn't control the purse strings; Congress does. And it isn't a tyranny because the people still have their voice. Uncle Teddy might be wise to remember that when the phones are ringing off the hoo next week telling him to quit bloviating over Alito and to vote on him already. Those are called "constituents," Senator and you might want to listen to them seeing as how they are smarter than you.
Secopnd, taking the swipe at Alito over his belonging to a group from college that was prompting the college to get rid of their affirmative action policy is pretty low. When Sen. Kennedy was cheating on tests, er, I mean, going to his school--Harvard--were they allowing blacks in on a regular basis? How about women? I'm sure it wasn't easy for either one to get into Harvard. Alito supposedly belonged to a group on his college campus that was lobbying the school to end their affirmative action program. Honestly, folks, I see no problem with this. I'm on the record--right here on this site--of pointing out that affirmative action is inherently racist, and unconstitutional. And I'm not alone.
Bollinger set off a firestorm when the Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action in practice at Michigan Law School. It was considered by a few as Justice O'Connor's "crowning achievement of her life." People like me wanted her thrown off the bench for the utter stupidity in regard to the jurisprudence she used to figure the case out. Numerous legal scholars have chastised her and the court for upholding a discriminatory program. Larry Elder, conservative talk-show host, has proclaimed that only "victocrats believe in affirmative action." Elder should know. He was born and raised in South Central LA, and refused to use affirmative action as a crutch. His resume would make most black people jealous, and he did it all on his own. Hard work gets people farther in life than a hand-out ever did.
It doesn't matter what was in Alito's past. What matters is his judicial philosophy. His philosophy will be how he rules on matters of the Constitution. It doesn't matter what group he belonged to in college, or what he put on a 19-whatever resume for the Reagan Administration. What matters is how he views the Constitution. I can assure people that based on his decisions since reaching the Court of Appeals, and based on addresses he's given, he doesn't believe in the progressive idea of a "living, breathing" Constitution. He will maintain the same idea that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts have.
The Constitution is in black and white, and it means what it says. If the Left want it changed, there's an amending process they'll have to go through.
Publius II
The confirmation hearings for sam Alito will begin next week. Yes, I can hear the collective groan from our readers; you know we're going to be on top of it. I'm sorry, but this is relevant, and few on the 'Net can break down the hearings in the abnormally weird way that we do. So, just bear with us next week. We'll work on other subjects, but Alito will be our point issue. And yes, there's a reason I'm bringing this up now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501908.html?nav=rss_politics
Alito's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin Monday, will last a week if it tracks last year's confirmation process for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. A Democratic member, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said yesterday that senators will ask extensive questions and insist that Alito answer them fully -- even if it means pushing the hearing into the following week.
All judicial nominees are required to respond to senators' queries, Schumer said in a speech in Washington. "The obligation, however, is greater for some nominees," he said. "It is greater when a nominee has taken a clear position on a legal matter."
Time out! Schumer said that the greater burden fell on Roberts because he didn't have a long and established track record (which is bunk because he did). Now, Schumer claims that there is a greater obligation because Alito's taken positions on certain things? Which way is it Sen. Schumer? You can't have it both ways! This is one of the reason I'm lobbying Howling Mad Howie to change the DNC symbol from the ass to the flip-flop. Or, maybe I could suggest the yo-yo. At least that would be in line with their mood swings; up one day, down the next, Prozac in between.
But if you think that's bad, wait until you see what Uncle Teddy had to say after his usual twelve martini lunch.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501950_pf.html
"We here in the United States are not going to stand for monarchial tyranny," he said, protesting Alito's support for "unfettered, unlimited power of the executive." He faulted Alito for belonging to a group that was "anti-black and also anti-women." Kennedy wondered if "the average person is going to be able to get a fair shake" under Alito.
Briefly, Kennedy rewrote the outcome of the 1964 election. "This nominee was influenced by the Goldwater presidency," he said. "The Goldwater battles of those times were the battles against the civil rights laws." Only then did Kennedy acknowledge that "Judge Alito at that time was 14 years old."
A questioner pointed out that Kennedy sounded like a sure bet against Alito. "I haven't reached a final conclusion," the senator demurred.
First off, let me give Uncle Teddy a refresher in Constitutional Law. The president does have virtual unlimited power during wartime. The only way Congress can stop him is to cut off the funds. He doesn't control the purse strings; Congress does. And it isn't a tyranny because the people still have their voice. Uncle Teddy might be wise to remember that when the phones are ringing off the hoo next week telling him to quit bloviating over Alito and to vote on him already. Those are called "constituents," Senator and you might want to listen to them seeing as how they are smarter than you.
Secopnd, taking the swipe at Alito over his belonging to a group from college that was prompting the college to get rid of their affirmative action policy is pretty low. When Sen. Kennedy was cheating on tests, er, I mean, going to his school--Harvard--were they allowing blacks in on a regular basis? How about women? I'm sure it wasn't easy for either one to get into Harvard. Alito supposedly belonged to a group on his college campus that was lobbying the school to end their affirmative action program. Honestly, folks, I see no problem with this. I'm on the record--right here on this site--of pointing out that affirmative action is inherently racist, and unconstitutional. And I'm not alone.
Bollinger set off a firestorm when the Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action in practice at Michigan Law School. It was considered by a few as Justice O'Connor's "crowning achievement of her life." People like me wanted her thrown off the bench for the utter stupidity in regard to the jurisprudence she used to figure the case out. Numerous legal scholars have chastised her and the court for upholding a discriminatory program. Larry Elder, conservative talk-show host, has proclaimed that only "victocrats believe in affirmative action." Elder should know. He was born and raised in South Central LA, and refused to use affirmative action as a crutch. His resume would make most black people jealous, and he did it all on his own. Hard work gets people farther in life than a hand-out ever did.
It doesn't matter what was in Alito's past. What matters is his judicial philosophy. His philosophy will be how he rules on matters of the Constitution. It doesn't matter what group he belonged to in college, or what he put on a 19-whatever resume for the Reagan Administration. What matters is how he views the Constitution. I can assure people that based on his decisions since reaching the Court of Appeals, and based on addresses he's given, he doesn't believe in the progressive idea of a "living, breathing" Constitution. He will maintain the same idea that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts have.
The Constitution is in black and white, and it means what it says. If the Left want it changed, there's an amending process they'll have to go through.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home