Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Alito confirmation hearings

  1. Jan 11, 2006 #1
    [SOLVED] Alito confirmation hearings

    Day three of the judicial committee's hearings are in progress, all serious news orgnaizations are televising them live.

    Is he medically fit for his post? He seems to suffer from severe memory loss. :rolleyes: Either that or he just doesn't like answering questions. I think certain other judicial nominees have acted similarly last year?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 11, 2006 #2
    What is worse is that no one seems to be calling him out n the fact that he keeps saying "I was saying that because I was applying for the job"

    So basically, he is saying that he will say anything he needs to to get a job. So how can we trust what he says to be the truth?

    in fact, I think we should dump him right here.
  4. Jan 11, 2006 #3
    In view of Bush's record for appointments, it is reason alone for opposition. What is amusing is the Republican complaint that Democrats have already made up their minds…because the Republicans are so open-minded and are sincerely reviewing Alito’s record? :rofl:
  5. Jan 11, 2006 #4
    Hilarious development:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/alito;_ylt=Ai1HDy8oppNX3B8.UwDsvohuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl [Broken]


    Stupid Americans. Putting their stupid democratic processes before family entertainment. How dare they ask a man questions, while his family is watching? Monsters!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Jan 11, 2006 #5
    Also, a nominee for the "most obvious statement of 2006" award, responding to one of the questions:

  7. Jan 12, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If he's being truthful about his recollections of the Princeton group, he must have been pretty desparate to fill up space on his resume.

    Seems to me that finding a group that he 'belonged' to and plugging it into his application without having some idea what the group was would be pretty reckless and always had a high risk of embarrassment. Who knows what questions the interviewers might ask - "So, you believe being a bigot is something to be proud of?", "How long have you been a member of the Civil Air Patrol?", "So, you're a pretty adamant Communist?", "So, you're a disabled veteran of WWII? How old were you when you joined?", "When did you first realize you were an African American with sickle cell anemia?", "Why, exactly, did you join the Canadian Association of Polygamists?"

    Surely he knew exactly what the group represented when he listed it on his 1985 application. He needs to provide a better answer. I doubt he will. Biden's right about one thing: the confirmation hearings are worthless for evaluating a nominee - they're really only conducted to highlight the Senators.
  8. Jan 13, 2006 #7
    It looks less likely that the Democrats will be able to hold the Gang of 14 together in order to prevent a change of Rule 22. There's no evidence of any Republican senator willing to vote against his confirmation. So long as as my team wins, I don't care how the opposition views the play.
  9. Jan 13, 2006 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed. Alito's doing exactly what he needs to do: sit there and take the abuse they dish out, and answer politely but generally. Confirmation hearings in general aren't about determining if someone is qualified for the job, they are all about finding a way to embarass the side in power into rejecting him. Alito is playing it cool (read: evasive, but cordial) and as a result, the Democrats are unable to stir-up the public outcry they need to get him rejected.

    Regarding this alumni association, I have done a little research, but found only vague accusations of racism and sexism. The racism allegations are tied to affirmative action, which is still highly controvertial - and possibly unconstitutional. The sexism allegations stem from nostaligia about Princeton's pre-coed days (Princeton went coed while Alito was there). As a former student in an all-male prep-school that went coed a few years after I graduated, I can attest that debates on the subject are heated. But that has nothing to do with sexism: the culture of a single-sex school is different from a coed school. And I don't think I should need to point out (but I will, of course) that in today's over-the-top PC culture, all male schools (or clubs, for that matter) are deemed sexist and are attacked, while all female schools/clubs are not. That's PC hypocrisy.

    An article in the Princetonian: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/11/18/news/13876.shtml [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Jan 13, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The Democrats are simply a minority Party, and responsible citizens in this country realize Supreme Court appointments are another reason we need to balance power in 2006.

    Ultimately I suspect the religious right will be disappointed with their efforts to stack the courts. Once a judge has accomplished his/her personal goal of being appointed to the Supreme Court, these judges know they are there for life and no longer answer to anyone. They understand the gravity of their position and in listening to fellow SC judges will often make decisions not expected by supporters. In view of this, it is my guess that there may be some adjustment in regard to Roe v. Wade, but abortion will not be made illegal, nor will the SC allow the U.S. to become a theocracy (i.e., they will continue to uphold separation of church and state, e.g., not allow ID to be taught in public schools). And I would think and hope that if the SC were to make decisions contrary to either of these matters, there would be tremendous public outcry.

    So...the extreme fundamentalists will likely find themselves to be the minority that they really are (boo hoo). Now if we can just get them back under the rocks they climbed out from under.
  11. Jan 13, 2006 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm worried but Bush has lost a lot of clout so hopefully moderates forced a reasonable choice. He does seem to be a good choice as far as his qualifations go, but some of the scholarly testimony given today concerns me. However, I assume that the Dems would take a stand if we were facing a dangerous extremist...hopefully...
  12. Jan 13, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't worry too much about these guys. It seems that the very few people out there actually qualified to serve on the Supreme Court take the job very seriously, and rule in accordance with the law and constitution, regardless of what political opinions they may hold in their personal lives. It's important to remember that they are not politicians. I think that's actually part of the reason that the senators have such a difficult time with these confirmation hearings and want answers so badly regarding opinions that people might have expressed when they were in their 20s. It's inconceivable to a politician that someone in public office may make decisions based simply on what their conscience tells them is correct according to a common standard, rather than pandering to some interest group. Like SOS said, once in, they don't have to campaign and don't raise any money, so they're essentially beholden to nobody.
  13. Jan 14, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's the whole point about checks and balances. The Dems are a minority, so their stand will likely boil down to rigorous questioning only. What else can they do? In many ways I find this the more frightening problem. There is no accountability right now on any level.
  14. Jan 14, 2006 #13
    They have the Filibuster bomb to throw.

    All that wrangling about the appeals court for 2 years, and they end up saving the Filibuster on judicial nominees with THIS GUY as a perfect example of the kind of person they are trying to keep off the bench.

    If they do not filibuster, then what was the point?
  15. Jan 14, 2006 #14
    "If I'm confirmed I'll be myself."

    I took that as an admission that he isn't being himself now. ;)
  16. Jan 14, 2006 #15
    And the Republicans can strike back with the nuclear option.
  17. Jan 14, 2006 #16
    The Nuclear option is only for judges, so, what is the point? Lets save the filibuster on Judicial nominations to not use it ever?

    BTW.. The Nuclear option is against the Senate rules, but all Cheney needs to do is tell the parliamentarian that he does not have the floor to speak (the guy who will inform the senators of the senate rules) and the vote can go ahead.

    It is a very cheap action.... but so is calling a voice vote in the house and then claiming the Ya's win when it is clear on C-SPAN that the Ney's did.
  18. Jan 14, 2006 #17
    That has the desired effect. You play to win.
  19. Jan 14, 2006 #18
    Hay.. yeah... Play the game with out following the rules and you will probably win.

    Is that the message that moral republicans want to send to america?
  20. Jan 14, 2006 #19
    I think the Republicans genuinely believe that changing Rule 22 is within the bounds of fair play, and I think they'd make that case. What remains to be seen is whether or not a sufficiently interested public exists, let alone would approve.
  21. Jan 14, 2006 #20
    The rules in the senate can only be changed if 67 senators vote to change them... that is what the senate decided long ago and it has been there for a long time.

    The parliamentarian is a ref, calling foul and keeping everyone in line with the senate rules, BUT, republicans will be IGNORING the ref to get what they need done, done.
    that does not seem to be with in the rules no matter how you look at it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook