Is Samuel Alito a trustworthy and honest nominee for the Supreme Court?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, focusing on his trustworthiness and honesty as a nominee. Participants explore various aspects of his character, the implications of his statements during the hearings, and the broader political context surrounding his nomination.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concerns about Alito's memory and his evasive responses during the hearings, suggesting he may not be trustworthy.
  • Others argue that Alito's statements about saying what is necessary to secure a job raise doubts about his honesty.
  • A participant highlights the irony of Republican complaints about Democrats being closed-minded while suggesting that Republicans are not genuinely reviewing Alito's record.
  • There are observations about Alito's family being emotionally affected by the hearings, with some participants mocking the seriousness of the process.
  • One participant critiques Alito's vague responses and questions the credibility of his claims regarding his affiliations, suggesting he may have misrepresented himself.
  • Concerns are raised about the political dynamics affecting the confirmation process, with some suggesting that the hearings serve more to embarrass the opposing party than to evaluate the nominee's qualifications.
  • Some participants speculate on the potential future decisions of the Supreme Court and the influence of political ideologies on those decisions.
  • There are mixed feelings about the qualifications of Alito, with some expressing hope that moderates will ensure a reasonable choice, while others remain skeptical.
  • One participant emphasizes that Supreme Court justices are expected to rule based on the law and constitution, rather than political pressures, suggesting a level of integrity in the role.
  • Concerns are voiced about the lack of accountability in the current political climate, particularly regarding the minority status of the Democrats in the confirmation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on Alito's trustworthiness or the effectiveness of the confirmation hearings. Disagreement exists regarding the implications of his statements and the political context surrounding his nomination.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the confirmation hearings may not effectively evaluate a nominee's qualifications and that the process is influenced by political maneuvering and public perception.

rachmaninoff
[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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rachmaninoff said:
Day three of the judicial committee's hearings are in progress, all serious news orgnaizations are televising them live.
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.
 
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? :smile:
 
Hilarious development:

But his wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, left the hearing room in tears near the end of a day in which he had been questioned sharply.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., was vouching for her husband's character at the time, and as she left, he said, "Judge Alito, I'm sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/alito;_ylt=Ai1HDy8oppNX3B8.UwDsvohuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

:confused:

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:
Also, a nominee for the "most obvious statement of 2006" award, responding to one of the questions:

Samuel Alito said:
If I'm confirmed I'll be myself.
 
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.
 
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.
 
BobG said:
Biden's right about one thing: the confirmation hearings are worthless for evaluating a nominee - they're really only conducted to highlight the Senators.
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 embarrass 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
  • #10
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...
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
However, I assume that the Dems would take a stand if we were facing a dangerous extremist...hopefully...
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.
 
  • #13
SOS2008 said:
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.

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?
 
  • #14
rachmaninoff said:
Also, a nominee for the "most obvious statement of 2006" award, responding to one of the questions:

"If I'm confirmed I'll be myself."

I took that as an admission that he isn't being himself now. ;)
 
  • #15
ComputerGeek said:
They have the Filibuster bomb to throw.

And the Republicans can strike back with the nuclear option.
 
  • #16
phcatlantis said:
And the Republicans can strike back with the nuclear option.

The Nuclear option is only for judges, so, what is the point? Let's 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.
 
  • #17
ComputerGeek said:
It is a very cheap action...

That has the desired effect. You play to win.
 
  • #18
phcatlantis said:
That has the desired effect. You play to win.

Hay.. yeah... Play the game without following the rules and you will probably win.

Is that the message that moral republicans want to send to america?
 
  • #19
ComputerGeek said:
Hay.. yeah... Play the game without following the rules and you will probably win.

Is that the message that moral republicans want to send to america?

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.
 
  • #20
phcatlantis said:
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.

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.
 
  • #21
ComputerGeek said:
The rules in the senate can only be changed if 67 senators vote to change them...

Sure you can, by raising a point of order regarding the rule's constitionality. If the presiding officer and a simple majority go along with you, then you got your rule change.

The parliamentarian is a ref...

He most certainly isn't. Parlimentarian are simply staff serving at the pleasure of the Senate Majority Leader and House Speakership. They're consultants and nothing more.

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.

Apparantly you and the Republicans have a different idea of what the rules are. So what makes you think your perception of them will ultimately carry the day? After all, its winning that matters, right?
 
  • #22
ComputerGeek said:
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?
They are too few. If they filibuster it will just end up with the "nuclear option" being invoked by Republicans. That would change senate rules and set precedence going forward. Which is worse?

"Now the Senate has a duty to give Judge Alito a prompt up-or-down vote," Bush said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-14T164416Z_01_N14146081_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH.xml&archived=False

Constitutionally, and in accordance with 200 years + of senate tradition, the Senate does not have a “duty” (or doodie) to give any matter an up or down vote. Especially if they aren't on record for how they vote, but more important is the GOP desire to change the cloture threshold to a simple majority. (Hello! Power Grab! )
 
  • #23
SOS2008 said:
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.

If there were serious problems, at the least the Dems could have started a public campaign based on specific examples of how Alito might be a threat to Constitutional law. You make a good point about the Fillibuster, but if there was ever a time to use every option, now is the time, and they know it. This in fact is what I feared most about a Bush admin - the judges. But I think the first fiasco with good ole whats-her-name was about keeping Bush close to power, which was shot down, and this selection was forced by moderates. Sure, he's a conservative, but I don't really care about that as a part of the big picture. I don't think this is Rove's dream as some extremists claim. If it is and the SC has been compromised, then I will lose hope and we're outta here. Our move to Canada is only temporarily on hold until we see how this all sorts out.
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
If there were serious problems, at the least the Dems could have started a public campaign based on specific examples of how Alito might be a threat to Constitutional law. You make a good point about the Fillibuster, but if there was ever a time to use every option, now is the time, and they know it. This in fact is what I feared most about a Bush admin - the judges. But I think the first fiasco with good ole whats-her-name was about keeping Bush close to power, which was shot down, and this selection was forced by moderates. Sure, he's a conservative, but I don't really care about that as a part of the big picture. I don't think this is Rove's dream as some extremists claim. If it is and the SC has been compromised, then I will lose hope and we're outta here. Our move to Canada is only temporarily on hold until we see how this all sorts out.
You aren't the only one asking why the Dems compromised on earlier nominees if they weren't intending to save the filibuster for the "big one." I once felt that if the Republicans exercised the nuclear option it would be damaging in the eyes of their constituents. Unfortunately the constant propaganda for an up-or-down vote has been effective, and even though Bush and the GOP are not particularly popular at this time, I think a filibuster would damage the Dems just as much if not more. I suspect the Dems have come to realize this too, and have decided it would be better to keep their eye on the ball—the 2006 elections.

As you know there was a tremendous amount of inquiry into immigration to Canada after the 2004 elections. If all these people had actually left, the U.S. would have been doomed then and there. This is my country too—why should I have to leave MY country!? I’m staying and fighting. So wha-da-ya say...Wait and vote in 2006 and 2008 before you flee to Canada.
 
  • #25
SOS2008 said:
As you know there was a tremendous amount of inquiry into immigration to Canada after the 2004 elections. If all these people had actually left, the U.S. would have been doomed then and there. This is my country too—why should I have to leave MY country!? I’m staying and fighting. So wha-da-ya say...Wait and vote in 2006 and 2008 before you flee to Canada.

In our case its a matter of cycle times and age. Were things to continue to as they had been, my belief is that this won't be a place that I want to live for the rest of the best of my life. And I've been fighting the tide for most of my life now and I'm tired of it. But more than that, if the American people don't value the core American ideals, including that we don't torture, we don't invade other nations without provocation, we don't imprison without legal respresentation, and we don't load the SC with our personal lawyers, to name a few, then I have no use for this place.

You see, it's not like we were invaded, this is what Americans seemed to be choosing, and since this is a Democracy, they can have it. But we couldn't leave right away and were considering other options [Tsu doesn't want to live farther north], and now we are starting to think this may pass - that the true Bush agenda has been stopped without too much permanent damage - and that now, with a little luck we can sink back into the quagmire of US politics. But with many of the attitudes found regarding the use of torture, secret prisons, and most of all, imprisonment without due process, I will always keep the Maple Leaf in sight. I guess you could say that I don't trust my country any more.

Or course a lot of this depends on Bush being impeached. If this admin is allowed to set precedence, we're still screwed I think...
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
In our case its a matter of cycle times and age. Were things to continue to as they had been, my belief is that this won't be a place that I want to live for the rest of the best of my life. And I've been fighting the tide for most of my life now and I'm tired of it. But more than that, if the American people don't value the core American ideals, including that we don't torture, we don't invade other nations without provocation, we don't imprison without legal respresentation, and we don't load the SC with our personal lawyers, to name a few, then I have no use for this place.
You see, it's not like we were invaded, this is what Americans seemed to be choosing, and since this is a Democracy, they can have it. But we couldn't leave right away and were considering other options [Tsu doesn't want to live farther north], and now we are starting to think this may pass - that the true Bush agenda has been stopped without too much permanent damage - and that now, with a little luck we can sink back into the quagmire of US politics. But with many of the attitudes found regarding the use of torture, secret prisons, and most of all, imprisonment without due process, I will always keep the Maple Leaf in sight. I guess you could say that I don't trust my country any more.
Or course a lot of this depends on Bush being impeached. If this admin is allowed to set precedence, we're still screwed I think...
I hear you. After 2008, if we are still on the verge of becoming a fascist theocracy, let me know where you and Tsu plan to go and maybe I can tag along. The U.S. will find out what “brain drain” is all about, and then who cares if everything goes to hell in a hand basket because as you say it’s what these people seem to want.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
phcatlantis said:
That has the desired effect. You play to win.
It is not a game. You are not rooting for your favorite team.

This is the mentality that is destroying this great nation. People voting for a party because it is their favorite.

Alito is way out of the mainstream in his dissents and rulings. The guy is dishonest and untrustworthy. But he is a Republican so he is on the right team, so he will be confirmed.
 
  • #28
Skyhunter said:
People voting for a party because it is their favorite.
Or people voting for a party because they think it's their party. The Republican Party is now the party of radical fundamentalists, neocon imperialists, and big business who are happy to spend your tax dollars into oblivion.
 
  • #29
Senator Feinstein's Kinder Style More Successful on Judge Alito

I admit I've never particularly been a big on Senator Diane Feinstein. However, I must give credit where credit is do.

I believe it was during her Wednesday morning questioning of Judge Alito, wherein she set a "warm and supportive tone" in recanting some of Judge Alito's less noteworthy rulings, then kindly posed a line of questioning. Her topics (which I can't recall) were so unexpected, and her tone so kind, that Judge Alito got caught completely off guard. Before he had realized it, he had already truthfully revealed some of his errors and biases. I believe other Senators also pursued these same questions, but none were as successful in getting Judge Alito's cooperation.

The moral of this story: When you approach a person with rederic, anger, and direct accusations - you get an uncooperative witness. Continue, and you can end up with an all out fight.

There is something to be learned here, regardless of what happens in the final Senate vote. We need more calm and reason in U.S. leadership, at a time when key portions of the world have gone irrational. This apporach was the conerstone of India's Muhatmar Ghandi's successful leadership, later influencing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to employ peaceful resistance in bringing about advances in civil rights.
 
  • #30
Skyhunter said:
It is not a game. You are not rooting for your favorite team.

Sure it is. It's a high stakes game but a game nonetheless. Not everybody likes the game, but enough people find it enjoyable enough to participate and keep it going. And I identify with politically with my team. Why wouldn't I root for them?

This is the mentality that is destroying this great nation. People voting for a party because it is their favorite.

How is partisan politics destroying this great nation? Or, I should say, what's so bad about identifying with the agents of political ideas you and I find agreeable?

Alito is way out of the mainstream in his dissents and rulings. The guy is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Great. That's Democratic idea, not a Republican one. Get behind them. May the best team win. :D

But he is a Republican so he is on the right team, so he will be confirmed.

And from the Republican point of view, he's trustworth, honesty, and well within whatever we're calling the judicial mainstream. We disagree, great. At least we have this great system for resolving our differences. :D
 

Similar threads

News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
News Bush Nominates Judge Samuel Alito to US Supreme Court
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
News Surprise from the US Supreme Court on same-sex marriage
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
News Who Will Replace Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
News How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K