NHPR Web Extra: Discuss the Alito Nomination

I think that he will make a fine addition to the court. He is refusing to be marginalized by single issues, which is exactly the stance a justice should have. I am hoping for a speedy, orderly and respectful confirmation process.

If anyone has ever read the eloquent, insightful book by Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, they would understand that the problem with judges upholding the "law" is that congress is busy passing legislation that is in many cases, is for the benefit of multi-national corporations.Laws are passed to ensure NOTHING stands in the way of global commerce, and activists, indigenous people, the environment and the greater good have little leverage. There are laws of man, and laws of nature. When the laws of man collide with natural law, as is happening at the detriment of our entire planet and the balance of the life sustaining eco systems, the laws are corrupt.

When the law does not protect us, and the need for economic viability becomes the determining factor, the law has become illigitimate. It is legal to pump animals full of chemicals to grow them huge, to the detriment of human health. It is legal to drive cars for frivolous reasons, even while the ice caps are melting. It is legal to anally electrocute animals to take their fur and use Primates for horrific radiation and military research. When laws protect abuse, corruption, and the undermining of the greater good of this earth, the judges upholding said laws are part of the problem, not the just solution.

Did Alito say that he would allow a president the power to 'whack' a citizen of the US? Using this question as a framework for interpreting Judge Alito's beliefs on the extent of executive privelege and also presidential immunity, I believe Senator Leahy (VT) put a nail in Alito's confirmation coffin. I mean, how many specifics about this case could there be that would justify the exercise of absolute power as being "above the law?" I think we need some serious government reform. For starters, we need to hold the president accountable for breaking the laws, even if he thinks he is entitled to do just that because he is, "Da Prez"...

I find it most interesting in all of these confirmation hearings that the candidates try to not give their views on matters. It seems to me that we should know everything possible about these people as they will be ruling the courts for many years to come. Today, when Alito was asked about his past comments on abortion(1984, I think), he answered that those were his feelings back then without ever saying if he still felt the same way. What a bizarre way we run government sometimes. We grill presidential candidates on the most useless minutia about their personal lives that don't have any impact on how they will govern, and we let our judge candidates get by without even a notion on matters that will impact all of us for possibly the next 30 years.

Both Roberts and Alito have used the rationale that they cannot comment on cases that may come before them, with some sort of vague reference to a Canon of Judicial Ethics provision that prohibits this. I've looked up the Code, and I do not see a specific prohibition. I may have missed the reference. I heard commentary on Public Radio that there is no such prohibition. Why have not members of the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed either man for a citation? I've sent emails to each Democrat Senator on the Committee to consider whether this is a bogus rationale, and if so, to pursue Judge Alito on his claim.

My greatest concern with Alito (among many) is his views on presidential power. Alito is on the record as supporting the theory of the unitary executive. This theory states that the President can interpret the laws as he sees fit, and that the judiciary does not have the last word on the interpretation of laws. in a nutshell, the President as king, especially in times of undeclared, perpetual war. (One wonders if this privilege is only extended to Republican Presidents?)

I didn't get to listen all day (Work, and all), but I was very interested the few minute segment I did hear:
Senator Leahy was showing considerable venom and disgust about how Judge Alito could've proudly joined "Concerned Alumni of Princeton", whose purpose (we all know) was to deprive women and minorities enrollment at Princeton whenhis time expired. Next came Senator Hatch who shed a bit of truth on the situation: it seems the Judge Alito's "concern" was not about minorities, but about the expulsion of his ROTC unit from the campus. The ROTC building was even firebombed! Is there any accountability in later life for wielding HoChiMin posters and firebombs, or just for associating with known conservatives?

Did NPR's highlights capture this telling few moments?

Thanks

How can we appoint someone who has a very selective memory and can not recall things that every average joe can remember. Who would forget his college memebership??

If Judge Alito is found to purjure himself by stating one thing answering questions during these hearings, but actually decides cases in ways that are not in line with his testimony, what recourse do the American people have to get him off the court? He stated that Judges should not bend or change law. If Roe is overturned, isn't that changing law? That is the fundamental problem with our political and judicial system. The law is a work in progress that, as we see now even with the filibuster, is manipulated.

I never went to Princeton, but I was married to a Princetonian, who, for a while in the Seventies, got bombarded by mail from the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" -- the ultra-conservative group that wanted to keep women and minorities out. And although I'm more than ten years older than Judge Alito, I can remember those efforts well. But not the good judge.

I have listened to both Chief Judge Roberts hearing and presently Judge Alito's and I think it is a strange dance that the republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals go through. If these Judges are truly to be independent then no single party or group would be "winning or losing" as various Senators have implied. Everyone can see and hear that Judge Alito is conservative by his previous rulings, speeches and writings. A conservative President chooses a conservative Judge - big surprise. I wonder if we would think of these hearings differently if judges had term limits - maybe 20-25 year terms.

I would be very disturbed by a judicial nominee -- to an appellate court -- who willingly gave his views on matters that are reasonably likely to come before that court sometime reasonably soon.

If I were a litigant in a case that is wending its weary way to get before the Supreme Court, for example, I would not be merely disturbed: I would be outraged. Here, I haven't even uttered a word in defense of my case in front of him/her, and already I'm being counted out.

I think it is reasonable for Senators to inquire in such a way as to be able to assess the quality of the nominee's ability to analyze reasonably complex legal situations, or to assess the nominee's appreciation of our glorious legal history as a people.

The ultimate question here is: Is it possible to avoid "prior committments on future cases" and still fairly weigh a nominee's strengths?

The short answer: yes.

Bon appetit.

Laurence J. Gillis
Post Office Box 965
Rye NH 03870

I must agree with a previous post on this site: What is particularly alarming to me about the Alito nomination is not primarily the reversal of Roe v. Wade, which I view as inevitable (and tragic for the women of this country). What frightens me most of all was something I became aware of during Sen. Kennedy's comments, namely, the presidential "signing statements" which allow the president to virtually NULLIFY legislation which has recently passed the Congress. The example Kennedy gave was the recent "signing statment" Bush quietly (and off camera) issued following his photo-op faux acceptance of the Mc Cain anti-torture amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill (HR 2863). Pressident Bush has signed an unprecedentedly large number of these "statements", asserting his power as the executive to, frankly, do as he sees fit. The phrase "L'etat, e'est moi" certainly comes to mind here. Alito would countenance this abuse of power. This kowtowing to executive authority and power, something Alito has written about extensively, is a threat to our democracy. We live under a Constitution and we have a president - not a king. Unfortunately, with Alito now a part of the court (or soon to be such), the very tenets of American government are seriously threatened.

Paranoid? You bet I am.

i strongly oppose the confirmation of judge alito. he has been evasive and hasn't answered the questions posed to him by the democratic senators. he has remembered details of court cases many,many years ago but, can't remember the details of his membership in the princeton club?!!
it is my opioion from listening to critical analysis that he only joined the princeton club, that didn't want women and minorities,so that he could be ok'd to be hired by the ed meese justice department, under president reagan.