What the New York Times Won’t Tell You About Alito’s ‘Apolitical’ Supporter
What the New York Times Won’t Tell You About Alito’s ‘Apolitical’ Supporter
In a Samuel Alito puff piece from today’s New York Times, Pepperdine Law professor Douglas Kmiec argues that he and Alito are not part of a “fraternity” that blindly supports right-wing causes:
“There are people in Washington who become a kind of tight political circle, in the sense of almost the secret handshake,” said Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University who worked with Judge Alito in the office in the mid-1980’s and became a close friend.
“I would put Sam and myself outside of that circle – not in the sense that we disagreed with anything in particular but that we were less willing to sign on for the fraternity,” he said. “The one thing about fraternities is that they take on missions or causes that may be all right in themselves but you have to sign onto them in advance. Neither of us, by personality, would want that.” [New York Times, 11/7/05]
The Times piece neglects to point out that Kmiec is a knee-jerk conservative and political partisan. Below are a few examples of Kmiec’s advocacy:
Kmiec Said Judicial Filibusters Threatened All Americans: “Obstructing judicial nominees with majority support thwarts the president and exacerbates the increasingly heavy workload of the independent judiciary. Anyone whose life, liberty or property is at issue before a federal tribunal is a potential filibuster victim.†[National Public Radio]
Kmiec Sided With Terri Schiavo’s Parents: “With the U.S. Supreme Court’s expected denial of review and Terri Schiavo’s parents’ conclusion of their epic struggle to maintain their daughter on life support, it may be tempting just to move on. That would be a mistake, since it would leave the always uneasy relation between law and morality badly ruptured.” [Orange County Register, 4/2/05]
Kmiec Claimed Gore’s Lawyers Tried to “Subvert the Will” of Florida Voters: “While Al Gore postures before the public microphone purporting to change the ‘tone’ of his relationship with George W. Bush, his legions of sharp lawyers continue to subvert the will of thousands of Florida voters and with it the outcome of the national election.†[Los Angeles Times, 11/17/00]
Kmiec Called for Clinton’s Impeachment and Criminal Trial: “Without additional evidence of wrongdoing, [President Clinton] should be impeached (a word which means only formally accused in the public record, not convicted and removed as the word is sometimes loosely employed). Beyond this, he should be remanded for trial, and if justified by the evidence, punished, not by the Senate, but the criminal courts, as any other person accused of perjury and obstruction would be.†[Chicago Tribune, 11/30/98]
Kmiec Defended Bush Administration Torture Memos: On the 2002 Gonzales and 2003 Pentagon Working Group torture memos, Kmiec wrote, “…[T]hey accurately explore the maximum scope of presidential power during war, provided the presidential decisions being analyzed are necessitated by grave and unforeseen emergencies and the specific tactical responses necessary to meet them.” [National Review, 6/15/04]
Kmiec Said Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Erodes Institution of Family: “The Massachusetts ruling tears at the institution of family upon which all else depends.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/19/03]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe Judy Miller can clear this story up for us
November 7th, 2005 at 1:06 pmEnough on Alito. You will NOT defeat him. You don’t have the votes. I wish you idiots would try and filibuster. Unfortunately, Democrats are not quite as stupid as their supporters. It’s a close call though. In addition to being liars, liberals are tone deaf on politics too.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:10 pmWhat is wrong with praising Terri Schiavo’s parents. They lost their daughter – you people are repugnant.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:13 pmThere’s nothing wrong with it…it just help illustrate, in the context of all the other examples, that this guy is a politcal partisan. To have him vouch for Alito being non-ideological is a joke.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:17 pmHey NED,
You are correct, Alito is in, no filibuster, we have to deal with it.
Now can you tell me why we supported Saddam in the 80’s?
I have asked this before, no answer.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:24 pm#4 – Judd, you know he’s conservative. Bush promised that last year (unlike Kerry who barely said anything because it’s a national loser for Dims.)
Unless Alito has dark skeleton in his closet, he will be confirmed. Democrats have to fear a Ginsburg retirement – rumor is she is not well and may step down come next summer. AND again, Democrats will have to bite their tongues.
Don’t you love being on the side of a winning issue?
November 7th, 2005 at 1:24 pmYeah Bush is fulfilling his promise on a do-over.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:27 pm“Obstructing judicial nominees with majority support thwarts the president and exacerbates the increasingly heavy workload of the independent judiciary. ”
Majority support?
You mean the “majority” that thwarted the laws in order to grab power? There’s no “majority” in this government. There are only criminals that thwarted the (legal) democratic process in order to ram through their warped ideology.
Wake up America. You’re being taken for a ride.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:34 pmKmiec regarding truth-telling during Whitewater:
“[. . .]First of all, I think they [the House managers] set out as a general standard the importance of telling the truth and then secondly, I think they emphasized the public connection of telling the truth to the importance of Congressional policy against, for example, sexual harassment, and how the president’s actions of obstruction and perjury perhaps undermined the ability of Paula Jones to pursue her civil rights in a federal court.”
How important it was to republicans then, when the issue was sexual harrassment – nothing so trivial as outing a CIA operative, or lying the country into war.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:37 pmGo ahead and fill the entire Supreme court with conservatives, then all three branches will be run by one party. Essentially the end of democracy.
No empire/state/country has ever survived imbalance of power, wealth being distrubuted to a small percentage, and no middle class.
People do become naturally arrogant, abusive when there are no consequences for their acitons. No more checks and balances.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:38 pm“Don’t you love being on the side of a winning issue?
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma ”
No, I personally like being on the ‘correct’ side of an issue, whether it’s winning or not. Only armchair morons with not personal self esteeem (you?) simply care about being on a ‘winning’ side. That sort of psychopathic and irresponsible thinking is typical of the insane and hysterical republican apologists though. Might doesn’t make right. Winning doesn’t make right. Cheating (the republican way) does make one a criminal though – and that’s you NED – A CRIMINAL!
Republicans lie, cheat, smear, murder and even produce domestic terrorists, and why? Because they’re nuts who only care about their side winning, they don’t care about democracy or civil liberties. REPUBLICANS=FASCISM
November 7th, 2005 at 1:42 pmRyan – being that you’re the left’s slanderer in chief, I don’t think you’re on the correct side of anything. The Court will be packed with conservatives and there is nothing you can do about it. lol!!! Poor Ryan Neat – he’s peeing himself at the thought Stevens stepping down.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:46 pmNED, or anyone else does not know why we supported Saddam in the 80’s. I certainly don’t.
However I don’t think people should just blindly trust authority, like the Right seems to believe. I bet the argument about our support for Saddam in the 80’s is “At the time it was the right thing to do, we just trusted the decisions.”
November 7th, 2005 at 1:48 pmWhat about #10 NED,
You prefer imbalance of power, no checks and balances?
November 7th, 2005 at 1:50 pmIt seems NED won’t respond to me because I am not being abusive. I, however will not resort to abuse to invoke a response. Enjoy the abuse NED.
November 7th, 2005 at 1:52 pmDouglas Kmeic is no apolitical lawyer at all! He’s a right-wing lawyer who teaches at the conservative Christian Pepperdine University Law School. The dean of the law school is Ken Starr. Kmeic tries to peddle himself as some legal scholar, but everything he says is slanted to a right-wing, Christian agenda – though he does it very politely (typical right-wing, bigoted but polite). He’s the Republicans new version of Ed Meese – spokesman for right-wing legal views.
November 7th, 2005 at 2:04 pmNow why on earth wouldn’t the NY Times have informed us of that? Maybe because they wouldn’t half mind a judge who would be disposed to keep journalists from having to testify in open court about their participation in propoganda designed to sell a war?
November 7th, 2005 at 2:44 pm#13 – “NED, or anyone else does not know why we supported Saddam in the 80’s. I certainly don’t.” – FT
November 7th, 2005 at 3:47 pm**** NED and most right wingers actually work – but we know how childishly impatient most libs are. Here’s your answer – (you may not like it, but so what…) Our GREATEST enemy in the Middle East AT THE TIME was Iran – of course, you probably don’t remember what an ineffective job our President Jimmy “Cardigan” Carter, did. An old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” seemed to apply in this case. The “Monday morning quarterbacks” of todays foriegn policy demonstrate why so many libs are on the sidelines.
“The Times piece neglects to point out that Kmiec is a knee-jerk conservative”
Doug Kmiec is a center-right law professor, and he once served as the president of Catholic University, but I don’t concede that he is a “knee-jerk conservative.” It wouldn’t matter if he was, though. The NY Times rarely, if ever, identifies its op-ed writers as liberal or conservative, and it would never single out a particular op-ed writer as a “knee-jerk” partisan. There’s no reason why Professor Kmiec should be treated any differently.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:32 pm“but I don’t concede that he is a “knee-jerk conservative.—BullShitRedneck
Conservatives by nature are kneejerk, partisan and foolish – it’s why they’re conservative.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:52 pmMightyWindbag,
Republicans are the greatest enemy of the middle east and the united states. You retarded NAZIs flub up everything you touch. Look up the learning disabled, and you’ll find a republican!
November 7th, 2005 at 4:53 pm#21 – RyANNE, That redundant blurb wasn’t your attempt at an argument, was it??
November 7th, 2005 at 5:22 pmRyANNe – Lay on the floor, kick and scream – you’ll be more effective….
November 7th, 2005 at 5:23 pmWhy argue with the stupid and clinically insane (that would be you). Just simply pointing out that you and your party are psychopathic traitors to america and the american way is sufficient. Case closed.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:42 pm“RyANNe – Lay on the floor, kick and scream – you’ll be more effective….
Comment by mighty aphrodite”
I’m not interested in your sex life, or how ineffective you are, you really should stop sharing so much personal information. It’s embarrassing and disgusting, just like you…
November 7th, 2005 at 5:46 pmAnd for those who are reading. If we weren’t affective, the republicans wouldn’t come to stop us. And I if I wasn’t effective, MizzBitchyZionWhore wouldn’t come and personally attack me. She demostrates the classic rule of republicans. Simply reverse everything they say, and you’ll find the truth..
November 7th, 2005 at 5:47 pmArguments on both sides of the issue represent the american ideology. So far, a general consensus in the US society is (and has been) very difficult to achieve. Not much different from what happens in the middle east. Is it religion what creates that or just lack of acces to tertiary education for all, ah, and the major political forces just take advantage of that, instead of helping to break the vicious circle through increasing access to higher education across the board. Whatever the answer may be, the situation is a vicious circle with a no end in the near future, at least not in our life time. People from both sides of the spectrum get tangled in the vicious circle to the point of enjoyment with a no way out, creating a degree of polirization in which no one thinks about asking questions on how to argue issues that affect us all from a scientific perspective as opposed to a political persective that brings nothing but division, and the major winners are the poilitical forces who take advantage of it. I guess you all may argue that that’s the way things are in this country, and if I don’t like it then leave, well, I am leaving this country. I got tired of being part of the vicious unproductive circle. Good luck to you all.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:58 pmPartisan – Could you take RyANNie, Susan, Sponge, Progressive and Proud with you? They are so miserable and oppressed – they might be happier dodging the fire-bombings in France. Good luck!!!!
November 7th, 2005 at 7:44 pmMightyDyke,
I’ve met some very nice and capable lesbians in my life, but you don’t qualify as either nice or capable. You’re like Cheney with a strapon, stupid, ignorant and hateful with a false sense of the power your packing.
I frankly would be happier if you were dodging the firebombs in israel. It’s clearly the only country you care to protect, you’re working too diligently to destroy this one!
November 7th, 2005 at 7:52 pmWell, RyANNie, those French are so much more “sophisticated” – and you such an elitist – maybe you could work hand in hand reasoning with the disenfranchised Muslim youth?? Did your Mom steadfastly adhere to Dr. Spock’s child care guide??? You seem to have some pent up feelings. Mmmmm…..
November 7th, 2005 at 8:52 pmWhen Alito allows his children to be alone with this guy for more than an hour I will give him some credibility.
Come on Kmeic, I dare ya.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:22 pmHermaphrodite is like Cheney with a strap on! LOL!
November 7th, 2005 at 9:24 pm#26 Ryan, absolutely..the more evidence we have on the neocons the longer the trolls out and play. I wonder if they are paid by the topic or by the length of time they embarrass themselves.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:27 pmGoldstein of Scotusblog and who is a member of the Supreme Court Bar, and who represented Al Gore in Gore v. Bush believes the U.S. Supreme Court believed the Florida Supreme Court, which was majority Democrat, was trying to call the election in favor of Gore and that is why they took Bush v. Gore so that partisan Democrats in Florida wouldn’t undermine democracy.
So this partisan Republican probably wasn’t wrong to think that some Democrats in Florida were trying to steal the election for Gore.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:21 pmNow we’re going back to Gore? LOL! Lyle you are one derranged human being…LOL!
November 7th, 2005 at 11:03 pm