A Poor Excuse For A Supreme Court Nominee
A Poor Excuse For A Supreme Court Nominee
Throughout the confirmation process, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has had difficulty standing by his words and taking responsibility for his actions.
For example, when he was nominated to a federal appeals court in 1990 he promised the Senate that he would recuse himself from any case involving the investment firm Vanguard because of his substantial investments with the company. In 2002, he ruled on a case involving Vanguard anyway.
Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, Alito has made excuses. In a letter sent to Alito yesterday, Sen. Ted Kennedy documented six different excuses Alito has floated to avoid taking responsibility. Here’s a summary:
1. It wasn’t really a promise. He was free to dissolve his responsibility at anytime.
2. It was an oversight.
3. It was OK because the specific investments he owned were not at issue.
4. It was OK because he “voluntarily” recused himself once a complaint was filed.
5. It was a “harmless error.”
6. It didn’t matter because the defendant was representing herself.
These excuses are contradictory and irrelevant. But biggest concern is not that his excuses are bad but that he’s taken the time to make so many. It is essential for Supreme Court justices accept accountability for their words and actions. Alito has shown he has trouble doing either.
UPDATE: The Boston Globe highlights another case where Alito promised to recuse himself but appears to have participated anyway. This time, it was a case he helped prosecute. The Globe notes “it would appear to be a fourth instance in which the Supreme Court pick was recorded as being in a case he had promised to avoid.” (Thanks to reader RevDeb)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sounds just like GWB. Hasn’t made a mistake in his presidency. The perfect president without the need to admit mistakes. Mistakes are for the peasants.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:09 amIt still boggles my mind that this kind of story gets out. . .and nothing really is done about it. Talk about accountability! I suppose if you want anything done in this country you have to complain until you’re blue in the face. . .
December 6th, 2005 at 9:10 am. . . so commence bitching!
December 6th, 2005 at 9:11 amI thought Republicans were for personal responsibility and all that.
I’m sure he lectures people all the time from the bench saying how they must take responsibility for their words and actions.
Ho hum. Another Lying Republican.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:14 amThe Boston Globe this morning has more on recusals and Alito’s “forgetfulness” when it comes to keeping the promises he made in order to be confirmed to the 3rd circuit:
Though the article doesn’t really stick him badly, it shows a pattern of, take your pick, inattention to detail, inability or unwillingness to keep his word, lying. For a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS, it shows a lack of respect and unsuitability for the job.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:19 amAlito will be seated on the Court. Please accept that.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:26 amThanks for the advice danny, but I’ll wait until the Senate actually confirms Alito. In the meantime, we all have a responsibility to raise legitimate questions about his nomination. It is, after all, a lifetime appointment.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:29 amdanny K
What is your point? Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct and he gets confirmed. That doesn’t make him more ethical. Is he really the kind of nominee that makes us proud?
December 6th, 2005 at 9:31 amOK, so Teddy seems to get that this choice is not the right one for our country, but how to get it thru’ to all the other’s on the Committee?
Do I look up and email the Globe article to everyone on the Judgiciary Comm., as well as my personal misgivings?
December 6th, 2005 at 9:31 amAnd will it do any good?
It seems to me that although this guy is CLEARLY not for the majority of us, the Repug’s just have a clear majority, and still do whatever W wants.
The Dems on Judiciary need to attack his credibility, not his views. We will never win attacking his judicial philosophy because the compromise DINO’s will vote for cloture.
But if the Dems use this info to say “He says he respects precedent, but given his earlier flip-flops, how can he be trusted?” we may having a shot at keeping this guys 19th century views off the SCOTUS.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:36 amGuess I’ll be heading off to the senate.gov/
to look up JC members and formulate a short letter re: Alito’s (lack of) credibility.
Just feeling so pessimistic today.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:42 amIt’s like the whole country is saying
“Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?”
No wonder this administration likes Alito – he functions just like they do. Might as well nominate Jon Lovitz’s “Liar” character…yeah…that’s the ticket!
December 6th, 2005 at 9:47 amHe (Alito) has been lying ever since he was nominated…This is no revalation; however, Teddy cornered him on something concrete, and his (Alito) credibility has been challenged!!!
I respect Teddy, because at least he’s not playing the middle-of-the-road game like Hillary! She’s trying to say all the right things and says nothing substantial about ANYTHING!
Alito WILL probably get through; however, the SUPREME COURT is now as tainted as the BUSH administration! That will be a sad day for ALL Americans when that happens!
December 6th, 2005 at 9:49 amJudd and company – you are trying to smear Alito because you don’t agree with his philosophy. Plain and simple. He’s clean and you know it. ON the off chance you ever get the White House back, the new generation of conservatives will NOT forget this and will treat your nominees exactly as you treat ours.
The days of the radical, far left liberal faction of this country running the Court are OVER. You need to understand that. Ginsburg is next people.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:52 amHaven’t we all had enough from people with authority believing that they are above the law, and brook no criticism, excusing themselves for all they decree. Alito is not going to have a smooth ride and he shouldn’t — I hope he is rejected. He always rules in favor of the “big” man over the “little” guy, whether it is women, or the public, or the minority, or whatever — he sides with the big money and power. Evidently my Ill. Sen. B. Obama has observed the same consistency — I hope the Dems hold fast on this one.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:53 am#10 – the Dems on the Judiciary committee have no credibility to attack Alito. Biden, Kennedy, Durbin – we will go head to head with them if they try to smear Alito and distort his record. We have some great tidbits on all of them and will use them.
This is not a fight you can win.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:53 amAlito will be a shame to the supreme court if approved. He is a liar, a hypocrit, and just about anything else you can call him. He has no moral compass and is against everything that this country stands for.
His views on womens rights and personal privacy are beyond belief. If on the court, we will have the Patriot Act for all times.
Alito has thrown his father into the mix. His father was supposedly an alien who fit the age old story of coming to this country and prospering. Only one thing, even that seems to be a lie. I hesitate to say too much because I am still looking into the matter, but it appears that his father was born in this country.
The man, if he had any decency, would recuse himself and take his name out of nomination.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:00 amI can see Judd’s suggestion that we be civil has helped, kinda, so far. It’s a question of semantics.
Looking at Alioto’s stated views and philosophy ARE the core of why we bother to confirm or deny a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. Disagreement with those views isn’t necesarily smearing if Alioto’s views and the disagree-er’s idea of those views are accurate. Smearing is like swiftboating, basically lying, you know, what the right did to Kerry in the ‘04 election.
Alioto has clearly stated he believes in the (conservative) state and corporate over the individual in most cases. I find it odd that republicans who claim to support “limited” government would agree to those views.
So, he may represent a small segment of american society and values. He doesn’t represent, imho, the mainstream or the majority views of the american public, let alone the small segment of the progressive/liberal american public.
Saying as much isn’t smearing. Just the facts.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:10 amFrom all I have read in his cases and actions Alito is not qualified for a life time appointment. It now also appears with all the feeble excuses that his saddle has slipped, me thinks he needs a care taker not the appointment…….Blessings
December 6th, 2005 at 10:12 amWell, he is better than Miers, whish was their goal from the get-go, but he is still unacceptable
December 6th, 2005 at 10:31 amdannyk is NeD. So, back to mustache jokes.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:33 amAlways Let Initative Take Over
December 6th, 2005 at 10:39 amI think everyone needs to look long and hard at the extermely arrogant positions the
December 6th, 2005 at 10:40 amadministration has taken in protecting it’s up hill climb to the right. the Vp attended a fund raiser for Tom Delay last night in houston and this speaks volumes to the stand they will take to defy any opposition from the Democrats. I think the SCOTUS discussion could be a real tough sell to the American people and I think the right will do nothing but put T. Kennedy and C. Shumer right in front and paint them as just old school Liberals with a capital L. I would push to get congress to remove the current WAR mo we are operating under now and this might help throttle down any powers the President might try to gain with one more conservative appointment. Remeber set up the game for the next team. The republicans are counting on holding onto the white house more than anything else. They have proven quite impotent on domestic isssues, if you don;t count fear as one and have proven to be ruthless in their foreign policy agendas. So let Alito in with a fair vote and don’t let this fight be used as tar on the next nominee. Thanks.
F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R
He is not mainstream. The White House is on the verge of collapse.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:50 amWhere could one find specific and concise points regarding Alito’s credibility issues? This blog has been good at highlighting areas to go to find such things; any suggestions?
How would we be able to collate them so that we could refer to a specific area to obtain them, then share them with our legislators? True Blue had an excellent idea about contacting the Senate; something that we should all consider doing. If we can put together some excellent points regarding Alito’s unacceptable appointment to the highest and most prestigious court in our country and carry them forth, then maybe our elected officials will begin to understand that we are more than just ‘bitchin bloggers’.
What do you think?
December 6th, 2005 at 11:07 amhttp://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
for his questionaire
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/Alito_Questionaire.pdf
The Guidelines for nomination hearing link isn’t “activated” yet, but the members link is a good place to start.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:15 amHappy writing, and calling, everyone!
Thanks True Blue. That’s what it’s going to take to start taking back our government
December 6th, 2005 at 11:37 amThey got dick Cheney on msnbc right now. I had to shut it off, I allmost Puked.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:58 amThey are getting too much News Coverage!
Alito smears himself. One of the first things they teach you at gavel banging school is how to recognize and avoid a possible conflict of interest. He seems incapable of taking responsibility for his decisions.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:59 amLike i saiy, Freedom is NOT free!
December 6th, 2005 at 12:01 pmThere is no antidote for lack-of-character disease.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:23 pmMake that ‘remedy.’
December 6th, 2005 at 12:24 pmWhen is the IMPEACHMENT Proceedings Going to Start?
December 6th, 2005 at 12:24 pmAmerica can Wait NO Longer!
All I want for Christmas is to see Impeachment Proceedings Started!
December 6th, 2005 at 12:34 pmIs the problem that he promised that he’d recuse himself and then didn’t or that the resultant conflict of interests benefited him somehow?
I can see the first point … if he said he’d recuse himself from any case involving Vanguard/Smith Barney, then he should’ve. But, if he said he’d avoid conflict of interests as they pertained to those companies, then he may have wiggle room here. I’d like to read the actual quote if anyone has it. As far as I can see, no one has yet stated that his failure to recuse himself benefitted him personally in any way, nor have they said that his judgments in said cases seem fishy.
For those of us that are 30+ years old, think of the paper trail this guy must have … he basically needs to have 0 questionable decisions in about 15 years of highly public service to avoid “problems” of this nature. I would not be happy if it’s proven that he did not keep his word (ie. that he said he’d 100% recuse himself of any case involving those companies) but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I see what’s been actually said (and not what some people (who don’t like him politically) are inferring at this point).
He’s 100% qualified to be a supreme court judge … if he has more skeltons though, that will cast a cloud over him. Because he politically is at odds with the basic tenor of this site makes him no less qualified. RGB was qualified, but of a politcal bent that I disagreed with … tough tarts for me.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:40 pmGiacomo,
If you look at the linked article, they quote his 1990 questionnaire saying he would disqualify himself from “any cases involving the Vanguard companies.” That sounds pretty clear.
It doesn’t matter whether he actually had any personal gain in any particular case. You recuse yourself to remove any hint of impropriety to preserve the integrity of the system.
The second issue here is the way the WH is responding. They have resorted to their typically playbook: attack
December 6th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
It has more to do with the fact he demostrates he’s unethical and ‘prejudiced’ based on his own personal and political beliefs.
If he acted in a manner that is against a promise he made, then he acted unethically. This does not make him unethical as a whole … anyone with a public service record this long WILL have cases like this. To deride their overall character by this instance is unfair … I’m sure you wouldn’t want your worst moment to be the definition of “you”.
Secondly, we are all “‘prejudiced’ based on (our) own personal and political beliefs” … that’s why you think he’s a poor SC pick. Whats interesting is that Alito has acknowledged this most human of phenomenons and has responded by saying that his “opinions” are irrelevant … his duty is to uphold the constitution. Based on his judicial decisions, he’s appeared to do just that (including voting against his conscience in abortion rights cases).
You don’t have to like his political leanings, but to say they disqualify him is to not be a student of history (again, RBG was confirmed 96-3).
December 6th, 2005 at 1:08 pmI read the article … he should’ve recused himself. The answer from the whitehouse is crap too.
The White House, asked about the seeming contradiction between Alito’s two statements, said that Alito was put on the case due to an error by a computer system that should have warned that he was taking a Vanguard-related case, because the investments were listed in the database.
He should’ve remembered what he said … that said, I don’t think this is a disqualifying event but certainly a troubling one (especially if a trend emerges). It WILL come out in the long run … he’s been a public servant too long.
December 6th, 2005 at 1:12 pmA trend is what sites like Think Progress are so good at identifying. To be honest, I haven’t followed the Alito nomination too closely so I do not have, at my fingertips, any/all the information about him. But from the outside, Alito defenders (not necessarily you, Geo) are sounding like the defense attorney who will pick at and try to poke holes in each tiny piece of evidence against a defendant, all the while ignoring that the big picture points to a guilty client.
December 6th, 2005 at 1:32 pmGiacomo – I guess what we progressives are trying to say is this: There are so many eminantly qualified conservative judges that are not going to be “activists” that it is mind boggling that the bush administration keeps naming justices who have demonstrated an activist bent in the social/religious conservative mindset. We wouldn’t truly LIKE almost anyone bush would put up for nomination, but that doesn’t mean that we would activly fight against conservatives of the New England flavor, ie – fiscally conservative, socially moderate.
The only reason bush keeps nominating extremists is to mollify his religious right supporters and we all know it. Bush may well feel that way too, but he should be nominating conservatives that actually represent the widest cross section of americans. & he is going out of his way to make sure he doesn’t.
Say what you will, but Clinton nominated BOTH democrats and republicans for judges. I can’t say I’m familiar with ANY democrats nominated by bush so far. Clinton’s nominees where markedly middle of the road, including Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Bush’s judges have completely been the farther end of the right wing spectrum.
That’s what we expect. He serve the vast majority of Americans, not his political waterboys.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:22 pmNot to change the subject, but since Judd refuses to post anything even remotely negative about Hillary Clinton, here’s a transcript of her meltdown in the face of anti-war protestors during her appearance last Saturday at Roosevelt University in Chicago. Call it “A Poor Excuse for a Presidential Nominee.”
This is what Sen. Clinton said:
Sen. Clinton: You know, I have to say that I appreciate the passion —
Protestors: Troops out now!
Sen. Clinton: — and the intensity that you feel about Iraq.
Protestors: Troops out now!
Sen. Clinton: I share it, and you’re here expressing your opinion, but let’s make sure that people have a chance to be part of a dialogue, and I do not believe that they want to hear from you at this moment.”
“I do not believe that they want to hear from you at this moment.” Very possibly a Hubert Humphrey moment, if you ask me.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:36 pmstart your own blog bsr. That benefits all of us. You and yours can wallow in your beliefs and we won’t have to read you ever again.
by the way, do you have anything ON TOPIC you might like to add?
December 6th, 2005 at 3:43 pmBSR,
Put away your clinton hatred. It just makes you look like a retarded zealot.
December 6th, 2005 at 3:44 pm“If he acted in a manner that is against a promise he made, then he acted unethically. This does not make him unethical as a whole …” GeoMetro
And yet a ’similar’ unethical act from Bill got him impeached and disbarred. This ‘moral relativism’ is always so amusing when it comes from you whacko reichwing zealots. You have the most hysterical responses to democrats, but you give your own whackos a free pass without challenge. Very funny to watch, and how pathetically psychotic of you.
December 6th, 2005 at 3:46 pmVery possibly a Hubert Humphrey moment, if you ask me.
Comment by Blue State Red — December 6, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
Why do you feel the need to go about the web quote mining to shore up your point?
First, let’s have a link.
Yes people, I am linking to FreeRepublic so I am not accused of bias.
Second,let’s have the whole, actual quote:
Clinton addressed [a group of protesters], saying she appreciates their passion and intensity, and that she would address their concerns at the end of her speech, but that she didn’t believe the audience wanted to hear from them at the moment, receiving applause from the audience.(…)
Clinton did address the war at the end of her speech…saying she wishes we could turn back time, but we can’t, and we now have to create strategy based on fact.”
The “they” you mentioned was the audience present in the auditorium -they applauded because they, indeed, were more interested in hearing what Sen Clinton had to say at that moment.
Sen. Clinton did address the protesters at the end of her speech.
Does not sound like a poor excuse of a potential presidential nominee, in my opinion.
Finally, you are free to post whatever news, opinion, view point you wish to… in your own blog.
December 6th, 2005 at 4:28 pmSweeeet. Thanks Gregor.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:14 pm“. . . you are free to post whatever news, opinion, view point you wish to . . . in your own blog.”
Actually, I’m perfectly free to post whatever news, opinion or viewpoint I wish to in this blog. I don’t need your permission. Moreover, Judd invited me to post on this very topic since he has failed to do so.
BTW, if you listen to the audio of HRC’s meltdown, it may be possible to interpret some of the background noise as scattered applause, but this was no “Sista Souljah” moment. There wasn’t a galvanizing wave of supportive applause by any stretch of the imagination.
It was more like Hubert Humphrey waving from his Chicago hotel room to the anti-war protestors below. His loyalists may have thought it was a fine gesture, but the protestors below weren’t buying it – they knew they had been screwed by HHH inside the convention hall. Today’s anti-war Dems know just as well that HRC will have to screw them to gain to ‘08 nomination. Obviously, some of them don’t intend to bend over.
The anti-war attacks on the Dem frontrunner are beginning about 18 months earlier now than they did 40 years ago. But don’t be surprised if the result is the same: defeat at the polls, snatched from the jaws of a potential victory.
America’s Democrats: they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:30 pmAnd yet a ’similar’ unethical act from Bill got him impeached and disbarred. This ‘moral relativism’ is always so amusing when it comes from you whacko reichwing zealots. You have the most hysterical responses to democrats, but you give your own whackos a free pass without challenge. Very funny to watch, and how pathetically psychotic of you.
Um … Clinton was impeached for lying … under oath … as the sitting president of the US. Clinton’s act wasn’t just unethical … it was illegal. You accuse me of moral relativism, and then provide all with a glaring example.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:41 pmAnd now for something completely different, in the form of Howard Dean’s latest anti-war defeatist rant:
“[The] idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong” . . . “I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years” . . . “Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don’t belong in a conflict like this anyway.”
This is what ResurrectionSong [www.resurrectionsong.com] had to say about that:
“Dean is suggesting that there was some magical third way that would have avoided all of the bad bits that came from Hussein’s removal. I have yet to see an adult suggestion of what this third path might have looked like, and I doubt that I ever will. Politics of this kind revolve around tough choices that all have some negative involved in what you hope is a greater good–and that goes for pacifism or any form of isolationism as much as it goes for this kind of a military operation.
” . . . Dean’s (and, it is increasingly obvious, the Democrats’) solution of a speedy draw down in military power, with an immediate withdrawal of the National Guard and Reserves and near-term re-deployment of regular military forces, is a dangerous plan. It would leave Iraq’s still-to-fragile government in a nasty fight with terrorists who cannot stand the idea of a constitution based on something other than blind obedience to their interpretation of Quranic law.
“Such a quick retreat would also have the potential effect of emboldening regional enemies—and an attack launched from someone like Iran is not something that we could ignore. The upshot is that the Dean plan, far from removing us from the situation, could very well have the effect of involving us in another war.
“Take Dean’s words and advice for what they are: a flawed understanding of the situation that lead to our military involvement in Iraq and an even more flawed solution to the difficulties that we still face.”
Question: How can HD and HRC co-exist as the ‘08 DNC chairman and the presumptive ‘08 Dem frontrunner?
Answer: They can’t, unless George Bush bails them both out by winning the war and bringing the troops home.
Conclusion: It is in the Dems’ best interest to support the President’s policies on the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorism, because doing so would remove from discussion the issue on which the Democrats traditionally have been weakest.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:03 pm“Um … Clinton was impeached for lying … under oath … as the sitting president of the US. Clinton’s act wasn’t just unethical … it was illegal. You accuse me of moral relativism, and then provide all with a glaring example.” GeoMetro
The confirmation testimony of judges are also done under oath, and it’s for a LIFETIME appointment and on issues related to their JOB and not their sex lives, making it even more serious. So yes, you ARE a moral relativist, because a judge that makes a committment under oath, and then breaks that committment has LIED.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:09 pm“Clinton was impeached for lying … under oath …” GeoMetro
And I must correct you, he didn’t lie, he MISREPRESENTED, which is not the same thing. He used the definition of ’sex’ provided by the court, and answered within that constraint. He did however ‘mislead’ the court by constraining his answer to the definition instead of the ‘possible intent’ of the definition.
Obviously your grasp of legal issues is only matched by your complete ignorance of those on economics. You’re just a ‘gem’ aren’t you?
December 6th, 2005 at 9:12 pmAre we really that desprate for someone!
December 7th, 2005 at 12:10 amAnd I must correct you, he didn’t lie, he MISREPRESENTED, which is not the same thing.
When you have kids, please don’t try and explain to them the difference between ommission and commission (ie. misrepresenting and lying) … it’ll confuse the issue. Are you saying that when Alito failed to keep his word about recusing himself, that is somehow the same thing as a President who misleads an inquiry into unethical/illegal behavior? One could be called (perhaps all too conveniently) an oversight (since there were 7 and 10 years between the statement and the action). The other is clearly purposeful.
I have no desire to get off on a Clinton tangent but you keep referencing Moral Relativism and then breathtakingly exhibit it. With apologies to The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word … I do not think it means, what you think it means”.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:44 amThe Harder They Fall
December 8, 2005
Since Judge Samuel Alito was a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Dept. he argued for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. He had made his intentions clear with then-Attorney General Edwin Meese that he was particularly proud in arguing against Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. Therefore, it’s a no-brainer that once Alito is placed on the court he’ll begin eroding away abortion rights immediately, thus ending choice for women. This is what President Bush is looking for: Inflexible views of anti-choice in his nominees, such as Harriet Miers and Alito. Both have expressed and have not changed their minds about doing way with Roe v. Wade, women’s rights in what they can do with their bodies. They don’t come any one harder to the right and anti-choice than Samuel Alito, especially if he is selected for the Supreme Court.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:23 amShakira
Shakira
December 19th, 2005 at 3:59 pmhair loss
hair loss
December 19th, 2005 at 3:59 pmSwords
Swords Online Order
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:17 pmSamsung Ringtones
samsung ringtones
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:36 pmwedding ring
wedding rings
January 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pmKylen
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm