Graham’s Behind-the-Scenes Coaching of Alito Could Violate Senate Ethics Rules
Graham’s Behind-the-Scenes Coaching of Alito Could Violate Senate Ethics Rules
In his opening statement today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he’s already made up his mind on Alito before hearing his answers:
I don’t know what kind of vote you’re going to get, but you’ll make it through. It’s possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won’t even try to challenge you along those lines.
It should come as no surprise that Graham has made up his mind – behind the scenes, he’s been helping Alito prepare for his question and answer session. Here’s what the WSJ Washington Wire reported this morning:
On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the “gang of 14″ who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House.
Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee. Indeed, it could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator. Here’s what Senate Rule 37 (Conflicts of Interest) in the Senate Ethics Manual says:
“No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties.’’ … The Committee has interpreted this paragraph to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual’s Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties.
Having sat in on a “moot court session at the White House,” it has created at least the appearance that Graham is a partisan advocate — not an impartial evaluator — of an issue within his legislative jurisdiction.
UPDATE: The Village Voice has written an article referencing this post.
UPDATE (2): Drudge has linked to the Village Voice article. See the third headline down from the top.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
81 Responses to “Graham’s Behind-the-Scenes Coaching of Alito Could Violate Senate Ethics Rules”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So much for Specter’s protestations that the Dems have already made up their minds.
As for Graham. . . well, the whole Republican Party is ethically suspect in one way or arnother anyway.
PS: Trolls are idiots or paid stooges.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:25 pmI was really upset by Graham’s opening comments today.
I *spoke loudly* at the TV, “Then WTF’s the POINT??!!?”
He also pretty much stated that Alito “had” the confirmation.
But THEY say the dem’s are making this “political.”
Bunch of a**holes.
No wonder he (and Sessions) had such GLOWING remarks for “sleazo - Alito”
I’m disgusted.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:26 pmAre there ANY ethical Republicans anymore? Just ONE?
This is outrageous. Alito is a partisan extremist. The evidence that has been presented has been overwhelmingly conclusive about his prejudices. The excuses that he has made for his former decisions show him to be dishonest in his dealings with those who have questioned him.
What is it going to take for the Democrats to stand up and grab the Republicans by the nutsack and squeeze? We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!
January 9th, 2006 at 7:34 pmhe may have violated ethics rules, but any number of more important people (Bush, Cheney) have done worse and haven’t received so much as a dirty look from the law… unless there are consequences for your actions, regardless of which party is in power, we are not a democracy…
January 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmHow about some hearings on that! At the very least, a recusal. Especially after hearing Graham blither on today. But it’s no surprise coming from the corrupt Republican party.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmIn his opening statement today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he’s already made up his mind on Alito before hearing his answers:
I don’t know what kind of vote you’re going to get, but you’ll make it through. It’s possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won’t even try to challenge you along those lines.
_____________________________________________
“The Republican Party could be fairly criticized for not having the discipline in spending we should have. But we’re the best game in town. Compared to the Democrats, we’re great.” –Sen. Lindsey Graham
How so is this Kind of thinking Good for America Citizens, Mr Graham?
And IM not talking Republican or Democratic Citizens, but regular old People, you know the millons and millions that DIDNT vote but are still citizens whom could care less about Republican Vs Democratic opinions? Why are YOU arguing Opinions? WHO is better than who is childish, and beside the POINT.
Are you, or are you not, MR, Graham, an American first and Party Second?
The people are fed up with these televised ‘opinions’, and group think, of the Senate, and the Administration. Opinons are just that, and have no basis in Government. Do you or do you NOT operate as a Senator on Facts Mr. Graham?
January 9th, 2006 at 7:46 pmIs or is not the ‘IDEA’ that one Party better than the Other just an Opinion?
I just E-mailed Senator Schumer asking him to demand Graham’s recusal from the hearing. More would not hurt and just might make a difference. The easy way is to go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home and follow the directions.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:03 pmThis has been a active topic of debate on the Internets today.
I still don’t see what’s wrong with this. There is no obligation that a senator be impartial. It would be nice if they all actually listened to testimony and arrived at unbiased conclusions, but almost none of them do that (even Dems), and they aren’t required to.
For immediate relief: The George W. Bush Voodoo Doll.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:14 pmIf U Missed This Last Night…
The Bush Gangsters Will Not Stop KILLING DEMOCRACY…
PLEASE READ THIS and THEN DO SOMETHING
On Saving This Government
by georgia10 Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:45:34 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/8/204534/2589
Please PASS IT ON
Thank U, RogerART.com
January 9th, 2006 at 8:15 pmTo think I used to like Graham. For the life of me, I can’t remember why. And #2: turn off the hearings. That’s my advice. You’ll still hear plenty about the hearings and I guarantee reading about them accompanied by instant rebuttal by this website, MMFA, and others will keep your blood pressure lower.
That’s what I’m doing. Don’t see ‘em, don’t miss ‘em.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:19 pmImpartiality is one thing. Coaching is quite another.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:20 pmI think it is time for Senator Graham to announce that he will recuse himself from the vote on Alito. Of course he can always pull and Alito and vote anyway.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:25 pmIs this for real? I mean, what is next? Why are they even there if this whole process is rigged from Diebold to Supreme Court justice hearings. It’s sickening, truly sickening at the lack of ethics smuggly showcased in such a condescending and invincible tone of disregard for the Constitution or the American people. Let’s just impeach this entire court of jesters and start over…
January 9th, 2006 at 8:34 pmThank you, Roger. Powerful blog post.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:40 pm#7, CTR,
January 9th, 2006 at 8:46 pmThanks for the suggestion — I just wrote to Durbin with a similar message.
I noted this earlier this morning on a Daily Kos diary dedicated to this topic. Go check it out at: http://www.dailykos.com/ comments/ 2006/ 1/ 9/ 111842/ 4519/ 95#95
Basically, I quoted the same and other Senate ethical rules. Graham should recuse himself from these hearings. — I want to hear that line repeated everywhere in the next few days.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:46 pmI even sent it to my Senator. Thanks again.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:50 pmUh. . . IOKIYAR?
January 9th, 2006 at 8:55 pmThis is a joke. Alito WILL be seated. Democratic hatred for Alito is sparking the right wing base more than it is the left.
A nasty fight over Alito that results in a senate rules change will become the Democrats new Bush v. Gore. The only problem is, Democrats have lost every election since they tried to steal the 2000 election.
Please filibuster. You will ignite the Republican Party against Democrats come midterms.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:02 pmThis fits right in with the attitude of the Republicans, “We can do whatever we want and the hell with anyone who dissagrees.”
January 9th, 2006 at 9:35 pmGraham’s remarks were especially solicitous. He was practically Gushing over Alito.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:58 pm“You have my vote.”
“You probably have this locked up.”
REALLY? Then why have HEARINGS, Sen. Graham?
It was a disgusting display.
I urge everyone to go to the link above, click on Judiciary Committee, and tell them what you REALLY feel!
Otherwise we’re stuck with this creep-show.
We CANNOT take another hit. Please.
I’m going to leave so I can email EVERY Judiciary member.
PLEASE do the same. This is sooo important.
Thanks.
Judge Alito is an extreme right-winger, and since Jerry Falwell adores him, it is obvious that his confirmation as a Justice would harm America! Every Senator who votes for him must be punished, by being voted out of office, or being forced to resign!
January 9th, 2006 at 9:58 pmhttp://www.congress.org/congressorg/home
Everyone go and email every member, please.
This is looking a bit grim, and we canNOT afford to have him on the bench.
I’d rather do that than bitch on a blog.
well, I’ll be back… but after I do my duty and email every Jud. Mem.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:01 pmPlease do so too.
Thanks.
#16, nice post. Glad to see we think alike.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:04 pmGraham is a disgusting opportunist. He only tries to sound “reasonable” when it suits his political purpose. I’ll never forget or forgive the central role he played in the Clinton impeachment fiasco. He was almost hysterical at times during the farcical Senate “trial”. Of course, he immediately turned that performance into a Senate seat for himself. He’s pond scum and doesn’t have the decency to recuswe himself from these hearings.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:10 pmTetra.
The 2005 elections saw Arnold Schwarzengger defeated on EVRY ballot initiative proposed.
Pennsylvania threw out every person that was pushing for Intelligent Design.
Virginia was a hold for the Democrats in the Governors race.
New Jersey was a hold for the Democrats in the Governors race.
Bush is at 40% in the polls. That is the base.
The only people that won elections in 2005 were the Islamic Iraqis who have aligned themselves with Iran.
Heckuva job.
-GSD
January 9th, 2006 at 10:16 pmGraham needs to recuse himself. Simple as that.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:35 pmGSD - NJ and VA went FROM Democratic to GOP in 2001 right before Republicans re-gained control of the Senate.
And does it matter? This seat was decided in 2004 when Bush and 55 GOP senators were sent to Washington. If that’s a problem, you fight for the next seat.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:43 pmTetra.
I used the term “hold” for a reason. You misrepresented the elections results when you said: ” The only problem is, Democrats have lost every election since they tried to steal the 2000 election.” That was an untrue statement.
Nice effort at encouraging defeatism though. Nice attempt at lying about election results too.
The Democrats are going to fight this one. Put on your seatbelts and get ready to whine about the “mean” Democrats.
-GSD
January 9th, 2006 at 11:00 pmSince the Bush White House and Bush Republicans have shown that they no longer care about rules, and therefore ethics and moral behavior, why are they even “permitting” this hearing in the first place? Why not just put Alito in the Supreme Court and dispense with this illusion of democracy?
January 9th, 2006 at 11:20 pmNine Senators voted against the McCain torture amendment. Why are THREE of them on the Judiciary committee?
January 9th, 2006 at 11:27 pmAlito is a liar.
January 9th, 2006 at 11:31 pmthis is a great hit. keep up the good work, guys.
January 9th, 2006 at 11:45 pmThe unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
YES they DO need to think as ‘ONE’, as not of ‘Parties’. At the Level that these people are at, its gotten out of hand and looks very high-Schoolish, and Unprofessional, as Intellectuals they should be Standing on their own two feet and not their friends.
Think
January 9th, 2006 at 11:57 pmGood Point Amazed, Since the Majority want Bush out, lets give them a State, Say the Size of New York, seal in the corruption lovers, Drop the Preznit in, Just like Snake Plisskin, except this time, dont rescue him, and watch em go. The Rabid ones will eventually destroy one another.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:08 amAnd the Majority Continues, in Peace.
Ahh Sweet Dreams.
The constitution, writes Herbert Storing, editor of a 7 volume edition of Anti-Federalist (federalists today) thought, “did not settle everything. It did not finish the task of making the American polity.” This is not what most lawyers, judges, politicians, educators and editors say, but is what millions and millions of people mobilizing against corporate assaults need to believe. We will never “finish the task,” but the job of every generation is to pick up the struggle. And a clear leg up over 1787 is that the classes of people which the constitution, the Supreme Court and the culture had defined as property or non-existent are now legal persons — thanks to generations of their own vigorous political movements.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:05 amThese Anti-Federalists, Faux Federalists, really want to ‘OWN’ the people, they consider non-existent??
And a clear leg up over 1787 is that the classes of people which the constitution, the **Supreme Court** and the culture had defined as **property or non-existent** are now **legal persons**
WOW
January 10th, 2006 at 2:09 am#28, I’m from NJ and let me correct you that Christine Toddd Whitman (R) was Governor of NJ from 1993 until 2000. In 2000, Jim McGreevy (D) was elected. In 2004, he stepped down and Acting Governor Cody has been in office since. Last year, we elected US Senator Jon Corzine (D) as Governor. The make up of our current legislature is 18 Republican State Senators, 22 Democratic State Senators. The State Assembly is: 33 Republican, 43Democratic. Source is here: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/roster.asp.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:10 amI do not have a problem with Mr. Graham participating in the murder boards to prepare the witness. LAwters routinely participate in preparing witnesses for their testimony. These murder board sessions in no way can completely prepare the witness for what may come up in the hearings. They prepare issue areas. The only thing Graham knows for sure is howe Alito will answer his questions and even that is not a for sure. He generally what’s going to happen.
Yes, I agree I think Alito will squeak through. I do not think Graha violated the ethics. rules. The White House chose him because of the perception of him being fair and having an open mind and I still think that he can be persuaded to vote know weather he prepared Alito or not.
Bottom line Graham will still make his decision after the hearings and the chance of a no vote is still on the table. He didn’t make the same type states that his colleagues made. He wasn’t gushing but pleaing for afair and open hearing where Alito and all he has to say will be listened too fairly so that an educated decision can be made.
I do plan to watch the hearings. I do think that Alito has many tough questions to answer. How he answers will determine my ultimate decision. I ultimately could end up with no opinion but that I will wathc the decision he writes very closesly and criticize where criticism is due.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:28 amthat should’ve read “witch” hunter in my previous post #40. My bad!
January 10th, 2006 at 8:34 amMost Republicans are going to vote for Alito anyuway. Unfortunatle we have gotten to this place where partisanship matters in the judicial selection process.
I even would have thought it ok if a Democrat had been at the White House when Gisburg or Breyer were selected to prep them for their hearings. They’re going to vote for the person anyway. Graham would have voted for Alito even if not part of the moot court that prepared Alito. He votes based on weather the individual is qualified and has not personal or ethical baggage that would tend to disqualifiy.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:47 am#39, Judy, Graham basically said there’s no way in hell he’ll vote against Alito.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:04 amThe news media and its Bushite pundits (like CNN’s Wolf Bullshi**er and his sidekick Jack Makesmelafferty) are all up in arms about Harry Belafonte’s remarks in Venzuela, where he called Bushiva a “tyrant and terrorist”. Why does the truth evoke such vituperative denial from the “Loyalists”?
Because they’re catering to the basest instincts of the unevolved,inbred, Bushite base whom they (media networks) hope to attract (a’ la the Fox Propaganda network faithful)…
He*l,all the world needs to do is to look at what’s going on in Washington with the many blunders and the corruption attached to this criminal bushite junta to realize that the US has NO BUSINESS seeking to export democracy anywhere, until we clean up our own house.
Yes, there ARE millions in this country who support the indigenous peoples of South America wresting control of their lands, natural resources, and governments from the filthy, murderous, right wing, oligarchal, plutocratic, racist “gringos”/ ugly corporate Americans….
The right wing Bushites are spreading lies about the “legally” elected president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez’ being a dictator. What a joke!
The single most positive thing that Bushiva has done is caused a movement throughout the world of economic and political alliances and coalitions amongst countries of color, shutting out the imperialist, greedy European/American corporate scoundrels…
It’s about time, as they’ve been exploited long enough!
Bushiva and his right wing Al-Cracka base can’t stand the thought of losing control of the natural resources in South America, or poor people actually having a voice (and land) in determining their countries’ futures.
Right on Harry Belafonte, keep speaking truth to power!
January 10th, 2006 at 9:05 amThis post says violation of ethics like it’s a bad thing. Always remember IOKIYAR
January 10th, 2006 at 9:23 amI’m sorry, but I don’t think Senators have a duty to appear impartial, just that they can’t profit directly from their partialities. If that was the standard, all election campaigns would sound like judicial nomination hearings (”I can’t comment on that, sir…”) and all parliamentary voting would be by secret ballot or voice vote.
There’s so much more to be outraged about….
January 10th, 2006 at 9:44 amDoes anyone know who the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee is? I am embarrassed to admit that I do not know. I really dig the idea of contacting the dem members, but should really focus heavily on the ranking member. He/She has what little authority they do have. Start at the top, then press all the others to urge the top dog to act. The continued audacity of the right is just…. wow. Golly.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:50 am#47 Cyra
Senator Schumer (D/NY)
E-Mail him through:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home
January 10th, 2006 at 10:00 amHatch is asking Alito the wrong questions with regard to co-education… the question is not whether Alito went to a coed school, but whether he had an issue with it being co-ed!
January 10th, 2006 at 10:42 amThanks for the congress.org link. I emailed everyone I could think of in Congress. This is the first time I’ve ever done that but it won’t be the last.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:53 amGramham suffers another Ethical Lapse…
I mean a dishonest Republican is almost a redundant statement these days, but it would appear that the Republican Senator from South Carolina has violated the Senate rule 37 with his working directly to prepare someone to testify before the……
January 10th, 2006 at 10:57 amBrokeback Committee Room…
– not that the GOP-run Senate punishes ethics violations ……
January 10th, 2006 at 11:25 amI watched this morning, Specter, Leahy and Hitman Hatch, and then turned the hearings off in disgust.
Specter fumbled and mumbled and would ask another question even before Alito answered.
Leahy was coherent and asked the right questions.
Hatch. Well he knows he is in a safe seat so he did not even ask any questions. All he did was try and tear down his democratic collegues arguements and questions. The man is the designated hitman for these hearings. He will mention about 10 times how impartial he is and how he helped all of Clintons nominees through when in fact he personally blocked over 50 nominations.
Hatch is a lying jackmormon, which is the worst kind by the way.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:31 amas i watch ted kennedy grappling with words to exact some truth from alito during the hearings i find myself watching another arrogant thug from the bush regime defending a strip search of an eleven year old girl, please stop the madness
January 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amI erred as Leahy is the leading Dem on the committee. Here is the whole committee.
Judiciary Committee
Address: 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5225 Fax: (202) 224-9102
Website: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Schedule Of Hearings
JANUARY 09, 2006 - To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. SH-216
Committee Chair
Sen.
Arlen Specter (REP-PA)
Ranking Member
Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (DEM-VT)
Republicans (10)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (REP-UT)
Sen. Charles Grassley (REP-IA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (REP-AZ)
Sen. Mike DeWine (REP-OH)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (REP-AL)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (REP-SC)
Sen. John Cornyn (REP-TX)
Sen. Sam Brownback (REP-KS)
Sen. Tom Coburn (REP-OK)
Democrats (8)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (DEM-MA)
Sen. Joseph Biden (DEM-DE)
Sen. Herbert Kohl (DEM-WI)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DEM-CA)
Sen. Russ Feingold (DEM-WI)
Sen. Charles Schumer (DEM-NY)
Sen. Richard Durbin (DEM-IL)
January 10th, 2006 at 11:59 amFor anyone who thinks differently regardless of his opening statement, Graham would vote in favor of Alito because unless there is a ethical or character problem he would not vote against any nominee beased on ideology. He is an honest person and does what is best.
I aintend to find out what his role was and weather it represents and ethical lapse or not.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#53, Paul,
January 10th, 2006 at 1:38 pmWe were watching at work today and we felt the same as you about those three. Leahy was excellent. Kennedy wasn’t bad. He asked more questions than Biden did (he talks too long).
Alito did not make a good showing for himself.
Hatch looks like he is sitting on a tack.
Thank you Clyde!! I have been watching C-Span on the computer. Gawd!!! The Rep. Senators are so bloody obvious!!! That DeWine from Ohio, what a Pudendum head! They make me sick to my soul. Alito is a lame-o liar. They should have coached him better. I must go scream now…..
January 10th, 2006 at 4:55 pmSenator De Wine and some of his Republican colleagues stated that Alito’s conflict of financial interest in Vanguard is a “non-issue” and “nothing in the case could have affected either Vanguard as a company or Alito’s mutual funds.” The basis for De Wine’s opinion was the lies spread by Alito supporters that Vanguard was not a real defendant but that Vanguard was just holding the IRA funds to be distributed.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:43 pmFACT #1 : The case on appeal before Judge Alito was D. Dev Monga’s lawsuit seeking damages against three Vanguard companies, The Vanguard Group, Inc., Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard/Morgan Growth Fund, Inc., for, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. Monga’s Complaint charged that Vanguard unlawfully seized his IRA in violation of 26 U.S.C. 408, as well as 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8124 (b) (1), and the terms of its IRA Contract.
FACT #2: Monga’s Complaint (E.D. Pa. 95-5235), clearly shows that Monga preserved his right under the Seventh Amendment to a federal jury trial, thus the factual issues and final judgment as to Monga’s claims were to be determined by a jury, and were not about “holding” $170,000 as Senator DeWine claims. However, Monga was deprived of this right. Specifically, on August 28, 2000, Vanguard filed a motion in the Pennsylvania District Court to dismiss Monga’s lawsuit without citing a single case, without any supporting memorandum, and without identifying on what basis it moved to dismiss. In 2001 without any factual findings whatsoever, and without an evidentiary hearing on the merits, Judge Hutton dismissed Monga’s awsuit, (E.D. Pa. 95-5235). The dismissal of this lawsuit for damages against Vanguard is the action appealed to the Third Circuit, which appeal was assigned to a panel including Judge Alito.
FACT #3: Without a hearing on the merits, Judge Alito decided the appeal in Vanguard’s favor, and hid the opinion in a “Not For Publication” and “Unreported” Opinion. This means no one can ever find it outside the court records and the actual parties in the case. Judge Alito upheld dismissal of Monga’s case on grounds not even argued by Vanguard in the District Court, but by reliance on legal doctrines of dubious validity, as applied to Monga, and by refusing to follow clearly applicable jurisprudence.
[…] Writing about the Alito situation, Think Progress cites Senate Rule 37 in the Senate Ethics Manual. The rule says: “No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties.” […]
January 10th, 2006 at 8:16 pmWhat was Graham doing in his questioning of Alito today? He practically told him what he wanted him to say.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:23 pmQuit cryin’ you babies. The constitution requires “Advice and Consent”, not necessarily approval. The ONLY requirements should be 1) is the nominee a law abiding citizen and 2) will he uphold the constitution without regard to personal opinion, his or popular. Democrats constantly overstep their bounds in this regard. Ideology has nothing to do with it. All jurists are supposed to set aside their personal beliefs in order to adjudicate.
BTW - Yes, I get it already. All republicans are evil and stupid. Yes, thanks for that nugget. It’s a really nice way to approach debate and encourage discourse. Good job.
P.S. Did you ever wonder why it was so easy to get evidence that Bubba got a hummer in the White House, but yet there’s still no evidence (none real anyway) that GWB lied? Hmmm…..(proof is generally a requirement in a democracy, yes?)
January 11th, 2006 at 10:57 amDean,
Given that all branches of government are currently controlled by Republicans, who’s going to step up and begin the process of determining whether GWB lied? I chuckle at how Republicans were screaming that Clinton should be impeached for consensual sex but you are an unpatriotic, terrorist-loving liberal if you want an independent investigation of 1) weapons of mass destruction and the justification for going to war in Iraq; 2) where the money for the rebuilding of Iraq is going, most especially which contractors have received no-bid contracts; 3)warrantless spying on American citizens; 4) torture, etc.
1984 is no longer an Orwellian tale people. Stop drinking the punch and start making some noise!
January 11th, 2006 at 12:48 pmIt is funny to see these comments. Like the Democrats on the committee didn’t already have their minds made up. What do you think “talking points” are? Just a published version of coaching for people to say in response to pre-thought out questions.
Regarding the Vangaurd issue, Alito recused himself after the decision was called into question, and I believe a 3 judge panel then came to the same conclussion afterwards. The only thing any of you seem to be concerned about is what his stand is on abortion, and if you can’t get the answer you want on that (ie it will never change) you will look for any other excuse to pull a person down.
Be careful of being that person throwing rocks when you live in a house with glass walls. Why is it that 8 or 9 judges sitting can be so right about an issue - what is it that makes them so perfect that they can make the only correct decision? Only because they choose the way you like?
Personally, I find it amusing watching all of you get all red in the face angry that you can’t find a “good” reason to disqualify a judge that probably has more character and interity than any person writing on this board, or posting comments - myself included.
Have a nice day :)
January 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pmAlicia,
I’m sure that your Orwellian wish would be to control all peoples thoughts and money, but spying on overseas calls doesn’t really count. Since even your hero Bubba used executive priviledge to spy on people, I don’t find your argument persuasive. Your assumptions that 1) republicans control Washington and 2) that independent investigations can’t be brought against republicans aren’t supported by fact (see Scooter Libby who is being charged with lying, just like Bubba). If there were actual evidence (I defy you to produce it) that GWB lied, then I would be jumping on the impeach bandwagon, otherwise it’s not even worth discussion. Are you going to charge Bubba, Britain, France, Germany and the UN of lying too (don’t forget that congress approved - with the same intel)? They all said previous to the war that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction. Hmmm…
Wake up! America is great and the future looks good. Don’t deny yourself happiness just to spite others.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:06 pmSmall thought here regarding no bid contracts… The Clinton administration ALSO awarded no bid contracts to Haliburton for various activities.
There seems to be some confusion here on “why” these contracts are awarded as “no-bid” - do you know why? If you had ever worked in Federal or Defense contracting, you would know that when you bid out contracts, it can take up to 6 to 9 MONTHS before they can be awarded. The fastest I have ever seen was maybe 3 to 4 months for anything substantial, and that was when people had nothing else to focus on other than evaluating that ONE proposal. That is why you usually have no bid contracts, and I am sure that many of the same reasons were used when the Clinton administration awarded contracts to Haliburton as were used by the Bush administration. When it comes to being expedient, there are times that the government needs to act in this manner - that is why there are contract review boards, and organizations, to make sure that the money is spent properly. These have obviously been doing their due dilligence, since we have seen all sorts of reports about money being poorly spent in various ways.
The sad part is, even on contracts that are bid out (when it is a general rule that the LOW bidder wins), we usually spend so much money on follow-up to these contracts that between the bid review process and the additional work required, we spend twice as much money per project in the long run.
:)
January 11th, 2006 at 1:23 pmSenators, who belong to political parties, who have held interviews with the nominee, who are charged with representing their constituants’ interests, have already made up their mind to support the leader of their party? What? My god, politicians are partisan! The Horror, The Horror.
January 11th, 2006 at 2:30 pmMarie (#61) I do not think that Graham was trying to tell Alito what to say because it would be improper. There is no way. I have no explanation for the strnge series of questions that provoked laghter but the sollilloquoy at the end was about the politicization of the process.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:54 pmCharles, you’re smug because your side owns the media. That’s the only way you can win: Because you cheat and you’ve bought off the media so they won’t report honestly on your cheating.
You know full well that if, say, a decade ago Ted Kennedy was caught advising Stephen Breyer the way Graham’s feeding answers to Alito, you and your fellow cons in the GOP/Media Axis would be all over this like a cheap suit. (And if Kennedy made Mrs. Breyer cry the way Graham made Mrs. Alito cry, you would have said it showed that both Mr. and Mrs. Breyer were “unstable” and thus that Breyer was unfit to be a SCOTUS justice.)
January 12th, 2006 at 10:18 amAll this talk about the ROTC being highly responsible for alito joining CAP,my question has tobe this,if the ROTC was responsible for alito joining CAP,what branch of the armed forces did he serve in and if none what was his DEFERMENT?
January 12th, 2006 at 11:01 amGraham apologizes to Alito for having to sit through a contentious confirmation process. I guess all lifetime appointments to the highest court in the nation should be rubber stamped with the GOP Seal of Approval.
Besides, Graham was one of the incompetent House prosecutors during the Clinton impeachment. Did he ever apologize to him when the vote went in Clinton’s favor. Also, poor Lindsey nearly cried when his case against Clinton took a major hit due to his own incompetence. That is, not finding out that Vernon Jordan was on an airplane headed to Europe at the time Graham alleged a conspiracy had been formed. And Graham also argued that phone calls made in the early morning must have a sinister purpose even if the content of the conversation was not known.
Graham is another ass-hat.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:55 pmTurk #70: Lindsey was a junior prosecutor so if the case against Clinton failes it was because the senior prosecutors could not get enough votes. That responsibility always falls on the senior group.
Graham is not an ass-hat. I think he is very intelligent and does his job well. Even the best prosecutors lose cases.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:06 pmSuch a bunch of dribble!!!!!!!!!! I am not sure there is a liberal left in this country that could state the facts as they apply to Judge Alito if they tried.
As for Senator Kennedy, if his memory had been as good after his car hit the water as he wants Judge Alito’s to be 20 after the fact, he would still be serving time.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:30 pmDean,
Apparently, it has been quite some time since you have read 1984 given that your comment does not make sense in the context of my post. Now let’s deconstruct your arguments:
1) Since even your hero Bubba used executive priviledge to spy on people, I don’t find your argument persuasive
2) Your assumptions that 1) republicans control Washington and 2) that independent investigations can’t be brought against republicans aren’t supported by fact (see Scooter Libby who is being charged with lying, just like Bubba).
3) If there were actual evidence (I defy you to produce it) that GWB lied, then I would be jumping on the impeach bandwagon, otherwise it’s not even worth discussion.
4) Are you going to charge Bubba, Britain, France, Germany and the UN of lying too (don’t forget that congress approved - with the same intel)? They all said previous to the war that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction. Hmmm
5) Wake up! America is great and the future looks good. Don’t deny yourself happiness just to spite others.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:40 am[…] but the dog just doesn’t bark. Sen. Graham did not commit an ethics violation. permalink | trackback uri| […]
January 29th, 2006 at 10:30 am[…] ThinkProgress brings us speculation on how Alito Hides His Plan To Push Executive Immunity In Wiretapping, as well as a very interesting post entitled “Graham’s Behind-the-Scenes Coaching of Alito Could Violate Senate Ethics Rules,” “Graham” of course refers to the Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham- not the oh so delicious crackers of the same name, which were created in the 1800s by a Presbyterian reverend, in hopes that they would suppress lust. […]
March 13th, 2006 at 6:22 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pmAngelica
A non-doer is very often a critic-that is, someone who sits back and watches doers, and then waxes philosophically about how the doers are doing. It’s easy to be a critic, but being a doer requires effort, risk, and change.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am