TIMELINE: Kennedy/Specter Communication About Concerned Alumni of Princeton Documents
TIMELINE: Kennedy/Specter Communication About Concerned Alumni of Princeton Documents
As provided by Senator Kennedy’s Office:
Chronology of Exchange Between Kennedy and Specter Offices on Rusher Documents
November 30, 2005: Senator Kennedy requests Congressional Research Service to ask Rusher’s permission to examine CAP documents at Library of Congress.
Week of December 5, 2005: Rusher turns down CRS request.
December 22, 2005: Senators Kennedy sends letter to Senator Specter asking for Committee request of Rusher documents. Delivered by hand to Judiciary Committee.
Date unknown prior to 1/5/06: Kennedy staff and Specter staff discuss December 22 request.
January 5, 2006, 7:29 pm: Kennedy staff request status report from Specter staff on request regarding Rusher documents.
January 5, 2006 7:50 pm: Specter staff replies that they are not inclined to grant request because they are personal documents.
January 6, 2006, 12:01 am: Kennedy staff asks Specter staff to reconsider on basis that there are not personal documents but business records of a very public organization.
January 11, 2006: Senator Specter says he’s unaware of the request.
After all this, Specter lectured Kennedy about his conduct regarding the request.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
105 Responses to “TIMELINE: Kennedy/Specter Communication About Concerned Alumni of Princeton Documents”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This should be put in the record by Kennedy.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:13 pmthe old.."I don't recall"..(reagans answer to everything illegal)
January 11th, 2006 at 4:18 pmI hope there's a ton of info in those papers so Kennedy can first, shove it right in Spector's face, and second, single-handedly save America from Alito.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:18 pmHotline says that the Rusher documents are on their way over.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:19 pmBut what happens if the docs have nothing conclusive? Will that blow up in the Kennedy's face?
January 11th, 2006 at 4:21 pmMr libertarian, why would attempting to do his job blow up in his face?
January 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pmShould our Hero Mr. Kennedy succeed in thwarting the Alito nomination I will drive to his mansion and leave a bottle of Remy Martin with his butler. Should he fail, I still love him.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:24 pmNo, good vibes, I meant if the documents all turn out to be inconclusive, won't the people watching think it was unnecessary strutting? Hopefully the docs have something conclusive, but if they don't, I think it will backfire.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#5, why on earth will it blow up in his face? As Good Vibes pointed out, he's doing his job (something I have yet to see any Republican do - anytime a Republican is asking questions it's a lovefest). At least if the documents show nothing the issue can be put to rest and everyone can move on to other concerns. I thought (naive me) that this was the way confirmation hearings were supposed to work.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pmit's likely the docs contain something conclusive or why go to such lengths to prevent their disclosure?
January 11th, 2006 at 4:26 pmMr Libertarian:
January 11th, 2006 at 4:27 pmAgain if he did not subpoena them we would never know, therefore subpoenaing them in an effort to see if they contain something is his job and I applaud him.
CarolSoprano,
January 11th, 2006 at 4:27 pmI agree with you that this is the way they should work. I don't think that the Dems have done a good job of trying to pin Alito down though. And if the docs turn up inconclusive, as I said in my last post, I think it will appear to the American people that the Dems are just trying to stall. At least, the media will attempt to spin it that way.
Apparently the dispute made enough noise to get Ken Mahlman to issue a statement on today's developments:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59167
Imagine the "White Christian" party also called Republicans trying to cover this up.
Jamie
January 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pmhttp://intoxination.blogspot.com
Hey good vibes,
January 11th, 2006 at 4:30 pmThen you can swing by my place and we'll have one heck of a party!!
(I'm a mile or so from him.)
Go Ted Go!
Stall? So we are not supposed to look into anything just in case we might not find anything? Flawed logic. Only Big Bird Coulter would feel this way about Kennedy's request.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#8 - Who cares? Better to sit back and do nothing because it might make him look bad? Please.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pmI say: FILIBUSTER! If the Republicans cannot cooperate with basic requests, and (if I am not mistaken) Republicans of the Senate Judiciary (?) Committee has previously held information from the Democratic members (can't remember the details right off hand; can anyone else help me out here?), then the Democrats need to stand up and say:
BULLSH*T! Enough is Enough. Untill our elected officials can start acting responsibly, ethically, MORALLY (!), and cooperatively in the best interests of the American People, the buck stops here, NOW!
We are tired of being lied to, being denied basic requests for public records that are in Republican members' possession, and other records that would have potentially altered our decisions in Committee had we had full and fair cooperation from the Republican Party!
The Republican Party has consistently practiced in unfair, unethical practices both in session, and OBVIOUSLY OUT! Untill, this institution can regain some measurable Respect and Dignity by Governing as such, GOVERNANCE STOPS NOW! Untill we can provide the American People with just and sound, ethical and judicious behavior, WE OWE THEM TO AT LEAST CEASE AND DESIST SO AS NOT TO INFLICT FURTHER DAMAGE UPON THIS GREAT NATION!
January 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Indeed true Blue
January 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pmI wonder if those LOC papers will show that at some point, Alito griped about someone putting a pubic hair in his Coke.
Haven't had this much fun watching the Pubby-cans squirm since Dr. Frist went into the video misdiagnosis/malpractice business!
January 11th, 2006 at 4:33 pmCarol Soprano is correct about the lovefest, yesterday I thought Coburn was undressing Alito with his eyes. mmmm I welcome you Alito mmmm gagaa.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#16,
January 11th, 2006 at 4:35 pmI said nothing of the sort. I was merely speculating.
I apologize for the grammatical errors, too.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pmHow can Scalito NOT REMEMBER what he was doing in CAP??? Is anyone expected to believe that?
January 11th, 2006 at 4:41 pm#23,
January 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pmYou'll remember that John Roberts had memory troubles too.
Your petition won't mean anything. Ordinary citizens don't have the power to block his confirmation.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:46 pmIf Kennedy succeeds I will refer to him as
January 11th, 2006 at 4:46 pm"Kirk Gibson" from now on. This would truly be some bottom of the 9th heroics... maybe "Joe Carter".
Senator_Kennedy@kennedy.senate.gov
January 11th, 2006 at 4:49 pmSend him your thanks!
That drunk forgot to send it certified mail
sarcasm=off
January 11th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#20 - too funny! It's true - Lindsay Graham was positively salivating and leering at Alito. It was nauseating - he truly makes me ill!
#13 - how interesting that the wingnuts are screaming about how the "liberal" groups are trying to smear Alito. Do they remember what they did to Harriet Myers? I find it eternally infuriating that there's no fair play as far as the Repugs are concerned - they make the rules up as they go along and find nothing wrong with screaming about something they themselves did not 6 months ago.
This is all good, though - if Ken Mehlman actually had to put out a statement then Kennedy's request really hit a nerve. Even if it turns out to be nothing it will send a message that the Dems are not going to lie down and play dead.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pmI find it amazing that this guy can't remember being in CAP when he was in College. Bullshit. I can remember being in freaking Cub Scouts when I was 4. I can remember going to the Grand Canyon when I was 6. I remember the first time visited my grandpa's farm in OK when I was 5.
And I was a partier in my teens and twenties.
Why can't somebody who is smart enough to go to Princeton and has enough law retention to be appointed as a federal judge can't remember what he did in college.
If his memory is that bad, he should not be on the Supreme Court. Any republican that doesn't find this odd, is probably odd themself.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:23 pmSpudge - I asked my husband if he remembered every group he was in in college (he's about Alito's age) and he said "of course" and proceeded to name them all, including what kinds of groups they were, when they met, etc.. I certainly remember every group I was in from the time I started kindergarten. I agree with you - I am highly suspicious of this memory lapse and I believe that someone (our esteemed Senator and judicial "coach" Lindsay Graham, maybe??) told him to "not remember" rather than admit he was a member and try to explain it away. And, if he is lying about this seemingly inconsequential matter, how can the committee believe him on anything else?
January 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pmWho besides the Filthy Left of this country cares what a few homosexuals and radical feminists that attended Princton University think about anything?
January 11th, 2006 at 5:34 pmIt sure is amazing SpudgeBoy that the guy can remember every case that came before him, all the facts of the case, and what was in his mind, but cannot for the life of him remember anything about CAP.
He is hiding something. A litle history. ROTC was chased off the Princeton campus in 1972. Alito graduated in 1973. In 1974 the flap over the ROTC was settled and they were back on campus.
At one point Alito said he did not recall when he joined CAP but remembered that he joined because groups were trying to get ROTC off campus and he did not like that. This would mean that he joined CAP in 1972 or 1973.
Yet later he told someone else that he thought he joined the organization just a little before he made the job application in 1985. There is a gap ov 13 years here.
Which is it Alito? I would think that if you were fired up about groups trying to get ROTC off camputs, then you would have joined CAP and help them fight the battle. Did you, or did you not?
It would not make any sense to join a group in the early 80s to fight for something that ended in the mid 70s.
So, Alito is lying, and he is hiding something. What? I dont have the slightest idea.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:43 pmirighteee - You'd NEVER get into Princton. Be careful who you put down that way.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:50 pmI'm glad we'll be able to find out what's in the documents. Kennedy was right to request them. Bottom line, if something is found in them or not, Republicans will call it a desperate measure. I'd rather review them and find nothing than not be given access to them. Alito could have ended this by remembering. Since he didn't, Kennedy is giving him the information should he need it in the future!
January 11th, 2006 at 5:52 pmThree words, my friends:
Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
She was affirmed 96-3 I believe, and she is the most liberal judge the court has seen. The republicans did not assassinate her character or accuse her of awful things. The dems are being way too harsh on Alito who is a good man with good moral values. These horribly slanted and untrue headlines that are being posted like "Alito doesn't want blacks and women in schools" and "Alito is against abortion" are not only an abomination, but they are irrelevant.
The job of a supreme court justice is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to individual cases so that the ruling can be applied to all following cases. It's irrelevant whether he *BELIEVES* in abortion or not. It matters whether he believes there is a constitutional right to have one or not. If Roe V. Wade is overturned, it will not mean the end of abortions! It will only mean that the arguement of abortions is not a constitutional issue. It will then be passed for legislation or to the states.
Overall, I think you all need to simmer down and just embrace this new supreme court justice. He may be on the more conservative side (and if you see his rulings, he's ruled many, many times in favor of liberal ideas), but at least he is honest and has a lot of experience in Constitutional law (unlike *some* nominees... *cough* Harriet Miers *cough*).
And about this whole Princeton commitee... he became a member of this conservative group to impress the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. I thought it would be obvious to you, but of course, you strive to find some evil side of Alito.
I'm a fairly liberal democrat myself and think that Alito is being treated horribly and is being held to a double standard by the democrats in the Judiciary Committee. Bader Ginsberg (though very liberal) was treated fairly and admirably by the republicans; they could at least turn the favor for Samuel Alito.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:56 pmwell we got 114 now to impeach Blair we need 200 gonna be here soon ...the link in the chain is gonna break ...How you americans getting on with bush impeached ...can i track progress anywhere like this link
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875
January 11th, 2006 at 6:07 pmYou people are certifiable. You have no idea what you're in for come June. There will be another retirement and there is nothing you can do about it.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:09 pmSup Home Dogs!
See, I can do it too. That wasn't Samuel Alito posting there. I think he's on TV talking.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:13 pmAdam, while I'm not disagreeing with you completely, I have to ask, do you think that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was treated better by the Republicans partly because she's a woman? The tone in Washington was not quite as vitriolic at that time as it is now, and I'm wondering if the Judiciary Committee was simply trying to be more "gentlemanly". Just a theory!
I don't think that Alito is being treated so horribly, not with so much at stake in this nomination. And he is not being treated anywhere near as "horribly" as Republicans and right-wing religious zealots treated Harriet Miers.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:13 pmKENNEDY: CAP publishes a magazine called Prospect. There was an article way back in 1983 that says bLacks, hispanics and asians are demanding jobs...hickup
FEINSTEIN: Finish the last line.
KENNEDY: Hickup...the last line...and homosexuals demand the right to bear children...hickup
FEINSTEIN: Finish the last line!
KENNEDY: What? Oh, the last line.
FEINSTEIN: Here comes the good part. The last line. About the women.
KENNEDY: Oh yes. The women. Judge Alito. Does Princeton have hot women.
Senator Biden says they do and he would be very concerned if his son didn't take interest in them.
FEINSTEIN. The last line!!!!
KENNEDY: If the senator will let me just...
FEINSTEIN: Yes, I will...
(LAUGHTER)
FEINSTEIN: No, And now here come women.
KENNEDY: Where?
KENNEDY: Can I get two more minutes from my friend from...
(LAUGHTER)
Just to continue along. I apologize, Judge. Did you read this article?
ALITO: Senator, I've never read that maga...
KENNEDY: Well, could you think of any context that they could be...
ALITO: Hard to imagine. If that's what anybody was endorsing, I disagree with all of that. I would never endorse it. I never have endorsed it. Had I thought that that's what this organization stood for I would never associate myself with it in any way.
KENNEDY: We need a soopeener into these magazines articles that you haven't read!!! Now Senator Feinstein, where are the...hickup...women?
January 11th, 2006 at 6:13 pmYou people are certifiable. You have no idea what you’re in for come June. There will be another retirement and there is nothing you can do about it.
Comment by Samuel Alito
You need to answer my questions from the other thread.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:18 pmYou said you were in the ROTC, what branch did you go in to to finish the commitments you made when you joined ROTC? Come on troll, answer
Jane - The republicans didn't treat Harriet Miers horribly. It was a clear mistake to nominate her and they were concerned that the president was not going to withdraw his nomination. The bonehead (pardon me) that he is, he didn't. She had to face pressure from BOTH sides of the political spectrum before she stepped down. The Republicans did not assassinate her character or accuse her of atrocities like not wanting blacks and women in school like the dems are doing now. I haven't agreed with a single one of their statements so far (except for maybe Schumer's intense iterrogation about Alito's beliefs in abortion that he wouldn't respond to).
And as for Bader Ginsberg being treated well because she's a lady... I doubt it. The republicans just don't have an agenda like the dems seem to have.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pmRuth Bader Ginsberg...she is the most liberal judge the court has seen.
Three words: you are high.
Maybe Clinton actually working with Republicans in the Senate had something to do with her being accepted? Nah, couldn't be.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pmDavid... No need to get hostile! LOL! Bader Ginsberg has the most consistent liberal voting record a supreme court justice has seen. She's quoted Nigerian and French constitution to make decisions, for God's sake!
The senate is their OWN body. They make their OWN rules and have their OWN say in what occurs during their sessions. Republicans were revolted enough by Clinton that of course they didn't listen to him. They just don't have an agenda to promote! I wish our guys in there would be fair too. I want to be proud to be a democrat :-)
January 11th, 2006 at 6:31 pmThe republicans just don’t have an agenda like the dems seem to have.
And that's my proof. Thanks for playing.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:31 pmDavid -- What? Explain maybe? Please?
I'm not super-uber-liberal republican-hating zealots like a lot of you are (including clearly you, David). You know that listening to BOTH sides of politics is healthy. You don't have to be so close-minded and biased towards liberal views. I don't like Bush at all. I don't like his administration (with the exception of Condi Rice) and I don't like the war in Iraq. But I will not stand there like a sheep and follow whatever Ted Kennedy says. He is just as bad as Bush when it comes to some things.
The democrats hold the conservative supreme court nominees to a double standard. They have to prove to the dems that they aren't evil. Liberal nominees only have to show up.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pmHuh? You have divined all of that from a couple of, albeit flippant, comments? Wow. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Now if I could just rid of the taste.
super-uber-liberal republican-hating zealot
I have been called many things in my time, but this is a first. I wonder what my friends, some of whom actually do vote GOP, would say?
Your comment about RGB being the most liberal justice ever sounds suspiciously like the "Kerry is the most liberal Senator" line that was making the rounds during the election run up. The one about Republicans not having an agenda just sounds, well, kinda silly.
And finally, I don't hate anyone, including you. Have a nice day.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pmAdam,
You do know that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was chosen by Clinton with the help of Orin Hatch right? I mean, you do know that right? You aren't just blowing smoke out your ass are you? Hatch vetoed a bunch of Clinton's choices and Clinton did not nominate any of those. He chose somebody that both sides would agree on.
Unlike Bush who just gives the democrats the middle finger.
Remember how he said that he was a uniter. He has done nothing but divide this country.
You also are not very educated about this site. We intentionally find, read and study both republican and democratic points of view. Then we make a informed descision.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:09 pmFrom a 'judicial' perspective, the definition of 'liberal' is that the court overturns both precedent and congressional laws. In that regard, Conservatives on the court are much more liberal than the supposed liberals are. If you mean that the justices rule in favor of civil liberties, constitutional rights of americans, and protecting the individual and personal rights of americans, yes 'liberal' judges do this more consistently. If you mean the restriction of civil liberties, protecting corporate interests over the rights of citizens, and using religious and personal bigotry as an excuse to discriminate, then 'conservatives' definitely are guilty as charged.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:17 pmWell, it sounds like Specter will have the CAP-Rusher documents made available, although the NYT did extension research and found nothing. Maybe the democrats will find a pubic hair.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:17 pmThat's at least two "pubic hair" references I have seen on the site, today. I'm sure there are more.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:29 pmSteed,
I can appreciate the fact that you have such enormous faith in the New York Times being the top rung on the ladder of accuracy and truthfulness, but I think that you would agree that there is just cause for a body that is duty bound by oath to investigate as well.
I think that we all are interested in what information is available and what it has to say. After all, we are talking about a Supreme Court appointment here so, and I understand this to be a conservative value, I think that you would agree that it would be best to err on the side of caution.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pmThe NYT has no credibility with me, but it sure does for ThinkPubichair.org (ah shit, I did it again).
January 11th, 2006 at 7:38 pmImpeach them.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:44 pmThere is a Cartman joke floating around somewhere in all that pubic hair. And anything printed in the Times must be confirmed by an outside source to achieve the validity standard. They've earned that kind of distrust, the hard way. It may be a slight to those at the Times who actually practice journalism, but the reputation of the Times will require some serious rehabilitation.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm"The NYT has no credibility with me, but it sure does for ThinkPubichair.org (ah shit, I did it again). Steed Lankershim"
I remember your lame critique of the Mining and Permitting issue - this is not an insult coming from you. It's just more of a general reflection of the level of literacy among conservatives. To a conservative the word 'elite', is codeword for 'literate', note how they sound similar to the untrained ear. I can see how the big words, and comprehensive research applied by a real newspaper would scare someone who gets all of their intellectual stimulation from a book of fairy tales otherwise know as 'the bible'.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:47 pmSteed,
I agree that the NYTs has a credibility issue, I guess I should have used sarcasm tags. But that is why it is important for the information to be reviewed directly by the hearing committee without bias and prejudgment.
I believe it to be in the interest of all americans that a nominee to the Supreme Court be vetted thoroughly. This is an issue above party affiliation and the importance of a detailed and in-depth review of a candidate cannot be overstressed.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:48 pmSpecter is perfectly captured by the word: creep. Always has, always will.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:53 pmWell, it sounds like Specter will have the CAP-Rusher documents made available, although the NYT did extension research and found nothing. Maybe the democrats will find a pubic hair.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — January 11, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
I must understand you meant "extensive".
It is the job of the committee members to review all documents they deem pertinent.
Sen. Kennedy thinks the CAP documents are relevant. He is also a member of the committe. It doesn't matter who reviewed the documents before, when, or for how long.
Your mention of a pubic hair speaks volumes as to where your minds is.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pmYah RP, and I remember how you totally f'd up your labor statistics. Go back and check you moron.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:00 pmIf Bush wants him, I don't.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:04 pmI have come to believe that Bush is an enemy of the people the United States of America.
Never cooperate with the enemy.
Opti,
January 11th, 2006 at 8:06 pmThe date of the NYT article is Nov 27, 2005. Something like "From Alito's Past, a Window on Conservatives at Princeton". Alito was a passive member. CAP started pissing off conservatives because of it's views in the 80's. Eventually marginalized to nothing as it should have been. But will see how this plays out, won't we? Peace, love, hemp.
"Yah RP, and I remember how you totally f’d up your labor statistics. Go back and check you moron. Steed Lankershim"
Actually you should re-read, I corrected your error that you posted. I know literacy is difficult for people that grew up in one room school houses like yourself, so I'll cut you some slack junior.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:10 pmSteed,
Yes, it will play out and as long as does so in an honest and forthright manner, then all americans benefit. That is my hope.
Thanks for the chat and PLH back at you.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:13 pmSteed,
When did you jump from being an expert in permitting, to one in law? Who's 'script' are you reading from today? You don't honestly believe that anyone believes you ever worked in mining permitting or law do you? And when do you expect to graduate high school again?
January 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm#31 and #32
January 11th, 2006 at 8:26 pmI agree with each of you. I remember every club I was in, who was in it, what we did. For a man who can remember the details of cases he heard over the past 25 years, not to mention the cases in the past he referred to -- it's part of his job -- it's hard to believe he can't remember his personal life and its details. This "I can't recall" reply from him (and from John Roberts) is nothing more than stonewalling (a tactic well practiced by Republicans).
#33 IRI
It is nice to know what you feel about Alito. He fits right in with your crowd. My only questions are: are you gay or a feminist? And which applies to Alito?
January 11th, 2006 at 8:59 pmNice try Adam. Hatch recommended her because of her moderate record. Do you take classes in rewriting history? Or is it genetic?
January 11th, 2006 at 9:07 pmHmmm, how do we know that all the William Rusher papers are being sent since this was not the result of a subpoena? William Rusher is a right-wing hack.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:21 pmMaybe they're afraid of that African-American human sacrifice during the Klan rally on Princeton's campus back in '71.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:42 pmOnce again the Right has no idea what they are babbling about. For the 1000th time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were suggested by GOP Senate chairman Orrin Hatch to President Clinton to fill Supreme Court vacancies.
Clinton agreed. So how was the GOP going to oppose the nominations recommended by their own Judiciary Chairman?
But then again, the Right never lets the facts get in the way of their arguments.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:28 pm#Who besides the Filthy Left of this country cares what a few homosexuals and radical feminists that attended Princton University think about anything?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 11, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
So now your Neo-Con buddies are Gay and Feminine?
Isnt that IRI what you have been calling the "liberals" here?
Your so confused you dont even know what your saying anymore.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:01 pmHypocrisy has made you completely unable to tell the truth or Believe it when its shown to you. You Must be a Very Paranoid person.
Alito probably joined every conservative group at Princeton, & didn't know that CAP was biased and sexist: my husband saw a woman he'd lived with for 6 months at a Stones concert he went to, she was with her mom and acted like she didn't recognize him, funny how people can have these convenient lapses of recall; The Federalist, packing the courts, and court stripping is terrible, Americans should be concerned about what Judge Roberts will do, considering his disregard of the Commerce Clause, Constructionist Judges are bad for the courts, the founding fathers meant for Ametricans to having a living Constitution, labeling Judges activist is name calling done by the far right who are the real activists, acting to unbalance the court by court packing & court stripping.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:26 amI don’t like Bush at all. I don’t like his administration (with the exception of Condi Rice)...
Comment by Adam #47
What a cretin...
BTW, has anybody here seen our old friend Cundti?
She hasn't been tiptoeing around lately...
January 12th, 2006 at 8:24 amEven if you give Alito the benefit of the doubt and allow that he joined CAP just to pad his resume, it's still fishy. Why that group? Did he choose it at random? I'm with Spudge. He's got to be lying.
I doubt there's a senator who knows the job better than Kennedy. Say what you will about him, he knows what he's doing, and that's the reason Specter is so afraid of what this request may turn up. And it's probably the reason why he used his staff to ignore it----he knows as well as anybody how skillful Kennedy is and this is the only way he could think of to stymie the request.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:13 amAdam sez:
Huh? Does anyone believe this? Anyway, legislators are supposed to have an agenda.
This demonizing of the word agenda has to stop. It's used to prevent debate, to nullify someone's right to take political action, even a Congressman's!
January 12th, 2006 at 10:41 amA day of reckoning is coming, and coming soon. Wait until the people in the mid-south and south wake up and realize that their elected representatives have made the supreme court , with Alito, a 5-4 majority of Catholics, whom they hate with a passion.
Alito is so far to the right the John Birch Society would not have him.
Three days of hearings and we still dont know ehn he joined this CAP organization. The man sure does forget a lot, and does not seem to have many opinions about anything that matters to the people of your country. I say your because I left there years ago, and I will be damned before I ever go back. I saw the handwriting on the wall in 1999, knew of Bush and what he was, and left, high-tailed it, said to hell with it.
These hearings are a farce. The committee should make a rule that when a senator has the floor he must ASK A QUESTION, not just try and rehabilitate the nominee. All the pukes on the committee expressed their decision to vote for Alito in their opening statements and at their first opportunity.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:19 amKennedy screwing this up has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:47 amPaul, I wish I had had your foresight. Cornyn was slobbering all over Alito. The Republicans are just speechifying and asking him questions they already know the answers to. Each question takes about 5 minutes to "ask".
January 12th, 2006 at 11:52 amI wish you'd all be a little kinder in accepting people's views here. I've been called a "cretin" (thanks big papa), been accused of "rewriting history" (that one goes to JPark), asked if I was "blowing smoke out [my] ass" (Spudge_Boy), and told that I was "high" (that one was from David).
For a site that claims to examine both sides of political spectrum which is (sarcasm) really, really clear (/sarcasm) with the headers that say "right-wing propaganda." You may not all realize this, but your views are not right! My views are not right either! That's why they're VIEWS and not FACTS. Or as Merriam Webster puts it "an opinion or judgment colored by the feeling or bias of its holder." It would be nice to receive some respect for posting my reviews at all, and I'm sorry if they don't agree with yours.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:59 pmMassachusetts Liberal - I'm glad you aren't afraid to proclaim yourself a "liberal." It's a term most of you try to stray from. I wear it proud too :-)
But in all fairness, the entire questioning is basically a circus act. The GOP is asking questions that they know the answer to already to "add to the record" in support of Alito, and the dems are asking questions that they already know the answer to as well that harm Alito's credibility. I bet that if they had no hearing at all, the same people would vote in favor of him and the same people would vote against him. It's sad to say, but that harsh divide and narrow-view mentality has run rampant in our senate.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:02 pmAdam,
You're off your rocker and you're OBVIOUSLY NOT a dem. Neither am I. So please, stfu:
"And about this whole Princeton commitee… he became a member of this conservative group to impress the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION."
Here you are just plain wrong/lying. The Reagan resume thing was 10 years after he was in CAP, so he didn't join to impress the Reagan admin. As if that would be some sort of positive. That just looks terrible. That's called kissing up. It's not a good trait for anyone that's suppose to be a leader, like our gov officials are suppose to be. Here's a question, why can he remember exactly WHY he put that on the resume 20 years ago, but he can't actually remember being a memeber of CAP? That makes no sense. The guy has no credibility. Another negative trait against him being any good in the SC.
"I’m a fairly liberal democrat myself"
BAH!! There's no way. You're a lying shill for the rethugs is what you are.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pmThe truth about Alito's Stances:
Forget what you hear on this incredibly biased site. Here are Alito's real views...
Abortion:
1. Unconstitutional to ban partial-birth abortions. (Which I strongly disagree with)
2. Respect for precedent implies not overturning Roe v Wade. (Fair)
3. States can require women seeking abortions to notify spouses. (He is in fact 1/2 of the baby.)
4. Oppose publicly funded abortions for rape and incest victims. (Slippery slope, perhaps? Mabye just that it would have to be proven as a rape, which could be difficult. There are plenty of free options nowadays for that situation anyway.)
Civil Rights:
1. Privacy is a question of interpretation of the Constitution. (True. There is no amendment giving us a right to "privacy." It is inferred from many precendents and amendments.)
2. The Constitution protects a right to privacy. (And that is how he interpreted these inferences.)
3. Schools cannot limit student speech insulting other students. (Sadly, this is protected by our Constitution.)
4. The President has to comply with statutes that are passed. (Absolutely and indefinitely true.)
5. Government cannot supress free speech in alcohol ads. (True. First amendment.)
6. Beards are protected religious rights for employees. (See above.)
7. Supported free religious expression in kindergartens. (Yes, that means a five year old who draws a picture of Jesus has a right to have it hung in the hallway with the rest of the pictures.)
8. Congress has no authority to curb the sale of machine guns. (It's in the Bill of Rights... perhaps...)
These views are based on how he's ruled throughout his terms as a judge. I'm sure many of you will still find problems with him though.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:46 pmLosing Faith - I am liberal. I support abortion, gay rights, gun control, diplomacy over war... but I don't support how the liberal population has become.
And I wasn't trying to make a positive in saying he was trying to impress the Reagan Administration. It was just a theory. When I wrote it, it sounded in my head a lot less passionate, but you know how things become misinterpreted online.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:48 pmLet's add to the courtesy I've received here...
"stfu" (I think we all know what that means) and "lying shill" are from Losing Faith.
I will not "stfu!" Read the Bill of Rights!! I'm protected under the first amendment!!!!!!
And James - That list makes Alito seem a little TOO moderate to be true. Did you get that from Fox News or something?
January 12th, 2006 at 4:51 pmYou expect courtesy when you spew all sorts of falsehoods that CLEARLY sound like right wind talking points? Huh. Are you going to respond to the impossibility I pointed out in your comments?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:02 pm"Losing Faith - I am liberal. I support abortion, gay rights, gun control, diplomacy over war… but I don’t support how the liberal population has become."
Now you're lying about me. I see you know how to be really courteous too. How quickly you become a hypocrite when you it suits you.
I do support a woman's right to choose to a certain point into the pregnancy. I do believe it's essentially murder if it gets too far into the fetus' development.
I ABSOLUTELY support gays having all the same rights as "straights". There's NO REASON their sexual leanings should preclude them from having all the same rights.
I DO support diplomacy over war. War is not resolving problems, it's only perpetuating them.
I DON'T fully support gun control. It's ignorant screwed up people that kill, not guns. If they didn't have a gun, they'd find another way. I think it's silly to ultimately ban an item that can do nothing harmful on it's own. I don't know that we're ready for all restrictions to be lifted on guns at this time, but the guns aren't the problem.
I can't believe you're trying to list those things as negative anyway. I thought YOU were a liberal democrat. You were the one making the claim, not me, and not about myself. WHAT do you believe that makes you liberal at all? By your posting I gather you're anti-choice, anti-equal rights, and a war monger. How again are you liberal?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pmI apologize for saying the whole "impress Reagan" thing. It was theory that came off as fact. But other than that... where have I "spew"ed "falsehoods?" And I respect courtesy for posting my VIEWS. Telling me to "stfu" is awfully close-minded when you come up against something you don't agree with.
And I agree that he should answer for his membership to the club. I don't think it'll yield anything at all, but he should stop beating around the bush. And he claims he joined because he wanted army recruiters back on the campus or something... not too clear on that, if anyone would like to clarify.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:15 pmLOL! I put James! xD I was typing my reply to James and it somehow got put in the "Name" block.
Anyway... That last post was MINE... ahem...
James - I forgot to say that I found where you got you're source and failed to mention many of his libearl rulings as well.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:17 pmAhhhh, now you're James. Your credibility slips by the post.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:17 pmOh, well that does make sense...about the name i mean.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pmI swear I'm off my rocker... maybe I am high...
I meant to say "conservative" rulings. Yeah. The brain just isn't functioning today.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pmhttp://www.issues2000.org/Samuel_Alito.htm
This seems to be where James got Alito's views. Most are word-for-word with what he said. A quick Google search solved that one.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:23 pmBefore I waltz on outta here...
Adam,
January 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pmThe STFU comment was specifically to you calling yourself a liberal democrat. You've demonstrated quite the opposite. Only calling you on a BS.
Kennedy is Judging a person who never killed anyone in a drunken stupor.
GEE what's wrong with this picture.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:40 pmWell then. You don't agree with me when I call myself a liberal even though I am entrenched with liberal ideals, so it's okay to tell me to STFU. Now it's all better.
And how have I demonstrated quite the opposite? If you would all read a more fair, balanced news report, you'd see that the Alito hype is really all... well... HYPE! He's perfectly qualified, has a consistent, unbiased ruling history, and will probably surprise us all with his moderate stand in the Supreme Court. But I really should just STFU.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:40 pmWow, Teddy sure was clever to demand that subpena for the Rusher documents. I'll bet he thought he was going to get stonewalled, and that the Dems then could parlay that into an excuse for delay or grounds fro a filibuster. Too bad the only thing that went bust was Teddy'd gamble. Several hours, and four boxes of documents later, and we now know that the Rusher documents contain NO REFERENCES TO SAM ALITO WHATSOEVER!
No wonder Teddy decided to run away and hide (like he did at Chappaquiddick). Maybe he needed to go have a drink with his buddies in the Owl Club. One thing is for sure, he missed the best testimony of the day when all those distinguished federal judges paraded in to tell the senators what a great nominee Alito is.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:17 pmBlue State Red = SO TRUE!!
January 12th, 2006 at 8:54 pmAdam,
DOH! After I signed off for the day, yesterday, I realised I completely misinterpreted one of your posts. I thought you were mocking me with the...
"Losing Faith - I am liberal. I support abortion, gay rights..."
...post. I realised you were simply stating your positions. I'm still not sure how you can state the Dems are being unfair on this matter and the rethugs have no agenda though. The Thugs are playing games, as usual, and Alito is clearly a liar with all of his convenient and unbelievable memory lapses. He's also demonstrated a pattern of doing whatever his "bosses" want.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:19 amBilly Martin
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 19th, 2008 at 1:57 amOnline Cash Advance
Awesome cash service supplying cash loan advances before payday.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 10:02 amJim 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 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pmShonta
To do something, however small, to make others happier and better, is the highest ambition, the most elevating hope, which can inspire a human being.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm