Scalito

[ndebord]

The NYTimes today came out with an editorial opposing Judge Alito for the Supreme Court. Some very disturbing, from my perspective, views on privacy, Roe and executive power of the President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/opinion/12thur1.html?hp

[Lindsey]

The NYTimes today came out with an editorial opposing Judge Alito for the Supreme Court.
Today is not the first time the NYT has expressed reservations about Judge Alito. See, for example, this editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/opinion/08sun1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fEditorials) from January 8th.

Another troubling aspect of this whole process: asking sitting judges from the Third Circuit to testify on his behalf. Can you spell "conflict of interest," boys and girls? Whose monstrously bad idea was that, I wonder?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Today is not the first time the NYT has expressed reservations about Judge Alito. See, for example, this editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/opinion/08sun1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fEditorials) from January 8th.

Another troubling aspect of this whole process: asking sitting judges from the Third Circuit to testify on his behalf. Can you spell "conflict of interest," boys and girls? Whose monstrously bad idea was that, I wonder?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Well, if you like the conspiracy aspect of it, the rumor that a 3rd seat might open up during Bush's tenure as Divine Messenger, could tempt one or two sitting judges on the 3rd Circuit to salviate at the prospect of being that nominee!

<wicked grin>

[Judy G. Russell]

Another troubling aspect of this whole process: asking sitting judges from the Third Circuit to testify on his behalf. Can you spell "conflict of interest," boys and girls? Whose monstrously bad idea was that, I wonder?Actually, that doesn't bother me at all. Who would know Alito better, and be able to testify more directly, than someone who has worked with him for more than a decade?

[Lindsey]

the rumor that a 3rd seat might open up during Bush's tenure as Divine Messenger
God help us all. I really will be tempted to emigrate to Nova Scotia!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Actually, that doesn't bother me at all. Who would know Alito better, and be able to testify more directly, than someone who has worked with him for more than a decade?
It bothers me, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. What judge in his right mind is going to testify negatively about a guy who is likely to be sitting in judgement on his court's future decisions?

You want to find a retired judge to testify about him, fine. But a sitting judge? BAD idea.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I'd rather go somewhere where it's warm...

[Judy G. Russell]

I understand your concern, but the fact is, these are his colleagues and workmates. They're the people most likely to be able to testify about him. What will be interesting will be which ones choose to testify... and which ones don't.

[Lindsey]

I'd rather go somewhere where it's warm...
Give it time. The whole globe is getting warmer and warmer. Nova Scotia may turn out to be a tropical paradise.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Not, I hope, in my lifetime. And if it does get that warm, Nova Scotia will probably be underwater.

[Lindsey]

I understand your concern, but the fact is, these are his colleagues and workmates. They're the people most likely to be able to testify about him. What will be interesting will be which ones choose to testify... and which ones don't.
(a) It is, I believe, unprecedented for sitting judges to testify at such a hearing. (And with good reason, I think.)

(b) It's a biased sample. No current colleague is going to testify in the negative. Those who cannot bring themselves to make an endorsement on the public record, and can resist the social and political pressure to "make nice" will simply remain silent, and their silence will have NO weight.

(c) It seems to me that the existing written record speaks volumes.

I think putting judges who are supposed to be above the fray smack in the middle of a partisan debate is a bad, bad precedent.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I can't find a list of the witnesses for Thomas, but I have a vague recollection of one or more judges testifying then.

I understand your concerns, believe me, but by the same token I am not willing to say that someone who happens to be a judge cannot offer as a witness on his behalf anyone he happens to work with.

[Lindsey]

I can't find a list of the witnesses for Thomas, but I have a vague recollection of one or more judges testifying then.
I don't recall about Thomas one way or the other. Not that I think that is a great precedent to follow.

I understand your concerns, believe me, but by the same token I am not willing to say that someone who happens to be a judge cannot offer as a witness on his behalf anyone he happens to work with.
No, I'm sorry; it's unseemly to ask people over whom you will have authority (of a sort) to make a public testimonial on your behalf.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I understand your feelings, but simply disagree. First off, a single Associate Supreme Court Justice does not have real authority over Circuit Court Judges; administrative authority is vested realistically in the Chief Judge of each Circuit and not in the Supreme Court to any real measure, and the selection of Chief Judge is the result of statutory criteria that are totally unaffected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, to the extent that there is any administrative power at all, it's in the Chief Justice, not an Associate Justice.

More importantly, they are all Article III appointees with lifetime tenure whose lives cannot be made in any significant way more (or less) difficult because they do (or don't) testify. It won't affect what cases they do or don't hear; it won't affect their pay or their perks; no federal judge believes himself or herself to be less than God anyway, and most (if not all) think Alito was lucky to be in the right place at the right time because most (if not all) think they're more qualified than he is anyhow.

[Lindsey]

We will simply have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid.

I wasn't speaking of administrative authority; I was speaking more abstractly. Justices on the US Supreme Court have the power to overturn rulings of lower courts, and I don't believe that is always done completely abstractly. In the recent past, for example, the Supremes have seemed to take particular pleasure in slapping down the judges of the 4th Circuit.

I simply cannot see that testimony as free and uncoerced.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think it's the NINTH Circuit they tend to disagree with more often than the Fourth.

[Lindsey]

I think it's the NINTH Circuit they tend to disagree with more often than the Fourth.
Well, I'm sure they have their differences with the Ninth as well, but I am quite sure that I have read that they seem to take particular delight in reversing the Fourth Circuit.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

That makes sense, actually, considering the decisions of the Fourth Circuit (the conservative-most circuit) or the Ninth Circuit (the liberal-most circuit)!

[Lindsey]

That makes sense, actually, considering the decisions of the Fourth Circuit (the conservative-most circuit) or the Ninth Circuit (the liberal-most circuit)!
I hadn't thought about it that way, but that's a good point!

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Today is not the first time the NYT has expressed reservations about Judge Alito. See, for example, this editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/opinion/08sun1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fEditorials) from January 8th.

Another troubling aspect of this whole process: ask sitting sitting judges from the Third Circuit to testify on his behalf. Can you spell "conflict of interest," boys and girls? Whose monstrously bad idea was that, I wonder?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=1518272

This report talks about the rights of mothers in the case of medical emergeny and may highlight differences between 0'Connor and Alito.

[Lindsey]

This report talks about the rights of mothers in the case of medical emergeny and may highlight differences between 0'Connor and Alito.
Ummm -- I didn't see anything in that article that said anything more about the difference between O'connor and Alito than that Alito was expected to move the Court to the right.

And which mothers' rights are you talking about: the prospective mothers, or the mothers of the prospective mothers?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Ummm -- I didn't see anything in that article that said anything more about the difference between O'connor and Alito than that Alito was expected to move the Court to the right.

And which mothers' rights are you talking about: the prospective mothers, or the mothers of the prospective mothers?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

The prospective mothers who need an abortion.

[Lindsey]

The prospective mothers who need an abortion.
Ah. Well, the Court seems to be saying that if they're underaged, they have very limited rights in that regard.

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

I might agree that it was an unspired idea, but it wasn't a conflict of interest as the term is normally understood.

While we're on the subject, however, how would you characterize the moralizing by Senator Biden, who cheated his way through law school, and Senator Kennedy, whose acts at Chappaquidick are too well known to require recounting?

Is there a kind of special exception to conventional morality available to the Left?

The world awaits your inspired reply. :->

[Lindsey]

While we're on the subject, however, how would you characterize the moralizing by Senator Biden, who cheated his way through law school, and Senator Kennedy, whose acts at Chappaquidick are too well known to require recounting?
I have no idea what moralizing you're talking about, but if our esteemed <choke> president can have his transgressions written off as "youthful indiscretions" well into his 30s, well...

Besides, Biden and Kennedy are there to represent a constituency. You seem to be saying they have no right to speak for the people who elected them, and I would disagree with that.

--Lindsey

[earler]

Wasn't biden also caught for plagiarism when already a senator?

-er

[earler]

Reminds of when I met senator kennedy here in paris at a wedding reception. He was a young senator at the time, though the tell tale red veins from heavy alcohol consumption were already clearly visible on his face.

Anyway, I found myself alone with him and didn't know what to say, so I brought up the problems of the mccarran-walter act, a law that required the progeny of a mixed marriage between an american and a furriner to spend 7 years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain right to citizenship. I pointed out this provision was there to prevent the children of drunken sailors and neapolitan ladies of the night from becoming american citizens. (At the time, the navy had warships in many harbors of the mediterranean.)

I told kennedy my children were born in france and risked losing their citizenship. An intelligent politician would have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into when I return to washington." Naturally, nothing would happen. But, mr. kennedy (note that a senator is mr. or mrs. or ms. or miss so-and-so, senator from such-and-such state), could only reply: "Well, they can always visit the usa". Duh.

-er

p.s. Much of that nefarious act of congress was gutted some years later following several lawsuits.

[ndebord]

Wasn't biden also caught for plagiarism when already a senator?

-er

Earl,

Senator Biden should be arrested for excessive emission of a controlled substance: "Hot Air."

[rlohmann]

I have no idea what moralizing you're talking about, but if our esteemed <choke> president can have his transgressions written off as "youthful indiscretions" well into his 30s, well...Let me make sure I understand this. Are you attempting to equate cheating one's way through law school (of all things) and the incident at Chappaquiddick as "youthful indescretions" (your terminology)?

Bush, IIRC, got caught DWI once. While that's not particularly sterling behavior, I myself would be disinclined to equate it with the actions of the two senators.

Besides, Biden and Kennedy are there to represent a constituency. You seem to be saying they have no right to speak for the people who elected them, and I would disagree with that.Let me put it this way. Both individuals can say whatever they like, but if you ever get hauled into court, you should hope that your lawyer got through law school by way of the straight-and-narrow. You should also hope that, should it become necessary, he'd be the kind of person you could get into a car with.

[rlohmann]

I forgot about that. I think it was one of Neil Kinnock's (of all people!) speeches that he appropriated, figuring that Americans were too dumb to catch it.

[Lindsey]

Are you attempting to equate cheating one's way through law school (of all things) and the incident at Chappaquiddick as "youthful indescretions" (your terminology)?
I'm not equating anything with anything, I'm just trying to understand the point you're trying to make.

Bush, IIRC, got caught DWI once. While that's not particularly sterling behavior, I myself would be disinclined to equate it with the actions of the two senators.
DWI plus going AWOL on his service in the TANG, plus a little matter of insider trading, which his daddy's friend at the SEC helped to brush under the rug. Plus suspicions of cocaine use. There's likely more, that's just what I recall off the top of my head.

Both individuals can say whatever they like
Thank you for conceding that. We are not talking about a court case, so I'm not sure what relevance the rest of your paragraph has.

--Lindsey