NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Of all the people to question someone else's ethics, Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy should be the last. There's no question in my mind but what he has repeatedly brought shame upon the State of Massachusetts, not to mention the Democratic Party. Why the voters of Massachusetts continue to send him back to the Seante is beyond me. :(


Attacks on Alito Unfair, Supporters Say (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200601/POL20060112b.html)


By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
January 12, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Supporters of Judge Samuel Alito are condemning what they consider unfair attacks on the Supreme Court nominee -- attacks that distressed his wife to the point of tears on Wednesday.

"Having failed to distort Judge Alito's distinguished record on the bench, today Senator Kennedy tried to smear Sam Alito's character," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a press release.

"Throughout his career, Samuel Alito has proven his commitment to the highest ethical principles and a fair and just America. This good man does not need a lecture from Ted Kennedy," Mehlman added.

In that same vein, a conservative advocacy group called it "almost comical" to hear Sen. Kennedy lecturing Judge Alito on ethics.

"I half expect to next see Bill Clinton lecturing him on sexual morality or President Bush lecturing him on proper grammatical usage," said Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio.

"Those that serve with Judge Alito have stated that his character is beyond reproach and even the liberal leaning American Bar Association admits that Judge Alito is 'an individual of excellent integrity,'" Delgaudio noted. "When was the last time anyone said the same thing of the Senator from Chappaquiddick?"

(Among other things, Kennedy on Wednesday questioned Alito's account of his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative campus group that wanted Princeton University to accept fewer women and minorities. Kennedy said Alito's explanation of his peripheral membership in the group doesn't "add up." Kennedy is demanding that the Judiciary Committee subpoena CAP's records.)

Former Reagan administration Attorney General Ed Meese described the Democrats' attacks on Alito as "despicable" -- "a shameful performance."

In a podcast interview with Fidelis, a Catholic-based organization that defends and promote the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty, Meese singled out Sen. Ted Kennedy's repeated questions about Alito's failure to recuse himself in a Vanguard case.

"It is totally hypocritical and false for anybody like Senator Kennedy, of all people, to question anyone's ethics, in view of his own past background," Meese said, adding that the American Bar Association's rating of well-qualified "says it all about Alito."

Meese described Kennedy's questioning of Alito as political and said he thinks Judge Alito has done very well under pressure.

"I think Judge Alito has done a great job by keeping his calm, by answering the questions forthrightly, and by behaving like the gentleman that he is," Meese said in the Fidelis podcast.

A coalition calling itself People for the Alito Way on Wednesday invited former Alito law clerks to respond to "unfair attacks by partisan Democrats."

"Having worked with the judge and known him for 15 years, I find the suggestion that he (Alito) would discriminate against anyone to be offensive," said former Alito law clerk Susan Sullivan said at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

Jim Guniea, another former Alito law clerk, called Democrats' statements "outrageous and irresponsible."

Tears

Judge Alito's wife Martha Ann wept on Wednesday, when Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood up for her husband. "Are you really a closet bigot?" Graham asked the judge, clearly suggesting otherwise.

"Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this," Graham continued. "I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."

Alito's wife, apparently touched by the sudden burst of kindness and confidence following Democrats' insinuations about her husband, briefly left the hearing room to regain her composure. She later returned, escorted by her husband.

The guy used his membership in an organization that wanted to basically turn Princeton University into a country club for rich white guys to pad his resume when he presented it to the Reagan administration. It's legitimate to point that fact out. It goes to character.

How dare he do his job as minority politician in a parliamentary comittee hearing!? The nerve!

The guy used his membership in an organization that wanted to basically turn Princeton University into a country club for rich white guys to pad his resume when he presented it to the Reagan administration. It's legitimate to point that fact out. It goes to character.
i dont know what to think about a man who would put this horrible organization on his job application then claim to know nothing about it and to have never participated in it. why would he have remembered in it .....'86?... enough to put it proudly on his resume but have had no actual involvement in it? surely he was in enough organizations that he remembered being in that he didnt need to pad it with one that is obviously racist/sexist.

theres something more there that he's not admitting to. i would like someone to go through the organizations records to see where his error lies.

This message has been deleted by Lunatic Goofballs. Reason: To try to hide my moment of dumbness.

Damn, I knew I should have pounced on it!

i dont know what to think about a man who would put this horrible organization on his job application then claim to know nothing about it and to have never participated in it. why would he have remembered in it .....'86?... enough to put it proudly on his resume but have had no actual involvement in it? surely he was in enough organizations that he remembered being in that he didnt need to pad it with one that is obviously racist/sexist.

theres something more there that he's not admitting to. i would like someone to go through the organizations records to see where his error lies.

The organization is totally shown in the wrong light. All it was was an organization that stood to fight affirmitive action and the likes.....nothing wrong with that.

Don't expect to get much out of this thread, Eutrusca. NS, and General specifically, has been a cesspool of the far left for quite some time. There are probably multiple fan clubs of Ted Kennedy throughout this forum.

Well, I guess it isn't a normal day without some faux-centrist taking a potshot at Ted Kennedy.

Well, I guess it isn't a normal day without some faux-centrist taking a potshot at Ted Kennedy.
Um ... so if I didn't take a "potshot" at the ethically challenged Teddie-baby, I wouldn't be a "faux"-centrist? What's wrong with this picture.

I love that it's now considered an "attack" to demand that a life-time appointee to the Supreme Court actually answer some goddam questions about his extremely questionable record. Alito has a history of lying, of "forgetting" inconvenient elements of his personal history, and admits to having presented a skewed picture of himself to get a job on at least one past occasion...but I guess the Dems should just roll over and play dead, right? Never mind trying to block this nomination, now the Dems aren't even supposed to QUESTION it. Boo-hoo-hoo, that Ted Kennedy is such a meanie head! He shouldn't say those nasty things, no matter how obviously true they are!

Here's what I'd like to know: why is Alito so reluctant to admit his views? My guess is that it's because he KNOWS that he's an extremist, and that the majority of Americans don't agree with him on key issues (like the right to choose, the 4th amendment, limitations on presidential authority...).

Ted Kennedy brings in huge amounts of pork and publicity to a tiny state that would otherwise be off the map, were it not for his name. I certainly cannot blame the people of the state for that. Besides, it is a very small price to pay considering that same name is responsible for many times more votes the Democratic Party in general is denied across the country. Ted Kennedy has contributed more to the demonization of the term "liberal" than any Republican, conservative or public relations and marketing firm could ever imagine.
Personally, I'd give the guy a break. Finding a lifetime alcholic who has no qualms with leaving a "peasant girl" to suffocate in an air pocket of the car you just drove off a bridge, in order to protect your political future is a rare individual indeed. Ted Kennedy's personality is very much in line with that of his father the bootlegger and Nazi supporter and provides conservatives with valuable advertising that can only be rivaled by another democratic icon Senator and KKK Grand Kleagle Byrd.
I say, here's to them both and have another drink on me.

I love that it's now considered an "attack" to demand that a life-time appointee to the Supreme Court actually answer some goddam questions about his extremely questionable record. Alito has a history of lying, of "forgetting" inconvenient elements of his personal history, and admits to having presented a skewed picture of himself to get a job on at least one past occasion...but I guess the Dems should just roll over and play dead, right? Never mind trying to block this nomination, now the Dems aren't even supposed to QUESTION it. Boo-hoo-hoo, that Ted Kennedy is such a meanie head! He shouldn't say those nasty things, no matter how obviously true they are!

Here's what I'd like to know: why is Alito so reluctant to admit his views? My guess is that it's because he KNOWS that he's an extremist, and that the majority of Americans don't agree with him on key issues (like the right to choose, the 4th amendment, limitations on presidential authority...).
Hmm. Probably for the same reasons Ruth Bader Ginsberg wouldn't. Ya think? :p

The guy used his membership in an organization that wanted to basically turn Princeton University into a country club for rich white guys to pad his resume when he presented it to the Reagan administration. It's legitimate to point that fact out. It goes to character.
Did it ever occur to you that he may have joined the organization for its original purpose, i.e. to bring the ROTC back to Princeton's campus? Since Alito was in the ROTC, I think it's safe to say that he may have had some kind of interest in this.

The organization is totally shown in the wrong light. All it was was an organization that stood to fight affirmitive action and the likes.....nothing wrong with that.
CAP stood to fight COEDUCATION, dude. It wasn't just about opposing affirmitive action, it was about flat out stopping women from getting to go to Princeton AT ALL. Hell, they didn't even really seem to mind affirmitive action, since they supported quotas for MALE students and for children of alums.

Did it ever occur to you that he may have joined the organization for its original purpose, i.e. to bring the ROTC back to Princeton's campus? Since Alito was in the ROTC, I think it's safe to say that he may have had some kind of interest in this.
Well, I believe in second ammendment rights, but I wouldn't join the KKK if they made that part of their agenda.

This message has been deleted by Lunatic Goofballs. Reason: To try to hide my moment of dumbness.

Damn, I knew I should have pounced on it!
http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/8359/sebben7mm.png
Ha ha! Double entendre.

How dare he do his job as minority politician in a parliamentary comittee hearing!? The nerve!
I don't consider it to be any politician's job to bring up petty, insignificant quibbles that don't accurately reflect on the character of a judicial nominee.

I don't consider it to be any politician's job to bring up petty, insignificant quibbles that don't accurately reflect on the character of a judicial nominee.

Then you know very little about politics and the democratic process. Oh, and being a member of a racist and misogynist group is anything but "insignificant."

I love that it's now considered an "attack" to demand that a life-time appointee to the Supreme Court actually answer some goddam questions about his extremely questionable record. Alito has a history of lying, of "forgetting" inconvenient elements of his personal history, and admits to having presented a skewed picture of himself to get a job on at least one past occasion...but I guess the Dems should just roll over and play dead, right? Never mind trying to block this nomination, now the Dems aren't even supposed to QUESTION it. Boo-hoo-hoo, that Ted Kennedy is such a meanie head! He shouldn't say those nasty things, no matter how obviously true they are!

Here's what I'd like to know: why is Alito so reluctant to admit his views? My guess is that it's because he KNOWS that he's an extremist, and that the majority of Americans don't agree with him on key issues (like the right to choose, the 4th amendment, limitations on presidential authority...).
I haven't heard Ted Kennedy say anything against Alito that was obviously or even more than half true. Basically all he's done is call him a lying biggoted poo-poo face.

And the reason Alito won't admit his views is that if you give any opinion on hot-button issues such as abortion, whether for or against, you won't be confirmed. It's really that simple. It's the fault of Congress, not Alito, for having such a narrow, one-track conception of what makes a good judge that depends almost entirely on supporting or not supporting Roe v. Wade.

Then you know very little about politics and the democratic process.
I know a great deal about politics and the democratic process. Just because a politician *does* something doesn't mean it is in his job description or that it is the right thing to do. I would rather have some actual debate going on about Alito's broader judicial views instead of having to listen to this insignificant bull about him being part of an organization in the seventies that doesn't reflect society's views 20-30 years later and which he had an obvious reason to be part of aside from bigotry.

Oh, and being a member of a racist and misogynist group is anything but "insignificant."
That isn't the reason he joined the group. That isn't the reason the group was founded. He isn't responsible for the views of some narrow-minded individuals 20+ years ago. That pretty much covers it. If you think some of his case rulings show him to be bigoted, fine, that should definitely be discussed, but the Princeton issue is a non-issue, so let's move on.

I know a great deal about politics and the democratic process. Just because a politician *does* something doesn't mean it is in his job description or that it is the right thing to do.

The right thing to do is to to put the nominee through hell. That's what you do before you put someone into an immensely important political position from which you cannot later separate them. Anything else would be a mockery of the system.

I would rather have some actual debate going on about Alito's broader judicial views instead of having to listen to this insignificant bull about him being part of an organization in the seventies that doesn't reflect society's views 20-30 years later and which he had an obvious reason to be part of aside from bigotry.

That isn't the reason he joined the group. That isn't the reason the group was founded. He isn't responsible for the views of some narrow-minded individuals 20+ years ago. That pretty much covers it. If you think some of his case rulings show him to be bigoted, fine, that should definitely be discussed, but the Princeton issue is a non-issue, so let's move on.


Ah, yes of course - the KKK is anti-affirmative action, too. Let's just forget their other views, why don't we? I mean, someone being a member of a racist and misogynist group is OK as long as his post-factly invented reasons are "noble?"

The right thing to do is to to put the nominee through hell. That's what you do before you put someone into an immensely important political position from which you cannot later separate them. Anything else would be a mockery of the system.






Ah, yes of course - the KKK is anti-affirmative action, too. Let's just forget their other views, why don't we? I mean, someone being a member of a racist and misogynist group is OK as long as his post-factly invented reasons are "noble?"
Why put him through hell if we get no relevant knowledge out of the process? I'm not saying being tough on him is bad; I am saying that, like with Kerry, I would like to hear more about what he intends to do now than some crap he may or may not have done thirty years ago.

I don't know what the KKK being anti-affirmative action has to do with anything we're discussing, so I'll leave that to your bizarre thought processes. Alito had more than enough reason to be in the group at the time without having to be a misogynistic jerk. Hell, even if he was a mysogynistic jerk, he's had fifteen years on the bench during which to prove it, so why aren't people talking more about that time instead of focusing on this much less stable ground of his membership in this particular campus group?

Did it ever occur to you that he may have joined the organization for its original purpose, i.e. to bring the ROTC back to Princeton's campus? Since Alito was in the ROTC, I think it's safe to say that he may have had some kind of interest in this.
while alito mentioned this in his defense, i havent seen anything saying that CAP ever had anything to do with rotc. other future prominent princeton graduates who had initial ties to CAP dropped them as soon as they found out what the actual agenda of the group was. why didnt alito?

and if he didnt really do anything with the group other than sign up and didnt even really remember being in it, WHY did he put it on his resume?? he surely must have remembered it then.

Ted Kennedy brings in huge amounts of pork and publicity to a tiny state that would otherwise be off the map, were it not for his name.

Wait, as opposed to the populous and important state of Kansas? We are aware that Massachusetts is the 13th largest state, right?

while alito mentioned this in his defense, i havent seen anything saying that CAP ever had anything to do with rotc. other future prominent princeton graduates who had initial ties to CAP dropped them as soon as they found out what the actual agenda of the group was. why didnt alito?

and if he didnt really do anything with the group other than sign up and didnt even really remember being in it, WHY did he put it on his resume?? he surely must have remembered it then.
The CAP was involved with the ROTC; that is why it was originally founded, at least that's what I think I heard in questioning (and wiki backs me up, for whatever that's worth). I don't know why he didn't drop his ties to the group when he found out about the rest of its agenda, and I don't particularly care. Compared to 15+ years of judicial decisions, this is a pretty insignificant drop in the bucket even if he did feel 30 years ago that rich white guys should rule Princeton. If there were significant evidence of him being a chauvinist black-hater, it would be in his judicial record, yet I don't hear people talking about his judicial record on these issues nearly as much as they go on and on about the Princeton group (but maybe I'm just turning on the TV at the wrong times, I don't know).

As for his resume, the entire point of the resume is to sell yourself, or rather to *over*sell yourself. If he thought that group would look good to the Reagan guys, it was plain smart to put it down, even if he only attended the first general meeting and blew it off otherwise.

COMMENTARY: Of all the people to question someone else's ethics, Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy should be the last. -snip-



-- attacks that distressed his wife to the point of tears on Wednesday.

"Having failed to distort Judge Alito's distinguished record on the bench, today Senator Kennedy tried to smear Sam Alito's character," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a press release.

"Throughout his career, Samuel Alito has proven his commitment to the highest ethical principles and a fair and just America. This good man does not need a lecture from Ted Kennedy," Mehlman added.

In that same vein, a conservative advocacy group called it "almost comical" to hear Sen. Kennedy lecturing Judge Alito on ethics.

"I half expect to next see Bill Clinton lecturing him on sexual morality or President Bush lecturing him on proper grammatical usage," said Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio.

"Those that serve with Judge Alito have stated that his character is beyond reproach and even the liberal leaning American Bar Association admits that Judge Alito is 'an individual of excellent integrity,'" Delgaudio noted. "When was the last time anyone said the same thing of the Senator from Chappaquiddick?"
-snip-
In a podcast interview with Fidelis, a Catholic-based organization that defends and promote the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty, Meese singled out Sen. Ted Kennedy's repeated questions about Alito's failure to recuse himself in a Vanguard case.

"It is totally hypocritical and false for anybody like Senator Kennedy, of all people, to question anyone's ethics, in view of his own past background," Meese said, adding that the American Bar Association's rating of well-qualified "says it all about Alito."

-snip-

A coalition calling itself People for the Alito Way on Wednesday invited former Alito law clerks to respond to "unfair attacks by partisan Democrats."

-snip-

Judge Alito's wife Martha Ann wept on Wednesday, when Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood up for her husband. "Are you really a closet bigot?" Graham asked the judge, clearly suggesting otherwise.

"Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this," Graham continued. "I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."

Alito's wife, apparently touched by the sudden burst of kindness and confidence following Democrats' insinuations about her husband, briefly left the hearing room to regain her composure. She later returned, escorted by her husband.
So, this is what passes as honest debate? What I see here is that the question would be okay if asked by someone else? No one finds the humour in an ad hominom attack to make a claim about an ad hominom? That's basicly what's at issue, that they are attacking the 'character' of one person for attacking the 'character' of the nominee. Except that in this case the character of the nominee is in fact a valid issue. It's a valid question if the Judge took part in a discriminatory organization. Sorry, it's a question that has to be asked if he put it on a goddamn resume. I don't care if a talking sentient clam asked the question. Who asked the question or what you think of them is fucking irrelevant. The criteria for who gets to ask questions is membership to the senate. Qualification met, quit bitching.

The secondary implication, no questions that make the wife cry? No, sorry, this is important. If she can't handle it she can watch at home.

But what is most important here is why this is a 'story'.
Catholic-based organization that defends and promote the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty
A coalition calling itself People for the Alito Way on Wednesday
Oh...because people that want Alito don't want to have their guy challenged...these groups exist to make hay for thier guy and slam anyone who opposes them. And here we are, dancing like thier little monkeys. This isn't news, an article wasn't needed. The opening 'commentary' had as much substance as the article itself.

Sorry, this seems the most relivent, and I think it deserves to be asked. Who asked it is irrelevant to the debate-

(Among other things, Kennedy on Wednesday questioned Alito's account of his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative campus group that wanted Princeton University to accept fewer women and minorities. Kennedy said Alito's explanation of his peripheral membership in the group doesn't "add up." Kennedy is demanding that the Judiciary Committee subpoena CAP's records.)

This message has been deleted by Lunatic Goofballs. Reason: To try to hide my moment of dumbness.

Damn, I knew I should have pounced on it!

Aww... Nobody said there might be pouncing! :(

I love that it's now considered an "attack" to demand that a life-time appointee to the Supreme Court actually answer some goddam questions about his extremely questionable record. Alito has a history of lying, of "forgetting" inconvenient elements of his personal history, and admits to having presented a skewed picture of himself to get a job on at least one past occasion...but I guess the Dems should just roll over and play dead, right? Never mind trying to block this nomination, now the Dems aren't even supposed to QUESTION it. Boo-hoo-hoo, that Ted Kennedy is such a meanie head! He shouldn't say those nasty things, no matter how obviously true they are!

Here's what I'd like to know: why is Alito so reluctant to admit his views? My guess is that it's because he KNOWS that he's an extremist, and that the majority of Americans don't agree with him on key issues (like the right to choose, the 4th amendment, limitations on presidential authority...).


God forbid the truth gets spoken.

Word, Bottle.

It's the job of this judiciary committee to grill the guy. Obviously Republicans are going to throw him softballs, so it's up to the Democrats who actually have something to gain by turning up the juice and seeing if anything shakes loose.

I'd expect no less from Republicans if Clinton chose the nominee.

Of course, I am one of what must be five people in the United States who realises it was a Republican who made the wife cry then use it to give the Democrats shit. Welcome to Capital Hill, bitches.

I haven't heard Ted Kennedy say anything against Alito that was obviously or even more than half true. Basically all he's done is call him a lying biggoted poo-poo face.

Here:

December 22, 2005

The Honorable Arlen Specter

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you know, when Judge Samuel Alito applied for his job in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Meese Justice Department in November 1985, he submitted a list of his memberships and other activities to impress Attorney General Meese and Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper with his enthusiastic "philosophical commitment" to their particular constitutional, legal, and political point of view.

Among the organizations he listed was "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" (CAP), an organization created in 1972, the year Judge Alito graduated. The organization was described in the press at the time and in its own literature as opposed to the increasing number of women, African Americans and Hispanics at the university. The organization also published articles critical of the rights of the disabled.

Our former Senate colleague Bill Bradley, a graduate of the university in1965, initially joined the advisory board for the group's magazine, "Prospect," but publicly separated himself from the group in 1973, because he felt it promoted a "right wing view" rather than the "balanced view" he had been led to believe it would present. In 1975 an official report by a committee of Princeton alumni that included William Frist, now Senator Frist, concluded that CAP's "distorted, narrow and hostile view of the University" had "misinformed and even alarmed many alumni" and "undoubtedly generated adverse national publicity."

The heated debate in the University community and in the press continued throughout the life of the organization from 1972 through 1986. For example, Senator Bradley's resignation letter was published in "Prospect" in September 1973, a New Yorker article covered the controversy in 1977, and the Princeton Alumni Weekly carried articles on the group as late as April and June of 1986. "Prospect" was originally mailed to CAP members and contributors, and beginning in 1974 to all graduates listed in the Alumni Directory. The Alumni Weekly was mailed to all living Princeton graduates.

It appears from recent press interviews that Judge Alito became involved with CAP through one of CAP's founders early in CAP's history. In spite of the prominence he gave to CAP in his 1985 application to the Justice Department and its well-known and controversial activities, Judge Alito's participation in CAP was not disclosed in the public documents relating to his 1987 nomination as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey or his 1990 nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The subject was not discussed at his 1990 hearing. In fact, Senator Bradley, based on a recommendation Judge Alito had obtained from the judge for whom he had served as a law clerk, introduced and endorsed Judge Alito "one hundred percent" for the Third Circuit.

In view of CAP's troubling opposition to equal educational opportunity for women, minorities, and the disabled, it is important for the Committee to learn more about Judge Alito's involvement in this organization. However, even after his recollection was refreshed by a "document I recently reviewed" (presumably his 1985 job application to the Justice Department), Judge Alito's response to our recent questionnaire states that he cannot remember anything about his membership in CAP beyond what is stated in that document. Unless a further reading of the many documents relating to this issue restores his memory of the matter, we are unlikely to obtain any further information from him on this potentially important subject.

Clearly, to understand fully the importance of the partial facts known from secondary sources, and to avoid the prospect of a delay in our schedule to obtain the full story, we need answers to a number of questions before our hearings:

- Was Judge Alito a member of or contributor to CAP, a participant in any of its meetings or on its mailing list, (1) in 1973, when Senator Bradley's resignation letter was published in Prospect; (2) in 1974, when the controversy was first aired in the New York Times; (3) in 1977, when a lengthy article on CAP appeared in the New Yorker; or (4) in 1986 when the debate over CAP continued in the pages of the Alumni Weekly?

- What was the exact nature of Judge Alito's participation in CAP and his contacts or correspondence with its officers and staff during the years 1972-87?

- Judge Alito lists other Princeton alumni activities in his 1990 and 2005 Committee forms, indicating that he has remained an active and interested alumnus throughout the relevant period. Did he ever personally express a view either publicly or privately on the CAP controversy or the positions advocated by CAP, as many alumni did?

- Was anyone connected with CAP contacted regarding Judge Alito's involvement with CAP, either in connection with his New Jersey Bar application (1975), or in connection with his federal job applications and security clearances (1977, 1981, and 1985), his U.S. Attorney and Judicial nominations (1987, 1990), or his possible selection for the Supreme Court (2001, 2005)?

- At any time before Senator Bradley appeared before our Committee in 1990 to introduce then-U.S. Attorney Alito to the Committee and to endorse his Third Circuit nomination, did Judge Alito write, say or do anything documenting his general attention to CAP news or his specific awareness that Senator Bradley had been a public critic of CAP?

- Did Judge Alito inform Senator Bradley that he had been a participant in CAP before requesting or allowing Senator Bradley to recommend his confirmation as a judge on the Third Circuit?

- During his 1987 or 1990 confirmation processes, did Judge Alito, the Justice Department (including the FBI), or the ABA provide the Committee with any information relating to Judge Alito's membership in CAP?

- Would Senator Bradley's unqualified endorsement of Judge Alito for the Third Circuit have been affected if he had known of Judge Alito's involvement in CAP and his voluntary listing of his CAP membership in support of his selection as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the position which put him on track toward his later judicial appointment?

Answers to a large number of these questions are likely to be found in files in the possession of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress as part of the "Papers of William A Rusher 1940-1989." Mr. Rusher was Publisher of the National Review and an active founder and leader of CAP. According to the Library's Register of that collection, at least four of its boxes (142, 143, 144, 145) contain the files of "Concerned Alumni of Princeton," including clipping files, background information, correspondence and memoranda, financial records, fund-raising material, lists of supporters, minutes of meetings, issues and other items relating to "Prospect." Box 46 also contains materials relating to T. Harding Jones, a founder of CAP and editor of "Prospect," and a person who reportedly involved Judge Alito in CAP. There may also be other files with records of CAP leaders who were familiar with the nominee's role.

The Congressional Research Service has attempted to gain access to these files, following its usual policy of not disclosing its requestor, but Mr. Rusher has refused to permit access unless he is told which member(s) or committee(s) are seeking it, and unless he can control the use of the materials released.

It is likely that a formal request for access directly from you on behalf of the Committee would be received with more cooperation than the CRS has received so far, and we urge you to make such a request as soon as possible. In view of the importance of the material and its intended use as part of an official Senate inquiry, the request should be for access to the documents without any restrictions on the Committee's use of the information, unless he is aware of specific documents in those files that merit confidential treatment for a stated reason. The request should include the specified boxes and any other boxes containing materials relating to CAP, its activities, or personnel, including "Prospect."

Judge Alito's assertion that he cannot recall anything about his controversial involvement in CAP, requires us to find other ways of fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to get at the facts. The Rusher papers provide a readily available means of doing so. Certainly we do not want to leave the Committee, the Senate, and the nation open to an unwelcome surprise when the papers eventually become public after Mr. Rusher's death.

As always, we thank you for your cooperation and leadership, and your commitment to making the confirmation process as thorough as possible.

Sincerely,

Edward M. Kennedy


And the reason Alito won't admit his views is that if you give any opinion on hot-button issues such as abortion, whether for or against, you won't be confirmed. It's really that simple. It's the fault of Congress, not Alito, for having such a narrow, one-track conception of what makes a good judge that depends almost entirely on supporting or not supporting Roe v. Wade.
No, darling, it's because 75% of Americans don't want a Supreme Court judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's because most Americans don't want a judge who will grant the president unrestricted power to do whatever the hell he pleases. It's because Bush's handlers know for damn sure that the majority of the country wouldn't support them if they were honest about their intentions. The reason an opennly anti-Roe judge won't get confirmed is because the members of Congress who voted to confirm him would lose their jobs. They'd lose their jobs if they voted in a man who was open about hating black people. They'd lose their jobs if they voted for a man who flat out said, "I think the government should get to read your mail." The American people don't want a man who believes what Alito believes...which is why Alito is lying and dodging and covering up his beliefs, just like he seems to do every time he applies for a job. He'll say what people want to hear, then do whatever the hell he pleases. He's broken his word before.

Of course, I am one of what must be five people in the United States who realises it was a Republican who made the wife cry then use it to give the Democrats shit. Welcome to Capital Hill, bitches.
It's no surprise that a traditionalist ass like Alito would marry a tender, weak, "feminine" female who bursts into tears at the first hint of unpleasent realities.

Or, you can go with Alito in his own words (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/alito/8105.pdf)


I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this [Reagan] Administration. . . . I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values. In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation of the judiciary of decisionmaking authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate. The Administration has already made major strides toward reversing this trend through its judicial appointments, litigation, and public debate, and it is my hope even greater advances can be achieved during the second term, especially with Attorney General Meese' leadership at the Department of Justice.

When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., in the National Reveiw, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickel advocating judicial restraint, and it was largely for this reason that I decided to go to Yale Law School.

. . . Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.

. . . I am a life-long registered Republican . . . I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group. During the past year, I have submitted articles for publication in the National Review and the American Spectator.



Seems he remembered his membership just fine at the same time as he was personally doing everything to quash affirmative action that he could.

Funny how it slips his mind these days....

It's no surprise that a traditionalist ass like Alito would marry a tender, weak, "feminine" female who bursts into tears at the first hint of unpleasent realities.

YEs, bursting into tears while her husband was being questioned by the very same Republican who had spent the prior weekend coaching Alito on how to answer (or not) questions from the committee....

Big bad Republi-meanie!

I love that it's now considered an "attack" to demand that a life-time appointee to the Supreme Court actually answer some goddam questions about his extremely questionable record. Alito has a history of lying, of "forgetting" inconvenient elements of his personal history, and admits to having presented a skewed picture of himself to get a job on at least one past occasion...but I guess the Dems should just roll over and play dead, right? Never mind trying to block this nomination, now the Dems aren't even supposed to QUESTION it. Boo-hoo-hoo, that Ted Kennedy is such a meanie head! He shouldn't say those nasty things, no matter how obviously true they are!

Here's what I'd like to know: why is Alito so reluctant to admit his views? My guess is that it's because he KNOWS that he's an extremist, and that the majority of Americans don't agree with him on key issues (like the right to choose, the 4th amendment, limitations on presidential authority...).
Guess what - it's not just "conservatives" that find these attacks on Alito absurd and dangerous:


Don't "F" Alito
Jan 12, 2006

Most efforts at evaluating the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court have fallen along predictable party lines. By opposing the nomination however, my fellow liberals and I run the real danger of shooting ourselves in our own left foot.

I was one of Judge Alito's law clerks from 1990-1991, the year the Casey decision was decided. I consider myself a social progressive. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a liberal pro-choice advocate who supports abortion rights. I favor gun control, support gay marriage and oppose the death penalty. I also don't have a problem if you want to take "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. In short, no one is likely to mistake me for a conservative any time soon. Yet, I support the nomination of Judge Alito, because I know from having worked closely with him, that he is not a political ideologue and is not intent on advancing a conservative political agenda.

As a liberal, what scares me is not the prospect of having Sam Alito on the Supreme Court; what scares me is the way my fellow liberal Democrats are behaving in response to the nomination. I’m appalled and embarrassed by the fear mongering, the personal attacks and what I see as an irresponsible and misleading distortion of his real judicial record as well as his character. Now the threat of a filibuster lurks, and Senator Kennedy’s tirade about documents being concealed seems like little more than a pretext to justify such a threat.

In light of the Alito feeding frenzy, I feel compelled as a liberal and a former clerk to speak out and attempt to offer a different perspective to perhaps stem, or at least counter, what I see as a short-sighted, ill-considered and counter-productive attack strategy, made, sadly, by the very same liberal groups whose mission and philosophy I ordinarily support and embrace. I did not want to be part of the spin, but I don’t know how to stop it except to say what I know and hope some will listen.

In all candor, I expect that if I did not know Judge Alito, I may have responded to the nomination with the same distrust, fear and suspicion with which I usually respond to everything the Bush administration does, so I understand the genesis of the attacks by my fellow liberals. However, having worked closely with Judge Alito, I know that he is not a political ideologue intent on advancing a conservative political agenda. If he were, we would not have the decisions in which he reached or supported "liberal" outcomes. These include pro-choice decisions that affirmed and applied Roe v. Wade, as well as cases favoring plaintiffs bringing discrimination suits, cases that ruled in favor of criminal defendants, or a case that expanded a women's rights to seek political asylum on the basis of gender. These are just not the results you would expect to see if he were a conservative ideologue.

In my experience, having worked closely with him, Judge Alito never allowed his personal or political opinions to dictate the outcome in any case irrespective of its subject matter. On the contrary, he approached every case, including Casey, thoughtfully and carefully. He was always open to discussion and argument and always willing to listen and consider all relevant points of view. Judge Alito heard thousands of cases and wrote hundreds of opinions. Cherry picking “sensational” cases is at best unhelpful. Over-simplifying and mischaracterizing his record serves no one. Making unfounded personal attacks to insinuate he is racist or sexist is not only personally offensive to me as one who knows him, it denigrates the entire proceeding.

At this point, Democrats should be playing chess, not checkers. The threat of a filibuster is not only premature, it's short-sighted. Consider this: Democrats' attempts to filibuster Alito prove successful, because some Republicans are reluctant to change the long-standing rules of the Senate. Consequently, Alito's nomination fails. Check! In his place, President Bush then nominates a true conservative ideologue. We Democrats would most certainly and desperately want to filibuster such a choice but would be unable to do so because now those same Republicans who were reluctant to change the rules beforehand, would be frustrated by what they would see as Democrats' serial filibustering, and so they would now exercise the "constitutional" option and change the rules. No filibuster and we liberals end up with a super conservative justice on the court. Check mate! Now that's the really scary outcome.

I believe we need to tread carefully, temper our partisan distrust and think carefully before reflexively voicing outrage. Otherwise, we may actually undermine our own best "liberal" interests as well as the interests of everyone else. If you really want a Supreme Court justice who will approach each case carefully, thoughtfully and will reach a decision irrespective of his own personal or political agenda, please don’t “F” Judge Alito.

Susan Sullivan is an attorney in San Francisco. She was Judge Alito's law clerk in 1990-1991, the year in which Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided.

God I love intellectual honesty.

In all candor, I expect that if I did not know Judge Alito, I may have responded to the nomination with the same distrust, fear and suspicion with which I usually respond to everything the Bush administration does, so I understand the genesis of the attacks by my fellow liberals. However, having worked closely with Judge Alito, I know that he is not a political ideologue intent on advancing a conservative political agenda.

So, basically, for all of us who haven't been Alito's clerk and don't know him personally, we're acting appropriately? With distrust of that which we do not know. It's great that she thinks Alito's such a great guy. We don't know him. We need to find out.

Guess what - it's not just "conservatives" that find these attacks on Alito absurd and dangerous:


God I love intellectual honesty.
I agree that it would be a mistake for Democrats to rudely or unjustly attack Alito. However, expecting a Supreme Court nominee to explain himself and answer straight-forward questions is not an "attack." Discussing the fillibuster option is not "short-sighted," it is simply realistic; it is an option, and people should discuss whether or not it is appropriate in this case.

It's nice that Alito's clerk knows him and likes him. The rest of us don't know him, so we don't have any particular reason to like or trust him. Trying to gather information about him isn't an "attack," it's simply the responsible thing to do. Democrats (and Republicans!) who expect answers from Alito are not "attacking" him. His record has many questionable elements, and these elements should be questioned BEFORE he is given a life-time appointment!

Also, we are dealing with a CIC who has repeatedly lied and abused the trust of both Congress and the American people, and who may potentially have committed impeachable offenses, so the notion that his nominee should be allowed to slide by without so much as a peep of opposition is...well, frankly, it's unAmerican.

Put it this way: if a Supreme Court slot had openned up during the Lewinsky mess, do you really think Republicans would have stood aside for whoever Clinton decided to nominate? Do you really think they should have?

I love that it's now considered an "attack" to demand that a life-time appointee to the Supreme Court actually answer some goddam questions about his extremely questionable record. Alito has a history of lying, of "forgetting" inconvenient elements of his personal history, and admits to having presented a skewed picture of himself to get a job on at least one past occasion...but I guess the Dems should just roll over and play dead, right? Never mind trying to block this nomination, now the Dems aren't even supposed to QUESTION it. Boo-hoo-hoo, that Ted Kennedy is such a meanie head! He shouldn't say those nasty things, no matter how obviously true they are!

Here's what I'd like to know: why is Alito so reluctant to admit his views? My guess is that it's because he KNOWS that he's an extremist, and that the majority of Americans don't agree with him on key issues (like the right to choose, the 4th amendment, limitations on presidential authority...).
Please provide a source for your accusations of "extremely questionable record" and "history of lying".
Dems should question it, of course. They shouldn't attack, which only in your own world they aren't doing.

Please provide a source for your accusations of "extremely questionable record" and "history of lying".
Dems should question it, of course. They shouldn't attack, which only in your own world they aren't doing.
The sources have already been posted on this thread. Read before you post.

And I love the "only in my own world." Yeah, it's obvious that only Bottle feels Alito has a questionable record and should be held to task for it...only Bottle feels that it's not an attack to expect explanations from a potential life-time appointee. Nobody else feels that way...except for some random nobodies like the Minority leader, numerous US Senators and Reps, several prominent Republican politicians...

Of course, I am one of what must be five people in the United States who realises it was a Republican who made the wife cry then use it to give the Democrats shit. Welcome to Capital Hill, bitches.
Because everyone else has at least a minute amount of commone sense, something which you 5 must lack.

Because she cried after a comment from a Republican senator, doesn't mean it was that senator that caused it.

Nice spin tho.

It doesn't matter, people.

It's a dog and pony show.

There are 55 Republicans in the Senate. Alito is in unless he slips up and says he's sexually attracted to 8 year old girls.

In a few years, however, the Democrats will be in power again. It will start with this November's elections. The Republicans will once again be the minority party and guess what's gonna happen? Every word ever said concerning the current minority opposition party will be conveniently swept away and Republicans will once again be screaming against tyrrany of the majority (just like they were doing in 1992).

It will happen. History has proven that time and time again. Same shit, different cow.

Alito's in, Justice Kennedy will now represent that "swing" vote, and we'll deal with a more conservative Supreme Court until the next Democrat President gets an appointee or two.

Life will go on. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned and we won't be calling anyone "Your Highness".

Oh, and as far as Senator Kennedy goes: forgive him. Everyone seems to ready, willing, and able to forgive George Bush his coke binges and bourbon benders and avoiding Vietnam with Daddy's clout, but Ted Kennedy's goof 40 years ago renders him incapable of forming an educated opinion? Puleaze.

Kennedy has an impeccable record in the Senate, has served his country with zeal and honor, and is a much needed pitbull in a sea of wishy-washy Dems. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

So, basically, for all of us who haven't been Alito's clerk and don't know him personally, we're acting appropriately? With distrust of that which we do not know. It's great that she thinks Alito's such a great guy. We don't know him. We need to find out.
You missed somthing important: She understands the GENESIS of such concerns, but she thinks that the PTB are acting totally inappropriately in their methodology to "find out".

As a liberal, what scares me is not the prospect of having Sam Alito on the Supreme Court; what scares me is the way my fellow liberal Democrats are behaving in response to the nomination. I’m appalled and embarrassed by the fear mongering, the personal attacks and what I see as an irresponsible and misleading distortion of his real judicial record as well as his character.

Because everyone else has at least a minute amount of commone sense, something which you 5 must lack.

Because she cried after a comment from a Republican senator, doesn't mean it was that senator that caused it.

Nice spin tho.As a matter of fact, it was cited that she cried because Graham, unlike the democrats befor him, spoke in a non-accusatory fashion. It was simple cathartic releif.

Wait, as opposed to the populous and important state of Kansas? We are aware that Massachusetts is the 13th largest state, right?

Of course we are aware that Massachusetts suffers from urban saturation to a very large degree. Population does not affect the size of the state outside the minds of it's inhabitants. Attempting to attack another state does not alter the fact that Ted Kennedy is Massachusetts' greatest financial and advertising asset. Why so sensitive? If it is because he funnels money into his state using questionable and unethical means, there is no reason to take it personally. He is in a very large crowd of politicians that operate in this manner. I stated very clearly that the people of Massachusetts can't be blamed for that.
If you happen to be a fanboy of Ted Kennedy's and attack the state of Kansas because your hero brings shame and discredit to the people of your state. A basic marketing and retailing course will teach you that one cannot improve your own position by trying to demean someone else. It just doens't work and only serves to tarnish your cause or product further.

Because everyone else has at least a minute amount of commone sense, something which you 5 must lack.
I would be mad or slightly wounded, but you already said driving 100-200 miles is a viable option to get medicine if your local pharmacist won't fill your prescription. You have -5 credibility.

Say what, Eutrusca is opposed to President Bush's Iraqi invasion? :eek:

Of course we are aware that Massachusetts suffers from urban saturation to a very large degree. Population does not affect the size of the state outside the minds of it's inhabitants. Attempting to attack another state does not alter the fact that Ted Kennedy is Massachusetts' greatest financial and advertising asset. Why so sensitive? If it is because he funnels money into his state using questionable and unethical means, there is no reason to take it personally. He is in a very large crowd of politicians that operate in this manner. I stated very clearly that the people of Massachusetts can't be blamed for that.
If you happen to be a fanboy of Ted Kennedy's and attack the state of Kansas because your hero brings shame and discredit to the people of your state. A basic marketing and retailing course will teach you that one cannot improve your own position by trying to demean someone else. It just doens't work and only serves to tarnish your cause or product further.

Not sensitive. Amused that someone from flyover country would attack the relative importance of another state.

Meh. Eut's "centrist" attitudes are showing again.

I am sorry but saying you don't remember joining a group in college is like saying you don't remember being in a Frat.

It deserves looking into.

I say allow the fishing expedition into the records of the library of congress. If nothing is there, then that will shut the dems up.

However, if it is discovered he wrote a published paper saying he agreed with reducing if not eliminating women and minorities that would be pretty damning.

I give the guy credit. He really knows how to answer questions without saying anything.

I had reservations over Roberts, but I would gladly take him over this guy.....

The same dumbass Democratic Senators who demanded and eventually got the precedent in place that you don't ask on prospective rulings seem to have selective memory on it.

If Ginsberg didn't have to answer than Alito doesn't have to. Sorry libs, that's your own rules and we are turning them against you.

Not sensitive. Amused that someone from flyover country would attack the relative importance of another state.

Unlike yourself I never attacked the relative importance of another state. I defended the people of Mass., despite the shame and discredit that Ted Kennedy has brought upon you.
Once again however, you fail. Living in "flyover" country is a blessing, and the vast majority of us prefer that "flyover" is exactally what you do.

The same dumbass Democratic Senators who demanded and eventually got the precedent in place that you don't ask on prospective rulings seem to have selective memory on it.

If Ginsberg didn't have to answer than Alito doesn't have to. Sorry libs, that's your own rules and we are turning them against you.

Psst. It's been going on longer then that.

The guy used his membership in an organization that wanted to basically turn Princeton University into a country club for rich white guys to pad his resume when he presented it to the Reagan administration. It's legitimate to point that fact out. It goes to character.
So I suppose we should look back on EVERY SINGLE THING EVERY PERSON HAS DONE while they were in grammer school, high school, college, and so on when they are getting into politics, right? If that is how desperate Ted (hic) Kennedy is to smear Alito, well, lets open up ol Teddy's records. So, whaddia say? Let us go on a campaign of "Guilt through association" where if you were anywhere near something the opposition doesnt like, you are just like them. Well hey, that worked pretty well with Hitler, didnt it?

Nasy?

Meh. Eut's "centrist" attitudes are showing again.

I am sorry but saying you don't remember joining a group in college is like saying you don't remember being in a Frat.

It deserves looking into.
..
Although I do agree with you to a point about that, lets look at what time frame he was in while in Princeton. If we were to critisize him for being in a club that may or may not have had sexist, or racist tendencies, well, we would have had to look at all of our founding fathers and politicians from the very start of our US history. We have had presidents who had previously owned slaves, or had certain tendencies that we would not agree with in today's society. Lets villify them. To villify Alito for something he might have done or been a part of when he was a young person, well, we all would have to plead guiltyas well, because we all have done something while we were young that we might regret today. But it doesnt mean that we are still like that. Am I right?

Although I do agree with you to a point about that, lets look at what time frame he was in while in Princeton. If we were to critisize him for being in a club that may or may not have had sexist, or racist tendencies, well, we would have had to look at all of our founding fathers and politicians from the very start of our US history. We have had presidents who had previously owned slaves, or had certain tendencies that we would not agree with in today's society. Lets villify them. To villify Alito for something he might have done or been a part of when he was a young person, well, we all would have to plead guiltyas well, because we all have done something while we were young that we might regret today. But it doesnt mean that we are still like that. Am I right?

Actually the Founder comparison is not legitimate. In their day slavery was ok if not expected for land owners.

In Alitos case, slavery was outlawed 140 years ago. Civil rights was 40 years ago. Womens sufferate was 70 years ago. The feminist movement was 40 years ago.

Is there an excuse for holding such ideals?

In the matters of regret, I would accept him if he said "yes I was stupid back then. However, I am older and wiser now" Instead conviently not remembering being in that group even though he listed it on the job app for Reagan.....

I do agree on that with you, but I think it would be implied the "yes I was stupid back then. However, I am older and wiser now," by his current actions. How could he have gotten where he is today if he continued to hold those beliefs? So he wrote it down during the Regan years, do YOU remeber what you wrote down during the Regan years?
And the whole "I do not recall" line would be appropriate. I mean, it worked pretty well for a lot of politicians, and why not? The Clintons did it, Bush used it, probably every single politician has used that line and so why should it be a big deal if he uses it today? Can you imagine what would have happened if he stood up and proudly proclaimed "I AM A PROUD MEMEMBER OF CAP!" Good god man!
Also, we should look back and check on every frat and sorority memeber that is now a politician and whatever, and check into what they were doing during their college days too. I'll bet a lot of stuff they would not want us to know. Sure it would have been better if he said "yes I was stupid back then. However, I am older and wiser now," but I did not realize you had to go and bend over for a full rectal exam to become a Justice.