by Tim Grieve
Sam Alito had a moment of eloquence in today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. In response to a question in which Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley dismissed the notion that courts should take the lead in helping to create "a more just society," Alito pushed back gently: "Well, I think that if the courts do the job that they're supposed to do, they will -- we will -- produce a more just society," Alito said. "I think if you take the position as a federal judge, you have to have faith that if you do your job then you will be helping to create a more just society. The Constitution and the constitutional system that we have is designed to produce a just society."
Alito then segued into a metaphor that's a little more apt than the baseball stories folks keep trying to inject into Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Arguing that judges have a limited role to play in our government, Alito said that the Constitution "gives different responsibilities to different people. You could think of a football team or you could think of an orchestra where everybody has a different part to play, and the whole system won't work if people start playing ... the role of someone else."
It all sounded so reasonable. But as always, the devil is in the details, and Alito has been careful today to steer clear of them. John G. Roberts repeatedly declined to answer questions put to him by senators on the Judiciary Committee. Alito hasn't done that, exactly. He's responding to virtually all the questions senators are putting to him. He's just not really answering all that many of them.
Consider this exchange between Alito and Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter. Specter asked Alito this morning if he accepted "the legal principles articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut, that the liberty clause in the Constitution carries with it the right to privacy." Alito responded by saying, "I do believe that the Constitution protects a right to privacy," then cited the ways in which the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures -- an issue not particularly germane to Specter's question or Griswold's holding that married people have a right to buy contraceptives.
Specter pressed on: "Well, Griswold dealt with the right to privacy on contraception for married women. You agree with that." Alito responded: "I agree that Griswold is now, I think, understood by the Supreme Court as based on liberty clauses of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendment." Specter tried it another way, asking Alito if he agreed with Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 case that extended the holding in Griswold to single people. Alito said he agreed with "the result" in Eisenstadt.
Three questions, three responses, and still no answer to the query underlying them all: Does Alito believe in "the legal principles articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut, that the liberty clause in the Constitution carries with it the right to privacy"?
A few minutes ago, Alito had an equally unilluminating exchange with Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl. Kohl asked Alito to opine on Bush v. Gore -- and, in particular, to say how the Supreme Court's decision in that case comported with Alito's views about "judicial restraint, not legislating from the bench and respecting the rights of states." For once, Alito declined to answer, saying he really didn't know what he thought about the case that handed the White House to George W. Bush. "I haven't studied it in the way I would study a case that comes before me as a judge," the nominee said.
Right at that moment, it was hard not to remember Clarence Thomas, who insisted during his confirmation hearing that he'd never discussed the merits of Roe v. Wade before and hadn't formed an opinion on it. We don't know if Kohl was thinking about Thomas as he pressed Alito to answer his question today, but he sure wasn't buying whatever it was that Alito was selling. "Bush v. Gore was "a huge case," Kohl said, "and I'd like to hope and like to bet that you thought about it an awful lot." Alito didn't disagree, but he didn't answer the question, either.
Contributors
Links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(1766)
-
▼
January
(93)
- Aide: Reagan Warned Before Beirut Blast
- As Usual, What Digby Said
- The case for impeachment
- The Myth of the American Political "Center" and th...
- Spies, Lies and Wiretaps
- Mike Huckabee Lost 110 Pounds. Ask Him How.
- The truth about The State Of Our Union
- Mr. Abramoff's Meetings, Again
- Feinstein: I'll back the filibuster after all
- Fw: Driven by Fear or Governed by Law?- FCNL
- Filibuster Now! Alito Is Un-American
- Murtha Says Iraq Is Now A "Civil War"
- Fw: Filibuster
- Senators in Need of A Spine
- Kerry to push for Alito filibuster
- How do you like your democracy now, Mr. Bush?
- Reid: Bush Has Made America Less Safe
- Bush Was Also Warned Before 9/11
- Gore Said What Needed To Be Said
- Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for...
- Bush's PR Blitz Fizzles Under The Facts
- I ... Can't ... Take It ... Anymore
- Banking on the 'bank shot'
- Fw: Patriot Act: Call Your Members of Congress thi...
- Halliburton Cited In Iraq Contamination
- College Funds or Yacht Funds?
- My Right to Roe
- Activists seek to seize Souter's home
- Sounds like the ol' Kenny-boy line to me.....
- Sweet Victory: Progressive Caucuses Sweep the States
- Judge Alito's Radical Views
- Samuel Alito and CAP
- Truthiness 101: From Frey to Alito - New York Time...
- Goodbye, Democracy...Or Who Loves Ya, Ohio?
- Why America Has to Be Fat
- A tip for the cowardly press corps
- U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- Could there still be a filibuster in Alito's future?
- Liberals haven't failed to capture Bin Laden
- K Street
- Hardball Scandal: Bin Laden=Michael Moore
- Google resists U.S. subpoena of search data
- Breaking Ranks
- Newt's New Con
- Right Smears Veteran Murtha Without A Qualm
- Bush turns coward against the Brady Bunch of Evil ...
- Strange Bedfellows v. Bush and Cheney
- Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and the GOP blow-back
- Iran issues stark warning on oil price
- Sen. Clinton slams Bush administration
- 10 Things Martin Luther King Would Have Done About...
- Text of Gore speech
- Judicial Gag Rule - New York TimesThe New York Tim...
- "Those Who Would Give Up Liberty For Security Dese...
- Glum Democrats Can't See Halting Bush on Courts - ...
- The Imperial Presidency at Work
- Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11
- Who made her cry?
- The President Is Not Entitled To His Nominee
- Shifting the Burden
- Pelosi Wants Probe of "Corrupt Congress"
- Elizabeth Holtzman-from Nixon to Bush & the Case F...
- Alito and his coaches
- Attention, Medicare Shoppers . . . - New York Time...
- Alito falters on CAP
- Alito's "Open Mind"
- Alito hearings
- Alito hearings
- Alito hearings
- Alito hearings
- Alito hearings
- NSA Whistleblower Alleges Illegal Spying
- Personal: EPIC vs MedicareRX
- From Alito, a dodge on the details
- Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion - study
- Dean / Blitzer on Late Edition
- The Case Against Alito
- The Pentagon As FEMA or Bush IS the Anti-Christ
- But the President Insists That It's Legal; He's Ju...
- Among the myths and lies that get flattened . . .
- Noam Chomsky: A Tale of Two Quagmires
- Need Medicaid? Show Your Passport - New York Times...
- Bush Ignored Explicit Warnings In 2002 About Mine ...
- Debunking Bush's NSA Lies: A Handy Pocket Guide
- Iran in the Crosshairs
- For Principles or Profit?
- January 2, 2006"Old Half-Witted Sheep"A New York T...
- Student Punished for Refusing to Stand for the Ple...
- Bush's Macho Swagger is Back. But for How Long?
- Eat The Poor
- The Bush Family Coup
- social secuity
- George W. Bush as the New Richard Nixon
-
▼
January
(93)
No comments:
Post a Comment