Alito and Schumer
Ramesh Ponnuru sounds worried about Alito’s answers to Schumer. I’m a working stiff and don’t yet know why (though I plan to watch the replay on C-SPAN tonight, as I did yesterday). Does anyone know what he’s talking about?
P.S. I’ll have a count of the number of times Chuckie said “extreme” when a transcript becomes available.
UPDATE: Ed Whelan doesn’t know what Ramesh Ponnuru is talking about — and he was watching the hearings.
UPDATE x2: Ramesh Ponnuru explains. I still haven’t seen the exchange.
I don’t know what Rammesh Ponnuru was referring to, but I was disappointed that Judge Alito squarely endorsed the doctrine of substantive due process.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 1/10/2006 @ 6:10 pmI’m not sure what Ponnuru is talking about either, but I’m also uneasy about how smoothly things seem to be going. It’s like waiting for the other shoe to drop. I don’t have any idea what the Dems are up to, but they’re up to something and they’re waiting for the right time to spring the trap.
If I had to speculate, I’d guess another “Anita Hill” will materialize and make some sort of sex or discrimination charge. I have no evidence whatsoever, but I’ve seen this movie before, and I know how low Dems can go.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 1/10/2006 @ 6:19 pmI really think it is all just a show. Most of the senators have already made up their minds. According to what I read in a few places (PowerLine being one), the dems don’t have the horsepower to bring a filibuster so it should be a done deal.
Specter (466680) — 1/10/2006 @ 6:26 pmSenator Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/10/2006 @ 6:54 pmJudge Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the term “free speech”.
Oh my God. Alito has read the constitution and Schumer caught him at it. What next, case law hidden under Alito’s bed. I think Schumer has exposed this man as a loose cannon and things go down hill from here.
Lew Clark (ff16f9) — 1/10/2006 @ 8:59 pmIMHO, Ponnuru’s wrong, and has missed an important point: What Alito said was “because free speech is in the Consitution, and abortion isn’t.”
which is to say, Alito’s a vote to dump roe, adn return abortion to teh political process (where it belongs).
Greg D (dfbcf3) — 1/11/2006 @ 1:59 amI understand what Ponnuru is talking about, because I was watching the hearing. It was what inspired my comment calling Schumer an enormously arrogant prick a couple posts down.
I just had a different read on it than Ponnuru did, maybe because I had taken a break and was sitting there watching the whole thing. Schumer started a riff, where he’d miscast or badly state something or other that Alito had said 20 years ago then attempt to portray it in today’s politics, give Alito about 5 seconds to start answering, then he’d start another riff.
For example, he blathered about precedent and stare decisis and asked Alito what he thought. Alito allowed as how it was important to respect precedent. Schumer then pointed out that 20 years ago while working for the Reagan administration Alito was complimentary of Bork’s nomination and asked if he stood by that. Alito sort of said well yes, I worked there and that was what I did. Schumer then screeches about an article Bork wrote for National Review recently where Bork said bad precedents need to be overturned.
Ipso facto, YOU’RE LYING!
Mind you, for added effect Schumer repeatedly said he wasn’t accusing anyone of lying, which was horseshit.
The whole time Schumer was…I dunno how to describe it, he was sort of bouncing and nodding up and down in his chair, furiously flipping paper. It was pretty weird to watch his body language, the way he was twitching and weaving.
To me, the whole time Schumer looked weird and behaved badly. After it was over I posted here about him being a prick. It didn’t come off as bad for Alito in my eyes, I was left wondering how a guy like Schumer gets anyone to vote for him. And to belabor the obvious, just because Alito supported Bork in 1985, that doesn’t mean he agrees with something Bork wrote in National Review 20 years later – a point which was fairly obvious to my eyes and I suspect most others that were watching.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 1/11/2006 @ 4:34 amAnother thing, since I have diarrhea of the keyboard this morning, on Ponnuru’s first post and its point.
Watching the hearing I was struck by how hard it must be for someone to sit there and put up with those guys on national TV for an entire day. Schumer even dragged the guy’s mother in law (sitting behind him) into it. “I see your mother in law behind you, when did you stop beating her?” I mean it was just despicable stuff.
One after another they’d take a decision or statement from 20 or so years ago and skew it or outright lie about it, then they’d drill him and act like HE was lying, when if anyone is lying it was them.
Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if someday one of those guys gets up and punches one of those blowhards in the nose in a hearing like this. In any other setting that’s exactly what would happen – I’d last about 1/2 hour before I’d decide it wasn’t worth it and somebody was going to get a bloody nose.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 1/11/2006 @ 4:43 amDwilkers, I’ve often wondered the same.
Methinks they are made of far sterner stuff than I, to put up with what they have to put up with. But that quality is also what gets them to such high arenas of achievement as well.
I wonder too if the Senators think that the grandstanding and bullying gets all those voters hot and cheering for them back home, or if they’re just utterly drunk on the media attention, the bright lights.
It would be pretty gratifying to see one of their victims someday just jump up and deliver a nice roundhouse to the deserving, casually brush off his hands and go on with his day.
These hearings are always much more instructive for what they tell us about the calibre of some elected individuals.
p.s. I think Teddy’s been playing the Chuckie S. drinking game, eh? A toast every time Kennedy says “Alioto”. (actually I think he does that deliberately as an insult tactic, not getting the man’s name right.)
Laura (39edf5) — 1/11/2006 @ 5:31 amTed’s just a little confused, and got the names mixed up.
The Alioto family runs a famous restaurant on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco, and several family members entered politics. Joseph L Alioto worked in the Justice Department, gave the nomination speech for Humbert Hubphery at the Democratic Convention in 1968, was considered for the VP spot, and was mayor of SF.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 1/11/2006 @ 7:59 amYup, I did know that but I’m glad you posted because some people are really scratching their heads over that; they’re not familiar with the Aliotos. But I still think Kennedy is doing it deliberately. The base discourtesy of refusing to get the name right. It’s a very Kennedyesque thing to do, going way back. Old Joe taught his children well.
Laura (56be1a) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:18 amI think Ramesh thinks one is hurt by taking the arrows from someone like Chuckie without giving a perfect retort back to him. He’s overly critical and always has been of these types of exchanges. It isn’t a debating match where there are rules that apply that at least give the responding party time to respond and force the questioner to be honest. The aggressor is not necessarily the winner when the agressor comes off as the bully, which Chuckie certainly was and is. Chuckie’s nasal accent alone turns off half of America and his absolutely inane, deceitful, and dispicable questioning makes many wonder why someone just doesn’t cancel his ticket with a nicely planted uppercut to the jaw. I also not that it is difficult to find much of anyone else agreeing with Ramesh’s point of view. Even Ramesh admits it amounted to very little.
Mikey (c78100) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:27 amLooks like the left took Ponnuru’s comments as evidence Alito wasn’t doing well.
Mikey (c78100) — 1/11/2006 @ 1:22 pm