Patterico's Pontifications

1/11/2006

Democrats Make Alito’s Wife Cry

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 8:03 pm



I haven’t seen today’s hearings, but the Democrats apparently caused Sam Alito’s wife to leave the hearing in tears, distraught by the unfair smears of Kennedy et al. [UPDATE: The Political Teen has the video. She actually broke down when someone — Lindsey Graham — had the decency to apologize for the shameful treatment Alito has suffered. So I guess that technically, a Republican made her cry by being decent — but she’s only crying because of the way the Democrats had treated him. The title of the post is still accurate, in my view.]

Commenters here have remarked in recent days that it must be tough to sit there and listen to people misrepresent your record without going all Tim McGarry on them. This incident today is proof that this sort of bullying does take its toll.

35 Responses to “Democrats Make Alito’s Wife Cry”

  1. I guess the Democrats on the committee are Democrats first and Americans somewhere else down the list. Cheers to Spector for putting Teddy ‘ Jabba the Hut’ in his place.

    Ray Simpson (75a3b5)

  2. Had you been smeared, had you really known anyone who had their reputation shredded, who lost friends, career prospects, etc., you wouldn’t need any additional proof of what it must be like for family members to see it going on, and be unable to do anything to end it, to ameliorate it, to curtail it. It’s like being nailed to the cross, unable to move. That’s what it’s like.

    And what the Democrats are doing, isn’t simply political maneuvering, it’s crossed into the arena of mortal sin. Reputation is the icon of the person, destroy that icon, it’s tantamount to murder.

    And it’s all been planned out, been deliberated, been contemplated, been, in fact, relished.

    Dan (76343b)

  3. The democrats ‘assume’ that everyone is as stupid as they are. Old drunken Ted and his rage about Judge Alito belonging to some club should come to a halt tomorrow when the Washington Times prints the story of Ted belonging to a good ole boys “All male club” at Harvard…Guess what, old Ted’s staff says that’s different. Why because he’s a dim-wit or because he is a rich idiot from Mass.

    scrapiron (a9eb8b)

  4. “The title of the post is still accurate, in my view.]”

    I guess Patterico is no longer a strict constructionist.

    I suppose it is embarrassing to have your spouse’s membership in a nasty, racist, sexist organization brought up repeatedly in the national media.

    But since I doubt whether Patterico himself worries about whether his criticism of others might make them cry, I’ll assume he was shedding crocodile tears as he wrote this post.

    But really, hiding behind Mrs. Alito’s skirts? Who would have thought that Republicans, with their penchant for exaggerated displays of machismo, would pretend to be such sops?

    m.croche (8e3bfc)

  5. CAP is nothing of the sort. Go read the interview with Bill Rusher one of the founding members, and a supporter of the Alito nomination.

    If it was so humiliating, so much like the Ku Klux Klan, as Stephen Dujack (the guy who compared eating meat to being a Nazi, which I disclosed on this blog nearly a month prior to the general media) claims and Ted “Swimmer” Kennedy has endorsed, why would Rusher be so confident as to grant permission to examine his documents relating to CAP?

    (These documents, in the National Archives, were what Senator Kennedy whined about obtaining a subpoena for, and attempted to hijack the committee, forgetting that he and the Democrats don’t, in fact, run the Judiciary Committee)

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  6. Had President Bush nominated Senator Byrd for something, one would like to see Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden bring up a somewhat less than inclusive organization to which Mr Byrd once belonged; do you think that they’d do it?

    But the stage has been set. Heaven help the next judicial nominees of Democratic presidents!

    Dana (3e4784)

  7. You repubs are the supreme champs at the politics of personal destruction, so “don’t dish it out if you can’t take it yourself.”

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  8. Yeah, we’re such the supreme champs. Look at what we did to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Janet Reno when she was up for AG, Madeline Albright, etc.

    I should probably reach back to the last Democratic president before B.C., Jimmy Carter, but that’s not really fair- no one liked that guy. Although I have confirmed that, in fact, one may purchase a print of the Killer Rabbit photo from the Jimmy Carter presidential library.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  9. Hear that, Mrs. Alito? Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it yourself. Same goes for you, Sam.

    Patterico (929da9)

  10. “Had President Bush nominated Senator Byrd for something, one would like to see Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden bring up a somewhat less than inclusive organization to which Mr Byrd once belonged; do you think that they’d do it?”

    And senator byrd would do what he has done, disavow the organization.

    actus (85218a)

  11. Come on, admit it – repubs are even cannibalistic – look what Dubya did to McCain. It wasn’t fair, but politics is no game for the faint of heart. (Well, OK I’ll concede that dems do that too.)

    Maybe this position should be above politics, but of course it hasn’t worked out that way.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  12. Next the Democrats will be gnashing teeth over the loss of civility. People are calling them names, etc.

    BTW poster 4 spelled roach wrong.

    Lonetown (a3c6a2)

  13. We will probably never see the moment of retribution. But I surely believe that one is coming to Sen Kennedy and company. I realize that politics is a blood sport, but when a man’s wife is involved, a deep anger cannot be avoided.

    I am so hoping that someday Sen’s Kennedy and Shumer are going to have thier balls on the line and Justice Alito will with a wink and knowing nod smash them into bits.

    B Bolton (62c1aa)

  14. “Maybe this position should be above politics, but of course it hasn’t worked out that way.”

    Not when its a Pub appointing anyway. Seems as though this sort of thing on judicial nominations is pretty much a one way sliming. I’m guessing that when the next Dem pres is appointing we won’t see the appointees wives fleeing the room due to the innuendo from Pubs – as we haven’t in the past.

    But by all means go ahead and excuse it. My theory is that this is probably the 2nd or 3rd thing on the list (behind national security) that keeps Dems from getting elected. Remember the polling after 2004 that indicated people emphasized “moral” issues in their voting decisions? The left seems to think they were talking about religion. I think that polling was pointing at this sort of thing.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  15. Dwilkers, you may well be right about one thing: trying to skewer Alito may well backfire on the dems.

    But you are saying that no Pub Senator every asked a dem S.C. nominee tough or embarrassing questions? I doubt that.

    Personally, I wish that Kennedy would retire (or at least shut up). He is one of the culprits in this process. He is becoming what Pat Robertson is for the Pubs. So I’m not saying that I really like or agree with these tactics, but they are what they are.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  16. If only Mrs. Alito’s tears cured cancer, like Chuck Norris’.

    SoCalJustice (99cf7b)

  17. Psyberian wrote:

    But you are saying that no Pub Senator every asked a dem S.C. nominee tough or embarrassing questions? I doubt that.

    Well, I certainly don’t recall any such incidents, and the only two Supreme Court nominations made by a Democrat since Judge Robert was Borked were those of Ruth Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, both of whom sailed through the Senate with only token opposition.

    Mrs Ginsburg was replacing a moderately conservative justice; for some reason, the Democrats weren’t worried about changing the political complexion of the court, and the Republicans didn’t protest.

    Dana (3e4784)

  18. Good point, Dana. You may have also noticed the dearth of Democrat protests here in California, whose own Supreme Court recently underwent the mirror image of an Alito for O’Connor swap when Wrong Way Corrigan replaced Janice Rogers Brown.

    Xrlq (816c74)

  19. The Democrats must have blanched when they realized that Mrs. Alito started crying on national television. It was bound to make the MSM as human interest news. All of your arguments aside about political hardball, politically, this was a danger for Democrats. I believe that they have lost votes, especially from Italian Democratic voters in New Jersey because of this. And maybe others as well. People don’t like bullies and there is still a profound sense of protecting women in this country. New Jersey has a lot of electoral votes and is assumed to be a Democratic lock. They don’t need this bad publicity. Risky for them.

    Florence Schmieg (a1e126)

  20. Doesn’t it just warm your heart to watch the rich patrician Ted Kennedy, member himself of exclusive male-only Harvard clubs, lecture the upity young middle class Sam Alito, who grew up in a blue collar neighborhood and worked his way into Princeton, on the morality of being a member of CAP?

    Precious.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  21. Dana, unless there is a big story that breaks about Alito, you will probably look back on the Alito nomination as having only “token opposition.” Despite one or two noisy Senators, there isn’t really a big ruckus about Alito’s nomination.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  22. On January 9, John Hinderaker at Powerline posted this about the leader of the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee: “. . .the reality is, the Democrats are just making it up as they go along. They recognize no duty of consistency. Their logic can’t withstand the most elementary scrutiny, and their leader is a dimwit who, after being thrown out of Harvard for cheating, graduated last in his law school class. While a law student, he endured the humiliation of being arrested by a highway patrolman while cowering in the back seat of his car, pretending not to be the driver. He subsequently drove off a bridge, thereby drowning a young woman whose only crime was assuming that he was a competent escort. She probably could have been saved if he had gone for help, but instead of trying to rescue her, he spent the night looking for someone who would pretend to have been the driver of the car, discussing legal strategies with his family’s advisers, and trying to establish an alibi.”

    Every single time the PoS from Massachusetts gets near a microphone, his past conduct should be topic A.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  23. TNugent you rock!

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  24. From what I’ve read, the law licences of the Democrats on this committee should be pulled, especially the old sot who can’t quote cases properly.

    Hello, Clam, how you been doing. Missed your old blog.

    PCD (fb31ce)

  25. Every now and then, Harry, but let’s give credit to Hinderocker at Powerline for this one.

    Imagine a Frank Capra movie about what Bedford Falls would have been like if the hero of Chappaquiddick had never been born. Clarence would have earned his wings by pushing the PoS off the bridge. Without the MaryJo-carrying Oldsmobile, of course.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  26. I watched some of the hearings this morning and here is the shorter version:

    Q: ?
    Alito: Maybe, it depends.
    Q: ?
    Alito: Maybe, it depends.
    Q: ?
    Alito: Maybe, it depends.
    Q: ?
    Alito: Maybe, it depends.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  27. Psyberian wrote:

    Dana, unless there is a big story that breaks about Alito, you will probably look back on the Alito nomination as having only “token opposition.” Despite one or two noisy Senators, there isn’t really a big ruckus about Alito’s nomination.

    Well, one would have thought that about John Roberts as well, but somehow, someway, twenty-two Democrats, all the while knowing that his confirmation was guaranteed, decided to vote against him.

    Perhaps you don’t check the popular left-wing sites like The Daily Kos and MyDD, you’d see that the activist left is really jumping on this nomination in a big way. I wish that I could say that I had checked them out during the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, to know if they were just as strident.

    I don’t disagree with you that Mr Alito will be confirmed; I’m simply saying that this is more of a serious issue with the far-left than you may know.

    Dana (3e4784)

  28. Quite a mischaracterization, Pysberian. Here’s a fair summary of the Q blank:

    Q:”So, Judge Alito, when did you stop discriminating against women and minorities/trying to force women into back-alley abortions/beating your wife?”

    The hearings have been extremely informative. They’ve revealed Judge Alito to have a temperament well-suited to the Court, and they’ve revealed that the Democrats on the committee place their interest-group puppet masters ahead of the nation and, some of them, at least, care not a bit about truth or fairness.

    TNugent (58efde)

  29. Q: ?
    Alito: Maybe, it depends.

    The context of course was a long discussion, mocked at some length, by professor Schumer about the importance of an open mind in judging.

    I’m sort of confused now. Is an open mind necessary or not? Seems that judge Alito cannot win. Either he commits to beliefs on these topics, for which he will be branded “closed minded”, or he examines them fully from different perspectives, as you would expect of a prospective SC justice, for which he will be criticised as vacuous (see #26).

    Psyb/Till, I thought your side of the isle was all about “nuance”?

    I’d recommend you spend some time with Clam’s excellent analysis in his thread today on NYT Editors Need to Hire a Legal Consultant. Very educational.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  30. Anybody else notice that Alito has had to answer more than TWICE the questions of Ginsberg? Seems the Dems’ fishing expedition just can’t stop, even after they made the nominee’s wife cry on national TV (cheers to her, btw, for reminding everyone that this is a human being they are doing this to, not just a robot or something).

    sharon (fecb65)

  31. Sharon asked:

    Anybody else notice that Alito has had to answer more than TWICE the questions of Ginsberg?

    Well, no, I certainly didn’t notice, but maybe that’s because the Republicans didn’t try the bovine feces tactics on her that the Democrats employed against John Roberts and Sam Alito, and the Ginsburg hearings simply were not seen as that important or that controversial.

    Back in 1993 and 1994, the Republicans were concerned about whether a nominee was qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. In 2005 the Democrats have conceded that the nominees were technically qualified, but they are attempting to add politically qualified as an overriding requirement.

    Dana (3e4784)

  32. “Anybody else notice that Alito has had to answer more than TWICE the questions of Ginsberg”

    Maybe he’s more of an unknown.

    actus (85218a)

  33. It’s that paltry 15-year record as an appellate judge.

    Patterico (929da9)

  34. Hopefully, everyone in the White House has read or will read Daniel Henninger’s column in the WSJ today. In particular, they need to understand the following paragraph (write it on the blackboard 1000 times, if that’s what it takes):

    “Though forced to stare upward at his questioners for four days, Judge Alito, like John Roberts before him, has been the largest presence in the room. This hearing makes clear that those of us who opposed Harriet Miers’s nomination were right. She or anyone of her inexperience would have transformed the committee Democrats into the legal heavyweights, handing down lectures on “rights” and moral punctiliousness. They would have turned Ms. Miers inside out. Instead they got a member of the Federalist Society with more than enough mental firepower.”

    Mrs. Alito understands that her husband was the best man in the room. Hence the tears. Of rage, undoubtedly.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  35. Actus,

    It isn’t that Alito was unknown. No judge sitting on the federal bench for 15 years is unknown. What the Democrats were upset about was that Alito wouldn’t take a pledge of fealty to Roe. He answered the question as it should have been; that is, that he would look at precedent, but in the end he would have to look at the particulars of the case to make a decision. It’s absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say Roe deserves some unique position on Anglo-American jurisprudence.

    sharon (a02134)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0811 secs.