Patterico's Pontifications

8/5/2007

Quote of the Day

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 7:11 pm



“I covered those confirmation hearings. I went home at night in tears. It was awful.”

Dahlia Lithwick, speaking to the KosKids about the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings.

I’m shocked!

63 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

  1. It’s called “advice and consent” Mr Frey. Consent can be withheld, and should have been.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  2. On what grounds do you believe consent should have been withheld, AF?

    Robin Munn (752231)

  3. How about “gut feelings” Robin?

    alphie (015011)

  4. Ah we’ve got Alphie the indefatigable troll fired up again. He’s going to run like the Energizer Bunny with this thread.

    However, I figure that any day that Dalia Lithwick goes home in tears at something that has happened in the world’s self anointed self described “greatest debating society in the world’ is a good day for all the citizens of the Republic. Of course, wishing no one harm, I’d offer her my hankie to snivel in.

    Mike Myers (2e43f5)

  5. alphie laddie,

    The only gut feeling the Dems had with either nominee is that, in each case, they felt the nominee was the smartest person in the room.

    And they were proven right. Both Roberts and Alito were too smart to be stopped, and that’s how the Dems helped to ensure the strongest Justices possible.

    Them’s the facts; just ask your gut.

    ras (adf382)

  6. Haha, ras,

    My feelings on Alito and Roberts are:

    1. They aint that bright.

    2. It would have been a shame if the religious right didn’t get thrown a couple bones after their tireless support of the neocons these past 12 years. Pity President Hillary will turn these two into booby prizes.

    alphie (015011)

  7. That all you got? Pah, alphie, my dog can give me a better retort than that.

    But I’m a nice guy, and kids sometimes need do-overs to build their confidence, so try again.

    ras (adf382)

  8. You still there, alphie bucko? Googling for a troll-statement generator? Not good enough, you know.

    ras (adf382)

  9. AF – In what way were either gentleman not qualified?

    JD (f44699)

  10. Oh hell I don’t know, how about this?
    “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … so far it’s working for us.”
    Oh right that’s Trent Lott.
    So how about principle:
    They’re reacionaries.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  11. Silly AF,

    Lott’s statement was from 2007. Roberts and Alito were confirmed long before that, even if it didn’t register for some till now.

    Patter-EE-koh,

    I think it might be time to invoke the Designated Troll rule; these guys ain’t hittin’

    ras (adf382)

  12. Well, ras,

    I can’t really get too worked up over the pair.

    Take away abortion and you find a lot of agreement on the court.

    Personally, I find a lot of comfort in 9-0 Supreme Court rulings.

    And the 5-4 ones can always be overturned later.

    alphie (015011)

  13. My feelings on Alito and Roberts are:

    1. They aint that bright.

    You’re criticizing Alito’s and Robert’s intelligence?

    Sh__! Thanks for the belly laugh.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  14. Christoph,

    The kids are in over their heads tonite and it’s really showing. Taaarrr-git practice!

    ras (adf382)

  15. My feelings on Alito and Roberts are:

    1. They aint that bright.

    Alphie, you just lost whatever shred of credibility you had. Both of these guys, but Roberts especially, are so smart and talented that it would be dangerous not to co-opt them into the system.

    nk (173e2a)

  16. nk,

    alphie’s the kind of guy likes to stick his hand into the tiger cage and say “they ain’t that ferocious.” Proves he’s smart.

    C’mon alphie, a little wit, and little insight, a little something. Clock’s a’ tickin’ and you’re falling further behind. Best ya got?

    ras (adf382)

  17. nk,

    I’m talking “bright” like Einstein bright.

    Not being a lawyer, I can’t say what passes for bright in the law talkin’ guy field these days, but neither Alito nor Roberts were ever mentioned as being in Robert Bork’s league before they were nominated.

    In fact, they weren’t even considered to be among the top 100 appellate judges in the country.

    They got the nods ’cause they’re anti-abortion and have led lives of studied dullness…good for them, bad for America.

    alphie (015011)

  18. BTW, take note one and all, that the way to handle trolls is either to ignore them totally, or to treat them like the ego-addicts that they are.

    Never take their args seriously cuz they already know they’re full of b.s. Their sole purpose is to seek ego validation by playing the Pythonesque contrarian, only in their case they don’t even see the humor. Don’t encourage such behavior; force them to grow up in order to be taken seriously.

    Exhibit A: alphie. Of course he knows how smart Roberts and Alito are, but protests otherwise solely to get flogged in return. Kid’s got issues and it’s better he learn how to resolve them in an adult-like manner.

    Exhibit B: AF (see exhibit A).

    I’m quite serious about this. Either ignore them or ridicule them, until they change; it’s for their own good.

    tough love ras (adf382)

  19. Ras,

    You get a intelligent physicist and our understanding of time, space and reality are changed forever.

    Explain to me how intelligence in a lawyer manifests itself.

    How can you tell a smart lawyer from a dumb one?

    alphie (015011)

  20. alphie criticizing Alito and Roberts as not too bright . . . I love it.

    What a staunch Republican!

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  21. How can you tell a smart lawyer from a dumb one?

    Because it’s completely off topic, alphie, I’ll answer your question here.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  22. Dahlia must have been weeping over how stupid and small Roberts and Alito made Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein and the other leading lights of liberalism look during the hearings. Absolute comedy gold. Highlight reels for years to come. Kennedy in full red faced roar later discovering his staff had fed him a parody piece from that Princeton publication and that he still belonged to an all male club in Boston. Good times.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  23. Sure daley,

    That’s why Republican Mike DeWine was the only Senator on the Judiciary Committee to lose their election last year.

    What’s the matter with the good folks of Ohio?

    alphie (015011)

  24. You get a intelligent physicist and our understanding of time, space and reality are changed forever.

    Sure… If you ignore the fact that he utterly dismissed Quantum theory, even though it’s the way we now understand the universe to work…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  25. Alphie – Why don’t you give me a citation showing me DeWine lost because of his performance in the confirmation hearings. Otherwise, as usual, you make no sense. Who else on the committee was up for reelection anyway?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  26. Why is it that whenever a lefty disagrees with a righty’s policy position he is described as not bright?
    I know very bright people with policies I disagree with. Does that make me not bright?

    Dan F (1d5062)

  27. My mom and I got together today and we were talking about politics. We both dislike Hillary Clinton, her vociferously. Yet we BOTH agreed she’s a smart woman.

    Why can’t you do that, alphie, my Republican compatriot — or is it that you are harder on our own kind than our opponents out of a sensee of fairness?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  28. Haha, Christoph,

    I don’t really feel they are my “opponents.”

    I just never thought intelligence was a measure of how good a lawyer or judge was.

    It’s like saying “an intelligent Supermodel.”

    alphie (015011)

  29. It’s like saying “an intelligent Supermodel.”

    Or “a sane KosKid.”

    JVW (6a3590)

  30. I’m waiting for a citation about Dewine, Alphie, since you raised the issue. How about answering the other question as well?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  31. Alphie – Which Democrat Senators performed particularly well at the confirmation hearings in your opinion. You can’t name them all and death is not an option. Please give you your reasons. If you didn’t watch the hearings, why not say so and stay off the thread.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  32. daley,

    I thought Russ Feingold did a good job.

    Why? Because he inflicted a little pain on Alito, a guy who was about to take a job that he gets to do until he dies no matter how bad he is at it.

    Pain that might have generated some much-needed humility.

    alphie (015011)

  33. Well, Mr. Republican, it’s nice to see that Democrats inflicting pain on a Republican President’s judicial nominees is what brings you pleasure.

    As a committed conservative, it’s nice to see you are this fair in assessing our nominees’ flaws and Democratic Senators’ strengths. It’s very intellectually honest of you.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  34. Alphie – Alito seemed pretty humble to begin with. I saw no need for more. Interesting view of doing a good job – inflicting pain – as opposed to asking insightful or probing questions that got the candidate to reveal something of themselves rather than the questioner. I guess it’s your bias towards liberal gotcha politics.

    Should judges inflict pain, Alphie? Is Feingold a good lawyer because he inflicts pain?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  35. Christoph,

    My opinion of what a “conservative” is probably differs from yours. Ditto “Republican.”

    daley,

    I think the confirmation hearings are a freakshow.

    I’d like to see the nominees openly debate current and probable future Supreme Court cases instead of wallowing around in some vague political fantasyland.

    I do like Russ Feingold, though. He reminds me of Sam Nunn, A liberal even conservative Republicans can respect.

    Given the bizarre setting, I think he did as well as anyone could.

    alphie (015011)

  36. Alphie – If we have a democratic administration and the Senate is called upon to confirm SC justices, it would be interesting to see your evaluation of Republican senatorial performances if they decide to inflict pain on nominees the way your idol Feingold did. A goal of “Borking” nominees does not encourage public service in this country, a trend I view liberals have reinforced in the nomination and confirmation process for a variety of appointments.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  37. daley,

    I guess don’t see the same partisan Republican/Democrat divide you do.

    I think it’s a little more subtle than that.

    Consider the fence we’re supposed to be building along the Mexican border.

    Only 12 miles have been built so far.

    Why?

    The Texas ranchers don’t want to sell their land.

    Should “Republicans” support the government seizing the ranchers land to get the fence built?

    alphie (015011)

  38. I’d like to see the nominees openly debate current and probable future Supreme Court cases instead of wallowing around in some vague political fantasyland.

    Never gonna happen. You want judges to rule on cases before such cases reach the bench?

    That’s called bias, alphie. Trial attorneys throw out jurors for deciding a case before hearing all of the facts and both sides.

    Judges are autocrats; this is why the people that serve in those positions have to be exceptional.

    I would expect a ‘Staunch Republican’ to know that.

    Paul (771326)

  39. Democratic Confirmation Hearing Checklist

    1. Accuse nominee of racism.
    2. Accuse nominee of fascism.
    3. Accuse nominee of wanting to attack women with a coat-hanger.
    4. Accuse nominee of killing gay people and burying them in his basement.
    5. Tell nominee “I want to see you become more compassionate.”
    6. (Kennedy only) Remember to say “Neeaghuhnnnagh” a lot
    7. Comfort Dahlia Lithwick

    Glen Wishard (b1987d)

  40. “I covered those confirmation hearings. I went home at night in tears. It was awful.”

    She had that in common with Alito’s wife.

    Fco (201cb0)

  41. You have to be a real idiot to attack Roberts and/or Alito on intelligence.

    sam (57dc2e)

  42. “I covered those confirmation hearings. I went home at night in tears. It was awful.”

    Dahlia Lithwick is a pampered product of Yale and Stanford. Someday she might get a clue of what “awful” really means and what brings the unwashed masses to tears.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  43. #39 Glen, Good list. You could add:

    Accuse nominee of wanting to deny life saving medicine to the children and to the elderly.

    Accuse nominee of planning to starve the children and the elderly.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  44. So, from alphie we have:

    (1) you don’t tell a good lawyer from a bad lawyer based on intelligence. How do you tell a good lawyer from a bad lawyer then?

    (2) the job of a senator in confirmation hearings is to “inflict pain” and “humble” a nominee. Interesting theory. You will then be perfectly happy to see this happen to the next nominee of a democrat president then? (Of course you will claim to).

    (3) any Supreme Court decision that is not 9-0 is perfectly acceptable to overturn. So, Alphie, you would have no issue than with overturning Roe v. Wade? It is obviously not “super-precedent” in your book? Or any of the many other liberal opinions, almost all of which have been 5-4 or 6-3? Overturning any precedent that is not 9-0 is perfectly acceptable to you?

    (4) Finally, as you consider Alito and Roberts “not bright”, which means not intelligent. What justices do you consider intelligent, and what do you base it on? Obviously, you are not basing it on the strenth of the legal arguments they make – as Roberts and Alito are/were noted in the legal community as being extremely intelligent lawyers and jurists (your non-factual claim to the contrary notwithstanding). I thus assume you base your opinion of the “intelligence” of a judge entirely on the outcome of the decision?

    (5) As you seem to profess to being both a republican and a conservative, but have evidenced no actual opinions that meet what most people consider to fall into those categories, what exactly is your defintion of “republican” and what exactly is your definition of “conservative”?

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  45. Explain to me how intelligence in a lawyer manifests itself.

    I realize that this is probably just a troll, but I’d like to take a crack at it. Here a few ways legal intelligence manifests itself, particularly in the case of Roberts and Alito:

    – Acceptance at prestigious institutions such as Princeton and Yale Law (Alito) and Harvard and Harvard Law (Roberts).

    – Clerking for a federal appeals court judge (Alito) or a Supreme Court Justice (Roberts), distinctions which can be claimed by fewer than 1% and .1% of American lawyers, respectively.

    – Compiling a stunning record of oral advocacy by arguing before the United States Supreme Court thirty-nine times and winning twenty-five of those times (Roberts); you can likely count on two hands the number of living American lawyers with double-digit wins before the Supreme Court.

    – A record of successful prosecutions against major mafia figures and terrorists (Alito).

    – Serving as law professors (both Roberts and Alito).

    – Years of distinguished service on America’s federal courts of appeal, reputations for excellence in opinion-writing, and the respect and admiration of colleagues from across the judicial/political spectrum (both Roberts and Alito).

    In saying that Alito and Roberts “ain’t that bright,” alphie reveals that he is either ignorant of all the above, or is entirely correct in saying that he has no idea what marks a brilliant lawyer.

    NYC 3L (b57b55)

  46. Crying hippies is kind of funny.

    Kevin (4890ef)

  47. I just never thought intelligence was a measure of how good a lawyer or judge was. – alphie, in comment #28

    Hahahahahaha! Comedy GOLD!

    And yes, this is shooting fish in a barrel, but I’d just like to point the part where alphie says that one of his “gut feelings” on why Alito and Roberts shouldn’t have been confirmed was:

    1. They aint [sic] that bright. – alphie, in comment #6

    Ballgame. Thanks for playing.

    Robin Munn (752231)

  48. Fish in a barrel, Munn, fish in a barrel.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  49. #10 above –

    They’re reacionaries(sic)

    Yo, alphie, define “reactionaries”
    It’s easy to toss out words without defining what they mean
    PS – got a spell checker?

    Horatio (a549f7)

  50. Post #45 above has the point that Roberts was considered perhaps the finest oral advocate before the Supreme Court of his generation. That should handle the “brightness point” for Alphie (although I’m not certain that anything penetrates Alphie’s skull since the tinfoil hat keeps most things out).

    But Alphie, you brought me to my knees laughing when you said that Roberts didn’t approach Bork’s intelligence. Of course Bork was the first victim of the eponymous “borking” at the hand of the Democrat clowns on the Judiciary Committee.

    Mike Myers (2e43f5)

  51. Ignoring the trolls for now….

    The reason that the Democrats didn’t dump all over Roberts and Alito, like they did at the appellate level, is that the TV cameras were on and people were watching, and bullies don’t behave like bullies when teacher is watching.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  52. Sure, AF, advise and consent–and crying like a little girl if you don’t get your way.

    Patricia (549779)

  53. And when “not bright” people totally bamboozle members of congress.

    Talk about embarrassing. I mean, getting tricked by a genius is one thing, but by the not-so-bright?

    Must be hard to take. I understand now why they seem so bitter…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  54. I don’t agree with Roberts and Alito much, but to call them “not bright” is, well, just plain stupid.

    JayHub` (8ba390)

  55. I think it’s pretty clear Roberts is going to be far better than Bork would have been. He’s a very thoughtful, consensus-building justice. He’s trying to get it right, and he’s got all the assets to do it.

    I expect history to treat Roberts very kindly.

    –JRM

    JRM (de6363)

  56. Scott Jacobs,

    Just think how they must feel about being continually outmaneuvered by Bush. No wonder lefties are always angry.

    Eric (5613d2)

  57. George W. Bush – The Dumbest Evil Genius to ever live

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  58. I feel her pain.

    Senor Bumblebee (5a473d)

  59. Wow.

    I haven’t seen this kind of piling on since last NFL season.

    Paul (a47125)

  60. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Alphie’s next logical post will be his/her first.

    You guys did an excellent job on this one though, haven’t seen Alphie so worked up in awhile and poor AF only off-linked one time (so far).

    Lord Nazh© (899dce)

  61. I guess don’t see the same partisan Republican/Democrat divide you do.

    I think it’s a little more subtle than that.

    Consider the fence we’re supposed to be building along the Mexican border.

    Only 12 miles have been built so far.

    Why?

    The Texas ranchers don’t want to sell their land.

    Should “Republicans” support the government seizing the ranchers land to get the fence built?

    Give us a link for this claim.

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  62. i will have to follow the link. why would Lithwick be reduced to tears over a confirmation hearing? has she confused politics with some sort of quasi-religion – and the abomination of non-believers is too much to bear? If I were to debate her or even exchange comments, the urge to say “Now I’m going to say something in disagreement with you, so please don’t start to cry….” would be overwhelming. ( or after a passonate statement by her, look at her questioningly and say “You’re not going to cry, are you?” And she is a lawyer? Jesus Christ, what a hot-house flower. What her get the vapors and wilt right before us.

    californio (12747e)

  63. edit ending: “Watch her get the vapors and wilt before us.”

    californio (12747e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3145 secs.