With everything else that has been happening involving
the Bush Administration, I honestly have not been paying
much attention to Bush's nomination to the United States
Now I am. I will try to catch up on this ongoing example of
Bush's political corruption and cronyism.
Supreme Court Won't Review Bush's Terrorism Powers
News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government
03 April 2006
Supreme Court won't review Bush's terrorism powers.
Mon Jan 30th, 2006 at 07:27:45 PM EDT ::
These are the ones that voted WITH the Republicans for cloture. It was never that the Dems needed
41 TO filibuster, it was that the Republicans, having only 55 votes, needed another 5 to invoke cloture,
which means end a filibuster.
They needed 5 Dems; they got 12.
January 30, 2006
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,
a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists
met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.
The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees —
including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and trained more than
three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick.
"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an
interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting
were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had
told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.
01/25/2006 @ 3:50 pm
Filed by John Steinberg - Raw Story Columnist
As Benjamin Franklin left the final day of deliberation by the Constitutional Convention
in 1787, a citizen supposedly asked him, "Well, Doctor, what have we got--a Republic or
a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
If all goes as planned, in a week or so that Republic will finally escape our grip. When the
Senate votes to affirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the central tenet of our government -
the separation of powers - will take a blow from which it will likely never recover. In its place
a de facto monarchy will solidify and expand, and our Constitution will join the Geneva
Convention as a quaint anachronism. And the Republic we have kept for two hundred
years will join its Athenian and Roman predecessors as good ideas whose time has passed.
Senator Boxer's Opposition to Alito Is Meaningless
Without a Filibuster
This is more of her efforts to be ready to run for president in 2008.
Today, I am announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
According to Article II of the Constitution, justices of the Supreme Court may not be
appointed by the president without the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
So it is our solemn duty to consider each nomination carefully, keeping in mind the
interests of the American people. And this nomination is particularly crucial because the
stakes have rarely been so high.
Judge Alito's Radical Views
Published: January 23, 2006
New York Times Editorial
If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's
bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito
is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has
a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's
power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants
to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the
scales of justice against the little guy.
Incredibly Un-Credible Alito
In yesterday's Senate hearings, Judge Samuel Alito once again proved he will say anything
to get hired. Alito's testimony was, according to Sen. Patrick Leahy (R-VT), " vague,
inconsistent, and at times, contradictory...to what his record shows." By dodging questions,
making excuses, and feigning ignorance in response to senators' questions, Alito presented
himself as an untrustworthy Supreme Court nominee, unwilling to answer tough questions
with truthful, forthright answers. "It's what we call in law school the slippery slope and if you
start answering the easy questions you are going to be sliding down the ski run into the hard
questions, and that's what I'm not so happy to do," said Alito to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC),
summing up his own strategy for the day. But while Alito hoped not to reveal any of his
substantive views yesterday, he ended up revealing his lack of credibility. As Sen. Edward
Kennedy (D-MA) noted, "'Credibility' has rarely been an issue for Supreme Court nominees,
but it is clearly a major issue for Alito." (For more on Alito, check out AlitosAmerica.org)
Alito Hearings: Democrats' 'Katrina'
By Robert Parry
January 14, 2006
For a constitutional confrontation at least five years in the making, the Democrats
on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked as prepared to confront Samuel Alito as
FEMA chief Michael Brown did in responding to Hurricane Katrina.
As with the hurricane that zeroed in on New Orleans days before coming ashore,
there should have been no surprise about Judge Alito. He was exactly what the
Republican base had long wanted in a Supreme Court nominee, a hard-line judicial
ideologue with a pleasant demeanor and a soft-spoken style.
Alito & the Ken Lay Factor
By Robert Parry
January 12, 2006
The “unitary” theory of presidential power sounds too wonkish for Americans to
care about, but the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court could
push this radical notion of almost unlimited Executive authority close to becoming a
Justice Alito, as a longtime advocate of the theory, would put the Court’s right-wing
faction on the verge of having a majority committed to embracing this constitutional
argument that would strip regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, of their independence.
If that happens, George W. Bush and his successors would have the power to instruct
these agencies what to do on regulations and enforcement, opening up new opportunities
to punish enemies and reward friends. The “unitary” theory asserts that all executive
authority must be in the President’s hands, without exception.
Alito & the Point of No Return
By Nat Parry
January 9, 2006
The U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito may represent a point of no
return not only on the issue of abortion and other longtime conservative political targets
but on the checks and balances that have been the cornerstone of American democracy.
With Alito’s confirmation to fill the swing-vote seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, George W. Bush
could well consolidate a majority on the high court to endorse his expansive interpretation of
presidential authority, including his insistence that his commander-in-chief powers are virtually
unlimited throughout the indefinite “war on terror.”
But Alito might face a tougher confirmation battle than Chief Justice John Roberts did, in part
because controversies over Bush’s claims to unfettered Executive power have deepened over
the past several months, such as the dispute over Bush’s asserted right to conduct warrantless
wiretaps of Americans.
The Alito Myths
Senators in yesterday's Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito were
spinning myths about the type of nominee they would like to have, failing to recognize
the actual man standing before them. But don't let the conservative senators fool you --
their statements that Alito will practice judicial restraint, will not have an agenda, and will
decide each case on an individual basis if appointed to the Supreme Court don't hold water.
Throughout his career, Alito has pushed a right-wing agenda and "could prove [to be]
more conservative than Antonin Scalia" if approved to the Supreme Court.
By Martin Garbus, HuffingtonPost.com
Posted on January 12, 2006, Printed on January 12, 2006
By most accounts, Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, couldn't get past the
Senate Judicial Committee to a full Senate vote because of his extreme conservative views. But
Samuel Alito (and, for that matter, new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) arrive at the
exact same case results, just with a little more nuance and a lot less bluster.
A painstaking view of Bork, Roberts and Alito (all three were at the founding of Federalist Society)
and their cases show they all seek to expand presidential powers and minimize the restrictions of the
Bill of Rights, extend state power at the expense of federal power and destroy the separation of church
Roberts and Alito both articulated their views in Reagan's Justice Department. Bork was then Reagan's
eminence grise and of course got the Supreme Court nomination.
THE NEXT TWO WEEKS WILL DECIDE IF DEMOCRACY
Bush is now completely and certifiably out of control. But to remove the last restraint
on the creation of a new American dictatorship they must install one more lock down
vote on the Supreme Court, in the person of Sam Alito.
Despite Alito's extreme right wing voting record and lifelong ideological agenda, nobody
expects him to show up at his hearing sporting a tail and horns wearing a red suit. Instead
he will lie and evade like some Wal-Mart smiley face, just as he did when in his confirmation
for the Court of Appeals he promised to recuse himself from cases involving his own
investments. Then he fought to do precisely otherwise. He will make absolutely any
misrepresentation of his views and his agenda to try to sneak past public accountability
yet again, while his record shouts otherwise. And only your voices speaking out now can
turn the tide against this judicial coup.
U.S. high court nominee,Alito urged eavesdropping immunity
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito once argued that
the country's top law enforcement official should be immune from legal action for authorising
domestic wiretapping if it was done in the interest of national security, newly released documents show.
In a 1984 memo written when he was an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito said: "I do not
question that the attorney general should have this immunity."
Frist Says He's Ready to Block Filibuster
Sun Dec 11, 5:10 PM ET
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday he is prepared to strip Democrats of their
ability to filibuster if they try to stall Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Newly Released Papers Energize Alito's Critics
Credibility Questions Are Raised Anew
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; A02
Newly released documents by Samuel A. Alito Jr. touching on abortion and other issues
have pumped new life into efforts to sharply challenge his nomination to the Supreme Court,
liberal activists said yesterday.
From Alito's Past, a Window on Conservatives at Princeton
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 - In the fall of 1985, Concerned Alumni of Princeton was entering a crisis.
The group's members at the time included Samuel A. Alito Jr., now President Bush's nominee
to the Supreme Court, although there is no evidence that he played an active or prominent role.
The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that
Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which
persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of
promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character
of the school.
As Princeton admitted a growing number of minority students, Concerned Alumni charged
repeatedly that the administration was lowering admission standards, undermining the university's
distinctive traditions and admitting too few children of alumni. "Currently alumni children comprise
14 percent of each entering class, compared with an 11 percent quota for blacks and Hispanics," the
group wrote in a 1985 fund-raising letter sent to all Princeton graduates.
Biden-Alito's Views May Bring Filibuster
Sun Nov 20, 6:49 PM ET
The views that Samuel Alito expressed on reapportionment in a 20-year-old document could
jeopardize his Supreme Court nomination and provoke a filibuster, a leading Democratic senator said Sunday.
But Biden, D-Del., said he was most troubled by Alito's comment about reapportionment under
the Supreme Court when it was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The Warren Court, as it became known, ended public school segregation and established the
election principle of one-man one-vote.
"The part that jeopardizes it (Alito's nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had
strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment — one man, one vote,"
Biden told "Fox News Sunday."
'Business leaders love Alito's judicial activism'
Posted on Wednesday, November 09 @ 09:54:02 EST
Source: The New York Observer
Assessing the philosophy, character and fitness of Samuel Alito to sit on the U.S. Supreme
Court will require more than eliciting vague and unresponsive answers about whether he will
remain faithful to Roe v. Wade, the precedent that protects abortion rights in America. It
means that Senators should take the time to closely examine his voluminous record on the
appellate bench, and ignore the Bush administration's drive to confirm Judge Alito before
the new year.
Fortunately, the Senate no longer seems quite so inclined to kneel before Mr. Bush, whose
power and popularity are now so plainly in decline. Members of both parties seem to be regaining
the capacity for independent thought and action that allows them to fulfill their duty and rise above
their reputation as a Republican rubber stamp.
As Senators analyze the Alito record, they must also discard the cliches of right-wing propaganda
that create illusions and obscure reality.
The President has often said that he opposes "judicial activists" who would legislate from the bench
and overturn the popular will. Echoing him, conservatives regularly scold liberals for seeking to win
in court what they cannot achieve in Congress. According to this argument, the nomination of
Judge Alito is meant to guard against such undemocratic jurisprudence.
Alito Leans Right, Where O'Connor Swung Left
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A01
In 1991, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted to uphold a Pennsylvania statute that would
have required at least some married women to notify their husbands before getting an
abortion; a year later, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast a decisive fifth vote at the
Supreme Court to strike it down.
Dems Want Alito Hearings In 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2005
(CBS/AP) Senate Democrats pushed on Tuesday for a 2006 date for hearings on
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, challenging President Bush's call for confirmation
by year's end.
"There's no way you can do an honest hearing by the end of December, or a fair hearing,"
said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A lot has been said this morning about Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court,
and his impeccable legal resume. Well, here's one portion of his resume we hope gets some very,
very close scrutiny over the next few weeks, before his confirmation hearings.
Where were you in '72?
Specifically, what were the circumstances of Alito getting a coveted slot in the Army Reserves that
year, while the Vietnam War was still raging? Is Alito yet another "chickenhawk" who avoided the
war and now will be deciding on life-or-death cases involving our young men and women fighting in
Iraq and elsewhere today?
Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court
The President has given in to the right wing's demand to be rewarded for his reelection,
nominating Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme
Court. The extremist faction that helped kill Harriet Miers' nomination has gotten
what it wanted: a nominee in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. In fact, Alito has earned
such a reputation for ideological activism while serving on the US Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit that he has been nicknamed "Scalito."
Right Wrangles over Miers
Though President Bush and some of his allies have repeatedly asserted that they know exactly what kind of justice Harriet Miers would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court, nothing has yet turned up in her record that could give the American people a similarly clear picture of the nominee.
The New York Times' review of documents from the President's tenure as governor of Texas reveals what already seemed apparent: Miers holds Bush in the highest regard. Our research team continues to review public information in Miers' record that might shed light on her legal views and judicial philosophy -- but such information remains thin.
White House Stonewalls Senate
Refuses to release documents concerning nominee's work with Ken Starr
All 8 Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have requested
documents concerning key cases litigated by the Solicitor General's office
during Judge John Roberts' tenure as political deputy to then-Solicitor
General Ken Starr. Late Friday afternoon the White House refused these
There is no basis for this denial. Such documents have been released in
previous Supreme Court confirmation proceedings including the Supreme
Court nominations of Robert Bork and William Rehnquist.
1.ROBERTS WAS BUSH'S PRIVATE ATTORNEY-
HOW IS THIS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
WITH ROBERT'S NOMINATION?
2.TAKE ACTION NOW TO STOP MIERS
The Washington Post story headline says it all, "A Deep Dedication to
the President." The nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day
O'Connor is a non-starter. It does not even deserve serious consideration.
The universal chorus of catcalls and derision from every corner of the media
should tell you something.