First Kennedy attempts to smear Alito by alleging he is a racist:
“In Alito’s 15-years on the bench, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color who alleged race discrimination in the workplace.”
Which prompts Sen. Jeff Sessions to wipe the floor with the drunkard citing a few cases where Alito ruled that ALL Americans should receive EQUAL protection under the law…a bit different then racism huh?
U.S. v. Kithcart: In this case, Alito said the Constitution doesn’t allow police officers to racially profile black drivers. His opinion, citing a violation of the 4th Amendment, stated: “The mere fact that Kithcart is black and the perpetrators had been described as two black males is plainly insufficient. … Officer Nelson could not justifiably arrest any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black sports car.”
Brinson v. Vaughn: Alito ruled that the Constitution don’t allow prosecutors to exclude black jurors. In his ruling, Alito granted the prisoner’s habeas petition. He said the Constitution guarantees “that a state does not use peremptory challenges to remove any black juror because of his race. Thus, a prosecutor’s decision to refrain from discrimination against some African-American jurors does not cure discrimination against others.”
Zubi v. AT&T: Alito authored the lone dissent in which he called for an expansive view of civil rights laws. In this case, the plaintiff sued his employer for firing him on the basis of race. While the majority ruled against the plaintiff’s claim based on the time it had taken him to bring his case, Alito rejected that argument. The Supreme Court later vindicated Alito’s view in a unanimous decision.
This left Kennedy shaking his head, obviously angry that someone had caught him in a lie….again.
I guess not everyone would leave a women to drown to save his career…..and that just pisses him off.
Then Lauer from the Today Show couldn’t help but let his liberalism out when interviewing Sen. Thompson:
It was at that moment that Lauer could no longer restrain his liberal leanings, as, seemingly from left-field, he burst out with this:
“Let’s face it. He is an ultra-conservative and his track record on the bench [speaking over Thompson]. . . he goes to the right on key issues.”
Thompson demurred: “He’s not an ultra-conservative. He’s a conservative in a conservative mainstream, just like Democratic appointees have been liberal in a liberal mainstream.”
Today then played the “diversity” card, displaying a graphic indicating that with Alito’s confirmation a great majority of the court would be composed of white men who had attended Harvard or Yale, with Catholics forming a majority. Asked Lauer: “What does that say about the court’s ability to rule on behalf of the diverse population of this country?”
My question is if the lefties were upset that Ginsberg is an Ultra-Liberal?? I think not.? She had the same views as the lefties, ie. lowering the age of consent to?12 and legalizing prostitution, so they love her.? But when a conservative President has the nerve to nominate a conservative judge, then it’s “how dare he”.
Finally John O’Sullivan notes how the lefty Senators are shooting themselves in the foot with their wacked out conduct yesterday:
If the Democrats seriously wish to secure the rejection of Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, then they made a very bad start with Monday’s hearings. Only by making Alito deeply unpopular with the American people will they get their own party and five or six Republicans to join together in filibustering the nomination. But the opening day of the hearings might almost have been designed to arouse popular sympathy for the nominee.
There sat Alito, quiet, composed and seemingly reasonable. Against this modest neatly dressed man, however, the senators preached, hectored and threatened in their most self-righteous manner. “Stealth” tactics are now the approved method for getting through the confirmation process. So we can expect the judge to smile pleasantly as he carefully avoids the rhetorical traps laid for him by judiciary committee aides and says nothing more controversial than “I’m afraid it would be improper for me to answer on a matter that might come before the court.”
Alito has already survived the pre-hearings assault by television unimpaired. Democrats had postponed the hearings from early December precisely so that their ideological allies might undermine Alito with the public by uncovering and publishing damaging examples of “extreme” views from his past legal and political writings.
They found his 1985 statement that the Constitution contained no provision guaranteeing a constitutional right to an abortion. It seems, however, that the public does not agree that this is an “extreme” view. After one month of ads denouncing Alito for such abominations, a Washington Post poll showed public support for his nomination had risen from 49 percent to 54 percent.
Several Democrats Monday, including the reliable Sen. Edward Kennedy, seemed on the verge of making an even worse tactical error. They suggested that Alito’s respect for executive branch prerogatives would make him too ready to approve wiretapping and other surveillance of terrorists. That shows a deep misreading of U.S. opinion.
Not only do most polls show that a small plurality of Americans favors wiretapping as a tool against terrorism, but even those against do not consider it a wildly extreme position. When the Democrats campaign against Alito on those grounds, they reinforce the public view of themselves as weak on national security.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they cannot restrain their own partisanship. They know the stakes are high. If Alito is confirmed, the Democrats will finally lose their majority on the Supreme Court that for 50 years has allowed liberals to legislate from the bench on everything from racial preferences to the detention of terrorists.[…]Kennedy produced a study by Chicago’s Professor Cass Sunstein that purported to show that Alito had ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of the relevant cases before him. Now, Sunstein’s study was so scrupulously hedged with qualifications that it was more or less worthless in proving the senator’s intended point. It did, however, contain the following judgment:
“A preliminary analysis suggests two points. First, Judge Alito’s opinions are carefully reasoned, well-done, attentive to law, lawyerly, and unfailingly respectful to his colleagues. Second, it is fair to say that the law, fairly interpreted, could well be taken to support those claims. Hence he has exercised his own discretion, not lawlessly but in a way that helps to illuminate his general approach to the law.”
In other words, Alito is the kind of temperamental judicial conservative who is likely to be attentive to precedent and averse even to a counter-revolution from the bench. That is the best the Democrats can hope for in today’s political world.
Unfortunately I have to work today so I will miss the hearings go on at the moment, but I’m sure there will be plenty to write about tonight.? The lefties are always good for a laugh or two.