While I feel for Mrs.Alito she needs to understand, that the Democrats have the right to ask questions and figure that they need to ask questions based on the views of the people they represent. The emotions of one woman are not going to trump the rights of every democrat in the United States to have our questions at least aired. Besides what did she think was going to happen...everyone was going to chat over tea and crumpets?
Did you watch that video? Why did the Dems need to attack Alito so personally, so persistantly?
Because he has some inconsistincies that need to be explained. The Princton social club on his resume has to be explained, if he thought nobody was going to pay attention to that he was severly mistaken. He explained it, but the "I don't recall" line is getting old fast.
I love how Biden says he can't vote in Alito's favor because he hasn't heard enough from him. Well, Joe, maybe if you'd shut your piehole and actually listen to the man instead of rehearsing your next wandering tirade...
Ummm, Ryan Mc., those "inconsistencies" were what exactly? Democrats seem to not understand the difference between someone writing as a lawyer and writing as a judge. Perhaps if they ever actually used their law degrees and got a real job and didn't spend their whole lives in office, they'd know.
Further, NOTHING Ted Kennedy alleged regarding CAP was true, even by his own account in the end. It was all character assissination, and in the words of a friend, "Doesn't Ted Kennedy have anything better to do than go on about something that happened 30 or 40 years ago? I wouldn't be doing that were I he."
You'd think the man would have some shame, but clearly, he doesn't. He's so convinced he has a divine right to power that he tries to act as chair of the committee, shows no remorse for his mistreatment of people, and frankly, I think he cares very little for the nation, or at least, he puts himself above the nation.
And what did Democrats think the process was going to be, a public stoning?
I think Dems were looking for a glimmer of hope. Rather, it turned into a public dead horse beating.
I don't care what anyone "thought" the process was going to be you can't argue with the fact that we have the right to ask the questions we want to ask, that is set in stone (unless Frist decides to attack that too). Jess the inconsistencies I mentioned were:
During the questioning I believe it was Kennedy who brough up the issue of Vanguard, the case was supposedly on Alito's refuse list for 1992-1993 because he had a stake in the company, but in 1993-1994 he still had that same stake in the company but it was off his refuse list. Why was this?
The second was the Princeton Concerned Alummni which is self explanitory, that needed some explaining. I was satisfied with his answer, because I am sure we all familiar with buttering up our resume to get a job, but if he proves to be a wolf in sheeps clothing, I wouldn't be against putting up warren-like billboards.
I am also still not sure where he stands on the limits of the executive office, his answer was meaningless at best and just served to fill the silent pause that would of ensued had he just not answered.
Ted Kennedy isn't going to go away, you guys really need a new pinata lol, chappaquidick is so old and beaten.
So we should all just figuratively pack up and go home and forget that he killed a young woman? Murder is "so old and beaten?" I am sure you would disagree if it were a prominent conservative Senator.
"His answer was meaningless at best." And you're some sort of expert?
As for CAP, Kennedy and other liberals completely misrepresented the organization. It is opposed to quotas, and Kennedy tried to insinuate not only that it was a racist organization, but that Alito and all conservatives are bigots. This is interesting considering what Democrats- including Chuck Schumer and the DSCC- have done towards Michael Steele. When Democrats stop being bigots towards black conservatives- heck, against all conservatives- maybe then he'll be qualified to say something.
As for Kennedy and Chappaquiddick and him being a punching bag...
even if it is an old story, he drove a girl off a bridge and covered it up. And no matter how old the story is, he's still a jerk-off.
And if you're going to pontificate, at least know how to use correct grammar. "...would of ensued had he just not answered." It should be would HAVE. Sorry. Pet peeve.
Oh, and as Specter pointed out to Kennedy, who tried to hijack the hearings, he is not chair of the committee because Dems are the MINORITY party!
We are the minority party at the moment correct, but after '06 who knows.
Ted Kennedy hasn't been convicted on any crime, so calling him a murderer is all speculation at this point.
An "I don't want to comment on an issue that could come before the bench" answer does not require expert analysis to be meaningless in MY mind but that is just me.
I would disagree with a prominent conservative senator, I'm not going to lie. But keep in mind im not defending Ted Kennedy's personal choices, I like the way he votes on certain issues and that is all I defend.
The Steele issue is not based on his skin color as Kwame Mfuse (something like that) is in contention for the Democratic nomination. Democrats just don't like conservatives and vice versa, skin color never really has had anything to do with that.
Are you serious? Black men don't get Oreos thrown at them everyday by other black men.
"Black men don't get Oreos thrown at them everyday by other black men."
I view that as an internal issue that the African-American community must figure out for themselves; certainly it appears to be offensive, but I (and all but those very few responsible) didn't do it.
To question a group Alito was involved in, even put on his resume, is a legitimate line of questioning. If he was an active member of a group with racist or sexist views, it should be known. I don't know all the facts, and neither do the Senators. That's why we have the questions. Many of Alito's answers have been vague or evasive - "I don't remember" is not acceptable. Obviously you remember or you don't put it on your resume. duh. I don't necessarily agree with Kennedy's attitude, but I do think his investigation/questioning is legitimate.
I almost wish Senator Robert. "KKK" Byrd was on the Judiciary Committee. Would have made the bigot' comments all the more ironic.
Mike: it would have been "legitimate" if Alito was queried about it once, maybe twice, then it was dropped. The fact of the matter is that Dems clearly wanted to paint Alito as a bigot, period.
I'm sure you and other liberals wouldn't have minded if Repubs kept badgering Ruth Ginsburg about her "being in favor of statutory rape," and/or "being pro-Nazi" since the ACLU (of which Ginsburg was a prominent member) has defended NAMBLA and Neo-Nazis.
If he had answered the question besides saying that he doesn't remember, I'd agree with you. I find it difficult to believe, although it was 20 years ago. Either way, different Senators may have had different things to ask about it, and that is their prerogative.
I was too young to remember or care about the Ginsberg nomination process, but I would have considered questions about that legitimate as well, perhaps even more so as the ACLU brings so many cases before the court. That may have even disqualified her in my view. The other difference is that the Republicans, if they wished to block her, could have just voted her down, as they were a majority, unlike the Dems of today.
Jon Stewart made a great point about this the other day - he basically commented on how ironic it was that the Senate Judiciary Committee, made up of all whites and only one woman, had the nerve to question Alito about being in a group that supported only white males. Just thought I'd share that observation.
Commenting by HaloScan
