Alito Hearings

I caught some of the hearings live yesterday. I also caught some segments of exchanges in later news. I did miss Schumer, though the reports covered his activities rather well. Here's a brief example.

Schumer repeatedly pressed Alito -– chosen by President Bush to replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - to state whether the 1985 essay reflects his view of the Constitution today.

Alito's first response was, "Senator, it was an accurate statement of my view at the time, and I made it from the vantage point of an attorney in the attorney general's office."

Several Democratic senators have made a point of Alito being nominated for O'Connor's seat, noting she was a swing vote on many cases involving abortion.

As Schumer continued to press, Alito explained he would begin with the question of stare decisis, taking precedent into account, and then go through the normal judicial decision-making process.

Schumer interrupted many times, saying he wasn't asking about stare decisis or case law, only prompting Alito to state his view of the Constitution with respect to a "woman's right to choose."

The New York senator finally gave up, saying, "I now know you're not going to answer the question."

"I didn't think you would," Schumer added. "Your refusal I find troubling."

Later, the senator stated, "We can only conclude that if the question came before the court, it is very likely you would vote to overrule Roe versus Wade."

This exchange was really irritating to watch. First of all for Alito not straight-forwardly stating he wasn't going to answer the question in the context that Schumer laid it out, and for Schumer's inability to rephrase or work around to try and get an answer. I think Alito's action not answering the question was appropriate, since abortion cases will most certainly come before the court.

I also missed John Coryn's remarks on the topic.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, then led off his half-hour segment by taking Schumer to task for the line of questioning, comparing it to asking whether someone has stopped beating his wife.

"It's rather telling," Cornyn told Alito, "that Senator Schumer said he didn't expect you to answer the question."

Some senators, Cornyn said, already have decided to vote against Alito and simply want to accuse the nominee of being unresponsive.

But Cornyn pointed out that Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware had commented that he could not remember a court nominee being so responsive.

I would have loved to have seen Schumer's face when this was stated.

But the most offensive of exchanges that I saw, was Feingold's. His questioning on whether Alito was coached or given answers to questions, specifically on FISA, by the president's staff was excessive.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) tried, with little success, to get a sense of Alito's views on the role of the courts in disputes such as that over National Security Agency eavesdropping. He then used his question time largely as a forum on that subject.
In the process, however, he pursued an unusual line of questioning that made Alito visibly uncomfortable. He asked Alito whether the subject of the eavesdropping and its legality came up during his rehearsals for the nomination.
After some hesitation, Alito, who was taken aback, said that the general area of wiretapping and foreign intelligence did come up.
Who was present during these practice sessions, asked Feingold.
"Nobody at these practice sessions has ever told me what to say," Alito stated, answering an unasked question, somewhat defensively.
Feingold said he only wants to know if Alito got any feedback on the subject or any suggestions from the administration on how to answer these questions.
"Not on the substance," said Alito.
Alito was then looking uncomfortable. "Nobody actually told me what the president was asserting. . . . I found the letter [the administration's justification] on the Internet, myself."
Feingold asked whether it isn't inappropriate for members of the administration to be giving him advice on this subject.
"It would be inappropriate for them to tell me what to say," Alito said, and no one has told him what to say.

The question of who helped him prepare was pretty much irrelevant. His attempt to gain that information smells sourly of political posturing. I find this disturbing in that Feingold made it clear he believes that Alito's testimony was coached and that by the President providing assistance to Alito in the manner of murder boards that the President is also telling Alito how to think. Thus implying that Alito would not be an independent judge.

Here's a perfect example of how I could never be in politics. I'd just have openly asked Feingold what he's trying to imply and laid it out clearly. But calling a politician a scum-bag tends to make other politicians angry, even if the statement is true.