Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The President's Man

By Ruth Conniff, The Progressive. Posted January 12, 2006.


A Roberts-Alito Supreme Court would grant the Chief Executive almost unlimited power.
Advertisement

We have heard a lot from Judge Sam Alito this week on various troubling issues in his record: his assertions in the 1980s that he was a proud opponent of Roe v. Wade, and a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton--a group then-famous for its opposition to female and minority enrollment.

Senator Leahy made a good point on the CAP issue. Perhaps it's believable that Alito was, as he said, an inactive member of the group not well acquainted with its activities when he joined. But thirty years later, when he mentioned his "proud membership" in the group on his job application to the Reagan Justice Department, there is no way he could have missed the news that other prominent alumni, including Bill Frist, had denounced CAP's retrograde positions. "You are a very careful and cautious person," Leahy said. Alito must surely have taken great care with that job application, and knew the implications of everything he put on it. Lindsey Graham had the best line on that and other instances of Alito's faulty memory: "I hope you'll understand if some of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us."

Ted Kennedy brought out Alito's record as a federal judge upholding abusive law-enforcement officers' behavior: strip-searching a ten-year-old girl, and pointing loaded guns at an unarmed family, after breaking into a home to enforce an eviction order.

But we have still not heard Alito provide a satisfactory answer to a direct question about the most important issue hovering over these hearings: executive power.

Alito backpedaled on a phrase in his 1985 job application to the Justice Department when Kennedy quoted it to him: "I believe very strongly in the supremacy of the elected branches of government."

Alito said he regretted his choice of words. It was "poorly phrased," and in fact he believed, and always has believed, in the balance of power among equal branches of government.

But Kennedy went on, "Your record still shows . . . excessive, almost single-minded deference to executive power."

Most of the examples Kennedy gave were of law-enforcement power--the unreasonable searches in Doe v. Groody (the ten-year-old girl who was strip-searched) and other cases.

But he pointed out that the power of the executive under the Bush Administration is of historic importance.

After he was pressured into signing the McCain bill outlawing torture by American military and intelligence officers, for example, Bush issued a "signing statement" that cast doubt on his commitment to enforcing the law, asserting that the President reserves the right to act in accordance with his power as commander in chief.

"You were an early advocate of signing statements," Kennedy said to Alito, urging Reagan to use them to limit the scope of bills he signed into law. "Is this what you had in mind?" Kennedy asked, when Alito said the "President's understanding of the law" was as important as that of Congress?

Alito only answered that signing statements are "unexplored territory." And he defended himself by explaining that he was a lawyer for the Reagan Administration and what he wrote merely reflected Administration policy.

Another important point Kennedy brought up was that Bush often uses the phrase "unitary executive branch" to defend his belief in an almost all-powerful executive. Alito, Kennedy noted, has called the unitary executive theory "gospel."

Alito explained his understanding of the "unitary executive" concept by saying that the scope of Presidential power is one issue and the importance of the President within the executive branch is another. His comments, he said, referred only to the preeminence of the President within the executive branch, and not the scope of his power in government.

But Alito never squarely said what he thinks of "signing statements," or the torture issue, or NSA spying, or the limits of executive power.

We need answers to these questions, urgently.

Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't trust him
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 12, 2006 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever Scalito answers, he won't feel bound by that once he's got the job. He might say that he believes in extensive powers for President Bush, and he might even rule in that manner. But when Bush is out and the next President is a progressive who tries to use his power to dismantle the prison industrial complex, he'll suddenly be in favor of a weak executive. Just like the current justices espouse state's rights when it's convenient, but when a dying cancer patient in California is thrown in jail for smoking his medicine, they'll say it's the right of the feds to prohibit medicines they don't like even if the states allow them. If Scalito wasn't a stooge for the robber barons, Bush wouldn't have appointed him. After decades of being a stooge, don't expect him to acquire morality today. As far as his being a "great jurist" or "brilliant", I could care less, Pol Pot was also "brilliant".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 12, 2006 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple rule:

If this admin wants 'em -WE DON'T!!!

STOP PRETEDNDING THAT THEY MIGHT BECOME MAGICALLY SCRUPULOUS OUT OF THE BLUE.

We keep talking to BARNEY like he's a real dinosaur and not a man in a purple outfit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This man...
Posted by: adp3d on Jan 13, 2006 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is a liar of the first degree. I don't care how many former clerks and current ABA board members they trot out, or even how much boo-hoo the wifey gives us nothing the man says to the committee matters. He has been instructed to stay as uncontentious and amiable to the Democrats as possible no matter what. "Just get yourself through committee, Sam, and you're on the bench". This man will help undo decades of civil, personnal, and worker rights, as well as environmental protections and of course constitutionally mandated executive branch restrictions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coup de grace for Democracy.
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Jan 13, 2006 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alito is the Republicans’ coup de grace for Democracy.

Forget elections, the only way we’ll ever get Democracy back is by force of arms. So if you’re not willing to fight, just kick back and enjoy the Fourth Reich.

With a little luck some will survive and perhaps America will recover from fascism as well as Germany has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A hypothetical question
Posted by: Maryanne on Jan 13, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a sitting president is impeached or indicted is it possible for the individual he recommended to the Supreme Court be removed solely on the grounds that this was a recommendation made by someone who violated the Constitution? Or is this person safe for a lifetime appointment (barring imreachable activity on his own part) because the Senate has approved the appointment? Even if one party were voting in unison to retain control of the government?

Does a president who has been impeached or indicted have the right to a "legacy" that would continue his positions for the country for decades to come?

Does anyone have an answer to this which has been troubling me since the appointment of Roberts. He may be bright, charming, polite, intelligent, etc. but he is also conservative. How this appointment will play out is at this point uncertain. However, if the Court is filled with extreme conservatives, will this invalidate the spirit if not the letter of the constitution?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Jan 13, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's finally over! This whole farcical process of determining the fitness of Sam Alito or any other nominee should be abandoned. After listening to hours of the hearings and the drivel emanating from the mouths of the fawning Republicans, it is impossible to retain any feelings of hope for the survival of the Republic as a true democracy. Sessions of Alabama turned my stomach. And of course Slippery Sam was the star of the show. You gotta give him credit, he raised "duck and sluice" to a new level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S NOT OVER YET!
Posted by: krose on Jan 13, 2006 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT'S NOT OVER TILL THE FAT LADY SINGS!
Maybe something will still save us! Who knows? Maybe there will be marching in the streets before the final vote, and enough senators will develop a dose of braveness! Anything can happen, and I refuse to give up hope yet! We still have 10 days, or so. Maybe someone will organize something!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 13, 2006 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RIGHT ON KROSE!

Okay, now who else?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 13, 2006 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is our nation's destiny something we merely read about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHO WILL ORGANIZE SOMETHING???
Posted by: krose on Jan 13, 2006 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I KEEP HOPING THAT MOVE-ON OR PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY WILL DO SOMETHING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do we expect?
Posted by: noles1st on Jan 14, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The system of selecting future Justices to the Supreme Court has become a vehicle by which former attorneys (Senators) pretend to be able to match wits with a practicing attorney or jurist (the nominee).

More often than not, the former attorneys find themselves overmatched. The questions they ask are not particularly insightful or, sometimes, even germaine to the issues that will be brought before the Court.

I agree with the poster who said, in effect, that Democrats will generally never want someone who is proposed by Republicans and vice-versa. Having said that, though, I think that it needs to be said that the system is not very rewarding for the public and the Senators themselves.

There is absolutely nothing that compels the nominee to be truthful about his/her position on various topics that the public would like to see answered. And answered without all the legal double-speak that, boiled down, is basically "I cannot answer that because it may come before the Court in the future."

The American public is owed truthful answers to questions such as: "Specifically what is your position on abortion?" "Specifically what is your position on the separation of church and state?" "Specifically what is your position on the powers of the President during an undeclared 'war'?" "Specifically what is your position on the United States' ability to ignore the tenets of the Geneva Convention?"

That list is hardly inclusive and certainly does not include the questions that are the most important to all people. But it is a starting point. And the nominee should be forced to answer. This is, after all, a lifetime appointment. It is not an elected position--where the individual running for office is subjected to much more scrutiny.

We will never see that day, unfortunately. We will continue with the sideshow that does not educate anyone about the positions that the person is going to bring with him/her to a very important job.

I think, though, that we can fairly say this:

Democrats will nominate individuals with a more liberal bent.

Republicans will nominate individuals with a more conservative bent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Write to your Senators.
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 14, 2006 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have the vote. Tell them what their constituents want.

I did. It just takes a few minutes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democracy is not dead yet, only sleeping
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 14, 2006 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democracy means rule by the people. Our system, in its ideal, never-yet-existing form, construes this as a blend of the expression of various overlapping majorities: the national majority in elections for President, state majorities in elections for Senate and Governor, and more local majorities in elections for Representatives and local officials.

All of the finger pointing and rabble-rousing in every blog, right and left, can not make up for the fact that this system is not actually in use by the POTENTIAL ELECTORATE. Less than half of us vote, and those with more money vote in higher numbers.

So don't tell me about how the system is being subverted and distorted by the media or the right-wing attack machine, until you're actually doing something about this hideous lack of participation in the process, starting with casting your own vote.

It's too easy to say that people don't think their vote counts. They might be right, but they're horribly wrong not to try and make it count. If 90% of the electorate voted, the whole thing would be up for grabs in a few election cycles. Most of the strategies of both parties involve an assumption, and active encouragement, of low turnout.

Progressives talk to each other, but in general not to demoralized working people. The rich right wing has figured out that, through surrogates, they can manipulate the poor and demoralized into either not voting, or voting out of fear.

So if you want change, support workplace democracy through union membership; canvass your own neighborhood to increase turnout; get to know a wide range of people, not just people who already agree with you and share your assumptions; demonstrate your support for local initiatives that benefit working people, such as living wage laws and mixed-income housing development.

If you're not doing these things, then save your breath and your keystrokes, because yelling about how horrible the right wing is does not change a thing.

Before you start shouting me down, I acknowledge the many exceptions. Many poor people are activists, though not nearly enough. And many progressives are involved in the kinds of activities I have mentioned, but not nearly enough. The point is, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.... so we blog. Oh, the GOP and the moneybags are just shaking in their boots!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 15, 2006 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iron clad exit polling or what's the use?

Digital voting is a one armed bandit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scam-lito
Posted by: PoetWarrior on Jan 19, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Alito lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was saying whatever would get him the job. I'm sure that whoever votes for him will end up gaining politically when it comes to Supreme Court decisons that benefit the corruption that the majority party wallows in.

If the Dems choose not to fillibuster, that's a good enough reason to change party affiliation to the Greens. That's what I did when my senator justified her vote for the disasterous Medicare Prescription Drug Scam.

Alito's confirmation is just another scam that our Senators buy into for the sake of whomever gives them the big bucks that flow from corporate lobbyists. How can we trust them when all they seem to want is power and money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]