What did I miss?

[A18]

I haven't been watching the Alito hearings today. Anything big?

[J-Mann]

I didn't see much either -- some expected softballs from Republicans.  I thought it was interesting that in the past, Alito has supported having cameras in the court, though he wouldn't directly translate that into putting cameras in the Supreme Court today.

[angus]

I'm watching a replay on CSPAN.  Interestingly, Senator Dick Durbin is spending lots of time discussing two cases, Griswold v. Connecticut, which invalidated a CT state law prohibiting contraception for married couples, and Brown v Board, which outlawed racially segregated schools in Arkansas.  He asked Alito whether he agreed with the decisions, and Alito says yes, mentioning several constitutional amendments.  He's explaining to Alito that he's interested because those decisions didn't rest on specific delineated rights in the constitution, but rather on general principles.  He then segueways, somewhat gracefully if you can imagine that, into a discussion of the Roe v. Wade case.  He's asking Alito whether the right to terminate a pregnancy, though not specifically delineated in the constitution, merits the same sort of consideration.  Alito's doing his best not to sell his judicial vote for the price of an appointment.  But seems to be trying to take the whole affair seriously.  (He's said to have a very very dry sense of humor, at best, so it's not a hard act for him.)  My sense is that it's a question best evaded, or at most answered, honestly, but in the most ambiguous terms possible.  Alito seems to be doing that.  They have managed to drag this conversation on at least 35 minutes. 

Now Durban has finally changed subjects.  Durban's a hard read.  All these guys would make pretty good poker players, it seems.  Alito especially.  He's asking about a case in which RNS services versus Labor.  A reference to the WV mine situation was made by Durban.  Mine safety.  The case he's asking about is a Kentucky case.  Durban is saying that when one rules in favor of the "company" the lives of miners are put at risk.  Al would like this discussion.  Most of you might find it rather dry.  Alito is defending an earlier decision which hinged on the technical definition of a mine.  When is a mine a mine and when is it a pile of coal?  Apparently in one case he decided something was not a mine but a pile of coal and therefore not subject to certain labor law provisions.

I find it all very interesting as well.  I had a guy on my dissertation committee like that.  He asked me questions for about 30 minutes on the most mundane of points.  Enthalpy, as I recall, and its relation to temperature.  The sort of thing that you might spend a minute or two on and be done with.  Those guys just like to grill ya.  It's a form of hazing, so to speak.  I recognize the analogy isn't quite apt, since Alito is being grilled by members of a totally different club than the one he's joining, but there are some similarities.  For example, you can tell, in both situations, within the first few minutes whether they basically like you.  Whether they think you're worthy, and can think fast enough on your feet.  I rather think Alito, and every one in the room, is behaving in a manner which suggests that this is more than anything else a formality. 

Of course, we're all hoping for some juicy scandal to rear its ugly head.  Sensationalists that we are.  My guess is that this guy is about as square and as emotionally detached as they come.  Prediction:  nothing weird happens, and the republican-dominated judiciary committee recommends approval.  But I've been wrong before.  Jmfcst reads the tea leaves a bit better than I.  It'd be interesting to hear from him if he's been watching the proceedings.

[WalterMitty]

senator kennedy requested some irrelevant documents.

[angus]

Senator Sam Brownback is up now.  they're back on the Roe v. Wade case.  Brownback is posturing.  Campaigning against the decision rather than asking Alito questions.  Wow, Brownback just made a plug for Princton Law School.  Is he a Princeton alum?  Man, he's going on and on.  Ask some questions, man.  This guy is in total campaign mode.  Okay, finally a question.  Good, Alito is not selling his judicial vote to this guy either for the price of an appointment.  Bush may very well have made a decent choice.  Whether the American Public did, when it chose its legislative branch, is another matter.

Sen. Coburn is up now, asking some philosophical questions.  Less pertinent and less practical questions than the other two were asking, but far more academically interesting.  That's what I'd do too.  Just have a philosophical conversation, and stay away from specific issues.  I admire Coburn's approach.

It's all rather dry, I think.  My guess is that only a tiny fraction of all eligible voters are watching this.  Actually, I'm thinking of switching to "Everybody Loves Raymond"

[angus]

Raymond's over.  Back to CSPAN.  It's getting interesting.  Senator Specter is up.  Festive green tie.  Dark olive italian suit.  US flag pin on the lapel.  Very Nixonian.  Does that guy die his hair or what?  He's the committee chair.  He seems to be actually taking all this very seriously.  Good for him.  His questions are of a philosophical nature as well, but rather pointed.  He seems genuinely to want to avoid forming an opinion till he hears from Alito.  They're discussing the legality of detention of terrorist suspects.  Wants to know what factors are relevant to Alito when it comes to deciding how much federal court jurisdiction in these types of situations.  Habeas corpus and all that.  Alito's face is still all Las Vegas poker pro.  I still can't read him, and his liberal use of pronouns without antecedent and only the most ambiguous nouns is a little frustrating.  Surprisingly, Specter seems to think he's actually giving him reasonable answers.  Now they're on War Powers and surveillance.  Whoa, he made a reference to the fact that the court selected the most recent president.  A couple of republicans are squirming in the background.  Actually, this is good stuff.  Go to CSPAN. 

[angus]

a followup:  the segment is over, and there was a brief interview with WaPo reporter Dana Milbank.  Milbank explained some of what I missed.  He said that it appeared that the majority party in the committee hearings seemed to be united in their general approval, and that Alito would likely be recommended by the committee, but that the democrats on the committee intended to "draw blood, and the issue they wanted to use to do this was the Friends of Princeton group, which was exclusionary toward women and minorities..."  So that explains the Princeton references.  (I'd missed the first bit, and no one after Durban mentioned Princeton, but apparently Leahy and others used it.)  I find Milbank's articles to be fairly objective and well-informed, so I regard him as a reputable source for news, though he isn't a particularly handsome man.  Also, by the end, Alito did seem to have the slightest sweatbead breaking on his forehead.  It's probably best that they ended it when they did.  I've seen enough, and anyway a local station plays Frasier reruns at 9:30 CST, but you can catch it all ab initio if you tune in right now.  Just FYI.

[MaC]

Been hearing a lot about the Roe v. Wade.
Seems typical, Republicans throw soft ball questions, Democrats grill.  Haven't seen Kennedy, but that should be a show

[A18]

Schumer has been the most hostile so far, I think.

[MaC]

Schumer has been the most hostile so far, I think.

he did seem pretty hostile.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Schumer has been the most hostile so far, I think.

Oh no, he asked real questions.

[Smash255]

senator kennedy requested some irrelevant documents.

I actually think its pretty relevant.  Alito was part of an organization in Princeton which main goal tends to be going back to the old ways of Princeton (eliminating minorities & women basically) going back to the basically all white male school.  Alito belonged to the group & bragged about it ( or put it on his resume) when applying for a position under Reagan.

I don't know about you, but I don't exactly want someone who seems to be proud of the fact that he was part of an anti woman anti minority group in college on the Supreme Court.   Thats why the documents are important to see if he was in this group just to be part of something & just put it into his resume just to show he was part of something or if he actually holds the belief this group does by seeing how far involved he was in the group, and that being the reason he ihad it on his resume

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You missed Senator Graham causing Alito's wife to cry.

[WalterMitty]

senator kennedy requested some irrelevant documents.

I don't know about you, but I don't exactly want someone who seems to be proud of the fact that he was part of an anti woman anti minority group in college on the Supreme Court. 

hugo black?

[minionofmidas]

senator kennedy requested some irrelevant documents.

I don't know about you, but I don't exactly want someone who seems to be proud of the fact that he was part of an anti woman anti minority group in college on the Supreme Court. 

hugo black?

I can't recall Hugo Black saying he was proud of having been in the KKK.

[minionofmidas]

And it now seems as if Alito lied about having been in that group, too!

[YRABNNRM]

This is such a waste of time. Just another excuse for senators to stand on their pedestal.

[WalterMitty]

This is such a waste of time. Just another excuse for senators to stand on their pedestal.

^^^

correct.  being a member of a conservative alumni group hardly seems like a big deal to me.

[angus]

stand on their pedestal.

apparently the phase du jour is "draw blood"

yeah, but they may perceive it as part of their jobs.  part of what they owe to their constituents.  rough the ole boy up a bit as he testifies before committee.

I certainly haven't put all the clubs I belonged to on my resume.  But lots of folks do.  I was on a student activities coordinating board for two years.  we booked entertainment.  I met Rob Lowe and George Carlin through this activity.  Dined with them.  Never put it on my resume as I think it's irrelevant.  But I don't fault Alito for doing that sort of thing.  I don't know many lawyer types, but I know lots of pre-med students.  And I know that pre-meds are commonly advised to join lots of organizations, do lots of volunteer work, and put it all on their resumes.  My guess is that this is not a bad idea for pre-law students as well.  Bear in mind that Alito would have been an aspiring undergraduate attempting to try to get into the best law school. 

And remember, Harvard didn't admit catholics or jews for the first 300 years of its existence.  Like the KKK, it was open only to WASPs.  Not that my grandparents ever applied to harvard, but two were catholic, one was eastern orthodox christian, and one was jew.  All were the sort of recently immigrated European white trash that Harvard types wouldn't admit at the time, so clearly they wouldn't have been admitted.  Times have changed, of course.  But am I to hold Harvard's ancient history against it?  I think not.  If my boy gets into Harvard, and if I can afford the tuition, I'll be proud to send him to Harvard. 

A little perspective, folks.  Platitudes are fun, but they won't save you money on car insurance.

[angus]

one other comment.  my sense is that Specter views his job not unlike a graduate student's dissertation advisor.  Anyone who makes it to the defense, of course, generally passes.  The dregs are weeded out in the 1st or 2nd years of most PhD programs.  And those who get beyond that point aren't scheduled for dissertation defenses till they're ready.  Part of the major advisor's role, at least as is the custom at US PhD-granting institutions, is to make sure no one who won't pass the defense goes into the defense.  Similarly, Specter has not been shy about diplomatically blocking any Bush nominee he thinks won't get out of committee, or who won't get confirmed on a full senate vote.  Think:  Meyers.  Specter seems to take his job seriously.  In this view, Democrats, even those who really like the guy, can play the roll of vicious attack-dog as a means to satisy their lusty red-meat liberal constituencies, without having to deal with this guy not getting approved.  And for those Democrats from lusty red-meat conservative areas, they can please the democrats by appearing to confront the nominee, but not offend possible republican supporters who will soon forget his attacks once Alito is approved. 

[YRABNNRM]

Schumer is an embarassment to the human race.