January 11, 2006

Rude answers not given by Samuel Alito -- Part 1.

A passage from the Day 2 transcript:
FEINSTEIN: So if I understand this, you essentially said that you wanted to follow precedent, newly established law in this area. And you left a little hedge that if Congress made findings in that law, then that might be a different situation. If Congress did make findings, would you have agreed that that statute would been constitutional?

ALITO: What I said in the opinion and what I will reiterate this afternoon is that it would have been a very different case for me. I don't think I can express an opinion on how I would have decided a hypothetical case.

FEINSTEIN: It's not hypothetical. I'm just asking you, if there were findings as you said, you might have sustained the law.

ALITO: And I reiterate that...

FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law...

ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me.
Too bad Alito has to play nice and can't say Duh, Senator, don't you know what "hypothetical" means?

13 comments:

Thersites said...

Yeah, it's just so wicked cool that Alito won't give an answer to the question the whole country wants him to answer, will he overturn Roe?

We all know that he will. So why not say so?

But Althouse's snark is still teh funny. That's comedy!

brylin said...

A picture is worth a thousand words.

In the case of Alito, as currently shown by Matt Drudge, five pictures. The first shows Alito smiling. Then under that picture, a trio of pictures showing Dick Durbin frowning with hands clenched in front of his face, Diane Feinstein frowning with hands clenched biting her thumb, and Chuck Shumer hand clenched in front of his face with a vacant stare. Then under this trio, another picture including Shumer picking his nose, Ted Kennedy looking forelorn and Joe Biden mouth open with a shocked look on his face.

Pogo said...

Re: "Alito won't give an answer to the question the whole country wants him to answer..."
The whole country? Nah, just a few on the left want that item answered and set in stone. Others want to know if he'll decide cases based on the facts and the Constitution.

Re: "So why not say so?"
Not withstanding the fact that it's impermissable for a judge to decide a case before it exists.

Re:"That's comedy!"
Kennedy is comic. Biden is comic. Feinstein? Not so much funny as dumb. Can you imagine the verbal slapping she'd receive if she were a law student making this sort of error to a prof?

bearbee said...

Can someone give an opinion comparing the Alito performance with that of Roberts after one day of hearing?

I had not seen the Roberts hearing but Alito seems to be doing quite well but as I am not a lawyer I may be missing certain nuances. A prior post mentioned that he might end up looking 'ragged' when compared with Roberts.

Just curious.......

I find it interesting how quickly the political issues de jour become exploited, e.g., executive privilege, recent coal mine catastrophe.....

Would the 10 hours of almost none stop goodcopbadcopgoodcopbadcop..... be banned under the McCain Torture ban?

Thersites said...

Yeah, nobody on the right wants to know whether he'll dump Roe either. Good point.

Not withstanding the fact that it's impermissable for a judge to decide a case before it exists.

Roe already exists, and the whole kabuki dance around whether he wants to keep it or dump it is stupid. Come up with all the highfalutin reasons why it would be shocking for him to answer the simple, big question question you want -- it's still stupid that he won't answer it.

Can you imagine the verbal slapping she'd receive if she were a law student making this sort of error to a prof?

Yes. "You're a partisan with poor reading comprehension! Squawk!"

Pogo said...

Re: "Roe already exists, and the whole kabuki dance around whether he wants to keep it or dump it is stupid."

The stupidity revolves around requiring SCOTUS nominees to pledge allegiance to a decision that is arguably incorrect. Why?

By imposing the Roe decision over a federalist approach, we're ever since forced to limit the discussion on SCOTUS aspirants to answering "is you fer or agin abortion?" And supposedly be repating the mantra "Roe is law, Roe is law", it becomes a super duper precedent. Much like repeating a lie makes it true, I suppose.

Why won't the Democrats take a different approach? Because the whole Dem party theme is abortion and isolationism. Without these, they stand for very little.

Pogo said...

Re:"Yeah, nobody on the right wants to know whether he'll dump Roe either."

I think the difference is that for conservatives the Roe decision is not their raison d'etre. Cases should be discussed on their merits, according to what the law states, and not according to desired outcomes.

This may or may not result in the overturning of Roe. More likely, the decision will slowly devolve back to the states, as should have been done in the first place.

Thersites said...

whole Dem party theme is abortion

It is my considered opinion that you are insane. Next time you go to church, check carefully for fleas and other ferlin beasties.

Pogo said...

Thersites,

Sure. Why resort to reasoned argument when insults will do?

Ann Altmouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jpe said...

By imposing the Roe decision over a federalist approach

It'd be Roe v. a position that rejects sub due process (or medical privacy as a particular instance of SDP).

Federalism is a slightly different matter.

Thersites said...

Pogo, at what point are you engaging in "reasoned argument"? Seems more like you're spouting silly Limbaughisms.

Norma said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.