Showing posts with label Samuel Alito Jr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel Alito Jr. Show all posts

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Bob Novak Backs Up John Fund's Story on McCain and Alito

Columnist Robert Novak writes at The Washington Post:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

McCain, as the "straight talk" candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party's right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party's potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.

***
That was the background for conservative John Fund's Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' " In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.


[More]
(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I think some of those who called into question the veracity of Mr. Fund's account owe him an apology. At least one person commenting at Pro Ecclesia the other day - a prominent Catholic pro-lifer supporting McCain - called Fund's piece "a slime job" that "should be ignored".

Well I'm not ignoring it, especially now that Bob Novak has confirmed the story as true. As for "slime jobs", McCain has become an expert at sliming conservatives over the last 8 years in order to curry favor with liberal Democrats and the MSM. So far, I haven't been convinced that that's about to change.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

More McCain

I see McCain denials on the Alito comment have been made. Given that Fund actually wrote that he "might draw the line" on another Alito (the operative word being might) I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, former Senator Rick Santorum has recently been critical of Senator McCain:

Although McCain has a largely pro-life voting record, Santorum — who led on pro-life and marriage issues in the Senate — cautioned against misunderstanding McCain’s public stance: “Not only was he wrong on embryonic-stem-cell research, but on a whole host of conservative issues, where he may have voted with us.” Santorum took radio listeners into the back-room workings of the Senate, emphasizing how the first step toward legislative success is finding time on the floor to discuss and vote on the issues: “That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them,” agreeing that these were divisive issues that the Senate should not bring to a vote.

“That’s wrong,” Santorum added, “and that gives me an insight into what he would really be like [on these issues] if he were president of the United States.”
More.

I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.
And more.

I talked to Rick Santorum briefly tonight. He told me that he “can’t in good conscience give details about what happened in senator-only meetings.” But in response to Ramesh’s question on abortion-related legislation, the former Pennsylvania senator offers to NRO: “the one that comes quickly to mind was a ban on cloning. While the House passed a cloning ban at least on one occasion, we never voted on the issue despite pleas from social conservatives as to its importance. Many senators including Senator McCain wanted to avoid casting votes.”
John McCain's service to our nation is more then commendable, it is more then we should ever ask of our sons or daughters. For many issues important to Catholics he has been there fighting the good fight.

What Senator Santorum claims though is disturbing. If the above is indeed true, what can we expect from a President McCain if the Congress attempts to repel DOMA or the PBA ban? Would he want to avoid having to veto such legislation? And is he really willing to put up SCOTUS nominees like Alito, Roberts, and Scalia in the face of Democratic opposition in the Senate?

These are serious questions for Catholic Republican voters to consider.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Weigel on Sen Kennedy and Justice Alito

That a man of transparent integrity and competence should be subjected to scurrilous innuendo about his probity and his skill is bad enough, not least when such groundless suggestions come for the senior senator from Massachusetts, who seemingly cannot enunciate a coherent, grammatically correct English sentence without reading from a staff-written cue card. But then Senator Edward Kennedy outdid himself with this charge, the week before the Senate vote: "Judge Alito does not share the values of equality and justice that make this country strong."

That is a lie. To be precise, it's that form of lie known as calumny, which, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is an offense against both justice and charity, because false statements that harm the good name and reputation of others give rise to false judgments about them. Perhaps the good citizens of Massachusetts owe the rest of us an apology for returning to the Senate a blustering bully who is dishonest in a particularly odious way?

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Fr. Pavone (Priests for Life) on the Confirmation of Samuel Alito

From Fr. Pavone's e-letter on the confirmation of Samuel Alito:

As I bring you my latest column . . . let me also comment on two news items from today.

First, of course, Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed and sworn in today as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Again we see that elections have consequences. This new Justice, who will be much friendlier to pro-life concerns than was Sandra Day O'Connor, would not be on the Supreme Court today if all of you had not worked as hard as you did for the elections of 2004. It was the coming change of the Supreme Court that motivated so many of us.

I ask you to pause and reflect for a moment. Where is all the power of the pro-abortion movement? Why couldn't the pro-abortion and other liberal organizations that are so well-funded and have so many friends in Hollywood, the media, and the political world, stop the confirmation of Justice Alito? They certainly wanted to and they certainly tried. For that matter, why weren't they able to keep President Bush from a second term?

The fact is that we have things that they don't have, including a stronger grassroots network, and the right message. So thank you again - and let's gear up now for the elections of 2006 and 2008 so that we can replace more Supreme Court Justices!

On another note, you may have seen the news that Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., died last night. Her niece, Alveda, told me this morning that the family appreciates your prayers. (You may send a note of condolence to the King family at mail@priestsforlife.org.) Alveda, as you know, continues fighting for Dr. King's dream of equal dignity for all human beings by fighting for the right to life of unborn children. We are happy to have her as our director of African-American outreach.

"Elections have consequences." Remember that: one can only wonder what the Supreme Court would look like had Senator Kerry been elected, or where the pro-life movement would be today.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Alito Filibuster? Not.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Failed pro-abortion presidential candidate John Kerry waged an 11th-hour campaign to mount support for a potential filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but even members of his own party bemoaned his quixotic effort. Although Kerry is out of the country hobnobbing with international political leaders in Switzerland, he manned the phones to call his colleagues and urge them to filibuster Alito next week. The calls came after news reports surfaced showing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist planing to call for a cloture vote Monday afternoon to end debate on Alito's nomination and hold an up or down vote Tuesday. On Thursday, Alito picked up the support of two more Democrats and two others said they would not support a filibuster. Even Democratic leaders recognized the writing on the wall. "No one can complain on this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor Thursday. "I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking." Despite it likely being doomed to failure, Kerry's filibuster attempt has picked up two supporters -- fellow pro-abortion Democrats Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Ron Wyden of Oregon. TAKE ACTION: Make your views about Judge Alito's noination known by contacting your senators. You can reach them by going to: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Both Republican and Democrats agreed on Friday that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito not only has enough votes to be confirmed, but enough to stop a last-minute filibuster threatened by a handful of Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has planned a cloture vote for Monday to close off debate on Alito's nomination to replace retiring pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Frist's motion needs 60 votes to be approved and leaders on both sides of the aisle say that will happen. "Next Tuesday, a bipartisan majority will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito," Frist said. For confirmation, Alito has the firm backing of 52 of the 55 Republicans as well as three Democrats: Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. In addition, Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine are all opposed to a filibuster. Akaka and Salazar oppose Alito and the others are undecided. That's at least 55 votes to approve Alito for the high court and 60 votes to stop the filibuster. Those totals are likely to increase as a handful of undecided lawmakers make up their minds. Despite the filibuster threat from three pro-abortion Democrats -- Massachusetts senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Oregon's Ron Wyden, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Alito's confirmation is inevitable. "We're going to have a vote Tuesday morning," Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster, but it's an opportunity to people to express their opinion [against Alito]."
Yes, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy being controlled by their puppet masters. Thankfully, there are some Democrats who have refused to be led by these "masters".

Monday, January 23, 2006

Judge Alito Apparently on the Way

Judge Sam Alito is apparently on the way to confirmation this week as the next justice on the Supreme Court. Don't get me wrong; I like our new Chief Justice John Roberts. But Alito's answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee were, in my opinion, better. Alito made clear that he did indeed have a conservative judicial philosophy that seeks to limit the habit of reading extraneous agendas into the text of the Constitution. I thought Roberts was a bit too eager to please. But we shall see.

What is the wider lesson? The lesson we all know: stick to principle, stick to the truth. In the seventies, the social collapse of the U.S. was reaching its apogee. Abortion became the next barrier to fall as the sexual revolution remade the culture. The sexual revolution was topped off with no less than murder. At that moment of the triumph of evil, many kept the faith. With the confirmation of Sam Alito, that persistent faith in the face of the triumphalistic evil of the seventies sees victory a lot closer.

Now is no time to rest and imitate the empty triumphalism of the evil of the seventies. But we should be aware of what we have been through and will go through. An old Protestant devotional has these words to say to all Christians:

God gets His greatest victories out of apparent defeats. Very often the enemy seems to triumph for a little, and God lets it be so; but then He comes in and upsets all the work of the enemy, overthrows the apparent victory, and as the Bible says, "turns the way of the wicked upside down." Thus He gives a great deal larger victory than we would have known if He had not allowed the enemy, seemingly, to triumph in the first place.

From
Streams in the Desert, compiled by Mrs. Charles E. Cowman, Jan. 18th entry (original publication 1925).

We continue in small and big things to advance the kingdom that will turn "the way of the wicked upside down" (cf. Ps. 146:9). We watch and pray, for we know that the ultimate victory is guaranteed. Here is a fuller excerpt from Psalm 146, in the old King James Version:

Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God;
. . . .
Which executeth judgment for the oppressed; which giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth the prisoners:
The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind: the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down: the Lord loveth the righteous:
The Lord preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but
the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.


Psalm 146:5-9 (KJV; added emphasis).

Who are the innocent children killed in the millions since 1973 here within our own borders, but the righteous ones, spoken of in the Psalm, oppressed, hungry for the maternal embrace, imprisoned and bowed down in the legal regime of abortion by those willfully blind to their humanity, treated as undesirable and expendable strangers by society, fatherless, with mothers made into the widows of their own children?

Monday, January 16, 2006

Alito and the Catholics

Interesting article in the Weekly Standard from First Things contributing editor Joseph Bottum about the decline of the Catholic Church in America as institution and the rise of its ideas. Some highlights:

With some exceptions (such as Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver and Francis Cardinal George of Chicago--neither, it is worth noting, implicated in the cover-up of the priest scandals), the vast majority of America's bishops have joined Cardinal Egan in full retreat from public engagement.

And that leaves--well, who is there now to speak for American Catholics? As their ethnic unity dissipated, Catholics have had considerably less need for someone to represent them, in the old, tribal sense of the word. But at the same time, the vacuum in public discourse allows Catholicism to act as a marker of intellectual depth about public philosophy--for good or for ill, depending on your view of the various issues on which it impinges, but always somehow a symbol of something that must be taken seriously.

So, President Bush, reeling from the rejection by conservatives of a nominee perceived as unserious, tossed aside all the diversity qualifications he had claimed for Harriet Miers and picked yet another Catholic for the Supreme Court. It doesn't always prove true, of course (as the existence of pro-abortion Catholic politicians demonstrates), but the American public seems to take serious Catholicism as an immediate sign of moral attention on intellectual topics like the law. Who now speaks for American Catholicism? A good example might be someone like Samuel A. Alito Jr.

NOT THAT ALITO is much of a spokesman for his coreligionists. He's never been a professional Catholic, one of those commentators who make their living off the fact of their faith. Nor has anyone claimed that his earlier jobs at the Justice Department and on the federal bench were obtained through some Catholic quota, the way the Supreme Court for decades had what used to be called the "Catholic seat." According to a report on Beliefnet.com, Alito sometimes attends Mass at St. Aloysius in Caldwell, New Jersey, a church very traditional in both its theology and its sacramental practice. But he's also a registered parishioner at Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament in neighboring Roseland, which is, by all accounts, a fairly typical liberal suburban church, and the parish where his wife teaches catechism to the local children. Nothing in Alito's record suggests a desire or even a willingness to stand as the token Catholic representative for much of anything.

Which, in its way, makes him even more representative. In 2004, during the second presidential debate, John Kerry boasted that he used to be an altar boy, as indeed he did. It was a naked appeal to the old style of the Catholic vote: the ethnic unity that for more than a century delivered the votes of blue-collar urban America to the Democrats. In the end, George Bush won a good majority of Catholic votes--as might have been predicted when Kerry went immediately from mentioning his boyhood Catholicism to explaining why he supported public funding for abortions. Fifty years earlier, Bush's appeal to shared ideas of Catholicism would have been trounced by Kerry's appeal to shared membership in the Catholic Church.

Of course, 50 years earlier, Kerry would have shared the ideas of Catholicism, too. The meeting of evangelicals and Catholics in the opened center of American public discourse was probably bound to produce somebody like President Bush, an evangelical who couched his second inaugural address almost entirely in the language of natural law. But what's particularly interesting is that this somebody is a Republican--for by all rights, it should have been a Democrat. For that matter, so should most of the Catholics that Republican presidents have put on the bench in recent years. Perhaps the privileged upbringing of the new chief justice, John Roberts, would have made him a Catholic Republican anyway (there were occasionally such rare beasts), but Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would almost certainly be Democrats, if there were left any place for their kind of Catholic thought in the Democratic party.

---

IN THE SUMMER of 2003, the conservative Committee for Justice, upset over the stalled nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ran advertisements accusing the Democrats of imposing a "No Catholics Need Apply" rule on potential federal judges. When the antireligious advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued its predictable attacks on John Roberts and Samuel Alito as raging Catholic theocrats determined to tear down the wall between church and state, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue responded with the same rhetoric of a litmus test designed to keep Catholics off the courts.

In one sense, such claims are palpable nonsense: Among the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Richard Durbin are just as officially Catholic as Samuel Alito, the nominee they spent four days grilling last week. Of course, those same senators are manifestly not believers in the coherent system of Catholic thought in the American context that a set of (mostly) conservative theorists have developed in the 33 years since Roe v. Wade was handed down. The Committee for Justice simply got the phrasing wrong. In truth, for the Democrats, Catholics are more than welcome. It's Catholicism that's right out the window.

That kind of Catholicism is not, by any means, the same thing as sincere Catholic belief. One doesn't have to accept the natural-law theories of, say, Princeton's Robert George to be a faithful Catholic--or the international-law theses of Harvard's Mary Ann Glendon, or the just-war accounts of George Weigel, or the Christian capitalism of Michael Novak, or the strong claims of religious America in magazines like First Things. Plenty of serious and thoughtful Catholics stand, on ecclesial and theological matters, far to the right of the dominant intellectual form of American Catholicism, and plenty stand far to the left.

---

George W. Bush, as the candidate who opposed Roe v. Wade, may have captured the vote of Catholics as a whole, but John Kerry, the candidate in favor of legalized abortion, won all the cardinals' home towns. (Ouch!)

The current fear about Catholics cannot be drawn from the Church's direct political effect, for that well has gone bone dry. In New York City politics, the rectory of St. Patrick's Cathedral was once called "the Powerhouse," but no one has used the name in a generation. Not a single prominent pro-abortion Catholic politician has been successfully brought to heel by the bishops in decades... (Ouch again!)

Friday, January 13, 2006

Samuel Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings - A Roundup

Top blogs worth following for 'blow-by-blow' coverage of the hearings of Judge Samuel Alito: Bench Memos (National Review); Confirm Them; Professor Bainbridge and Michelle Malkin.

A Roundup - (Mostly Humorous) Highlights and coverage . . .

  • Wendy Long (Bench Memos) on Ted Kennedy's Elitist Sexist Club:
    Let me get this straight: Sam Alito, who worked hard in New Jersey public schools, got into Princeton on his own merits, took his meals in the coed dining hall and had nothing to do with the all-male Princeton eating clubs, is getting guff from Ted Kennedy, Boston elitist who got into (and stayed into) Harvard on, um, other people's merits, and who just a few months ago reconfirmed his membership in the Owl Club, which according to the Washington Times has “long been reviled on campus as sexist and elitist, and in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws.”
  • Senator Kennedy badgers the witness over Vanguard. For more about this case, see "Kennedy vs. Alito by Proxy", Edward Whelan. National Review Online Nov. 15, 2005.

  • Wendy Long (Bench Memos) on Dem Disrespect:
    I'm sitting in the hearing room, in back of an impressive and historic panel of federal Circuit Court of Appeals judges who have served with Judge Alito. . . . The only Democrat Senators who bothered to stay on the dais are Leahy and Feinstein. Almost all the Republicans are there. Most notably, Senator Chuck Schumer got up and left right before the judges began to speak. Not only do they not care about the Judges' testimony, apparently, they don't even care about the disrespect for these judges that the bench of empty seats on the Democrat side bespeaks.
    More from Michelle Malkin, on "a woman the Dems don't want to hear": U.S. Appeals Court Judge (and Clinton apointee) Maryanne Trump Barry.

  • "I take umbrage at your telling me what I received. I don't mind your telling me what you mailed. But there's a big difference between what's mailed and what's received. And you know that." -- Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Kennedy had a little spat, or clash of the windbags, as Michelle Malkin puts it. Check out the video, it's very amusing.

  • Jonathan Adler Bench Memos) on Administrative Law:
    Senator Kennedy's questioning this morning about the unitary executive and administrative agencies reveals a profound misunderstanding of bedrock principles of administrative law, including the difference between agencies that are a part of the executive (such as the EPA, FWS, APHIS, etc.) and independent agencies (FTC, CPSC, FCC, Federal Reserve). Judge Alito patiently tried to explain this to him, to no avail. As it happens, I'm in the midst of grading my students' administrative law exams. Based upon his comments this morning, Senator Kennedy would easily hold down the bottom of the curve.
  • Reportedly the Senators' bullying attempt to paint Alito as a racist and a sexist provoked his wife to leave the room in tears -- blogger Captain's Quarters responds:
    The smear tactics trotted out to derail the nomination of Judge Alito over the past few weeks had hit their nadir when Ted Kennedy demanded a subpoena for the William Rusher papers to determine whether the National Review publisher may have written something about CAP and Alito. Never mind that this was an entirely off-subject line of questioning from the beginning; Alito's own hiring record proved that he has no animus towards equal opportunity for women or minorities, and the Prospect itself had a woman (Laura Ingraham) and a minority (Dinesh D'Souza) as its editors in chief. Never mind that Alito has had decades of dedicated public service with an impeccable record of excellence, including fifteen years on the appellate court. Never mind that he has not been called before Congress to defend himself on charges but for confirmation to move up to the Supreme Court by invitation of the President.

    When what should be a simple confirmation process reduces family members to tears, it shows that one party has degenerated into a secular Inquisition. And let me remind you that it was this party that, on more than one occasion, elected a former Klansman to the post of Majority Leader -- a man who as recently as three years ago defended the use of the "n-word".

    In fact, most of the Senators from that caucus are responsible for that election of Byrd to his leadership posts.

    I would assume that under their definition, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, and perhaps Schumer are all racists and genocidists. They're certainly tied much closer to those beliefs than Samuel Alito, and I invite them to explain the difference to the American people.

  • Democrats suspicious of Alito's views on Roe v. Wade? -- Timothy P. Carney is compiling list of Pro-choice Criticisms of Roe.

  • But Enough About You, Judge; Let's Hear What I Have to Say, by Elizabeth Bumiller. New York Times January 11, 2006:
    "I understand, Judge, I am the only one standing between you and lunch, so I'll try to make this painless," he began, with some promise.

    Mr. Biden then dived into a soliloquy on Judge Alito's failure to recuse himself from cases involving the Vanguard mutual fund company, which managed the judge's investments. After 2 minutes 50 seconds - short for the senator - Mr. Biden did appear to veer toward a question, but abandoned it to cite Judge Alito's membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group. Mr. Biden discoursed on that for a moment, then interrupted himself with an aside about his son who "ended up going to that other university, the University of Pennsylvania."

    Judge Alito, who had been sitting without expression through Mr. Biden's musings, interrupted the senator midword, got out three sentences, then settled in for nearly 26 minutes more of Mr. Biden, with the senator doing most of the talking. With less than a minute to spare, Mr. Biden concluded, thanked Judge Alito for "being responsive," then said to Mr. Specter that "I want to note that for maybe the first time in history, Biden is 40 seconds under his time."

  • Michael Novak on the Alito Hearings:
    How old and out-of-date and empty of real ideas — not to say connection to reality — Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Durbin, and, above all, Schumer seemed. They know they have to do what they are doing, but they know their efforts are for nothing, and their words are making hollow echoes. Even their indignation seems forced and falls swiftly flat.

    The pompous rhetorical indignation of Kennedy has become merely pathetic. He was once a heroic figure, but he now seems like the lion of Alice in Wonderland — threadbare, tame, and roaring every so often only out of nostalgic habit. Chuck Schumer drones on like a little spoiled boy who becomes a schoolyard bully just by his superior tone of voice, boring in upon others, coercing them verbally, trying to make them feel as worthless as in his mind they are.

    It is painful to watch the ruin of a great party. A great party has come to this.

    And most of it happened because of commitment to a policy that cannot be maintained without lies and malicious euphemisms. That is, the killing of innocents in what is supposed to be the most welcoming, safest place on earth — a mother's womb.

  • Richard Reeb (blogging for Claremont Review's The Remedy) observed Senator Brownback's taking on two sacred cows: "super (dooper?) precedents" and Roe v. Wade, in his questioning of Alito.

  • Joe Biden, Time Traveler (via Confirm Them).

  • Scorecard: Judge Samuel A. Alito Answered A Higher Percentage (95%) Of Questions On His Opening Day Of Questioning Than Justices John Roberts (89%) Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg (79%) Did During Their Full Confirmation Hearings.

  • Professor Bainbridge comes to an Alito Epiphany:
    After catching up on the first day of the Alito hearings, one conclusion seems inescapable; namely, that Alito is more machine now than man; twisted and evil. He yearns to take liberals, women, minorities, gays, small children, and puppies to the Dune Sea, and cast them into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac, in whose belly they will find a new definition of pain and suffering as they are slowly digested over a thousand years. (Or maybe it's the slavering maw of Cthulhu the Great. I zoned out for awhile during Durbin's opening remarks.)

Transcripts

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Alito would give U.S. high court Catholic majority

From Reuters:

Roman Catholics would be the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time if Samuel Alito is confirmed -- a historically remarkable prospect in a country where "papists" were once taught in state schools that their faith was a lie.

But so far the development has passed for little more than a curiosity, reflecting how politics trumps religion when it comes to appointments to America's highest court, experts say.

Alito and the Catholics already on the court -- John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- appear to share many conservative views held by evangelical Protestants, a group historically suspicious of Rome and its hierarchical church.

The prospect of a Catholic court majority "is a credit to the evolution of America," said Julie Fenster, co-author of "Parish Priest," a book recently published by William Morrow about the Catholic priest who founded the Knights of Columbus.

"I don't think Catholics here realise how much their antecedents had to take on the chin in terms of job discrimination, public jeering -- in some towns it was hard to walk down the street without being shouted at," she said.

"And in the (public) schools you had to accept that your children would be taught from textbooks that said Catholicism was wrong," Fenster said.

CONSTITUTION OR POPE?

Historically, many Americans questioned whether Roman Catholics could uphold the U.S. constitution, or whether they were obligated to follow the dictates of the Pope while in office. There has been only one Roman Catholic U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960.

But evangelical Protestants seem so far to be embracing Alito, unlike President George W. Bush's last court nominee, Harriet Miers.

"Look at how the evangelical right responded to one of its own when it came to Harriet Miers," said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Bush nominated Miers, a fellow conservative Christian, last year but she withdrew under fierce attack from conservatives who questioned her credentials and commitment to conservative ideology.

"It just shows you how it's mostly about ideology and not about religion," added Walker, whose Washington-based coalition of 14 Baptist bodies works for religious liberty causes.

"I think it's good that not a lot is being made of it. Generally religion is not a very good predictor of how one will decide cases," he added, noting that former justice William Brennan, also a Catholic, was a liberal.

Of the remaining justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg are Jewish, David Souter is Episcopalian and John Paul Stevens is Protestant.

"During much of 20th Century there was a Catholic seat and a Jewish seat (on the court). Anything but one Catholic would have created a lot of consternation among Protestants and evangelicals," said Martin Flaherty, a Fordham Law School professor who once clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Byron White.

REPRESENT THE COUNTRY

Alito and the others appear to have far more things in common than differences, he said.

"On some level the court should be very roughly representative of the country. If you have not just a majority but (one) from a certain wing of a denomination you wonder if the court does represent the country," he added.

About one in four Americans say they are Roman Catholic, making the church by far the largest single U.S. denomination. There is no monolithic political philosophy marking the faith, despite the church's strong official opposition to abortion, a position widely shared by conservative evangelical Christians.

About 52 percent of Americans say they are Protestants, although mainline churches are losing members as the evangelical movement grows. Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is Jewish.

One anomaly is that 20 percent of U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, yet none of the five who would be on the court is, noted Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Centre in Chicago.

Religion "has pretty much become passe" as an issue, he suggested, except to the degree that it becomes a hot potato in nearly every U.S. presidential campaign when candidates define their stand on abortion.

Opposition to Alito has come from groups worried that the court would eliminate the right to abortion. Legal Momentum, a woman's legal rights group, said it feared putting Alito on the court would be "adversarial to a woman's right to choose."

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Alito's Opening Statement: You Judge

Below, for your consideration, is the fine opening statement by Judge Alito yesterday as his Senate confirmation hearings began. In my own parish, we have been praying regularly in our Mass petitions for the confirmation of a pro-life Supreme Court justice. I believe Alito is that man. In addition, everything that I have read about him paints the picture of an extremely intelligent but humble and quiet man. That is also quite important. The profession I was trained in, the law, in my opinion, disproportionately attracts what I call "hustlers," that is, mediocre individuals with an inordinate desire for self-aggrandizement. So it is a delight to see someone so different in the spotlight: someone both of dazzling intellect and of even more dazzling, because so much more significant, humility. Here is his statement with my additions in brackets and with bold emphasis added:

SAMUEL ALITO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply honored to appear before you. I’m deeply honored to have been nominated for a position on the Supreme Court and I am humbled to have been nominated for the seat that is now held by Justice O’Connor. Justice O’Connor has been a pioneer and her dedicated service on the Supreme Court will never be forgotten and the people of the country certainly owe her a great debt for the service that she has provided.

I’m very thankful to the president for nominating me and I’m also thankful to the members of this committee and many other senators who took time from their busy schedules to meet with me. That was a great honor for me and I appreciate all of the courtesies that were extended to me during those visits. And I want to thank Senator Lautenberg and Governor Whitman [New Jersey officials because Alito is from New Jersey] for coming here today and for their kind introductions.

During the previous weeks an old story about a lawyer who argued a case before the Supreme Court has come to my mind and I thought I might begin this afternoon by sharing that story. The story goes as follows: This was a lawyer who had never argued a case before the court before and when the argument began one of the justices said, How did you get here, meaning how had his case worked its way up through the court system. But the lawyer was rather nervous and he took the question literally and he said — and this was some years ago — he said, I came here on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. This story has come to my mind in recent weeks because I have often asked myself how in the world did I get here? And I want to try to answer that today and not by saying that I came here on I-95 or on Amtrak.


I am who I am in the first place because of my parents and because of the things that they taught me. And I know from my own experience as a parent that parents probably teach most powerfully not through their words but through their deeds. And my parents taught me through the stories of their lives, and I don’t take any credit for the things that they did or the things that they experienced, but they made a great impression on me.


My father was brought to this country as an infant. He lost his mother as a teenager. He grew up in poverty. Although he graduated at the top of his high school class, he had no money for college and he was set to work in a factory, but at the last minute a kind person in the Trenton area arranged from him to receive a $50 scholarship, and that was enough in those days for him to pay the tuition at a local college and buy one used suit. And that made the difference between his working in a factory and going to college. After he graduated from college, in 1935 in the midst of the Depression, he found that teaching jobs for Italian-Americans were not easy to come by and he had to find other work for a while. But eventually he became a teacher and he served in the Pacific during World War II and he worked, as has been mentioned, for many years in a nonpartisan position for the New Jersey Legislature, which was an institution that he revered. His story is a story that is typical of a lot of Americans, both back in his day and here, and today. And it is a story, as far as I can see it, about the opportunities that our country offers and also about the need for fairness and about hard work and perseverance and that power of a small good deed.

My mother is a first-generation American. Her father worked in the Roebling Steel Mill in Trenton, N.J. Her mother came from a culture in which women generally didn’t even leave the house alone, and yet my mother became the first person in her family to get a college degree. She worked for more than a decade before marrying. She went to New York City to get a master’s degree. And she continued to work as a teacher and a principal until she was forced to retire. And both she and my father instilled in my sister and me a deep love of learning.

I got here, in part, because of the community in which I grew up. It was a warm but definitely an unpretentious down-to-earth community. Most of the adults in the neighborhood were not college graduates. I attended the public schools. In my spare time I played baseball and other sports with my friends. And I have happy memories and strong memories of those days, and good memories of the good sense and the decency of my friends and my neighbors.

And after I graduated from high school, I went a full 12 miles down the road — but really to a different world — when I entered Princeton University. A generation earlier I think that somebody from my background probably would not have felt fully comfortable at a college like Princeton, but by the time I graduated from high school things had changed. And this was a time of great intellectual excitement for me, both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas. But this was back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities, and I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly and I couldn’t help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community. I’m here, in part, because of my experiences as a lawyer. I had the good fortune to begin my legal career as a law clerk for a judge who really epitomized open-mindedness and fairness. He read the record in detail on every single case that came before me. He insisted on scrupulously following precedents, both the precedents of the Supreme Court and the decisions of his own court, the Third Circuit. He taught all of his law clerks that every case has to be decided on an individual basis, and he really didn’t have much use for any grand theories. After my clerkship finished, I worked for more than a decade as an attorney in the Department of Justice and I can still remember the day, as an assistant U.S. attorney, when I stood up in court for the first time and I proudly said, My name is Samuel Alito and I represent the United States in this court. It was a great honor for me to have the United States as my client during all of those years. I have been shaped by the experiences of the people who are closest to me; by the things I’ve learned from Martha; by my hopes and my concerns for my children, Philip and Laura; by the experiences of members of my family, who are getting older; by my sister’s experiences as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men. And, of course, I’ve been shaped for the last 15 years by my experiences as a judge of the Court of Appeals. During that time, I have sat on thousands of cases. Somebody mentioned the exact figure this morning. I don’t know what the exact figure is but it is way up in the thousands. And I have written hundreds of opinions. And the members of this committee and the members of their staff who have had the job of reviewing all of those opinions really have my sympathy. I think that may have constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

I’ve learned a lot during my years on the Third Circuit, particularly, I think, about the way in which a judge should go about the work of judging. I’ve learned by doing, by sitting on all of these cases, and I think I’ve also learned from the examples of some really remarkable colleagues. When I became a judge, I stopped being a practicing attorney. And that was a big change in role. The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can’t think that way. A judge can’t have any agenda. A judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn’t have a client. The judge’s only obligation, and it’s a solemn obligation, is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case the judge has to do what the law requires.

Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One of those habits of mind is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered. Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds, based on the next brief that they read or the next argument that’s made by an attorney, who’s appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case when the judges privately discuss the case.

It’s been a great honor for me to spend my career in public service. It has been a particular honor for me to serve on the Court of Appeals for these past 15 years because it has given me the opportunity to use whatever talent I have to serve my country by upholding the rule of law. And there is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law and no person in this country is beneath the law.

Fifteen years ago, when I was sworn in as a judge of the Court of Appeals, I took an oath. I put my hand on the Bible and I swore that I would administer justice without respect to persons, that I would do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I would carry out my duties under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And that is what I have tried to do, to the very best of my ability, for the past 15 years. And if I am confirmed, I pledge to you that that is what I would do on the Supreme Court. Thank you.

Monday, January 09, 2006

A law clerk's view of Alito

A law clerk's view of Alito, by Conor Dugan. The Grand Rapids Press. *Those who read Amy Welborn's blog might recognize Conor's name from her comments box).

. . . One of the primary lessons I learned from Judge Alito was about what a judge is and is not in our constitutional system. Much popular thinking about the judicial function holds that the judiciary is just another extension of politics. In this view, a judge ought to attempt to sort out political disputes and to bring to bear his or her personal policy preferences on the law.

. . . Judge Alito taught me that the starting point in any case must be what the law requires. Judge Alito showed me and my fellow clerks that a judge is to put personal ideology aside and ascertain the meaning of the law -- not the meaning he or she wants. A judge has a quite limited role and a solemn responsibility to live up to that role.

As Judge Alito once said, "Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases), aren't too descriptive. Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."

Daily, I saw Judge Alito working to be a judge -- not a legislator or an administrator. To do this, he worked to understand what the relevant precedents, statutory law, and/or constitutional text required in a given case.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Judge Samuel Alito - "Stealth Candidate"?

"Stealth Candidates", by Stephen Skellmeyer (The Fifth Column):

Judge Alito’s record has come forward with a lot more detail in a lot less time. Within just a few hours of his nomination, many people began to be concerned about his abortion decisions. In three cases out of four, he came down on the wrong side.

Two of my seven brothers and sisters are lawyers. As a result, I am not as concerned about these decisions as some have been. I am not saying there is no cause for concern, just that the reason for concern is not necessarily as clear-cut as one might think. . . .

It is an interesting post. I'm curious what others think.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Fr. Neuhaus on Judge Alito

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus weighs in on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (First Things "On The Square" Nov. 2, 2005):

I’ve been telling reporters who call that a Catholic judge is obliged to rule according to the Constitution, not the teachings of the Church. At least one reader is distressed by my reported statement that a Catholic judge who ruled on the basis of the Church’s teaching would be violating the Church’s teaching. Did I really say that? And, if so, how do I square that with the argument that religion should not be excluded from law and public life?

Yes, I said that, and it squares quite nicely. A judge is solemnly pledged to uphold the Constitution. With very few exceptions, this comes down to determining whether a specific law is constitutional. The judge’s moral duty—whether he be Catholic, Protestant, or atheist—is to make that determination honestly, conscientiously, and in light of the facts of the case before him. No matter how restrained and modest may be a judge’s understanding of his task, there are instances when moral judgment comes into play. His decision will then be influenced by natural law, which is not a peculiarly Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has been a defender of natural law, but an understanding of natural law is firmly grounded in the American founding, and therefore part of the original understanding of the Constitution. It is, for example, a matter of natural justice, and not a peculiar teaching of the Catholic Church, that it is always wrong deliberately to kill an innocent human being.

We have four Catholic justices, and may soon have five. They are justices not because they are Catholic but because they are—with the exception of Kennedy—originalists. They know they are not legislators. Legislators are free to bring any consideration they wish—philosophical, theological, ideological, whatever—to bear on their decisions. Judges are not. The vigorous reassertion of this understanding holds high promise for remedying the judicial usurpation of politics.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Samuel Alito: "A Penance Well Served"

Sometimes you can test the merit of a political candidate by the ranting of the opposition -- in this case, note the reaction of MoveOn.Org:

. . . This morning, with his administration growing weaker by the day, President Bush caved to pressure from the radical fringe of the Republican Party and nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Alito is a notoriously right-wing judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has consistently ruled to strip basic protections from workers, women, minorities and the disabled in favor of unchecked power for corporations and special interests. . . .
With one stroke, President Bush reunites his conservative base and has liberal pundits frothing at the mouth. Here's a roundup of further reaction from both sides of the political spectrum:
  • It's Samuel Alito! - As expected, Michelle Malkin provides a good roundup of blogwide reaction to the nomination.

  • Stephen Dillard sings for joy (literally) at the nomination of Alito.

  • The Democrats are already circulating some Atolito talking points that Chris Matthews -- in a rare moment of journalistic honesty -- calls "a pretty disgusting document".

  • Notice anything different about THIS nomination? - Matthew Heidt (Froggy Ruminations compiles the reactions of the Dems, adding:
    Slick move of the day goes to the President for having nominated a candidate from the home state and judicial circuit of Judicial Committee Chairman Specter. This puts the squishy pro-abortion Republican in the position of having to consider the ramifications of punching out a fellow Pennsylvanian while attempting to reconcile that conflict with his fawning NARAL buddies. Touche', Mr. President!
    (Barenucklepolitics.com also charts the demonizing of Alito by liberal bloggers).

  • Ed Brayton (In the Agora) has some good advice:
    I'm sure more will come out on Alito over the next couple weeks. I make the same caution I made with Roberts, which is that you should not believe anything an interest group on either side says about his rulings or writings without looking it up for yourself. Court rulings often involve very narrow technical grounds which are easy to distort and make it sound as though the judge just wantonly came out against good and for evil.
  • On a similar note, from Powerline:
    Judge Sam Alito has served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years, so he has an extensive record as an appellate judge. This distinguishes him not only from Harriet Miers, but also from John Roberts, whose brief tenure on the Court of Appeals produced only a handful of opinions. Over the coming weeks, Alito's many published opinions will be fodder for endless speculation as to how he might rule on various issues as a Supreme Court justice. So I thought it might be helpful for our non-lawyer readers to say a few words about the context in which discussion of Alito's judicial record will take place. . . .
  • Pejman Yousefzadeh @ RedState.Org calls President Bush's choice The Anti-Miers:
    Judge Samuel Alito is everything that Harriet Miers is not. He brings extensive judicial experience--the most of any Supreme Court nominee in nearly 70 years--to the table. He has a clearly developed sense and theory of jurisprudence and Constitutional interpretation. Both Alito and Miers are intelligent but Alito is steeped in the work and skill sets that a Supreme Court Justice needs to bring to his/her work. He is an outstanding nominee and conservatives who were dismayed and outraged over the Miers nomination are and should be delighted over the Alito nomination in equal proportion.

    Of course, it is clear that a fight will be waged over this nomination. This fight should be welcomed . . .

    And describes the sometimes painful cost of Originalism, Strict Constructionism And Intellectual Honesty, as typified in one of Alito's decisions.

  • A Catholic Majority on the Supreme Court? -- questions of history and assimilation at David Bernstein's The Volokh Conspiracy.

  • No longer calling for Bush's head, Mark Shea is sated, and The Weekly Standard, conveying the sentiments of thousands, says "That's More Like It!"

  • Go In Peace Mr. President, Your Sin Has Been Forgiven - Greg Mockeridge at Cooperatores Veritatis applauds the President's humility before correction. A good penance, indeed.

  • Finally, to close on a note of amusement, Stephen Dillard @ Southern Appeal explains "Top ten changes a Catholic Majority would make to the Supreme Court".

Friday, October 28, 2005

Another Catholic?

Word in DC is that there could soon be another Catholic on the SCOTUS. The president is considering Judge Samuel Alito and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, both Catholics. My money is on Alito who is sometimes referred to as Scalito for the Italian hertiage and judicial philosophy he shares with Justic Scalia.

Samuel Alito Jr

Age: 55

Education:
Princeton University, B.A, 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990. Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.

Professional Career:
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Law Clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977


Here is some information on Judge Alito and abortion:

In 1991, Judge Samuel Alito (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit) dissented from the lower-court decision—affirmed by the Supreme Court in Casey—that struck down a Pennsylvania law that would have required women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito read the Supreme Court's earlier decisions as holding that an abortion regulation did not pose an undue burden unless it banned abortion, gave another person a veto over a woman's choice, or had the "practical effect of imposing severe limitations." A law that had a "heavy impact on a few women" should be upheld, Alito said.


Here is a short bio on Judge Alito. And another here.

Chairman Cox's record is impressive. Here are ten reasons ConfirmThem gives for his consideration on the SCOTUS:

1) He is brilliant. 2) He is a wonderfully principled conservative. 3) He has a tremendous resume at Harvard Law, as a federal appeals court clerk, running a business translating Russian newspapers, serving in a solid law firm doing important work, serving in Reagan’s counsel’s office vetting judicial nominees, serving 17 years in Congress including either 10 or 12 in leadership, chairing important committees that reached bipartisan consensus on crucial matters, thinking deeply and writing cogently on constitutional issues while in Congress, and now SEC chairman. 4) He just was confirmed unanimously (I believe) to the SEC, with bipartisan praise, so he’s tough to attack politically. 5) He enjoys excellent relationships across the aisle because, even though he is so conservative, he is so consistently fair, courteous, etc. 6) Republicans like him enough that if Dems DID try to filibuster him, there is NO QUESTION the GOP would invoke the constitutional option to pass him, and in the process obviously kill the filibuster against judges for good. 7) Bush and Cheney both like and respect him. If he gets confirmed,he embarrasses Barbara Boxer for her blue slip against his Ninth Circuit nomination. 9) He is so telegenic, so articulate, so quick on his feet, so obviously brilliant and upstanding and dignified — but still so youthful in terms of energy level, etc., making him dynamic — that the Dems won’t be able to lay a hand on him during hearings, as he explains our jurisprudential philosophy even more effectively than Roberts does. I.e, he is the perfect person to make this a “teaching moment” for the country and help bring the general public even more firmly on our side. 10) He’s only 53, and appears to be in great shape, so he should be able to serve for 25 years.


His record as a congressman is strongly pro-life and pro-family. He voted: for a ban on Partial Birth abortions, to deny funding for military facilities to perform abortions, to deny funding for UNFPA, against federal funding of ESCR, to ban human cloning, to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts in matters relating to the Defense of Marriage Act (which defined marriage as between a man and a woman), for Terri's Law, which ordered the federal court to reconsider the case of Terri Schiavo, and to reaffirm the United States commitment to the UN Convention Against Torture.

I guess we will find out on Monday or Tuesday.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Will the president nominate another Catholic?

Here are the Catholics on the short-list:

Samuel Alito Jr

Age: 55

Education:
Princeton University, B.A, 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990. Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.

Professional Career:
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Law Clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977

---

Miguel Estrada

Age: 44

Education:
Columbia College, B.A, 1983
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1986

Federal Judicial Service:
None
**Nominated in 2000 by President George W. Bush to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Estrada
withdrew his nomination on September 4, 2003 after seven failed cloture votes.

Professional Career:
Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2000-present
Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1992-1997
Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 1987-88, 1989-90, 1992
Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sthrn District of New York, 1990-1992
Clerk, Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, 1988-1989
Clerk, Honorable Amalya L. Kearse, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1986-1987

---

Emilio Garza

Age: 58

Education:
University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1969
University of Notre Dame, M.A., 1970
University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1976

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 11, 1991. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1991, and received commission on May 30, 1991.

U. S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on February 2, 1988. Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988.

Professional Career:
Judge, 225th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 1987-1988
Private practice, San Antonio, Texas, 1976-1987
U.S. Marine Corps Captain, 1970-1973

---

Alberto Gonzales

Age: 49

Education:
United States Air Force Academy, 1975-1977
Rice University, B.A., 1979
Harvard Law School, 1982

Federal Judicial Service:
None.

Professional Career:
Attorney General of the United States, 2005 - present
White House Counsel to President George W. Bush, 2001-2005
Associate Justice, Texas Supreme Court, 1999-2001
Texas Secretary of State, 1997-1999
General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush, 1995-1996
Partner, Vincent & Elkins, Houston, TX 1982-1994
United States Air Force, 1973-1975

---

Edith Brown Clement

Born 1948 in Birmingham, AL

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991, to a seat vacated by Charles Schwartz, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1991, and received commission on November 25, 1991. Served as chief judge, 2001-2001. Service terminated on November 27, 2001, due to appointment to another judicial position.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on September 4, 2001, to a seat vacated by John M. Duhe, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on November 13, 2001, and received commission on November 26, 2001.

Education:
University of Alabama, B.A., 1969

Tulane Law School, J.D., 1972

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Herbert W. Christenberry, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 1973-1975
Private practice, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1975-1991

---

I also believe Judge Hinojosa is Catholic.

Ricardo H. Hinojosa

Age:55

Education:
University of Texas, Austin, B.A., 1972
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on April 12, 1983, to a seat vacated by Woodrow B. Seals; Confirmed by the Senate on May 4, 1983, and received commission on May 5, 1983.

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Texas Supreme Court, 1975-1976
Private practice, McAllen, Texas, 1976-1983
Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2003-present

Thursday, July 07, 2005

What Bush's shortlist thinks about abortion

From the online magazine Slate comes some info on those the shortlist and what they did when given the opportunity to decide on cases dealing with abortion. Some highlights:

In 1992 and 1997, Judge Emilio Garza (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) struck down two Louisiana statutes for restricting abortion more tightly than Roe and Casey allow. But in each case, Garza wrote a concurrence stating his disagreement with those Supreme Court decisions. "I would allow the people of the State of Louisiana to decide this issue for themselves," he wrote in the 1992 case. In 1997, he called Roe and Casey "inimical to the Constitution."

---

In 1991, Judge Samuel Alito (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit) dissented from the lower-court decision—affirmed by the Supreme Court in Casey—that struck down a Pennsylvania law that would have required women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito read the Supreme Court's earlier decisions as holding that an abortion regulation did not pose an undue burden unless it banned abortion, gave another person a veto over a woman's choice, or had the "practical effect of imposing severe limitations." A law that had a "heavy impact on a few women" should be upheld, Alito said.

---

In 2000, as a judge on the Texas Supreme Court, Alberto Gonzales (now U.S. Attorney General) took part in two decisions that applied a state law allowing a teenage girl to have an abortion without notifying her parents if she could prove to a judge that she was "mature and sufficiently well informed." In one of the cases, Gonzales voted to allow a 17-year-old girl to have an abortion under the statute, though he was careful to say that he was simply following the directive of the legislature. "While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view," Gonzales wrote. In the second case, Gonzales held that the teenager petitioning the court had not shown that she had "thoughtfully considered the alternatives" to abortion, but sent her back to the trial court for another chance.

---

You can never say for sure how someone will vote when they get to the Supreme Court—that's the beauty of judicial independence and life tenure. But based on their past statements and decisions, Roberts, McConnell, Garza, and Jones look like good bets to vote to regulate abortion more tightly and, if they get the chance someday, perhaps to overturn Roe v. Wade. Alito would probably do the same. How far Luttig would go is less clear—his statement of respect for Casey is clinical and drained of emotion, which makes it harder to tell. Gonzales' opinions in the Texas cases suggest that he doesn't much like the idea of teenagers having abortions without telling their parents. But in those cases and others, he has been inclined to respect previous Supreme Court decisions. That makes him the potential nominee most likely to follow O'Connor when it comes to Roe—and it explains why religious conservatives are so hostile to his potential nomination.


These highlights were on those potential nominees who are Catholic. You can read the whole piece here to get a sense of where other potential nominees stand.