Justice Watch

Justice Watch #3

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:33:00 GMT

Michael Mukasey hearings - day 2

Justice Watch #2

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:01:00 GMT

Michael Mukasey hearings - day 1

Justice Watch #1

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:36:00 GMT

Michael Mukasey Judiciary Committee hearing preview

Sen. Edward Kennedy on Supreme Court and Judicial Nominations

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:03:00 GMT

Sen. Edward Kennedy on Supreme Court and Judicial Nominations

Show hiatus...

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:19:00 GMT

Hey everyone... thanks again for listening to Supreme Court Watch podcast. We're on a short hiatus while we re-tool and catch up on some sleep after a busy 7 months of Supreme Court nominations. Stay subscribed... we'll be back shortly with news, views and insight on the courts very soon.

SCW February 7, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:08:00 GMT

Justice Alito's first week, plus a post-mortem

SCW February 7, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:00:00 GMT

SCW 51

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Justice Alito's investiture and first week on the job

Alito's first significant vote, SCOTUSblog
Justice Alito's formal investiture ceremony is Feb. 16, Wall Street Journal

Hearings post-mortem

Supreme Court Watch departures

Dr. Oth and Tim leaving AFJ and SCW, BUT...
SCW will go on a brief hiatus and return with a focus on the federal court system and a review of Supreme Court cases, AND...
You have not heard the last of the ragtag gang of the usual suspects... check out tim-mooney.com for news on our future independent plans

Magic 8 Ball

Will Tim have to pay a deposit for the minor damage done to Studio 1-A by the senior canine correspondent?
Will sound quality for Supreme Court Watch, Mark II improve after we ditch the current talentless hack of a producer?
Is this the last Magic 8 Ball ever?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

So, what's next?

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:59:00 GMT

A lot of you have been emailing us to find out where Supreme Court Watch is going to go next. Well, tune in next week and we'll have some news for you. SCW 51 will wrap up our discussion Justice Alito's nomination process plus talk about where the podcast will be going from there.

In the meantime, enjoy a replay of one of our 50 (!!) episodes...

The Scoop: 42 thank you's

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:09:00 GMT

~~Today~~ Yesterday, the Senate confirmed Samuel Alito to be the 110th justice of the United States Supreme Court.

First and foremost, we must thank those senators who took a principled stand to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, rather than the interests of a powerful few.

The vote ~~today~~ yesterday, at 58-42, shows just how divisive Samuel Alito's nomination was. Democrats, along with a Republican and an Independent, came together on the Senate floor to reject Judge Alito's nomination and the agenda of a radical conservative movement that was clearly expressed in his writings and statements and embodied in his judicial record.

We will continue to fight to preserve justice for all Americans and to expand, rather than restrict, our freedoms. We hope that you will continue to fight the good fight along with us.

SCW January 31, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:06:00 GMT

Alito confirmed

SCW January 31, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:10:00 GMT

SCW 50

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Samuel Alito confirmed as Associate Justice

Magic 8 Ball

Will Justice Alito attend the State of the Union with his new colleagues?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

NOTE... Join us ~~later this week~~ Tuesday, 2/7 for SCW 51!

Vote day

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:33:00 GMT

The Senate votes today on the nomination of Samuel Alito beghinning at 11 AM... our friends over at C-SPAN have the projected vote tally based on formal statements of support and opposition. Take a look at it here.

We'll put a show together as soon as we can after the vote... travel schedules and lost bags (thank you Northwest Airlines!) have intervened a bit, but we hope to get it to you late tonight.

SCW January 30, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:47:00 GMT

Cloture vote ends Alito debate

SCW January 30, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:17:00 GMT

SCW 49

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Cloture

Magic 8 Ball

Will Tim get his luggage from Northwest Airlines?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

The Scoop: Hot filibuster action

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:35:00 GMT

There was some hot, hot floor action on the Alito nomination yesterday. Just as C-SPAN viewers were being lulled into a sleepy half-doze at the tone of the debate, rumors started to swirl about John Kerry leading a filibuster and leadership from both parties took to the floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist filed a cloture petition that will ripen (that's the Senate's term, not ours) on Monday at 4:30 pm (so be sure to set your dial, or since it is 2006, your digital cable/satellite/DirectTV receiver, to C-SPAN then), with a vote scheduled for Tuesday morning at 11.

Senator Kerry's courageous action marked a recognition of the importance of this vote This isn't just another academic debate about seemingly-arcane legislationâthe vote senators make on this nomination will shape the future of our country for decades to come. There have been just two days of debateâtwo days of debate over a lifetime appointment to a sharply divided Supreme Court. Two days of debate at a time when the White House is attempting to circumvent and undermine the Constitution. Two days of debate when vital rights and freedoms are being challenged by the most radical fringes of this country at every turn. Two days of debate when the upholding of our system of checks and balances is more important than ever.

Will Kerry's filibuster attempt be successful? Only time will tell. Perhaps, however, it will drive home the often underappreciated message that the decisions of the Supreme Court reverberate in the lives of all Americans, that it is incumbent upon our political leaders to select judges who will provide everyone a fair hearing of their grievances, and that the country would be worse off if the Supreme Court were to roll back the hard-fought battles to expand justice and individual liberties. Senator Kerry, and senators like Ted Kennedy who are supporting him, recognize that Samuel Alito does not embrace the ideals of fairness, justice and equality that make this country great. Hopefully other senators, both Republicans and Democrats, will join them in their attempt before it is too late.

Filibuster/Cloture update

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:24:00 GMT

An hour after the show went up, Senator Frist filed a cloture petition to cut off debate on Alito. Here's the deal:

By unanimous consent, the Senate will vote on cloture (cutting off debate) on Monday at 4:30 p.m.

If the motion gains at least 60 votes, there will be a final vote on Alito on Tuesday.

SCW January 26, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:03:00 GMT

Filibuster

SCW January 26, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:58:00 GMT

SCW 48

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Filibuster

New York Times editorial - Senators in Need of a Spine
Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito, CNN.com

Magic 8 Ball

Will the State of the Union occur prior to the Senate vote on Samuel Alito's nomination?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

BREAKING NEWS: CNN reports Kerry calls for filibuster

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:23:00 GMT

Senator John Kerry has just released a statement calling for a filibster of Samuel Alito's nomination. We'll be putting together a show later this afternoon to talk about this and the ramifications. Stay tuned...

The debate continues

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:12:00 GMT

Walking around the office is an interesting experience... there are computer speakers at many of the desks blaring out the senate floor debate in an asynchronous cacophony due to the varying download speeds off of C-SPAN's live feed. Bet you never read THAT in any of the other Supreme Court blogs!

Thought I would take a moment and point you to one of our latest offerings in light of the continuing "hey, this is just like the Ginsburg nomination, but in reverse!" arguments that the GOP is so fond of making. Great line, just not terribly accurate. Take a look at our analysis, Revisionist History: Comparison of Ginsburg and Alito nominations defies the facts .

The Scoop checks in...

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:39:00 GMT

As we're sure you've figured out some way or another, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Samuel Alito's nomination yesterday. It was reported out of committee on a 10-8 vote - right along party lines. It's the first time that has happened since the nomination of Louis Brandeis back in 1915. It certainly makes us think that Samuel Alito must be a consensus candidate, a justice for all Americans, if you will.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was also apparently less than pleased with the vote, though for different reasons, even throwing the gauntlet down and threatening to clean Democrats' clocks (seriously, thatâs what he said). Very scary. He said he wanted to have a debate over the merits anytime, any place. But that's not true. He didn't want to, nor did Samuel Alito, nor did John Cornyn or Arlen Specter or any of the other Republicans who lamented the party-line vote and divisiveness while clinging to the party lines themselves. Because if theyâd wanted to have a debate, we would have had an open conversation about Alito's record. But we didn't. The judge decided he didn't want to talk about it, or that he'd rather talk around issues or obfuscate or do just about anything than actually talk about the substance of his record or his views or ideas on the law. Why? Because that is a battle he couldn't win. Instead, he tried to talk his way into one of the most important jobs in the country using empty platitudes. He did tell us what heâd do, though - he'd be the same kind of jurist he is on the Third Circuit. Between unconstitutional strip searches and dismissing legitimate claims of extreme workplace harassment, please excuse us if we aren't comforted.

So, Lindsey Graham, we aren't going to make ridiculous sounding threats, but we are going to say that we tried to have a debate about ideas and the law and the future of the country, but instead we were fed evasion and hyperbole and rhetoric and that is not how the process should be. If Judge Alito is so afraid to even discuss his ideas, why shouldnât we be afraid of what those ideas are?

Senate deliberation underway

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:03:00 GMT

Samuel Alito's nomination was referred to the Senate yesterday, and they are right on it this morning. Remember that Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any matter - judicial nominees included - unless all Senators agree to stop it. This usually happens when a Senator asks for "unanimous consent" to end the debate, and the request receives no objection from any Senator.

That's how it usually works. There are other mechanisms in the Senate rules that end a debate, but since we're just getting started, we might as well hunker down and tune into C-SPAN 2's coverage...

SCW January 24, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:46:00 GMT

Alito voted through committee, 10-8

SCW January 24, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:57:00 GMT

SCW 47

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Committee vote

Alito referred to the Senate 10-8 on a party-line vote
- Alito Nomination Goes to Full Senate, AP/Washington Times
- Senate panel recommends Alito on party-line vote, CNN.com
- Senate panel approves Alito for top court, Reuters/Yahoo News
- Judiciary Committee Recommends Alito to Senate, Washington Post
- Alito Gets Partisan Thumbs Up From Senate Judiciary Committee, FoxNews.com
- Judiciary Commmitte Transcript
Highlights
- Kelly - Senator Durbin
- Adam - Senator Feinstein
- Dan - Senator Graham
- Tim - Senator Schumer

Senate voting schedule

Debate begins Wednesday
Sen. Specter suggested that GOP leaders want a final vote Friday

Changing minds on Alito

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago has changed his mind and now opposes Alito's nomination
Why? Executive power.
Read Why the Senate should not confirm Alito

Magic 8 Ball

Will the Senate still be deliberating and debating Samuel Alito's nomination when it adjourns for the week?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

Committee vote today

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:30:00 GMT

We know everyone is all bleary-eyed this morning waiting on the election results from the British Columbia ridings... oh, wait... not everyone is into C-SPAN simulcasts of CBC's election coverage, like some of us.

ANYWAYS, there's a big vote in Committee today on Samuel Alito's referral to the full Senate starting at 9:30 AM. We think C-SPAN should be moving away from our north-of-the-border (Windsor, Ontario notwithstanding) friends' election for this one... we'll have a new show later today.

A little Monday morning humor...

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:40:00 GMT

In case you are not a regular reader of The Onion (first of all, shame on you...) take a look at Bush Urges Senate To Give Alito Fair, Quick, Unanimous Confirmation.

Lest we forget...

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:54:00 GMT

We've mentioned this on the podcast, but it bears repeating that Alliance for Justice has released its post-hearing report on Samuel Alito. News flash - the hearings didn't change our minds on opposing his nomination...

SCW January 19, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:30:00 GMT

Votes delayed and votes announced

SCW January 19, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:08:00 GMT

SCW 46

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Committee vote delayed

Votes announced... just not on the Senate floor

Chief Justice Roberts rules in Gonzales and Ayotte

Magic 8 Ball

Will Senator Frist allow anyone to mention Judge Alito's name on the floor of the Senate prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee vote?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org
Continuing coverage on the Insider Scoop blog

Senators begin revealing their votes

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:02:00 GMT

A few Sentors have gone public with their intentions on voting for or against Samuel Alito's nomination. Now, of course he still needs to get through the committee vote, but it just so happens that every Republican member of the committee intends to vote him to the floor. Soooo...

The vote counters are out in force. Take a gander at this Forbes article for the latest revelations.

Did you get used to a show every day last week? Do ya miss us? Well, we're not too proud to say we missed you too. A new show is on the way tomorrow...

Post-hearing action

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:25:00 GMT

The hearings are over, though we can still catch the reruns at three in the morning on C-Span. Good times here in our nation's capital. Don't let the pinstripes fool you. Samuel Alito managed to dodge and weave his way out of answering any questions that might have been meaningful. That doesn't mean we don't know where he stands - his 15-year record is pretty clear on that score. He just seemed ashamed to talk about it. Wonder why.

Now we move on to the next step: the Committee vote. The vote was held over until the 24th. Congress is also back in session this week, so the Judiciary Committee doesn't have the halls of Hart to themselves anymore (really putting a damper on some killer parties).

We'll keep you updated as we move forward.

Big news, of course is the delay on the committee vote. Check out the details here.

SCW January 13, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:37:00 GMT

Samuel Alito hearings, day 5

SCW January 13, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:30:00 GMT

SCW 45

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Alito hearings, Day 5 - whaddaya got?

Adam - Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke Law School and Theodore Shaw, NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Dan - Professor Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School
Kelly - Ad launch - independentcourt.org

What's Next?

Thank you to our audience

Magic 8 Ball

Did any of the outside witnesses change any minds in the Senate?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

Alito Hearings - day 4 and 5

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:00:00 GMT

We have a wrap-up of yesterday (and today's) highlights in several parts.

The line of questioning undertaken by Senator Schumer perhaps best highlighted the problem with Judge Alitoâs record: he inconsistently applies the law to achieve results that favor powerful interests over the individual. (Or, in the words of the senators, favoring the big guy over the little guy. Not to be confused with Senator Coburnâs âsmall people,â of course.)

In three cases, Judge Alito reached very different conclusions. We have already touched upon the Pirolli case, where Alito said that the plaintiffâwho had been subjected to brutal sexual harassmentâshould not have his case considered because the lawyer who prepared the brief did an inadequate job. However, in a death penalty case, Judge Alito actually offered an argument for the government that prosecutors had not included in their brief. Judge Alito argued that federal judges had a duty to overlook some procedural problems when they reviewed convictions by state courts than they did when reviewing decisions by lower federal court. However, Senator Schumer pulled out another example of his inconsistency on such matters.

Dillinger v. Caterpillar, Inc. involved an injured worker suing a company for defectively designing the brake system that led to his injuries. Again, Judge Alito overstepped his role as an impartial adjudicator and provided an argument for the defendant that the defendant did not provide itself. When presented with the opportunity to aid a corporation he took it, just as he did for the government in the criminal context. When presented with the opportunity to correct manifest injustice carried out against a mentally retarded individual he dismissed the case on procedural grounds. That sounds like just what we want in a justice!

Judge Alitoâs testimony concluded at around one, and after an executive session (Senate speak for a closed session when they can speak freely about confidential material from the nomineeâs FBI fileâor maybe just gossip and talk about the Redskins) the Senate went out to lunch.

All in all, we had evasive testimony from Judge Alito. We saw inconsistencies in his explanations in troubling issues like Vanguard and CAP. And most of all, we saw an unwillingness to proffer his views on anything that could remotely be considered controversial. We do, however, have his memos and 15 year record as a judge. And those things together show a conservative legal agenda determined to favor the powerful over the weak and government intrusion over individual rights. The nomination of Samuel Alito is not a step forward for progress and justice in this country, but rather a disturbing vision of what âjusticeâ could become in this country.

We heard from a panel of judges (including Donald Trumpâs sister! Her hair was marginally better, but that really isnât saying much) in favor of Alito. We know we were surprised to hear such glowing remarks from sitting judges that could have their decisions reviewed by Alito should he be confirmed. Not an ethical minefield at all.

In our opinion, the star of the hearings was Goodwin Liu, professor of law at Boalt School of Law at the University of California Berkeley. He explained in very clear terms that Judge Alitoâs legal reasoning is very clear and that he inevitably chooses a path that gives no benefit of the doubt to individuals seeks to protect their rights.

Though we were scheduled to be done yesterday, things ran a little long (Senate proceedings running long? Shocking, we know), so we continued with three more panels of witnesses today. Frankly, thatâs fine with us. Not only do we love watching C-SPAN for hours on end, but since a Supreme Court confirmation is for life, well, it might be a good idea to take some time to really consider it. It certainly couldnât hurt.

SCW January 12, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 02:46:00 GMT

Samuel Alito hearings, day 4

SCW January 12, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:57:00 GMT

SCW 44

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Alito hearings, Day 4 - whaddaya got?

Kelly - Schumer
Dan - Kennedy
Adam - First Amendment

Outside witnesses - whaddaya got?

Kelly - Judge Maryanne Trump Barry
Dan - Professor Goodwin Liu
Adam - Professor Jeffrey Rosen

Magic 8 Ball

Will any GOP Senator vote against Alito in committee?
Will Judge Barry use an Apprentice-style selection process to choose her clerks next year?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org
Continuing coverage on the Insider Scoop blog

SCW January 11, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 03:11:00 GMT

Samuel Alito hearings, day 3

SCW January 11, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:59:00 GMT

SCW 43

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Alito hearings, Day 3 - whaddaya got?

Kelly - Feinstein and what the hearing room is like
Dan - Durbin and Pirolli (AFJ report - PDF)
Tim - Kennedy and Specter spat
Adam - Siding with power, and the death penalty

Magic 8 Ball

Will the GOP Senators participate in round 3 of questioning on Thursday?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org
Continuing coverage on the Insider Scoop blog

Alito hearings - day 3, part 4

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:48:00 GMT

Day 3 ended much like it began, with some senators asking serious, probing questions, and Judge Alito obfuscating. But thatâs not news at this point.

Chairman Specter expressed the desire to get the questioning of Alito wrapped up tonight, but his attempts to rush through the one job interview the American people get with a lifetime appointee to our nation's highest court was rejected. Tomorrow we'll have a third round of questioning that Senator Specter said would be limited to 25 minutes, barring any special circumstances (per Senator Leahyâs discretion).

We hope that Judge Alito will take advantage of this opportunity to provide full and clear insight into his views and what kind of justice he would be if confirmed.

Alito Hearings - day 3, part 3

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:02:00 GMT

The dust-up over CAP documents was sort of squared away when the senators returned: the box of documents has been released and will be examined by Senate staff. Glad that's over, because there was much bigger news this afternoon.

Senator Feinstein hit upon a rather severe inconsistency in Judge Alito's performance thus far. Alito's been very forthcoming about his opinions on a number of constitutional issues, but has specifically refused to do so with respect to Roe v. Wade. One of his rationales for this difference: he can't comment on issues that might come before the Supreme Court. But Judge Alito has been very open about his feelings on the concept of "one-person-one-vote," even though, as Feinstein noted, the Supreme Court will hear a case taking this issue up in just a few months. In response to Senator Schumer later in the hearing, Alito said he'd perhaps been too forthcoming on certain issues, but wasn't going to go any further with respect to his feelings on the constitutional right to abortion. For the record, that leaves his statement that it his personal view that "the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion," as the only clear articulation of his position.

Alito was also treated to some hard-hitting questions from Senator Cornyn, who asked him - we're not kidding here - if he was a clone of anyone. Well played, senator. Well played, indeed.

Alito Hearings - day 3, part 2

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:02:00 GMT

FIREWORKS! Senator Kennedy continued to push Judge Alito on his membership in the explicitly anti-woman, anti-minority Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). In 1985 Alito was proud enough of that membership to tout it in a job application, but now he doesn't remember being a member or his reasons for joining. Senator Kennedy brought up the fact that CAP had sent a letter in 1984 to every living alum of the college expressing it's discriminatory views, that Princeton's president responded with a similar letter, and that this exchange was covered in the Wall Street Journal. Apparently Judge Alito wasn't reading his mail or the paper at the time, because he claimed not to remember any of this.

After this exchange, Senator Kennedy stated his intent to subpoena [some CAP records from the Library of Congress], and asked that the Committee go into closed session to discuss this. Apparently he asked Senator Specter about this in a letter some weeks back, but the Chairman insisted he'd never gotten the letter. A heated exchange ensued, with the result being a visibly angered Chairman saying he would take the request into consideration.

This exchange was just one more instance of what has become the theme of these hearings: Alito is evasive and unwilling to provide a full and satisfactory accounting of his record and his views.

Alito Hearings - day 3, part 1

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:52:00 GMT

Well, today's questioning marked the beginning of the end. Well at least the end of the first round. Senator Durbin donned the mantle of Senators Feingold and Schumer of trying to get Judge Alito to provide just one moment of honesty, sincerity or frankness in his senate testimony. And despite a valiant effort from the gentleman from Illinois, again Judge Alito again chose stuck to dodges, evade , vagaries and mischaracterizezations. For instance, while admitting that Griswold and Brown are settled law (well at least we know that he's not against contraception and segregation, hallelujah!), like Roe, two decisions not based on the specific language of the constitution, he remained steadfast in his unwillingness to say whether he still believes that the Constitution does not provide for the right to an abortion. Is My god man, is it that hard to give an honest opinion? Is it that hard to say what you think?

Senator Durbin then went on to expose Judge Alito's record of advocating, in dissent, the use of legal technicalities to deny justice to a host of wronged individuals. by: 1) The first instance Senator Durbin cited involved accepting the appropriateness of a jury selection which systematically eliminated all African-American jurors. Alito used a comparison to left handedness versus right handedness in his dissent and stuck by it even as Durbin pointed out how that trivialized the issue. Alito argued that he had to make this argument because of his knowledge of stats. Hey, I remember that stat class from college (How To Misuse Stats 101).

The second example cited a truly disturbing case; 2) denying the right of a mentally retarded, sexually abused individual to bring a workplace harassment case. Because the facts of the case are so shocking, Durbin declined to read them into the record. We've done a fact sheet on the Pirolli case, however, that outlines the allegations and Alito's shocking opinion.

Finally, Durbin revisted his thoughts from the first day of the hearings and discussed, in light of recent tragedies; and 3) denying miners appropriate workplace protections.

These are just three in a long line of cases that shows Alito favoring the powerful over the powerless. Senator Coburn tried to revitalize Alito's image by citing 9 cases where he did not do so. That's 9 against hundreds of instances.

SCW January 10, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:29:00 GMT

Samuel Alito hearings, day 2

SCW January 10, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:27:00 GMT

SCW 42

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Alito hearings, Day 2 - Whaddaya got?

Kelly - Doe v. Groody
Adam - Roe v. Wade and the 1985 memo
Dan - Feingold
Tim - One person, one vote

What to expect tomorrow

Magic 8 Ball

Will Judge Alito elaborate on his answers on Day 3 to address the criticism from committee Democrats?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org
Continuing coverage on the Insider Scoop blog

Alito hearings - day 2, part 4

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:05:00 GMT

Senator Schumer revisited Judge Alito's 1985 statement in which he said the Constitution does not contain a right to an abortion. After numerous attempts to get Judge Alito to say yes, no or maybe so on whether he still embraces his anti-choice, anti-privacy, anti-women views, Judge Alito steadfastly held to his previous duck of the question, retreating to the warm confines of stare decisis. Schumer slyly read Judge Alito a quote from a judge who said he was strongly in favor of stare decisis. Judge Alito associated himself with these remarks and Schumer sprang his trap. The quote came from Justice Thomas and Senator Schumer pointed out that Justice Thomas had argued that many precedents should be overruled, including a case going back to 1789 (right, the first year the Supreme Court was in existence). He then read a series of quotes from Judge Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit showing how often Judge Alito has twisted or ignored precedent himself. To further his point, Senator Schumer showed a chart with a list of cases so numerous that you couldn't read it, in which Judge Alito has voted to overturn Third Circuit precedent and had been criticized harshly by his colleagues for doing so.

Judge Alito probably heaved a sigh of relief when Schumer's time ended and the floor was turned over to Senator Cornyn for more gentle questioning.

Alito Hearings - day 2, part 3

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:27:00 GMT

Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl (Go Bucks!) was the first Dem after lunch. He was curious about why Judge Alito had said he thought Judge Bork was one of the best nominees of the century. Judge Alito said he disagreed with lots of Judge Borkâs positions. Weâd really like to know which ones, but Judge Alito didn't tell us.

Kohl also touched on Alitoâs professed problems with the right to abortion, but didnât get an answer. When questioned about his professed problems with the one person one vote doctrine, he said that he actually loved the doctrine, thought it was the best ever. All he disagreed with was how strictly the Warren Court applied the doctrine (requiring almost perfectly equal-sized districts). Strange that he only had such minor concerns about this bedrock voting rights doctrine since he said in his 1985 job application that his disagreement with the Warren Court's reapportionment decisions was one of the reasons he chose to become a lawyer in the first place.

Alito Hearings - day 2, part 2

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:25:00 GMT

Senator Grassley opened his first round of questioning with an attack on the "extreme liberal groups"âincluding some that are blogging "right now" and we must say we appreciate the shout outâfor pointing out that Judge Alito "didn't remember a promise" he made during his committee hearing for his nomination to the Third Circuit. regarding his willingness to recuse himself from any case involving Yup, we're talking about Vanguard again. Just a quick refresher, Alito had promised to recuse himself from any case involving Vanguard, a company in which he had a significant financial stake and then he ruled on a case involving Vanguard. Oops! Reassuring Judge Alito that forgetting about such a promise was ok, Senator Grassley assured him that he was in good company, noting awkwardly, "If senators kept every word they made to their constituents, there wouldn't be any senators left." Good to know we can count on you to defend the practice of breaking promised, senator.

Senator Biden's "questioning" began by emphasizing how "puzzle[ing]" Judge Alito's record and answers are, puzzling to him and puzzling to the public. One puzzling area was Judge Alito's justification of his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Senator Biden, if you haven't caught on to the theme yet, was puzzled how Judge Alito's disagreement with ROTC being kicked off campus in the 1960s provided a justification for his bragging, in a 1985 job application, about his membership in the sexist group. It was extra-puzzling, as it were, since Alito could remember why he might have joined but not that he had joined. Also, in 1985 Princeton had restored the ROTC program to campus. Puzzling.

Senator Biden was also you-know-what by Judge Alito's woeful record on employment discrimination cases. Two cases in which Judge Alito's own circuit sharply disagreed with his findings formed the base for the discussion. In one case, Bray, Judge Alito justified a position his colleagues on the court said, if adopted, would "eviscerate" Title VII, by falling back on the old law school favorite "reasonable person" standard. Basically, he concluded that the facts of the case lead to a conclusion that no reasonable juror could find that racial discrimination occurred. Good thing his fellow judges agreed with hiâ Oh, that's right. The completely rejected that approach

Where things really got interesting, though, was in a discussion of the Sheridan case.. Judge Alito justified a ruling against a woman who had been systematically discriminated against by her employer as in-line with a later Supreme Court ruling involving similar facts written by Justice O'Connor. As he should have, Senator Biden quickly pushed back on Judge Alito's response, making it clear that while Justice O'Connor may have applied the same standard as Judge Alito, she most certainly would not have come to the same result. Senator Biden pointed out that Justice O'Connor would certainly have come to a different result in Sheridan, blowing Judge Alito's claims that he had the same views on this issue as the justice he wants to replace out of the water.

Senator's Kyl's questioning primarily consisted of prompting Judge Alito to promise that he would never, ever, pretty please, no fingers crossed, employ international law in deciding an issue of constitutional law, which Judge Alito happily did. Senator Kyl continued his questioning after the lunch break with a question that lead to a collective jaw dropping, having nothing to do with the turned crab bisque in the Senate dining room. Asking Judge Alito to comment on his position in the now infamous Rybar "machine gun" case, Judge Alito stated that he felt his position in Rybar was actually a modest position. Whaaa!!? Not only was Judge Alito's position rejected by almost every Circuit in the country, but the only Circuit that agreed with him was shot down by the Supreme Court. Boring though this statement about modesty may sound, this will likely become an issue of serious contention as the proceedings continue, and may qualify as the hearing's first blockbuster.

Alito Hearings - day 2, part 1

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:43:00 GMT

Things are really getting started today, with Round One of the Judiciary Committee's questioning of Judge Alito. As expected, Chairman Specter got things underway right on time at 9:30, and, after a brief note that we all might be here until late into the night and allowing Senator Leahy a quick intro, got straight into questioning Judge Alito about abortion... to little substantive result. After a few minutes, we'd pretty much heard a whole lot of nothing from Alito.

Judge Alito's responses were decidedly lacking in particulars, and Senator Specter refused to press him further. When asked about whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled, Judge Alito gave stock answers about the importance of stare decisis. Asked if he still believes, as he wrote in his 1985 job application, that "the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion," Alito said that was an accurate representation of what he believed then, but did NOT say whether or not he believed it now. Since when did this pass for answering questions? Our English teacher in our junior year of high school would have been all over us for this kind of thing, so we're hoping the U.S. Senate won't put up with it from a nominee to our nation's highest court. Senator Specter also moved, as promised, into questions about executive power, but again, the answers were, if we're feeling kind, unenlightening. At best. Some might say "completely attempting to side-step the very issues at hand."

Ranking committee member Leahy took up the exec power line of questioning and pushed harder on the nominee, asking if, in Judge Alito's view, the president has the power to override the law to authorize torture. Alito hemmed and hawed and hedged with talk about Supreme Court precedent and the need specifics about a particular case, blah, blah, blah. What more specifics does he need other than the president is ordering people to be tortured? Torture is torture, Judge Alito.

Senator Leahy, who like Judge Alito is a former prosecutor, also got into Judge Alito's very troubling record of exceeding deference to intrusive uses of government power. This was the first time during questioning that the notorious "strip-search case," Doe v. Groody, was mentioned, (and we're sure to hear more about it). Judge Alito attempted to explain his disturbing dissent â an approach that was even rejected by now-Homeland Security chief and then-Judge Michael Chertoff. Here's the deal. For all of the talk about Alito being someone who will "strictly interpret the law," Doe v. Groody clearly shows his selective reading of the Constitution. In the Groody case, he just decided to ignore the part of the 4th Amendment that lays out the need for "particularly describing" the person or place to be searched in the warrant.

Reasonable people, Judge Alito professed, could disagree as to whether the warrant in that case actually authorized the intrusive search. Judge Chertoff didn't think so and neither did Senator Leahy. Citing his years in law enforcement, the senior senator from Vermont stated sternly, "I don't know of any reasonable officer in those circumstances who would find that search reasonable." We agree. For the full rundown on the Groody case and why it is so troubling and important, please see our handy fact sheet.

Senator Leahy finished off his first round of questions by asking Judge Alito why the heck he joined a group â the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP â that was anti-minority and anti-woman, and then flacked his membership in 1985 job application. Here we got a bit of insight into the latest set of talking points for the Republican senators (following up on the preview we got yesterday during opening statements). Apparently they'd been briefed on the new rationale for Judge Alito's membership. See, it just so happens that in his judiciary committee questionnaire, Alito said he had no recollection of joining the group... and he still doesn't, BUT he thinks that the only reason he joined was that the way Princeton treated the ROTC had "rankled" him quite a lot. Wow. He can't remember being a member of the group, but he can remember why he joined? That's a new and different approach, and just about as satisfying as New Coke. (Are we dating ourselves? We don't care. New Coke was an abomination.)

Senator Hatch was up next, and lobbed his usual round of softballs, trying to prop up Alito's membership in CAP and trying to launch a pre-emptive strike on the issue of ethics and recusal from cases involving his investments in Vanguard funds. Thing is, as Senator Kennedy noted next, Judge Alito promised to the Judiciary Committee in 1990, under oath, that he'd recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard. This goes beyond judicial ethics rules, it speaks to something far more basic: a promise ... someone's word of honor. And Judge Alito didn't keep his promise to the Judiciary Committee and there is no explaining that away. Judge Alito said that he should have handled it differently, but the fact is, he didn't.

Following Senator Kennedy's sharp questioning about the Vanguard promise, he questioned Judge Alito about a statement he once made arguing that the elected branches are supreme to the judiciary. Response: that was an "inapt phrase," but Judge Alito hasn't changed his mind... Well, that's comforting. Continuing on the issue of deference to government authority, where Judge Alito's record is decidedly slanted against individuals, Senator Kennedy asked about an excessive force case where Judge Alito's colleague called the search "Gestapo-like," Judge Alito reiterated that he thought the jury's judgment was rightly rejected. So we have an approval for excessive force as well as inappropriate searches. Good to know we have such a staunch defender of 4th Amendment rights in Judge Alito. Oh, wait... Never mind. Kennedy then entered into the record several independent reports highlighting Judge Alito's extreme deference to government authority.

Finally, Senator Kennedy asked Judge Alito if he still believes his statement that "the President's approval [of a bill] is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress." Judge Alito's response wasâprepare for a shockâcompletely unresponsive. He talked about his method of reading statutes, but did NOT say anything about whether he believed â then or now â that president can change laws passed by Congress just by saying what he thinks it is ... just like President Bush did last week when he gutted the McCain Amendment banning torture. As he told Senator Leahy earlier, Alito said the memo was a draft and was written for a working group, but gave no indication of his position on this extremely troubling view of presidential signing statements.

So, up to this point, all we are left with is an unresponsive witness and a fifteen year judicial record of troubling decisions when it comes to protecting individual rights and the interests of the American people.

Day 2 - "we get down to business"

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:21:00 GMT

Marathon day of questions ahead for Alito, MSNBC.com

On Tuesday, the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "we get down to business," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senateâs No. 2 Democrat.

The hearings begin at 9:30 AM and will likely go well into the evening, as there is a 7 PM dinner break scheduled. We'll wrap a few things up, then scurry into Studio 1-A for SCW 42, AKA Late Night With Kelly, Adam, Dan and Tim.

SCW January 9, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:20:00 GMT

Samuel Alito hearings, day 1

SCW January 9, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:09:00 GMT

SCW 41

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Opening statements day

Specter on the schedule
- The hearings are to conclude this week, with a committee vote on Tuesday, Jan. 17
- "Subject to something extraordinary happening."
Specter's statement
- executive power
- respect for congressional decision-making
- "a subtle minuet"
Senator Kennedy is "deeply troubled."
- Washington Post op-ed
Senator Sessions - misleading cases?
Senator Graham
- participated in a prep session for Judge Alito at the White House last Thursday
- First to drop the 'f bomb' (filibuster, people... filibuster)
Senator Schumer - the ghost of Harriet Miers
Senator Durbin
- will Alito restrict freedom or expand it?
- Concerned Alumni of Princeton
Senators Brownback and Coburn
- The abortion twosome's triumphant return
- revisionism on Justice Ginsburg's confirmation
- "How is it that we have sodomy protected under due process but not prostitution?"
White house humor - Alito "imminently" qualified (thanks Wonkette)

What to expect tomorrow

Magic 8 Ball

Will Judge Alito take a page from the Roberts hearings and evade questions posed to him by the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org
Continuing coverage on the Insider Scoop blog

Alito hearings, Day 1, part 4

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:38:00 GMT

The afternoon actually ended ahead of schedule, with Judge Alito getting his chance to say âI will,â and give a statement pledging his undying dedication. Okay, so it wasnât a wedding, but Judge Alito did get sworn in and then gave his opening statement, affirming his dedication the rule of law. BUT FIRST, he had to wait a few minutes for formal introductions by his home state representatives (Jersey represent!), Senator Frank Lautenberg and former governor Christine Todd Whitman. (New Jerseyâs other senator, Jon Corzine, wonât be around to vote on Alito since he is being sworn in as Jerseyâs next governor on January 17, but he did submit a statement for the record). Senator Lautenberg said some nice things about Judge Alitoâs family and upbringing, but didnât take the bait when Senator Specter asked if heâd âcare to make a recommendation on the nominee.â Ms. Whitman, however gave her endorsement of the nominee.

After some pretty bad jokes equating the number of photographers in the room to the number of senators needed to approve a nominee as senators stalled for time to get the cameras in position, the photogs got their shot and Chairman Specter administered the oath and invited Judge Alito to deliver an opening statement.

Judge Alitoâs statement, like much of the dayâs comments, consisted of primarily snooze, with only a nugget or two of news. After dispensing with the initial thank yous and a failed attempt at humor (with a punch line that included references to I-95 and Amtrak, two notably unfunny topics), Judge Alito took senators through his life story. Asserting his blue collar bona fides, he discussed the rags to riches story of his immigrant parents and his rise from an âunpretentious, down-to-earthâ New Jersey community, to the halls of academic excellence at Princeton and Yale Law School. In a shot at his collegiate peers, Judge Alito explained that he âsaw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly.â

Remarking on his legal career, interestingly, Judge Alito paid short shrift to his time at the Department of Justice, merely stated that it was an honor it was to have the United States as his first and only client. However, Judge Alito used his discussion of his judicial career as an opportunity to launch a pre-emptive attack on likely Democratic senatorial criticisms. Addressing judicial activism, Judge Alito asserted that he had no agenda as a judge other than to carry out the dictates of the ârule of law.â On deference to the executive branch, he reiterated a point raised earlier by Senator Leahy that, â[n]o person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.â

Given the opening statements from Chairman Specter and all of the Democrats, expect him to be pushed on each of these assertions tomorrowâthat he was representing the United States and not pushing a legal agenda when he argued against Roe v. Wade, affirmative action and other important legal doctrines in the justice department, that he consistently follows the rule of law as a judge, and that his record does not show excess deference to the executive branch at a time when the president is asserting breathtaking powers as detailed in the AFJ report.

Alito hearings, Day 1, part 3

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:35:00 GMT

So, weâve heard from all the Senators now. Only Alitoâs opening statement is left.

Senator Graham was the first to drop the âfâ-bomb,telling Democratic senators not to filibuster over Roe v. Wade. In what has become a familiar refrain, Senator Graham harped on process and reminded Democratic senators to âknow their role.â To channel our playground self, takes one to know one, Senator Graham. Following up on the Wall Street Journal article we mentioned in the previous post, Senator Graham might want to reassess his own role: the Constitution says senators should provide âadvice and consentâ to the president on judicial nominations. In Grahamâs case, that apparently includes prepping the nominee for his hearing, which sounds like a bit more than the âadviceâ the Framers had in mind.

Graham also used the âLâ word (no, not the drama from Showtime): âlitmus testâ He argued that although Roe, or more precisely Casey, is foremost on many peopleâs minds, senators should consider Judge Alitoâs entire record rather than relying on a one or two case litmus test. Considering the other senators talked about presidential power, 4th amendment rights, civil rights, workersâ rights and all of the other things that are cause for major concern in Alitoâs record, we donât think Senator Graham has to worry too much on that score.

Senator Schumer brought things back to earth for a few minutes, asserting that it is Judge Alito who has the burden of proof to show that he deserves a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court over the course of the hearing. Schumer echoed one of the common themes of the afternoon: the fact that Alito has been nominated to replace the Courtâs most frequent swing voter. He also gave his own take on the so-called âGinsburg standard,â noting that Justice Ginsburg answered questions on issues on which she had written or commented. Turns out, Judge Alito has written and said quite a bit when it comes to hot-button issues like the power of the president, abortion, and voting rights, so we should get a lot of answers, right? Weâd better. I guess weâll see tomorrowâ

In a shout-out to the failed Harriet Miers nomination that was torpedoed by the same members of the radical right that are acting as Judge Alitoâs cheerleaders, Schumer chastised the âthe cadre of conservative critics that demanded answers from her and then rolled out the red carpet for Judge Alito.â Schumer wants to know why thatâs the case, and so do we.

Demonstrating that he attends the very same sÃances as Justice Scalia, Senator Cornyn channeled the spirits of the founding fathers telling us all that the âfounding fathers believe people of faith should be allowed to express their beliefsâ .â Senator Cornyn charged that âa number of groups really donât want a fair-minded judge,â that they want âtraditional marriageâ to be found unconstitutional and that they want to âban any religious expression from the public square.â Who are these groups? Could Senator Cornyn send us a list, because weâd really like to know?

Senator Dick Durbinâs theme for the hearing was this: Would Judge Alito use his powers to restrict freedom or expand it? Durbin characterized Alitoâs choice as follows: would he continue the legacy of rights and freedoms, or would he sign off on gag rules on doctors regarding family planning, interference into family decisions regarding life support, efforts by the government to tap our phones and invade our medical records, or (surprise, surprise) rules that would come between a woman, her doctor and her conscience on the decision of whether to have an abortion. Durbin charged that we as a society have gone too far in curbing individual rights and urged that the Supreme Court is the backstop for these rights (okay, we added the gratuitous baseball referenceâweâll try to make sure it doesnât happen again).

Durbin urged Alito to explain his views on reapportionment and involvement in the Conservative Alumni of Princeton (newly recollected it seems as a stand against ROTC? more on that later, to be sure).

In a grim moment that really showed the sort of impact decisions judges make on every aspect of our daily lives, Senator Durbin reminded us of a dissent Judge Alito wrote which would have limited the reach of a law that protects the health and safety of coal miners. (Our report includes a background on the case in question.)

In a shocking development, Senator Brownback used most of his time to recycle the same attack on a womanâs right to choose that he had used at the Roberts hearing. Couldnât he have come up with some new lines in the intervening four months? Senator Brownback, clearly in favor of sports references, added this one to the list: âOnly two more pitchers then you get to bat.â

Weâd suspect that Brownbackâs list of four cases where Judge Alito voted for civil rights, like Senator Jeff Sessionsâ list, uses a very loose definition of what a âdiscriminationâ case really is. Unfortunately, weâll have to wait for the official transcript to come out weeks from now, since Brownback inserted his list into the record but didnât bother to tell us what the contents of the list was.

Senator Coburn, an MD, followed Senator Brownback, continued his diatribe on the right to choose, or as he put it the âright to choose to killâ or the âripping and tearing of an unborn child from its mothers womb.â He followed this with an equally polemic diatribe on the âright to take your own life,â and left us all with this thought-provoking question âhow is it that we have sodomy protected under due process but not prostitution?â His medical diagnosis: âIts schizophrenic.â In case we had yet to figure it out, Coburn tipped his hand, telling us that âthe real debate is about Roe.â If youâve listened to our podcasts, you now know why we dubbed Brownback and Sessions the abortion twosome.

Alito Hearings - Day 1, part 2

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:03:00 GMT

Well, the hearings have gotten started and while it hasn't been what we'd call "rockin'" there have been some interesting moments in between the self-congratulatory and bombastic speeches (Senator Sessions, we're looking in your direction.) Up until now, we've heard from 12 senators, so only 6 more speeches to go.

Chairman Specter kicked things off by inviting Judge Alito to introduce his family. That's the last time he'll have a chance to talk for the next several hours. Do you suppose practicing an "interested, I'm listening" face is part of the murder board process? It should be.

We found out in the gripping administrative portion of the session that Senator Specter intends for the hearings to conclude this week with a committee vote on Tuesday the 17th, "subject to something extraordinary happening." Specter then followed by laying out the structure of the hearings: 1) Today, each senator will have 10 minutes for opening statements, followed by the formal introduction of the nominee by his home state Senator, Frank Lautenberg and former NJ Governor (and current EPA Administrator) Christine Todd Whitman, and Judge Alito's opening statement; 2) Questioning will begin tomorrow morning with Round 1 of questioning â 30 minutes per Senator â and Round 2 â 20 minutes apiece â will follow, with 15 minute breaks at "convenient times; 3) Specter intends for the hearings to conclude this week, with a committee vote on Tuesday, Jan. 17, "subject to something extraordinary happening." With that and a brief word from ranking committee member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, things got moving.

But onto the real funâthe senators' 10 minute opening statements. Senator Specter laid out his concerns (sadly sans the word "super-duper" or a big blue chart): executive power in light of recent revelations about domestic spying by the Bush administration, abortion, and respect for congressional decision-making. Nearly every senator on both sides of the aisle also noted the importance of Judge Alito's deference to executive power, several noting Justice O'Connor's statement "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens," in a 2004 opinion rejecting the president's assertion of a right to detain American citizens.

Chairman Specter also described the interchange between the senators and the nominee in the hearings as "a subtle minuet." Senator Biden took a liking to the metaphor, indicating that classical music may replace baseball as the central metaphor for these hearings. We certainly hope so.

You may have heard a few words about Judge Alito's 1985 job application. You know, the one in which he expressed disagreement with the Supreme Court's holdings enshrining the principle of one person one vote, and expressed pride in his work fighting against abortion rights. This was cited by many senators as a cause for concern. Senator Kennedy, in particular, is "deeply troubled." As are we, Senator Kennedy, as are we.

Senator Grassley got the first laugh of the day on the heels of Senator Kennedy's expression of "deep concerns" about Alito's record, beginning his comments with the "quip" "I have a more positive view of Judge Alito." It's a Judiciary Committee hearing, not a night at the Improv. Or even the Capitol Steps. We have to take what we can get when it comes to humor.

Also expressing serious concern with Judge Alito's dedication to the protection of Americans' individual rights were Senators Leahy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, and Feingold. Senator Kohl summed it up in two key quotes: "Before we give you the keys to the car, we'd like to know where you're going to take us," and, on the importance of a judge's awareness that his or her rulings affect the lives of real people, "justice may be blind, but [long pause for sip of waterâhey, we aim to be accurate] it should not be deaf."

Senator Sessions, noting his own adulation of our nation's founding document, previewed his questioning by saying that he intends to inquire as to whether Judge Alito loves the Constitution. I think they sell t-shirts to that effect at the National Archives and we totally want one. Seriously. Senator Sessions also cited a criminal procedure case to "rebut" Senator Kennedy's correct observation that Judge Alito has not written an opinion in favor of a plaintiff in a race discrimination case. Whoops. I wonder why he wasn't confirmed to the bench back in the 80s... Huh. Weird.

There is one other interesting thing we'd like to note. In his opening statement, Senator Hatch said that the "first principle" in judicial selection is that "the Senate and the president have different roles." Apparently Senator Graham didn't get that memo. Oops. According to today's Wall Street Journal (sorry, we'd link, but a paid subscription is required), Senator Lindsay Graham participated in a prep session for Judge Alito at the White House last Thursday. First principles can be such a pain.

Alito Hearings - Day 1

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:01:00 GMT

We'll be "simul-blogging" (hey! We made up a word!) the Insider Scoop here, but it may be a bit delayed. For the most up-to-date version, always check out the Scoop here.

Itâs finally here! The day weâre sure all of you have been waiting for. Day One of Judge Samuel Alitoâs Judiciary Committee hearings gets underway today in the Hart Senate Office Building, just a few blocks from One First Street. The hearings begin at noon (EST), and are scheduled to go at least through Thursday. You can view todayâs schedule here. Weâll be with you every step of the way (and yes, we have lives, they just will be revolving around this for the time being), monitoring the hearings from gavel to gavel and providing regular updates with breaking news and observations. You can catch the hearings live on C-SPAN.

A quick news update before we get started: Senators hit the airwaves yesterday in a spate of Sunday news show appearances, making it clear that the stakes are extremely high and that Judge Alitoâs writings and rulings place a heavy burden on his confirmation. Senator Kennedy laid it all out in a Friday op-ed in the Washington Post and weâll be hearing from him again today, as well as all the other members of the Judiciary Committee.. All 18 of them. Today is prepared remarksâincluding the headliner himself with an opening statementâbut the real fun gets underway tomorrow when the questioning of Alito begins. Stay tuned. Weâll have more for you after the first break.

Hearings begin this morning

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:12:00 GMT

Lots of coverage all over this morning, so take a look at your favorite news outlet, and there will assuredly be an Alito hearing piece.

Of course, stay tuned to the Insider Scoop blog for our coverage throughout the day, but we'd also like to plug the excellent WashingtonPost.com Campaign for the Court blog for continuous coverage, including video clips.

Also, for live coverage on C-SPAN online click here. TV coverage is on C-SPAN 1, so no need to go to channel 283476234 like we did for the Roberts hearings...

So, enjoy your morning and get set for the 11:30 AM start!

Sunday shows

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:47:00 GMT

As one would expect, there was a lot on today's "Sunday Shows" regarding the Alito hearings. In case you missed them, here are the links to watch or listen to Meet the Press, Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday and This Week.

Also, AP put out a good summary of the pre-hearing discussion here.

Sen Kennedy: Alito's Credibility Problem

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 7 Jan 2006 17:26:00 GMT

Senator Kennedy wrote a must-read piece in today's Washington Post. He closes with this:

Alito's words and record must credibly demonstrate that he understands and supports the role of the Supreme Court in upholding the progress we've made in guaranteeing that all Americans have an equal chance to take their rightful place in the nation's future. "Credibility" has rarely been an issue for Supreme Court nominees, but it is clearly a major issue for Alito.

Hearings begin Monday morning. Just a reminder... we'll be posting throughout the day at the Insider Scoop blog on the main supremecourtwatch.org page, plus we'll be gathering the ragtag gang of usual suspects for a hearing wrap show every night, DC time.

SCW January 6, 2006

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 7 Jan 2006 01:27:00 GMT

The pre-hearing edition

SCW January 6, 2006 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:25:00 GMT

SCW 40

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

News

AFJ Final pre-hearing report released
Law professors announce opposition to Alito
Alito's ABA rating
The unitary executive
- Court Pick Endorsed Theory Of Far-Reaching Authority, Wall Street Journal
- Alito hearings to focus on presidential power, Newsday
The case against Alito, The Nation

Pre-hearing special

Major players
Hearing schedule
Themes we see going into the hearings
- Executive power
- Abortion
- Ethics
- Power of the government over the individual
- Will Alito answer questions on issues?
Coverage plans
- Daily wrap shows
- Blog
- Final hearing summary show
- C-SPAN 1 live coverage on Monday
- Witness lists released - GOP list includes Alito's fellow jurists, Kansas City Star

Magic 8 Ball

Will the Alito hearing contain any major surprises or revelations?
Sarcastic Magic 8 Ball - Will next week's shows be the best ever? (sample answers)

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

Busy busy

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 6 Jan 2006 03:06:00 GMT

You may think that we failed at our resolution on the first day. Not so! We were just really busy gathering all sorts of stuff for you. Not the least of which is the 190+ page behemoth report we released yesterday. It's good stuff. Seriously. If nothing else, check out the executive summary - it gives a picture of just what kind of justice Alito would be: one who defers to corporate power and government authority over individual rights and who has a very expansive view on executive power.

This is why more than 500 law professors around the country have signed on to a letter opposing the confirmation of Samuel Alito. You can check out the letter and signatures here.

We know, lots of reading material today. But it's all an excellent primer on what is going to come since the fun gets underway on Monday with the start of the Alito hearings.

Final report released

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:52:00 GMT

From the AFJ press release:

Today, Alliance for Justice released a ~~168~~ 195 page report examining the record of Supreme Court nominee Samuel J. Alito. The comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis shows a nominee determined to reshape the law and drive the Supreme Court sharply to the right.
"Given his record, it is no surprise that the Alito nomination has been embraced by the radical right. They believe that he will realize their hopes of undoing decades of progress in the advancement of individual rights," said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.
Throughout his career, Alito has quietly promoted a legal agenda and jurisprudence that aggrandizes executive power at the expense of individual liberties; limits Congressional authority to enact legal safeguards; and generally diminishes judicial authority to enforce both statutory and constitutional rights. "The reasoning Judge Alito employs and the results he reaches are not balanced. Rather, they track a staunchly conservative political and legal view to a remarkable degree," continued Aron.
Judge Alito has frequently gone to the right of even his Republican-appointed colleagues to find against individuals who claim that government officials or corporations violated the law. "This quantitative analysis shows a clear pattern - Judge Alito consistently opts to restrict individual rights and freedoms, and champion the causes of corporations and government power."
"Judge Alito is not simply a judicial conservative. Rather, he has the ideas and vision to move American legal thought in a radical new direction, jeopardizing our most cherished individual rights and freedoms," concluded Aron.

Check out the final report here.

We're baa-aaack!

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:33:00 GMT

After a long absence... the Insider Scoop returns!

Like just about everyone else, we've decided to make a New Year's Resolution. While it should probably have something to do with eating more vegetables or watching fewer reality shows, that doesn't sound very fun. So, we've opted instead to be much better about blogging. (And with the Alito hearings starting in less than a week, we have good reason to stick to our resolution.)

Starting tomorrow, we'll have all sorts of up-to-the minute (or at least up-to-the-day) information for you, though we cannot promise there won't be random references to not-quite-ready-for-C-SPAN programming. Happy New Year!

Question for Judge Alito: What About One Person One Vote?

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:28:00 GMT

"Even if Judge Alito has changed his position on the reapportionment cases, the fact that he was drawn to constitutional law because of his opposition to those rulings raises serious questions about his views on democracy and equality."

See the rest of Adam Cohen's piece in the NYT here.

Maine checks in, plus a strong cup of coffee

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:11:00 GMT

Interesting viewpoint column in today's Bangor Daily News. On the lighter side of the news, it seems that Judge Alito inspires New Jersey coffee roasters to make some bold choices.

Update... we also stumbled upon this editorial on executive power and Alito from The Palm Beach Post.

Funniest Justice?

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:19:00 GMT

Scalia. Bryer comes in second, and Thomas comes in last.

Who says we never post on Saturdays? Happy new year everyone!

SCW December 30, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:14:00 GMT

The year in review

SCW December 30, 2005 shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:13:00 GMT

SCW 39

This show is 17:40... if your download cut off at the nine minute mark, download it again here.

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Year in review

4 nominations for two slots
39 shows
More to come in 2006, but first a retrospective on 2005

News montage

Roberts nominated
Rehnquist dies
Roberts renominated
Roberts hearings
Roberts confirmed
Miers nominated
Miers challenged
Miers withdraws
Alito nominated

Magic 8 Ball

Background track: Miss Sad UK - Bird (courtesy podsafe music network)
SCW 3 - Will the (Roberts) nomination kick the Karl Rove scandal off the headlines?
SCW 7 - Will the winner of Rock Star INXS actually become the new lead singer of the band?
SCW 13 - Has the President already decided who his next nominee is?
SCW 15 - Will Hasbro release a line of judiciary committee action figures with kung fu grip?
SCW 16 - Is there a Senator holding their powder for the second round of (Roberts) questions?
SCW 22 - Listeners choice!
SCW 24 - Will Harriet Miers withdraw her nomination?
SCW 26 - Will the Harriet Miers hearing provide enough common ground amongst Democrats and Republicans to cause party merger, ushering in The Era of Good Feelings 2: Electric Boogaloo?
SCW 28 - Will the President nominate a woman or minority to fill Justice O'Connor's seat?
SCW 30 - With the recent pub SCW has been getting in the mainstream media, are we about to get a call from Survivor producer Mark Burnett to option a reality show based on the podcast?
SCW 32 - Because he "opened the door" in the 1985 job application, will Judge Alito candidly answer questions on his judicial views on abortion and congressional redistricting?
SCW 34 - Will Tai Shan, the National Zoo's baby panda, follow the usual child star route and let all of the sudden publicity, attention and adoration go to his head, causing a Todd Bridges-like backlash that will end in a convenience store robbery?
SCW 35 - Can we bridge the philosophical divide this Christmas - and prove our lack of intent to destroy the holiday celebration - by offering a gift of top notch hair product to Jay Sekulow?

Insider's insider

Background track: Spank - Silver Bullet (courtesy podsafe music network)
Studio 1-A
The weather
Louis the pug
Fred Thompson
Jay Sekulow
Whaddaya got?
law fellow... Dr. Oth
Others
- theater of the mind
- Wisco and Ohio
- pure professionalism
- comic bronze

Close... more to come in 2006

New show tomorrow

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:03:00 GMT

Hey, if Entertainment Tonight can do a year in review show, so can we. Check it out in your podcatcher tomorrow...

More docs released this morning

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:02:00 GMT

Were the documents released on the 23rd a mere appetizer for you? Do you crave more Alito-isciousness?

(No, I have no idea what that means either.)

The National Archives is releasing another 291 pages today... take a gander here, after 9 AM.

Back tomorrow...

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:01:00 GMT

Hope everyone had a wonderful weekend! We'll be back blogging tomorrow. In the meantime, keep enjoying the fire!

SCW December 25, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:37:00 GMT

Happy holidays from SCW! This is an homage to the WPIX televised yulelog - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule_Log_%28Television_Program%29

Doc dump

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:00:00 GMT

Want to spend some of your long weekend checking out Alito documents? Well, you're in luck!

News Advisory:

WHAT: The National Archives at College Park will release 45 documents relating to Samuel Alito. These records total 744 pages from Record Group 60, Records of the Department of Justice, Files of John Bolton, Michael Carvin, Roger Clegg, Stephen Galebach, Brian Landsberg, Mark Levin, and Richard Willard.

The National Archives found the documents, consisting of memoranda and other documents, in various folders in the files of these individuals during the processing of additional FOIA requests.

WHERE: These records will be posted on the National Archives Web site at http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/

WHEN: The records will be available on Friday, Dec. 23 at 9 a.m., EST

SCW December 22, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:40:00 GMT

Warrantless wiretaps and Alito on the environment

SCW December 22, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:00 GMT

SCW 37

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Wiretapping, bypassing FISA courts and how this impacts the Alito debate

Sam I Am - Environment

Magic 8 Ball

Is the NSA tapping into Tim's computer to hear the SCW podcasts, unaware that they can get them for free online?

Close

Special show on the morning of 12/25!
Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

UPDATE... Dan wants to make a correction:

I said US v. Lee, the hotel surveillance case, was unanimous. It was 2-1, with Judge McKee dissenting strongly.

Senate Dems want a peek at Alito's DOJ docs

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:12:00 GMT

The Senate Dems are interested in taking a look at Alito's DOJ documents. You can see the letter that Sen. Leahy sent here. Also check out the Washington Post article here.

More opposition announcements

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:07:00 GMT

Some of the environmental organizations are coming out in opposition to the Alito nomination...

Earthjustice

Friends of the Earth

Sierra Club

We'll be chatting about the green groups opposition in a special segment in SCW 37. Another prominent opposition announcement came today from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Take a look at their statement here.

War powers

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:07:00 GMT

Pretty slow news day on the Alito front... interesting article that adds a little more fuel to the notion that Judge Alito's views on executive power, particularly at war time, will be an issue at the hearings. Check out Lawmakers to Ask Alito About Spy Views for more.

We did a little pre-podcast caucus today, and it looks like we'll be recording and uploading the last show of the year on Thursday. But... a little elf told me there may a little something in your podcatcher stocking on Christmas day. The tease continues in SCW 37 on Thursday.

File problems

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:37:00 GMT

Hey everyone... if you've been having trouble downloading today's edition (SCW 36), you are not alone. Libsyn (our file host) is having some problems, but we have been assured they're on top of it... hopefully you'll get the new episode tonight or over the weekend. Take care!

Update - looks like everything is straightened out... enjoy the show and your weekend!

SCW December 16, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:31:00 GMT

More opposition announcements, voting rights scrutiny, plus Alito on executive power

SCW December 16, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:22:00 GMT

SCW 36

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Opposition announced - reports released

Texas redistricting, 1P1V and more scrutiny on Alito

Supreme Court hearing on Texas redistricting will provide a barometer to measure partisanship on the high court, Houston Chronicle editorial
Supreme Court to Review GOP-Friendly Texas Redistricting, Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court to Weigh Texas Redistricting, ABCNews.com
More from Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog

Sen. Specter sends another letter

The letter(PDF)
Specter seeks Alito's views on power of precedent, Reuters
For Specter, Alito hearings pose internal struggle, USA Today

Right wing attacks

Judicial Confirmation Network's new ad about "left wing extremists" allied with "drug dealers, WashingtonPost.com's Campaign for the Court blog
Salazar's Focus feud heats up, Rocky Mountain News

Rolling Justice

Sam I Am - Executive Power

Favors a very expansive role, particularly in police powers
Flashback to SCW 34 - Dahlia Lithwick's comments on The Al Franken Show
FISA courts - Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, New York Times
Non-delegation doctrine
Other issues
Novak and Judicial Confirmation Network Distort Facts of Doe v. Groody (PDF), Alliance for Justice
Getting to Yes by Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com

Magic 8 Ball

Are the Senate meet-and-greets over for Judge Alito?
Will we continue to leave Sean Hannity in the dust in the iTunes rankings?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

New Alito reports

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:11:00 GMT

NARAL Pro-Choice America has added to your Alito reading list. Now we're sure you've read AFJ's preliminary report on Judge Alito, but their report looks more specifically at women's reproductive rights. Their summary:

Whether Samuel Alito would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade and whether his vote would be the last necessary step to Roe's demise are not the only questions before the Senate or the American public. For overruling Roe is not the only way to end legal abortion or make access so difficult, expensive, and dangerous that abortion's legality is practically meaningless. Indeed, overturning Roe outright is not the most likely avenue for the Court and anti-choice legislatures to take in the near term.
Stacking the Court with Justices who are indisposed to find a state regulation to be an "undue burden" is as sure a way of ending legal abortion for many women in much of the country as is overturning Roe. It's just far more subtle and less likely to create political backlash.

UPDATE - Our upstairs neighbors (and AFJ member) National Women's Law Center have added their report to your Alito reading list. Get crackin' people!

A new podcast is coming your way tomorrow... in the meantime, let it ~~snow~~ ~~ice~~ rain, let it ~~snow~~ ~~ice~~ rain, let it ~~snow~~ ~~ice~~ rain!

"Pro-Alito Buzz Cloaks a Draconian Agenda"

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:44:00 GMT

Alliance for Justice Legal Director Seth Rosenthal analyzed the right wing's claim of desiring a Supreme Court justice who "won't legislate from the bench," believe in "judicial restraint" and "understand the limited role of the courts, in the December 13, 2005 issue of The Nation. Find it here.

CBS News poll: 3/4 of Americans need more info on Alito

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:20:00 GMT

CBS News included a series of Alito questions in their latest poll. Of note:

Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are scheduled for early next year, and a majority of the public is withholding judgment about him. Seventy-five percent haven't heard enough about Alito or are undecided in their views of him...

See the poll here.

Rolling Justice

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:16:00 GMT

Taking the Alito Question to Americans

Rolling Justice will be visiting Americans in towns throughout the country to educate and engage them on the importance of the Supreme Court and the impact of the Alito nomination. We want to hear the stories and voices of Americans and find out what the Supreme Court means to them.

For more on Alliance for Justice's eleven state tour, click here.

Thank you fans!

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:52:00 GMT

Supreme Court Watch is now a top 10 show on iTunes.... we're #7 today of all political shows. Thanks for your continuing support, and enjoy the rest of the weekend!

SCW December 9, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:54:00 GMT

Tough sledding, saving Christmas and Alito on federalism

SCW December 9, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:34:00 GMT

SCW 35

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

AFJ news release

Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc.: Unpublished Opinion Reveals Jusge Alito's Conservative Legal Agenda, AFJ (PDF)
Comments

Dems ask for additional docs

Committee Democrat Seeks More on Work Alito Did in the 80's, New York Times
Senate Democrats press for papers on Alito, Reuters
Senate Democrats Ask Alito For Another Round of Papers, Washington Post

Why everyone should read last week's article on Alito by Stephen Henderson and Howard Mintz

Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative, Knight Ridder
Administration objects to story describing Alito as conservative, Knight Ridder
Knight Ridder response to Senate Republican Conference critique (PDF), How Appealling blog
C-SPA N video of Knight Ridder's Stephen Henderson and Rachel Brand, assistant AG for the Office of Legal Policy

Sen. Specter predicts tough sledding for Alito at the Judiciary Committee hearing

Specter Predicts Long, Tough Questioning for Alito, Washington Post
Specter: Samuel Alito Hearings More Difficult Because of Abortion, LifeNews.com

Only Samuel Alito can save Christmas?

It's that time of year! Conservatives accuse liberals of trying to shut down Christmas...
Ads Portray Nominee as Protector of Christmas, New York Times
ACLJ email from Jay Sekulow (say what you will about the man... he has outstanding hair)

Sam I Am - Federalism

Favors a very limited federal role
In Cases Involving Federal Government, Nominee Is Seen as Favoring Authority of the States, New York Times
US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)(Alito dissents - federal power to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to machine guns).
Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 226 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2000)(Congress does not have the power to trump states' rights in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act).
The Supreme Court disagreed with Alito's position in both Rybar and Chittister - see the AFJ Report (PDF) for details.

Magic 8 Ball

Will Senate Dems succeed in getting access to additional Alito documents?
Can we bridge the philosophical divide this Christmas - and prove our lack of intent to destroy the holiday celebration - by offering a gift of top notch hair product to Jay Sekulow?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

National Women's Law Center announces opposition

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:19:00 GMT

National Women's Law Center (an AFJ member organization) announced its opposition to Samuel Alito's nomination today. Check out their press release here.

Check back in tomorrow (we promise this time) for SCW 35! If you're in the need of a little more reading, take a look at "Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative" by Stephen Henderson and Howard Mintz.

Senate Dems - "More docs, please!"

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:19:00 GMT

Reuters has the story here. A snippet:

Senate Democrats on Wednesday pushed for the Justice Department to release more documents about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as some liberal advocacy groups prepared to come out against his nomination.
* * *
Leahy pushed for the release of documents the administration has determined are not covered by a Freedom of Information Act request. He said the Senate was entitled to see the documents, or in some cases edited portions of them, and could handle them on a confidential basis if warranted.

Hang tight and we'll get a show out to you ~~tomorrow~~ Friday with all of the week's news, plus a new segment... "Dan Roth, Senior Supreme Court Correspondent."

Dodging Debate or Protector of Christmas?

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:03:00 GMT

Really interesting piece in the Washington Post today by E.J. Dionne:

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Alito about that letter seeking a promotion, she said he told her: "First of all, it was different then.... I was an advocate seeking a job. It was a political job. And that was 1985."
Rather than defend his letter, in other words, Alito preferred to leave the impression that he might have been engaging in a bit of opportunism. Does that mean that 20 years from now, he will say that his statements to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were simply those of an appeals court judge seeking a promotion and were never intended to be taken too seriously?

In other (amusing) news, some conservatives are latching onto the holiday theme, suggesting only Samuel Alito can save Christmas. I think I saw that cartoon when I was a kid... something about an island of misfit toys and a Third Circuit judge swooping in to save the day. In any event, it looks like we'll be recording our next show on Thursday. Welcome aboard if you're a new listener!

Blank check

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:41:00 GMT

Slate's Emily Bazelon has written an outstanding article on the "shoot in the back" case we referred to in SCW 34. You can read Shoot To Kill: Alito's blank check for cops here. Here's a snippet:

In a 15-page memo, he argued in favor of letting states give police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion whenever a suspect flees, whether or not he poses a threat. Alito's memo is written with his usual dispassion. But he's forceful in his belief that the Constitution has no role to play in a cop's decision about whether to shoot an unarmed suspect.

More to come on this case, to be sure.

On the tech front (i.e. feel free to skip this if it makes you sleepy), we've just updated our Odeo feed. Click on our Odeo Channel (odeo/31867e600dc3d102) if you want to check us out through there.

SCW December 2, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:40:00 GMT

Another 1985 memo, concern at Princeton and voting rights

SCW December 2, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:50:00 GMT

SCW 34

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

May 1985 - parachute pants, The Breakfast Club, and... an Alito memo

1985 memo sets out strategy to overturn Roe - click here for the memo (PDF)
Alito Sketched Strategy to Overturn Roe in '85, Los Angeles Times
Alito Helped Craft Reagan-Era Move To Restrict 'Roe', Washington Post
Just an employee of the administration (Bench Memos blog) or insight on philosophy?
AFJ response
Sidebar - Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood argued before the Court on Wednesday
Shooting in the back and Due Process

Dahlia Lithwick on The Al Franken Show

Clip - Alito and police power and war on terror
Commentary

Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire

Alito's Recollections of Princeton Club, Washington Post.com's Campaign for the Court blog
Original article from the Associated Press
Judge Alito and the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, Balkinization blog
The questionnaire - link (PDF)

Sam I Am - Voting Rights

Criticized the "one person one vote" rulings on the 1985 job application
SCOTUS cases have rejected disproportionate favoritism of rural over urban areas
Strict equal population remedy set up - possibly causes gerrymandering?
One Person, One Filibuster?, Rick Hasen - FindLaw.com
Alito's Stance on One Man, One Vote Is Debated, Washington Post
White House Says Alito Was Assuring on Districting, New York Times
Voting Cases Could Shape Debate Over Alito, Wall Street Journal
Sen. Specter to ask questions on the issue (see his letter here (PDF))

Magic 8 Ball

Would Sam Alito vote differently than Justice O'Connor on NH's parental notification law in the Ayotte case?
Will Tai Shan, the National Zoo's baby panda, follow the usual child star route and let all of the sudden publicity, attention and adoration go to his head, causing a Todd Bridges-like backlash that will end in a convenience store robbery?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

iTunes features SCW

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:54:00 GMT

If you're an iTunes user (and most of you are according to our handy-dandy stats aggregator), check out the Podcast directory... Supreme Court Watch is one of the featured political podcasts. Sure we're on page 2, but it's still kind of cool to see the SCW microphone there!

In celebration, we're going to do exactly nothing out of the ordinary. We'll be gathering the roundtable today in Studio 1A and should have a show up sometime ~~later in the day~~ tomorrow. Stay tuned!

More on Roe

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:42:00 GMT

Memo: Alito Urged Government to Challenge Roe v. Wade, Washington Post

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. was an architect of the Reagan administration's failed 1985 attempt to have the high court consider overruling Roe v. Wade, according to a memo from the period released today.
Alito, then assistant to the solicitor general, urged his boss to use a case before the court to "make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."
In the memo, Alito suggested that the government challenge Roe in an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief in an abortion case that itself did not challenge the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. This approach, he wrote, is better than a "frontal assault."

Here is the AFJ statement on the memo at the heart of the article:

The 1985 memo that came to light today reveals precisely what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was talking about when, in a 1985 job application released two weeks ago, he declared that he was proud to have joined the Reagan administration's effort to scuttle women's reproductive freedoms. The memo shows that Samuel Alito worked in the boiler room as one of the chief engineers of a multi-tiered strategy to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Unlike Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Alito cannot claim that he was simply a government lawyer doing government work. The memo released today illustrates his dedication to eliminating a woman's right to choose - a dedication that carried through to his dissenting opinion on the Third Circuit in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Casey was the only case he has ruled on that presented an open question regarding reproductive freedoms. And in Casey, as in the memo released today, he devised a way to hollow out a vital right.
With the memo, Alito promoted "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects." There is little doubt that he would do likewise if elevated to the Supreme Court.

Check in again tomorrow... SCW 34 should be up midafternoon Thursday!

No surprise

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:42:00 GMT

Welcome back... hope everyone had a good long weekend. If you didn't catch the editorial from The Boston Globe on Sunday, check it out here. Here's a taste:

It's no surprise that President Bush resisted postponing the Senate confirmation hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court until January. The more Americans learn about Alito, the more worrisome his appointment becomes.

Dear Judge Alito...

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:51:00 GMT

Senator Leahy is getting a bit anxious to read Judge Alito's response to the Judciary Committee questionnaire. Check out his letter to the nominee here (PDF). It might be that the judge is taking some extra time to make sure he does not repeat the same errors of ommission as Harriet Miers?

For a great take on Alito's stance on civil rights, check out today's column in The Boston Globe by Derrick Jackson.

A nominee so willing to prostrate himself to an administration that left virtually nothing to be proud of on civil rights is a solid warning that if Alito gets on the court, he will have no shame exhuming the ideology he claims has been buried.

We'll be taking a few days off for the holiday weekend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Fox News... apparently it's now just "they decide"

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:41:00 GMT

Fox News has refused to air the Alliance for Justice and IndependentCourt.org advertisement on Samuel Alito. What does Roger Ailes not want you to see? Check it out here.

SCW November 22, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:58:00 GMT

Sen. Biden wants explanations, plus Alito on privacy

SCW November 22, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:29:00 GMT

SCW 33

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Sen. Biden and explanations

Samuel Alito's 1985 application statements raise issues that must be addressed
Senator Biden says Alito has a lot of explaining to do , KRON, San Francisco
See also, Associated Press, Reuters, and San Francisco Chronicle

ABA ratings coming

Professors rate Alito's judicial record, Associated Press

I am Sam - Privacy

Scope of the right to privacy
1985 job application
Strip search case
- Counter-attacking for Alito, Robert Novak
- A Strip Search of Novakâs Column Yields No Facts, ThinkProgress.org
- Novak and Judicial Confirmation Network Distort Facts of Doe v. Groody (PDF), Alliance for Justice
Casey and abortion

Magic 8 Ball

Will the 1985 application issue continue to develop as an issue for the Alito nomination through the end of the year?
Thanksgiving day matchup... will the Detroit Lions overcome their relative ineptness and bring home a victory for the Silver and Honolulu Blue?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

This week on SCW

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:15:00 GMT

It's a special Thanksgiving week warm-up here at Supreme Court Watch... gather the family around your traditional podcast aggregator and enjoy the wholesome family entertainment.

This week... Kelly is on assignment in Wisco, but the rest of the roundtable (Adam, Tim and Dr. Oth) are set for a big show. We're not sure whether to call this the "all testosterone show" or the "all off-message show." No matter what, check us out tomorrow for SCW 33.

Applications and Ads

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:04:00 GMT

Ahhhh, at last! A new Insider Scoop... enjoy and have a good weekend!

We know. Itâs been forever. Weâve just been so busy lately. And yes, we hate that excuse, too, but when we say "itâs not you, itâs us," we really mean it! (And we totally meant to call, too.) As youâve no doubt noted, quite a bit has transpired since last week.

The biggest news has swirled around the disclosure of a 1985 Justice Department job application in which the young Alito expressed great affection for the Reagan administrationâs work to roll back a virtual cornucopia (getting in the Thanksgiving spirit here) of rights and protections â efforts he had been a part of as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office. Alito wrote that he was "extremely proud" to have worked on recent efforts against affirmative action and women's reproductive choice, and shared his belief that "the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Judge Alito moved quickly to try and temper the serious concerns raised by this document, telling Senators he was just trying to get a job, and that those clearly expressed views really donât matter today. While we certainly understand the need for gainful employment, it strikes us as a little more than odd that the judge would suggest that he wasnât being entirely straight with the DOJ. More strikingly, as it turns out, Alitoâs judicial record tracks very comfortably with the statements he made in the application, as weâve outlined in this handy document. And... Ads ads ads! So, what are we doing about all this? Today, Alliance for Justice and our partners in IndependentCourt.org are launching a nationwide campaign to raise awareness and opposition to President Bushâs nomination of Judge Alito. In addition to events being held around the country, we've also launched this ad highlighting the major areas of concern in Alitoâs record. Check out the ad and more information here.

SCW November 17, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:05:00 GMT

The 1985 Application Issue

SCW November 17, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:04:00 GMT

SCW 32 - apologies for any earlier confusion with the titles for this show!

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

1985 job application

Voting rights/apportionment - Judge Alito as an Opponent of One Person, One Vote?, ElectionLaw blog
Abortion - Nominee says views on abortion rights 'very different' now, San Francisco Chronicle
Connecting the Dots: Samuel Alito's 1985 Job Application Previewed His Judicial Record , AFJ
Press reaction
- No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985, Washington Post
- Alito abortion remarks concern some, USA Today
- Old Job Form, New Questions, Los Angeles Times
- Alito tries to temper his '85 opposition to a right to abortion, Boston Globe

Ad campaign

IndependentCourt.org is launching an ad campaign on the Alito nomination
Link to the ad

Magic 8 Ball

Because he "opened the door" in the 1985 job application, will Judge Alito candidly answer questions on his judicial views on abortion and congressional redistricting?
Will the University of Michigan Wolverines trounce the hapless Ohio State Buckeyes in Saturday's big showdown?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

Connecting the Dots: Samuel Alito's 1985 Job Application Previewed His Judicial Record

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:42:00 GMT

A new podcast is coming your way tomorrow... In the meantime, take a look at our latest:

In a 1985 application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote that he "disagree[s]" with landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding "criminal procedure [and] the Establishment Clause" and "personally believes very strongly that... the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." He also said he "believe[s] very strongly in... federalism."

For more, take a look at the AFJ fact sheet, Connecting the Dots: Samuel Alito's 1985 Job Application Previewed His Judicial Record, here (PDF).

Samuel Alito: Rejecting Major Aspects of Modern Constitutional Law

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:37:00 GMT

"Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito expressed disagreement with a host of landmark Supreme Court precedents recognizing voting rights, reproductive rights, the rights of the accused, and the rights of religious minorities. The document is significant because Judge Alito was not simply stating his personal policy preferences. Rather, he was asserting his view of the law."

To read what he wrote click here (PDF).

Podcast expo

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:16:00 GMT

Happy Veterans Day to everyone... hope you enjoyed yesterday's show. Tim is off in Ontario, CA at the Podcast Expo trying to blend (and failing, but it's the thought that counts, right?). The rest of the intrepid gang is busy at work. Next week is going to be a big one... stay tuned!

SCW November 10, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:01:00 GMT

Ethical inquiries, a new senator and 50 Cent

SCW November 10, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:29:00 GMT

SCW 31

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Privacy and stare decisis

Alito Respectful of Precedent, Associates Say, Washington Post
We've Heard That Before: Judge Alito and Stare Decisis (PDF), Alliance for Justice

Vanguard, a sister and ethics

Alito questioned about mutual fund case, CNN.com
Alito and Vanguard, WaPo Campaign for the Court blog
Al ito reviewed '95 case involving sister's firm, Boston Globe. (More on this also in WaPo's Campaign for the Court blog)
Breaking post-recording news... Sen. Specter has written Judge Alito a letter asking for a full public response on the Vanguard matter. Stay tuned.

A new NJ Senator

Sen. Corzine's victory in the NJ gubernatorial race means he will not be voting on the Alito nomination
Andrews prominent among contenders to replace Corzine, Courier-Post (South NJ)

Nan Aron and 50 Cent - together for one time only?

Her Idea of Justice: Absolutely Not Alito, Washington Post

Magic 8 Ball

When this whole Supreme Court thing finishes up, will AFJ President Nan Aron reunite with 50 and remake the 80s classic, "Ebony and Ivory (Cleveland Park remix)"?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

Alito and stare decisis

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:19:00 GMT

We think Samuel Alito may have picked the wrong line of work. His shy, boyish charm certainly leaves him open to the roles Hugh Grant has abandoned for starters. Whatever it is, his meetings with senators seem to be going quite well for him. Itâs a charm onslaught. Senators wander out of the one-on-ones saying that Judge Alito has assured them that he respects stare decisis. Funny story. Back in 1991, there was this judge nominated to the Supreme Court who said the exact same thing. What was his name again? Oh, yes. Justice Clarence Thomas. And we all know what happened there. Anyway, our able researchers put together a document that says all of this better than we can (if such a statement can be believed.) Take a look.

A couple of Wednesday tidbits...

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:11:00 GMT

We'll be uploading a new podcast for you tomorrow. In the meantime...

We've Heard That Before: Judge Alito and Stare Decisis - In his meetings on Capitol Hill, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been telling senators what they want to hear - stressing the importance of stare decisis. But his recognition of the importance of precedent is not a predictor that he would follow it if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Click here for more (PDF).
On November 01, 2005 The Coalition for a Fair & Independent Judiciary organized a legal briefing composed of senior lawyers from several prominent organizations on Judge Samuel Alito's judicial record, and the impact his decisions have had on ordinary Americans. If you're itching to listen to something before tomorrow's edition of SCW, check it out here (mp3).
Read all about AFJ president Nan Aron (plus another mention of your favorite podcast) in today's Washington Post here .

Alito: Pushing the Law Sharply to the Right

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:16:00 GMT

Alliance for Justice has released a Fact Sheet on Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito: Pushing the Law Sharply to the Right (PDF).

Nominated by President Bush to replace moderately conservative Justice Sandra Day OâConnor, Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito has a 15-year record of trying to push the law sharply to the right. He is what the Right calls a "movement" judge.

Date Scheduled

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:36:00 GMT

Okay, I admit it's late... but, if you missed it on Friday at the main page, here's the latest Insider Scoop:

So, the Gang of 14 met yesterday. And while it sounds like something out of Alias, it is a bit more prosaic than that. Though still important. At their meeting, they determined that they were "united" and "withholding judgment." A couple of ~~gang members~~ senators (DeWine and Graham) have made remarks about voting to go nuclear should things get to that point, but their support for the nuclear option was never a question in the first place, no matter how many gangs they did or did not join, so it doesn't exactly fall into the "stunning revelation" category.

More interestingly (to us, anyway, since it plays into our winter travel plans. Looks like St. Tropez in January is out.), a hearing date has been set. The party begins January 9th. It will continue throughout the week, with an exec (executive session/Judiciary Committee vote - we like shortened words, acronyms and near-incomprehensible jargon in this town) scheduled for the 17th of January. We also think it is fun that the Judiciary Committee will vote on the nomination that would de-diversify the Supreme Court the day after we observe Martin Luther King Junior day. It's a little too ironic, don't you think? (And despite that line, not even in the Alanis Morisette kind of way.)

Finally, we have to belabor a point. Something we never do, of course. And certainly never this point. An article ran in the New York Times today talking about how philosophy is at play in this nomination. Yes. Yes it is. Why? Because philosophy matters.

And we're not the only ones to think so. (Hey, look at what happened in the Miers nomination. "Qualifications" was a veneer for the right wing - it really meant "she hasn't proven her judicial philosophy is what we want." It seems to be a ploy that worked, though, since even this New York Times article is stating it as fact, despite lots of shrill on-the-record remarks to the contrary.)

SCW November 4, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:08:00 GMT

The latest Alito news plus Nominations 101

SCW November 4, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:39:00 GMT

SCW 30

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

NPR features SCW

Link to the Peter Overby story
Comments

News

Hearings in '06
- Hearings begin January 9, with a targeted vote in committee on January 20
- Schedule
- Specter Bucks White House on Alito, Washington Post
- The Gang's not breaking up
  - Senate's 'Gang of 14' Fractures Over Alito, AP
  - Alito hearings split 'Gang of 14', Miami Herald
  - Gang of 14: "Not Breaking Up", WashingtonPost.com's Campaign for the Supreme Court blog
- The meet and greets begin
  - Alito Finds Constitutional Privacy Right, Durbin Says, Bloomberg.com
  - After Miers Failure, White House Begins Aggressive Effort to Sell New Court Choice, New York Times
  - Judge Said He Struggled on '91 Abortion Opinion, New York Times
  - Alito's sherpa(s)... Sen. Dan Coates (R-IN) and Former GOP chair Ed Gillespie
Nominations 2.0
- The Constitution and the role of the Senate
- Process
  - Vacancy
  - Vetting & consultation
  - Nomination
  - Senate Sponsor
  - Judiciary Committee Hearings
    - Beginning January 9, 2006
    - Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman
    - Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), ranking member
    - 16 other members (member list here)
    - Committee vote
      - Positive recommendation
      - No recommendation
      - Negative recommendation
  - Full Senate
  - Swearing In
- Outside Players
  - Organizations on the left
    - Alliance for Justice
    - People for the American Way
    - Leadership Conference for Civil Rights
    - Other interest groups
      - Choice
      - Environment
      - Others
  - Organizations on the right
    - American Center for Law and Justice
    - Committee for Justice
    - Progress for America
    - Focus on the Family
  - Other players
    - American Bar Association
Magic 8 Ball
- Will the Judiciary Committee vote on Alito happen before the end of January as scheduled?
- With the recent pub SCW has been getting in the mainstream media, are we about to get a call from Survivor producer Mark Burnett to option a reality show based on the podcast?
Close
- Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
- Email - podcast@afj.org

Outage

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:18:00 GMT

Greetings all.. Liberated Syndication had a bad day, so we did too. Our files and blog are now apparently available again, so hopefully you will get all caught up. New show will go up tomorrow... including the oft-promised Nominations 101 redux. News... looks like the Alito hearings will begin January 9th. More to follow on tomorrow's show!

Codebreaking

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:02:00 GMT

Apparently, we are starting a special expose series, and we didnât even plan it. Well, if people just keep handing us the material, we have to run with it. So, we here at the Scoop bring you another installment of our hard-hitting series on cracking the code used by the the radical right. (We sort of wish we had some sort of dramatic music, or perhaps John Stossel or Stone Phillips to narrate, but weâll have to make do with the limitations of our format. Itâs probably for the best.)

So, on this edition of Codebreakers (yes, we know, weak titleâwe may have been watching a bit too much of the History Channel lately. Work with us here), weâre covering the idea of dignity. Hey, we like dignity, even if we end up sacrificing it a bit every now and again due to our charming clumsiness. But certain members of the Senate *coughMitchMcConnellcough* have taken to throwing around the word âdignifiedâ when it comes to the hearings process. It was said a lot during the Roberts hearings as well. Funny thing about the use of their use of the word âdignified.â Weâre going to have to borrow from/paraphrase Inigo Montoya here: we do not think that word means what you think it means. Because when the right starts making pronouncements about a âdignifiedâ hearing process, what they actually mean is ânon-substantiveâ and ârushed.â These are not good qualities in a hearing. And they certainly arenât synonyms for âdignityâ no matter what some people try and tell us.

The Senate Democrats, perhaps as part of their Cosmo âbold and sassy!â makeover of late, are pushing for hearings in 2006, rather than rushing Judge Alito through the process to get him on the Court by sometime in December. This is exactly what needs to happenâa thorough and substantive process that examines issues and allows both the Senate and the American people time to really understand Judge Alito and his judicial philosophy. And when we say âthoroughâ we mean a close examination of his record, his legal views and judicial philosophy. Pushing Alito through the process without having him provide substantive answers isnât âdignifiedâ itâs irresponsible.

NPR

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 2 Nov 2005 03:12:00 GMT

Yeah we did a double-take too... that WAS the theme to SCW playing over NPR this afternoon! Listen to Peter Overby's report on groups working on the Alito nomination here... including your favorite Supreme Court podcast!

Confession time

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 2 Nov 2005 03:08:00 GMT

We have a confession to make. We would like to claim that we were all insider and had double super secret background sources alerting us the moment Alitoâs nomination was decided upon. So, about that. We actually heard about it from our mom. Our up-way-too-early-but-on-top-of-things mom. Sorry, not the glamour you were hoping for, but we aim to be truthful with you, our cherished readers.

So, onto the nomination! President Bush announced his nomination of Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court yesterday morning. Ahh, thereâs nothing like the satisfying feeling of completely caving to the fringe elements of your base. Because the radical right loves Samuel Alito. He is everything that Harriet Miers was not - a guarantee that the balance of our nationâs court will be tipped far to the right in pursuit of an ideological agenda. Funnily enough, we can say the same thing about Samuel Alito that people sometimes say about us: heâs no Sandra Day O'Connor.

But Bush said Alito will show "judicial restraint." Yeah, thatâs one of those fun code words like "strict constructionist" that sounds good, but pretty much means that the person is a conservative activist with an ideological agenda. Fun, huh? Code words are always great. Without them, they wonât let you into the Federalist Society Clubhouse. (We think they came up with some extra code words like "constitutionalist" so they could waive the secret knock.)

And yes, we have reasons for saying this. Reasons like Alito's attempt to rescind Congress' authority to ban machine guns. (Maybe heâs a Rambo fan?) Or his disregard for the Supreme Courtâs decision on spousal notification in his decision to allow such a provision in a New Jersey statute. Or the time he approved the strip search of a mother and her ten-year-old daughter by police, despite the search warrant not naming them or authorizing the search.

So, of course, the papers are abuzz with all of the comments and reactions and possible outcomes of this nomination, but the real heart of the story is this: while Judge Alito may have the on-paper qualifications, his judicial philosophy falls far short of the requirements needed of a Supreme Court justice. He will not stand up for the rights and freedoms of the American people. He was not selected to be a justice for every American, he was selected to be a justice for Phyllis Schlafly and James Fund and all of the other uber-conservatives who pitched a fit over the Miers nomination and didnât even allow her the courtesy of a hearing. (What was that tired old refrain about the supposed mistreatment of Robert Bork again?) Alliance for Justice has opposed this nomination because we've looked at his extensive judicial record and found it wanting.

Sorry to end on such a serious note. Weâll try and do better next time. In the meantime, donât forget to check out our preliminary report on Judge Alito.

SCW October 31, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:04:00 GMT

Samuel Alito nominated

SCW October 31, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:34:00 GMT

SCW 29

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org â hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Samuel Alito nominated... AFJ opposes

President Bush's announcement
AFJ statement of opposition
Preliminary AFJ report on Alito
Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court, Washington Post
Bush nominates Alito to Supreme Court, CNN.com
Bush Nominates Judge Alito to Fill Court Vacancy, Los Angeles Times
Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats, New York Times

What's next?

Magic 8 Ball

Will conservatives flip-flop back to the Roberts rules and demand no questions be asked regarding Judge Alito's judicial philosophy?
Will the Senate Judiciary Committee parlay their fame and importance into a pop music record deal a'la Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan?

Close

Shownotes - podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

AFJ Statement on Alito

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:22:00 GMT

Alliance for Justice Opposes the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
Bush Nominates "Movement Conservative" to Placate Right Wing

Washington, DC - Alliance for Justice opposes the nomination of Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. "Influential segments of the radical right torpedoed the nomination of Harriet Miers because she didn't have a proven record of being a 'movement' conservative, dedicated to carrying out their political agenda on the bench. The right is now giddy about the nomination of Samuel Alito â undoubtedly because he has such a record. If confirmed to the pivotal O'Connor seat, Judge Alito would fundamentally change the balance of the Supreme Court, tipping it in a direction that could jeopardize our most cherished rights and freedoms," stated Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.

"The president and the right claim to value judicial restraint. Yet Judge Alito has not demonstrated such restraint," noted Aron. Alito has voted to:

Strike down a federal law prohibiting the possession of machine guns, leading his colleagues to accuse him of disrespecting the considered decision of Congress by requiring it to "play 'Show and Tell' with the federal courts";
Invalidate part of the Family and Medical Leave Act;
Scuttle Congress' intentions by making it much harder for civil rights plaintiffs to prove sex and race discrimination. In one case, his colleagues noted that the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination "would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where [Judge Alito] suggests."

Judge Alito has also:

Upheld intrusive police searches of women and children who were not named in search warrants and weren't the subjects of any investigation. In one case, President Bush's own Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff â who formerly served with Judge Alito on the Third Circuit â criticized Judge Alito's position.
Excused race discrimination by prosecutors in jury selection and upheld a death sentence that the Supreme Court overturned - with Justice O'Connor casting the deciding vote;
Upheld abortion restrictions that the Supreme Court struck down in a landmark case.

"With Judge Alito, President Bush has sought to appease the radical right and fuel a revolution on the Supreme Court," said Aron. The National Law Journal reported that lawyers believe that Judge Alito is "much more of an ideologue than most of his colleagues." A prominent legal observer, who strongly supported John Roberts' nomination, has similarly called Judge Alito a "conservative activist" and asserts that his "lack of deference to Congress is unsettling."

"While it's clear Judge Alito possesses a keen intellect, it is equally clear the president selected him for his backward-looking judicial philosophy. The Supreme Court is not a place for 'movement' judges of any kind. Supreme Court Justices do not rule for a narrow segment of the population, but for all of us. It is truly disheartening that President Bush thinks otherwise. Instead of going to the Senate for advice and consent, President Bush chose to go to the right wing, injecting divisiveness and controversy into a situation that calls for unity. We call on Democrats and Republicans alike to reject this nomination," concluded Aron.

BREAKING NEWS: Samuel Alito nominated

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:24:00 GMT

Happy Halloween! Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito has been nominated to replace departing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Trick or treat? We have a few theories... We'll be back to you later with more information. Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court, AP

Decision time... again

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:54:00 GMT

Bush Heads to Camp David to Ponder Nominee, Washington Post

The latest buzz is that the choice will be Judge Samuel Alito from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Pardon my cynicism, but "the latest buzz" and a buck sixty-five gets you a tall house coffee at the Dupont Circle Starbucks. Take it for what it's worth.

"pretty soon"

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:02:00 GMT

Shortly before 4 PM, the President announced (as part of his comments on the Libby indictment) that he would announce his Supreme Court nominee "pretty soon."

Waiting game

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:05:00 GMT

With the news conference announcing the initial indictments in the CIA leak case coming at a 2 PM, ~~it's an open question whether the Supreme Court nomination announcement will come today or next week~~ the White House has announced that there will be no nomination announcement today. We're on top of it... we'll put out the next edition of SCW as soon as we can following the announcement. In the meantime, DC awaits Mr. Fitzgerald's announcment...

A Weakened President Faces New Risks, Washington Post

SCW October 27, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:13:00 GMT

Miers withdraws

SCW October 27, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:04:00 GMT

SCW 28

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org â hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

Miers withdraws

Past Magic 8 Ball predictions...
Miers-o-meters weren't calibrated properly?
Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism, AP
Miers Failed to Win Support of Key Senators and Conservatives, New York Times
Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination, Washington Post
Conservatives: Miers is "a good person" - gloating is "unseemly"
Newsview: Withdrawal Shows Bush's Weakness, AP

What's next?

Nomination will be made in a "timely manner" - President Bush (Los Angeles Times)
"I expect another nomination in the very near future." - Sen. Lott (Reuters)
Frequently mentioned candidates - Los Angeles Times, Washington Post

Magic 8 Ball

Will the President nominate a woman or minority to fill Justice O'Connor's seat?
When booking her much-deserved retirement trip, will Justice O'Connor throw caution to the wind and select the nonrefundable ticket option?

Close

Shownotes - podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

AFJ Statement

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:48:00 GMT
Statement by Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron on the Withdrawal of Harriet Miers' Nomination to the Supreme Court
Washington, DC - "An influential segment of the right wing was profoundly disappointed that, with Harriet Miers, the president did not nominate a proven 'movement' conservative who would carry out their political agenda on the bench. They have been clamoring for the withdrawal of Ms. Miers' nomination for weeks. What has happened today is an ominous indication of capitulation to such pressure. An independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our democracy. It is too vital to be used as a means of placating a political party's base.
"As the president makes another attempt to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's pivotal seat, we encourage him to work in good faith with members of both parties to choose a consensus nominee who is committed to equal justice. The new nominee should not merely serve the interests of the radical right. He or she must serve the interests of the American people - in their entirety - by protecting and enforcing our rights, freedoms and legal protections."

The Scoop: Harriet Miers withdraws

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:53:00 GMT
Well, we said weâd have news for you... Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court. This nomination has followed an unusual course since the beginning, from the attacks from President Bushâs own base to the heavy skepticism from all quarters of the Senate.
Now we in Washington get to start playing our favorite game againâSpeculation! (Well, weâve been playing it for weeks on a number of matters, but now weâre playing Speculation: Supreme Court edition again.) Speculation is played in a similar manner to a high school journalism seminar exercise: Who? What? When? (The "Where" and the "How" play into it depending on the situation.)
We would like, at this time, to give credit to our editor. As we waited and waited for her questionnaire to come in, he predicted "She's not going to turn it in because sheâs going to withdraw. You heard it here first." Well played, Editor. Well played, indeed.

BREAKING NEWS: Miers withdraws

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:20:00 GMT
AP has the story here.
President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

Shades of the Krautheimer exit strategy we mentioned in SCW 26.
Miers withdrawal letter
President Bush's statement

SCW October 26, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:49:00 GMT
Miers-o-meters and diminished support

SCW October 26, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:12:00 GMT
SCW 27

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
New? Don't know a thing about the process? Listen to SCW 5 - Nominations 101
Intro the roundtable

News

Miers resubmits her questionnaire
Senate support?

Senators in G.O.P. Voice New Doubt on Court Choice, New York Times
Senator Sessions... "get me outta here!"
Sen. Wants Proof Miers Is Conservative, AP
"What I am suggesting is that I'd love to see more written material that predates the nomination... It's extremely important. I don't know how to put it in a numbers term, but it's extremely important."
Hill ary Clinton Blasts Bush During Atlanta Speech, WSB-TV, Atlanta

Continued conservative opposition

Americans for Better Justice ad
Conservatives Escalate Opposition to Miers
Group Announces Withdrawal Campaign, Washington Post Campaign for the Court blog

Americans have questions for Harriet Miers
Miers' speeches

In Speeches From 1990s, Clues About Miers Views, Washington Post
Speech to the executive women of Dallas
"Women of Courage"
Specter Gives Miers Heads Up on Questions, AP

Whaddaya got?

Kelly - Standards

The Miers Nomination: The Process Must Reveal More (AFJ memo)

Adam - Who hasn't turned on Miers?
Dan - ABA Qualification Ratings

Miers Nomination Will Test Relevance of ABA Ratings, National Law Journal

Tim - The Miers-o-meters

Fishkite - 65%
Slate.com - 75%

Magic 8 Ball

Will Harriet Miers make some kind of a public speech or other kind of a public appeal prior to the November 7th hearing start?
Will Harriet Miers don a scary Halloween costume over the weekend? (Subquestion... if so, who is she going to be?
NOTE - Tim suffered from temporary mental block and thought PATRICK Fitzgerald is actually named Peter Fitzgerald. Pure professionalism all the time at SCW...

Close

Shownotes - podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

SCW featured on today's Daily Source Code

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:00:00 GMT
Supreme Court Watch has hit the big time... we were featured today on one of the top podcasts in the world, former MTV-VJ Adam Curry's Daily Source Code. Take a listen here.
Adam Curry (A.K.A. the "Podfather") is often credited with bringing podcasting to the mainstream... it's great to be mentioned on the show. Thanks Adam!

Qualifications

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:40:00 GMT
Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron:
Just two weeks shy of her hearings, we still don't know who Harriet Miers is. Senators and advocates on both sides of this nomination agree we need more information.
She has a heavy burden to meet to convince both the Senate and the American people that she is independent and qualified for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
Harriet Miers must prove that she will impartially enforce the rights, freedoms and legal safeguards protected by the Constitution.

Check out the rest of the statement here (PDF).

Miers-o-meter

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:44:00 GMT
To the extent you like pundits making predictions by percentage, take a look at Slate's new Miers-o-meter. For what it's worth, they put the current Miers confirmation chances at 75%. Clearly they aren't talking to Senator Schumer who said on Sunday Miers doesn't have the votes. But then again, the White House remains confident about her confirmation.
Look for the next show sometime in the next day or so... with all of the hurricane related power outages messin' with our host, we want to make sure everyone can actually get the show before we put it togeteher!

Wilma strikes SCW

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:43:00 GMT
Apparently hurricanes can hit podcasts too... our podcast host, Liberated Syndication, has a major data center in the path of the storm, and we were down for a fair portion of today. Looks like we're back online however... thanks for sticking with us.
We hope everyone is dry and safe in Florida. We at Supreme Court Watch are eagerly awaiting the end of hurricane season on 11/15!

We're number 24!

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:41:00 GMT
Not a typical chant... but a pretty exciting one. Thanks to your votes, Supreme Court Watch is amongst the top rated podcasts at Yahoo. We aim to please... thanks for the recognition!

SCW October 21, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:17:00 GMT
Murder boards, questionnaires, and miffed Senators

October 21, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:51:00 GMT
SCW 26

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - hit the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

No droth or Dr. Oth
Louis the pug is sitting in

Whaddaya got?

Kelly - Specter, Miers and Griswold

Team Is Preparing Miers for Tough Senate Hearing, NY Times

Adam - Questionnaire issues

T he Questionnaire
AFJ letter to Sen. Leahy and Sen. Specter
Specter-Leahy letter to Miers

Tim - Miers Prep

Blunder of the First Order, WSJ editorial excerpt via Washington Post's nomination blog
The Miers Support team: Gloomy, National Review
Miers: The Only Exit Strategy, Charles Krauthammer editorial in The Washington Post
A Friend in Need, Slate

Magic 8 Ball

Will the White House shut down the Senate "meet and greets" between now and the hearings?
Will the Harriet Miers hearing provide enough common ground amongst Democrats and Republicans to cause party merger, ushering in The Era of Good Feelings 2: Electric Boogaloo?

Close

Shownotes - podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

That darn questionnaire

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:06:00 GMT
I seriously hate to keep going back to the WaPo well time and again, but today's blog post is just too good. Take a look at the latest on bloggers, politicians and pundits taking some exception to her rather cursory responses to that Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.
New podcast tomorrow... welcome to everyone who's been introduced to us via the Yahoo Podcasts page!

News!

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:14:00 GMT
Hey, we have something to report on the Miers nomination! To borrow from Jim Anchower, we realize it's been a long time since we've rapped at ya, but we wanted to wait until there was something to say besides "Well, the right wing is still divided against itself, can this nomination stand?" because we've already said it. And, of course, we never, ever repeat ourselves. Ever.

So, onto the news as promised. First of all, Reuters (via The Washington Post in this link) is reporting that the Miers hearings will start on November 7. This makes sense, especially given Senator Frist's vow to adjourn this session of Congress by Thanksgiving. Of course, it makes less sense in terms of giving senators and the American people more time to learn more about Harriet Miers, but her public record is pretty slim, so the hearings will be our best shot to find out something. Or so we hope. If Miers fully answers questions. Hopefully she doesn't follow the precedent she set for herself on her Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Miers was asked (see question 17) what specific constitutional issues she has worked on during her time at the White House and her answer was crystal clear (and we paraphrase here): "I've worked on lots of issues. Moving on!" Oh, well, that clears it right up then.

Alliance for Justice has sent a letter to Senators Specter and Leahy reiterating the need for the Judiciary Committee to conduct thorough hearings and ask Miers substantive questions -- and demand substantive answers -- about the issues she has addressed during her time at the White House.

There was also an upsetting backtrack from Ms. Miers after her meeting with Senator Specter. The senator had reported that when he asked Miers about her views on two key cases on the constitutional right to privacy -- one of which, Griswold v. Connecticut, even Chief Justice John "I can't comment on that case" Roberts openly agreed was settled law -- she told him that she believed the cases were correctly decided. Hey! A definitive answer that gives some insight into her legal views. That's wonderf... Oh, wait. Never mind. She called the senator and said her remarks had been "misinterpreted." We should have known it was too good to be true.

So, that's the report for this morning. There's more for you, but since we're meaner than JJ Abrams* (and clearly more entertaining--Les Moonves is trying to broker a deal with us right now, in fact), we're going to leave you with a cliffhanger and get back to you when we have more solid information to report.

*We got some push-back from our pop-culture-illiterate editor on this one. For any other television philistines out there who don't feel like following the link, JJ Abrams is the creator of both Lost and Alias and master of the "What the...?" cliffhanger. Well, not so much on Alias this season, but we don't like to talk about that.

Reuters: Hearings begin Nov. 7

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:56:00 GMT
Reuters reports a November 7th start to the Miers hearings. The great WaPo blog repeats it here.

Rising stakes for Miers hearing

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:01:00 GMT
The Christian Science Monitor reports, "Just a half-dozen GOP senators could derail her confirmation to high court." We also learn what the standards are like for some conservatives in New Hampshire:
"She's a born-again Christian, owns a handgun, and headed the Texas Bar Association. I have a hard time understanding why this is a bad thing," says Ed Naile, chairman of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers.

Outstanding... Miers hits Ed's trifecta.

Noteworthy!

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:36:00 GMT
Hey, check it out... we're a "new and noteworthy" podcast over at Yahoo! Podcasts... thanks for the shout out oh mighty Yahoo!

SCW October 17, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:11:00 GMT
The latest on Miers... not much

SCW October 17, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:48:00 GMT
SCW 25

Intro

News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court
Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org - click on the podcast badge
Intro the roundtable

What do ya got?

Kelly - Assurances over Roe
Adam

Sen. Feinstein and cutting ties
Adam also mentioned the Anthony Lewis op-ed, License to Torture from The New York Times

Dan - B-I-N-G-O
Tim

Maureen Dowd on Chris Matthews
Tim also mentioned the "chummy" post here

Magic 8 Ball

Will the hearings for Harriet Miers be completed before Thanksgiving?
If this whole Supreme Court thing doesn't work out for Harriet Miers, does she have a future in the greeting card business?

Close

Shownotes - podcast badge on supremecourtwatch.org
Email - podcast@afj.org

UPDATE - Late breaking news... Looks like our Magic 8 Ball predictions were right on. GOP Senators want the Miers hearings to begin on November 7. See the AP report here.

Fans of our fans

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:49:00 GMT
Needless to say, we repeat this mantra... we are indeed fans of our fans.
Now, if you'd like to throw a little love back at us, make sure you mention the show to your friends and family. Our numbers are already much larger than we ever imagined when we started this little dog and pont show, but we've become greedy and want an even larger audience.
Still not satisfied? Do you need to do more? Consider voting for us at Podcast Alley or Yahoo Podcasts. Thanks and have a great weekend... we're keeping an eye on the continuing developments (Miers had a glint of liberalism in the 90's? El Rushbo will love that.). Look for a new show (#25!) on Monday.

Well, there you go then

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:54:00 GMT
The White House says Harriet Miers is not going to withdraw her nominaton. Duly noted. Of course the "latest" news irking the right is that she once said she would not belong to the Federalist Society. For the record, neither would we.

Polling

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:23:00 GMT
The latest MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll has an interesting tidbit on the public perception - or lack thereof - of Harriet Miers. Here's a snippet:
According to the poll, 29 percent say she's qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, while 24 percent think she's unqualified. Forty-six percent say they don't know enough about her.
"There is nothing to suggest that people have turned on her," [Democratic pollster Peter] Hart said. "But there is just a huge question mark behind her at this stage. She has to establish her own bona fides."

Stay tuned...

Right to know

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:05:00 GMT
Take a gander at AFJ's latest stab at prose... The Senate and American Public Have a Right to Know More about Harriet Miers. And, as comments are pouring in on the "should we continue the live studio audience" question, let me state one thing for the record... if you liked the live studio audience thing, we hope you enjoyed SCW 24. Savor it like a fine wine. A very rare, one-of-a-kind fine wine...

Chummy

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:54:00 GMT
We've always loved the word chum in non-shark related news stories. The Texas Archives release of Miers docs makes this dream come true. Check out today's Indianapolis Star for Documents show Miers' chummy ties to Bush. For more check out today's New York Times too.

SCW October 10, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:00 GMT
Miers' nomination takes some hits

SCW October 10, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:10:00 GMT
Lots of conservativesâ not big fans

SCW 24

Â          Intro

o         SCW is recorded before a live studio audience

o         News views and insight on the future of the Supreme Court

o         Shownotes and blog at supremecourtwatch.org â hit the podcast badge

o         Sound Quality on SCW23 suuuuuucked! Sorry.

o         Intro the roundtableâ and the studio audience

Â          Out with old, in with the New

o         Fred Thompson out as sherpa/shepherd

o         Former Senator Dan Coats, Republican from Indiana, has taken over for Miers

o         We are at a loss as to a theme to play for Senator Dan Coats. We welcome your suggestions via e-mail.

Â          Many conservatives indicating they arenât big fans

o         The Souter factor, CNN.com

o         Conservatives spar over Miers nomination, CNN.com

o         Strong Grounding in the Church Could Be a Clue to Miers's Priorities, Washington Post

Â          The Sunday Showsâ Sound clips

o         Conservative opposition

Â          Howard Fineman â why conservatives are upset (Chris Matthews Show)

Â          Buchanan â trust (McLaughlin)

Â          Sen. Brownback (R-KS) â Roe and his vote (This Week)

o         Other voices on Miers

Â          Eleanor Clift â patronage (McLaughlin)

Â          Sen. Leahy (D-VT) â outside the monastery (This Week)

Â          President Bush â workin hard â (Tuesday Press conference)

Â          Abortion? Whatâs that?

Â          Best person he could find

Â          What does Dobson know?

o         Specter to Ask Whether Rove Gave Private Assurances on Miers, Bloomberg.com

o         Democrats to force Dobson to testify?, WorldnetDaily.com

o         Clip - Specter on Dobson (This Week)

Â          Gary Bauer vs. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Â          Magic 8 Ball

o         Will Harriet Miers withdraw her nomination?

o         Will Studio 1-Aâs live audience be quickly abandoned as a failure to meet SCWâs lofty comic standards?

Â          Close

o         Shownotes â podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org

o         Email â podcast@afj.org

Reasssurance

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:13:00 GMT

When we were little, we always really enjoyed the movie Alice in Wonderland. It was one of the first videos we owned, along with Winnie-the-Pooh and a Strawberry Shortcake number. Ah, the early â80s. But we are not here to talk about our childhoods spent growing up in the early â80sâsorry Freud and VH1âwe are here to talk about the Miers nomination. And one thought that arises, courtesy of Lewis Carroll (yes, we DID eventually read the books), is âcuriouser and curiouser.â Itâs been an odd week.
The right-wing is divided against itself for the first time inâ Well, perhaps since we were happily watching that Alice in Wonderland video. And all because of Harriet Miers. Many are concerned that she wonât drive their radical revolution on our nationâs highest court because she doesnât have the conservative track-record of, say, a Priscilla Owen. So, the Bush administration has begun a charm campaign aimed at the right wing. The thing is, itâs not going quite as well as they might have hoped (even normally staunch Bush supporters like Senator Brownback are expressing reservations and some, like William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, outright opposition). And their charm campaign isnât really all that reassuring to us, since it seems to be focused on off-the-record conversations and special treatment of certain people rather than a transparent and inclusive process. We think that Patrick Leahy should get to know just as much as James Dobson, not to mention the millions of Americans Leahy and other senators represent.
Weâre also not particularly thrilled with some of the comments the reassurances are engendering. They certainly donât make us think âWow, check out THAT judicial independence.â Weâve heard a lot about her loyalty to the president and the way he thinks, and not anything concrete about her views and outlook. And thatâs what we, the Senate, and the American people really need to know. For a look at exactly what the Bush administration has been up to in trying to sell Miersâ nomination, click here.

Miers background report

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 7 Oct 2005 02:32:00 GMT
Rather than continue to pass along the "concerns" of additional conservatives, we thought we'd pass along Alliance for Justice's brief background report on Harriet Miers. It's a PDF so you can print it out and hang it on your 'fridge...

By popular demand...

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:47:00 GMT
... we bring you the alley view from Studio 1-A. Looks good today.
The Miers nomination continues to divide conservative commentators. George Will's column is a must-read today. Meanwhile the rest of us are taking a closer look at Harriet Mier's record... stay tuned!

Conservative reaction

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:13:00 GMT
In yesterday's edition (thanks again for putting up with the atrocious sound quality...) we chatted about the instant dissent in the conservative community. Others joined in, most notably Bill Kristol and el Rushbo himself, Rush Limbaugh.
Count Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on the pro-Miers side however. The Washington Post's Campaign for the Supreme Court blog offered this quote from the good Senator:
"A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should, and that is be a strict constructionist."
Meanwhile, we're gearing up for the record review. Stay tuned...

SCW October 3, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:10:00 GMT
Harriet Miers nominated... reaction mixed.

SCW October 3, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:06:00 GMT
SCW 22

SCW 23

Note, the sound quality was a bit off due to some techie difficulties that your office tech guy may care about, but make our eyes glaze over. Weâll do better next edition!

Intro

Roundtable intro â Tim, Adam, Kelly and Dan

New to SCW? Check out SCW 5 â Nominations 101 (mp3)

President Bush picks Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day OâConnor

Who the heck is Harriet Miers? An AFJ profile

White House nomination announcement

White House bio

Washington Post profile

Alliance for Justice statement on Miersâ nomination

A knee-jerk, instant showing of opposition fromâ the right?

Public Advocate opposes

Confirm Them blog... âAre you freakinâ kidding me?!â

Red State... âA Profound Disappointmentâ

Right Wing News... âDisaster, Thy Name Is Harriet Miersâ

Operation Rescue... âSupreme Court reform does not come in a paper bagâ

But...

Leonard Leo... Hey, sheâs one of US (i.e. the Federalist Society, the American Tort Reform Association, etc.)

ACLJ and Jay Sekulow... âAn excellent choiceâ

Most ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theory of the day (thatâs probably a joke)... rope-a-dope for the real choice?

Fast tracking the vote - Vote expected before Thanksgiving? (MSNBC.com)

Magic 8-Ball

If the Senate Judiciary Committee asks, will the White House release any documents from Harriet Miers tenure as White House counsel?

Since the president went outside of the judicial âmonastery,â was (former FEMA head) Michael âBrownieâ Brown ever considered?

Close

Shownotes â podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org

Email â podcast@afj.org

AFJ statement on Miers

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:14:00 GMT
Washington, DCâ"With Harriet Miers, President Bush has opted for a nominee whose judicial philosophy is unknown to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who, while conservative, often cast a decisive swing vote to preserve important rights and freedoms," said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice. "Harriet Miers has spent the better part of her legal career in corporate practice. For the past dozen years, she has served President Bush in numerous capacities. She has been his personal lawyer and his lawyer when he was running for governor of Texas, and has received several government appointments from him, including White House counsel, White House staff secretary, deputy White House chief of staff for domestic policy and Texas state lottery commissioner. The president undoubtedly chose her because she has been his long-time confidant."
"Because Ms. Miers does not have any record providing a window into her legal views, the Senate must take its advise-and-consent duties very seriously. A thorough, searching review of Ms. Miers' legal philosophy and the role she has played in some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration is imperative. This is particularly true given whatâs at stake: the balance of the Court, which has often shifted with Justice O'Connorâs vote," emphasized Aron. "The president clearly has some idea what Ms. Miers thinks. She has served by his side for more than a decade. It is now incumbent upon the Senate to obtain the information needed to let the American people know what the president does."
"We trust the Senate to do its job. It must be vigilant in ensuring that Ms. Miers, if confirmed, would meaningfully enforce the safeguards our legislatures have enacted and the rights our Constitution protects. The burden in on Harriet Miers' to demonstrate her fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court to the Senate and the American people." concluded Aron.

BREAKING NEWS: Harriet Miers nominated

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 3 Oct 2005 13:09:00 GMT
President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court early this morning (talk about while we were sleeping--mornings are not our strong suit here at the Scoop). CNN has the story and we'll have more for you later.
* * *
PODCAST UPDATE... we'll have a show for you later today on the Miers nomination. Stay tuned!

WH: No announcement today

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:52:00 GMT
Reuters reports that the the President will not announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice O'Connor today. Looks like sometime next week... we'll be watching!

SCW September 29, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:27:00 GMT
Roberts confirmed... who's next?

SCW September 29, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:06:00 GMT
SCW 22

SCW 22

Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States

Mass speculation

Whatâs the latest buzz on the OâConnor replacement?

Alliance for Justice will not automatically oppose the next nominee

A consensus nominee would be preferred

Magic 8-Ball

Listenerâs choice!

Close

Shownotes â podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org

Email â podcast@afj.org

The Scoop weighs in...

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:25:00 GMT

Earlier today John Roberts was confirmed as the nation's 17th chief justice. He is to be sworn in around 3:00 this afternoon. We here at Alliance for Justice are simply stunned, if stunned can be defined as "knowingly expectant," at any rate. We are disappointed, certainly, but not exactly surprised given the commentary of the last few days. We would, however, like to take notice of the 22 senators who cast principled "no" votes on this nomination.
But we here at the Scoop donât want to dwell. The president will shortly be announcing his next nominee to fill the shoes of Justice OâConnor. We know the nominee will be conservative, we just hope that the nominee will be a pragmatic conservative in the mold of OâConnor. Oh, if only hoping would make it so... We have to say that some of the names that have been floated are a little scary (*cough* Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown *cough*). If the president chooses to reject consensus and nominate an ideologue who will tip the balance of the Supreme Court, we are prepared to stand up for the fairness and independence of our courts.

Roberts confirmed

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:22:00 GMT
Our official statement on Roberts' confirmation as 17th Chief Justice of the United States:
Alliance for Justice is deeply disappointed with the Senate's vote to confirm John Roberts to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States but commends the 22 senators who stood for the interests of ordinary Americans and cast a vote of no on Roberts' confirmation.
Judge Roberts has supported weakening women's rights and civil rights laws, cutting back the vital role of our courts in enforcing legal protections and restricting the ability of the people's democratically elected representatives to enact crucial, nationwide worker, anti-discrimination and environmental safeguards.
We'll be podcasting later today... stay tuned.

The rest of the week on SCW

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:12:00 GMT
Look for a new podcast or two from us as the week finishes out. The Senate vote for John Roberts' nomination will likely be Thursday, and there is a better-than-average possibilty that President Bush will announce his nominee for the O'Connor seat before the end of the day Friday. Stay tuned!

Reading Rainbow!

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:13:00 GMT

Not to brag about our test scores, but some of us did extremely well on the reading-comprehension section of the Iowa Basics. (How do you think we attained the glamour and status we hold today as an anonymous blogger?) Some Republican senators, however, may want to brush up on their reading and listening skills before making speeches.
Senator Specter noted that â[Roberts] said the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Griswold v. Connecticut was a correct decision and he extended the contraception issue beyond marriage to those who were single, saying that right of privacy existed, and upheld the propriety of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Eisenstadt case. Other nominees had refused to answer such questions.
Senator Snowe said that âspecifically, he testified that he ``agree[d] with the Griswold Court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception'' and agreed with the later Eisenstadt decision that confirmed this right for unmarried couples as well.
Hey, we sense a theme! Looks like the Republicans have some talking points on John Roberts. Thatâs great, really, except for the part where Roberts didnât say or do anything of the kind when it comes to Eisenstadt. (This is the case that extended Griswoldâit said that unmarried persons also have a right to contraception.)
According to these factually-questionable-at-best Republican talking points, Roberts agrees with the Eisenstadt decision. Except he doesnât necessarilyâhe never said such a thing. He said he has âno quarrelâ with it, as he did with a number of other Court decisions including Plyler v. Doe, Franklin v. Gwinnett County (where the Supreme Court rejected Robertsâ own legal reasoning 9-0) and other important decisions. By applying our approved-by-the-Iowa-Basics reading comprehension skills to Robertsâ own written responses to questions posed by Senator Schumer, we discovered that Roberts only acknowledges the decision as a precedent of the Court. Nothing more. This is not the same thing as affirming the decision itself. This is a key distinction. It does not mean he accepts the reasoning of Eisenstadt. (For more on the âno quarrelâ quandary, please check out this helpful discussion from the National Womenâs Law Center.)
But you donât have to take our word for itâ (We HAD to do the Reading Rainbow shout-out given the reading comprehension issues highlighted in this entry. Weâre pretty sure we have LeVar Burton to thank for our aforementioned Iowa Basics scores.) You probably should, though, since the words of these senators arenât exactly packed with accurate information.

Friday update

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:06:00 GMT
Not much new to report today other than some of the latest vote announcements. Senators Clinton, Obama and Dayton have all announced they intend to vote against the Roberts nomination. Take a look at The Washington Post's excellent Campaign for the Supreme Court blog here for more.
No shownotes for SCW 21, but we'll make good and get them up for #22 next week. Have a great weekend, and stay safe if you're in the Houston area. We're looking forward to the end of hurricane season...

SCW September 22, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:38:00 GMT
Judiciary committee votes

Committee vote

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:45:00 GMT

Okay, lots going on. Senator Harry Reid declared his opposition to John Robertsâ nomination, as did a number of other prominent senators. Unfortunately, a majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee did not take the same critical view of Robertsâ record on rights and protections. His nomination will now move to floor for a vote sometime next week, perhaps as early as the 27th, though more likely it will be a bit later in the week.
Meanwhile, Washington is playing its favorite game: Speculation! (Trivial Pursuit is second, followed by pub trivia. Hey, weâre that kind of town.) There are lots of names (some of them more than a little scary) floating about town, as well as continued discussion of the gender and ethnicity of the next nominee. An announcement could come on the heels of the full Senate vote on Roberts, though that is again from Speculation! (nowhere near as reliable as Trivial Pursuit). We hope that the White House will take some time and work with senators on both sides of the aisle in a meaningful way. Since Justice OâConnor has said she will not retire until the confirmation of her successor, thereâs no need to rush the process.

SCW September 21, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:23:00 GMT
Student Action Campaign debate

Playing catch up?

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:19:00 GMT
Greetings one and all... a few bits of news for you this morning. First, make sure you get caught up on all of our hearing summary shows from last week. There will be a quiz.
Second, we have a special edition Supreme Court Watch coming at you tomorrow. Our Student Action Campaign event is tomorrow, and we'll post the audio as SCW 20 as soon as we can. What is the Student Action Campaign? Glad you asked!
Student Action Campaign is an annual, campus-based program designed to raise awareness about vital social justice issues. This year, Student Action Campaign focuses on the crucial role the U.S. Supreme Court plays as guardian of the liberties and protections guaranteed by the Constitution. We will kick off the campaign by spotlighting the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Chief Justiceship.
Alliance for Justice will facilitate the discussion by hosting a live debate on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, featuring Professor Charles Ogletree, founder and Executive Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School, and Ronald Cass, Co-Chairman of Committee for Justice and former Dean of Boston University School of Law. The debate will be transmitted live via satellite and webcast so that every college, university, and law school can participate. To view the list of participating schools, click here.

This week on SCW

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:01:00 GMT
The upcoming judiciary committee vote on John Roberts will dominate the headlines this week in Supreme Court land... but also remember that the White House is hard at work trying to decide whom to choose to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. Will there be any additional revelations there? Like the troubleshooting investigative reporter Al White said during my formative years watching the TV news, "We'll be watching..."
This week, we'll have a show following the committee vote on Thursday, and additional editions as warranted. Stay tuned!

SCW September 16, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:29:00 GMT
Committee hearing wrap-up

SCW September 16, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:11:00 GMT
SCW 19

SCW 19

Themes

Evasion

Having it both ways

Good lawyer and presenter, but surprisingly flustered at times

Favorite Senators

Magic 8 Ball

Will John Robertsâ (and Timâs) favorite football team, the great Buffalo Bills beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers this weekend?

Close

Shownotes â podcast graphic on supremecourtwatch.org

Email â podcast@afj.org

IndependentCourt.orgâs ad on Robertsâ evasion

SCW September 15, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:35:00 GMT
Judiciary Committee - day 4

SCW September 15, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:19:00 GMT
SCW 18

SCW 18

Hearings finish up with more questions plus witnesses

âNo quarrelâ is a codeword?

Does Roberts understand the Real World implications of court decisions?

Paris Hilton (?)

Witness testimony

IndepentCourt.org advertisement

Magic 8 Ball

Will there be any developments between the end of the hearings today and the committee vote on Thursday 9/22?

Close

Shownotes â click the podcast badge at supremecourtwatch.org

Comments â podcast@afj.org

Live blog - Day 4

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:20:00 GMT

Okay, our hopefully-still-loyal readers, we are still experiencing someâ hiccups, but we think we've come up with a workaround. Posting may not be as speedy, but it will happen. We know we fell behind, so we decided to challenge ourselves: could we sum up each senator's portion of questioning that we didn't cover yesterday in ~~100~~ ~~150~~ an average of 165 words or less? Let's find out:
Senator Schumer ended the day with some additional questioning. He told Roberts that nobody wanted tailored answers, but that answers in general might be nice. He also asked where Roberts felt he fell on the ideological spectrum (Rehnquist was asked the same question when he was nominated to be chief justice and answered). Roberts didn't really answer. We barely recovered from the shock of that ourselves. Sometimes he votes one way, sometime another. He wouldn't even commit to being a moderate. We've heard that commitment can be scary before, but we've never really bought it.
In her follow-up round of questions, Senator Feinstein also tried to get a better sense of Roberts as a person, and how he keeps connected to the concerns of every day Americans. Apparently he attends soccer games. (Given our comments on sports metaphors, we're pretty sure it will surprise none of you when we say some of us here at the Scoop do not share that predilection.) We still really didn't get a feel for who Roberts is as a person at all, but considering he's barely giving us a handle on his judicial philosophy, that's not surprising.
Senator Durbin for Illinois tried to get at who Roberts is, and if he has any connection to the concerns of ordinary Americans. He asked if Roberts "[could] see the people people behind the precedents, the families behind the footnotes?" (Does using senators' words count against our word count? I guess if this is a real challenge, yes.)
Durbin also raised the point that Hispanic groups, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, are opposing Roberts' nomination (this is the first time that group has ever taken a position on a Supreme Court nominee). This has a lot to do with writings Roberts had on the Plyler caseâhe advocated a position that would have denied an education to the children of illegal immigrants. (Whom he delightfully referred to as "illegal amigos," but we've already commented that Judge Roberts may need to work on his comedy routine a bit.) We're getting tired of typing "he declined to give a real answer," but that's what he did, so we'll faithfully report it. Frankly, we're hoping for a Senate Judiciary Committee kick-line number, but so far, no luck. We're still watching, though! (They already pretty much have the matching outfits.)
We certainly learned a lot with Senator Schumer's questioning: John Roberts likes old movies: Dr. Zhivago and North by Northwest. We're split on this. North by Northwest? Great, really informative. (Since we know you care, we didn't love Dr. Zhivago so much, even though when some of us were teenage girls we were apparently supposed to. We also thought Love Story was obnoxious, so we have our own set of standards.)
But this is a hearing for the chief justice of the United States, not Inside Sundance. One extremely provocative thing arose out of Schumer's questioning: the senator asked Judge Roberts about the Thomas hearings. During his hearings, Clarence Thomas told the Senate that he believed in the right to privacy. His opinions on the bench have completely belied that. Schumer pressed Roberts, trying to get him to say he wouldn't go the same route Thomas did. Roberts was unable to offer us any real reassurances. We have to admit this is a little nerve-wracking: we've seen what Thomas has written on the Court, which completely contradicts his testimony about the right to privacy. With no real reassurance that Roberts won't act the same way, how can we really be certain he believes in and will uphold the right to privacy?
Senator Lindsay Graham began his latest round of "questioning" with damage control on allegations that Roberts unethically failed to recuse himself from the Hamdan case. Graham's approach certainly took a different tackâand viewpointâthan did Senator Feingold. He introduced law professors' statements into the record and threw Roberts yet another softball on the implications of holding him accountable for his alleged conflict of interest.
Graham used most of his remaining time to hold court on his own views on enemy combatants and to advertise legislation he intends to introduce â strengthening the president's hand in interrogation, indefinite detention and punishment outside the regular legal channels for non-state enemy combatants.
The senator also took a moment to castigate the 9th Circuit for "declaring war on religion" â erroneously attributing to the circuit court a decision actually made by a judge on the Eastern District of California, which declared that the Pledge of Allegiance's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." He is the second Republican senator to jump on this as a rallying point, despite Roberts' inability to answer because it could come before the Supreme Court.
Senator Feingold came back to the Hamdan case. There was an ethical issue at question here: Judge Roberts heard a case about a detainee in which the president was the defendant and the attorney general advised the president on the challenged policy. At the same time Roberts was considering the case, he was interviewing with the attorney general and the White House in anticipation of a nomination to the Court. Senator Feingold, always very attuned to ethical issues, tried to get some answers and was one of the few senators to visibly shake Roberts' impressive composure. Feingold asked a series of questions about when Roberts was interviewing with the White House and when Hamdan was being discussed.
Feingold also covered death penalty issues, though Roberts again retreated from providing any sort of substantive response behind "could come before the court" and an explanation of what the written opinions said, rather than his actual thoughts on the matter.

SCW September 14, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:16:00 GMT
Judiciary Committee - day 3

SCW September 14, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:14:00 GMT
SCW 17

SCW 17

Â          Day Summary: another long one, w/ questioning beginning at 9 AM and ending at 7PM

Â          Round I wrapped up w. Sens Brownback and Coburn

Â          Round II - 20 mins per Senator, took all day, w/ sens Feinstein and Schumer getting extra time at the end of the round. All of the Rs are finished Qâing the nominee, but the Dem Sens requested a 3^rd round, which will begin tomorrow

Â          5:31 - Specter talks about the schedule. The testimony will finish just before 8pm tonight, continue tomorrow morning, then turn to panels. Durbin will go for 20 minutes; Brownback and Coburn the same. Republicans waive a third round. Specter opposes one. But Democrats will get one. 6:30-45 will be tonight for Senator Feinstein, as well as some tomorrow morning. (Not clear exactly how it will go to 8pm.) Tomorrow morning Senator Kennedy will do 20 minutes at 9am. The "exec" will be set for Thursday the 22d, but would waive the ability to move it by one week. The committee would vote. Likely a floor vote on the 26th. The Exec will have 10 minute statements as the "pattern." The panels may go very late tomorrow.

Â          Also witnesses

Â          Dan went to the hearing â what was it like?

Â          Brownback & Coburn: abortion soapbox

Â          Specter: federalism per letter as promisedâ should Ct be Congressâ taskmaster? Roberts â no, but no answer on specific cases

Â          Leahy â Qâd re death penalty review, no answer, perhaps SG docs would illuminate

Â          Kennedy: Voting Rights Act and effects test

Â          Hatch: brought up big War on Terror issues, and asked if heâd keep an open mind

Â          Grassley: FCA

Â          Biden: right-to-life; one of a few times today Roberts was questioned as âthe manâ; weâre rolling the dice with you

Â          Kyl: we think heâs the first to say during the hearing that heâs supporting the nomination

Â          Kohl: first to bring up Bush v. Gore;

o         In discussion of granting cert., he got Roberts to say sometimes personal views and inclinations can come into play, at least in deciding which cases to review

o         Cake and eat it too re. representing client â your views or not?

Â          Dewine: boring, talk re. administrative state

Â          Feinstein: personal end-of-life issues

o         Detected a change in Roberts openness yesterday after lunch â did anyone caution you?

o         Exec power: do treaties have law of the land status? YES

Â          Sessions: absolutely nothing â 1^st to bring up Pledge Case that had just been decided

Â          Feingold: Hamdan recusal

Â          Graham: nothing of note, other than mischaracterizing pledge case

Â          Durbin: how are you connected to the common man: âDo you see the people behind the precedents, the families behind the footnotes?â (sim to Feinstein Q, soccer games)

o         LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) is opposing him, 1^st time itâs taken a position on S Ct nominee

o         Plyler

Â          No answer re. views on Plyler today

o         why is abortion so important to women: vindication of rule of law

Â          B-back and Coburn ended day as they started, Coburn Natural Law

Â          Feinstein: isolation of judges, soccer (Durbin)

Â          Schumer = no one wants you to barter and tailor your answersâ tech diffs â Houston, we had a problemâ

Live blog - Day 3

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:30:00 GMT

Thereâs not much to say because Sessions barely allowed Roberts to speak. An unscientific assessment leads us to think that 97.3% of Sessionsâ questioning was taken up be Sessions himself. (He already had his hearing to be a federal judge, we found out what he thinks, which might be why heâs a senator now, rather than a judge.) There was a total newsflash though: this country has a deficit. Without these hearings, weâd never have known. Thanks, Senator Sessions! Weâve been ignoring newspapers, television and general conversation for the past few years.)
He did bring up the just-decided Pledge of Allegiance case (by a California district court). (Seriously, moments ago.) Sessions, maybe worried that if Roberts said something about the case, he wouldn't be able to decide the case (like Scalia did the last time the case came before him), directed Roberts not to answer any questions about the issue. So, nothing illuminating or even related to questioning Roberts there. (3:20)
Again, Senator Dianne Feinstein just provided some dramatic moments in todayâs âRound II.â In one of the most personal exchanges of the week, she brought up her own experiences with difficult end-of-life issues and asked Roberts whether he himself would want the government making such personal decisions for him. Judge Roberts replied that itâs a very difficult thing to conceptualize until one is in the situation, but seemed to agree that he wouldnât want the government to decide on his behalf.
Feinstein also said that she detected a change in Robertsâ openness over the course of yesterdayâs questioning, and asked whether anyone cautioned him to be less forthcoming during lunch, which Roberts denied. (To our dismay, she didnât ask him what heâd had for lunch, and whether that affected his afternoon at all.)
Feinstein also covered some new ground on the executive power front, asking Roberts about treaties and their status as the âsupreme law of the land.â Roberts agreed that treaties do have âlaw of the landâ status, and said that as a general matter, a president cannot decide to violate a treaty. Feinstein also revisited the areas of right to privacy and federalism, but didnât elicit much new material from the nominee. (3:13)
We werenât particularly taken with anything in Senator DeWineâs questioning period. There was a nifty little overview of how administrative agencies work (again, not that this told us anything about what Judge Roberts might possibly think about anything) and how it applies to the idea behind the three branches of government. Roberts even referenced high school civics lessons. We wish he would have gone the 3-Ring Circus Schoolhouse Rock route, not because weâre obsessed with Schoolhouse Rock or anything, though.
Senator Herb Kohl is largely viewed as one of the more unassuming members of the Judiciary Committee. (Itâs the Midwestern humility, perhaps.) But in the second round of questions, Senator Kohl boldly went where no senator had gone beforeâ He brought up the elephant in the room: Bush v. Gore. You may remember that. Something about hanging chads and unfortunate make-up choices. Not to mention the appointing of a president by a 5-4 majority split along party-appointed lines.
After Kohlâs initial question (Should the Court have asserted itself into an election in such a fashion?), Roberts actually gave a real answer. He said that the court should have because of the importance of the issue to the country (most legal scholars disagree with Judge Roberts on this). Kohl then asked Roberts if the Court made the right decision. Roberts returned to form and gave a long-winded answer that wasnât terribly illuminating. Kohl pressed him, saying that Roberts had not, in fact, answered the question. Apparently because it was âinappropriate for [Roberts] to comment.â Why? According to Roberts, because the issue could come up again (we hope not!). But the majority opinion of Bush v. Gore clearly states that âconsideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.â Roberts did leave himself some wiggle room though, and said that it was âtoo recently decidedâ for him to really be able to discuss it.
A couple of other notes about some interesting things that came out of Kohlâs questioning He may be unassuming, but heâs wily: he got Roberts to say things that other senators have been unable to elicit. Now we want a Herb Kohl Judiciary Committee action figure (he could come with a cheesehead hat and a Kohlâs shopping bag as accessories)!
Kohl and Roberts had a discussion about âgranting cert,â the decision of the Supreme Court to review a case. In addition to a laundry list of reasons, Kohl managed to get Roberts to say that personal views and inclinations do play into a judgeâs roleâit can in granting review in any event.
There was another interesting remark that came out of this session, evidence of John Roberts trying to have it both ways. In the questions about anti-trust, John Roberts said that his representation of the government in the Microsoft anti-trust case is proof of his devotion to the principles behind anti-trust. How? Wasnât he just representing his client? We thought that meant nothing, gave no indication of a lawyerâs personal views. At least thatâs what Roberts says any other time anyone asks him about something he did as a lawyer representing various clients, especially when those pesky Reagan-era memos come up. (2:32)
Senator Grassley's portion of the questioning was flatter than an Iowa cornfield and Robertsâ responses didnât add any life to the party.
Grassley focused much of his questioning on the False Claims Act and whistleblower provisions. Roberts demonstrated that he knows what the False Claims Act is about and we can add the term "qui tam" to the long list of Latin phrases being thrown about at these hearings. Unfortunately, after all the rhetoric and explanation, we still havenât a clue as to Robertsâ personal opinions.
Senator Orrin Hatch returned this morning to his game of softball (we have help with these, and people seem to love the sports metaphors) and to two of his favorite hearing themes: 1) the nomineeâs duty NOT to answer questions in what both senators Schumer and Biden have called the one âdemocratic momentâ in this process before what is a lifetime appointment to the highest seat on the highest court in our country; and 2) his warm fuzzy feelings about John Roberts.
Hatch chastised his colleagues for asking questions, telling Roberts there is no excuse for being pushed to answer questions about cases likely to come before the court - shortly after Specter noted Roberts evaded questions about cases already decided and/or cases that are unlikely to appear on the same facts before the court. Hatch chastised his colleagues for view that Roberts had âfailed to distance himselfâ from very controversial views - on womenâs rights and Title IX - that he espoused as counsel to the White House. In what is NOT the biggest surprise of the hearings, Hatch said he didnât find these views âcramped,â a common criticism from many on Robertsâ writings on these issues. Hatch did, however, acknowledge that he had been wrong in originally opposing restoring an effects test to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that's why he changed his position after voting against the law in Committee and voted for it on the floor. Judge Roberts still hasn't conceded -- like Sen. Hatch -- that he, too, was wrong in opposing restoring the effects test.
Hatch ended his comments with the equivalent on a big wet kiss, telling the nominee he has never seen anyone do a better job of explaining himself â i.e. refusing to be âpushed to answer questions.â Senator Hatch apparently is also apparently in possession of a Magic 8 Ball, because he made the prognostication that anyone who canât vote for Roberts just canât vote for any Republican nominee. We guess making sure that Roberts is the best judge for the job doesnât include wanting real answers to form a real opinion. (11:45)
Senator Kennedy, one of the authors of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (he has a bit of experience with this sort of thing), pressed Judge Roberts about his efforts (on behalf of the Reagan administration Roberts is quite to point out) to restrict certain parts of that landmark piece of legislation when it was up for renewal.
At issue was the idea of whether the "effects test," which had been used for years, should be restored to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act following a Supreme Court decision eliminating that test (which then prompted the Justice Dept. to drop numerous important voting rights cases). The basic idea with the effects test is that a litigant only has to prove that practices that have the effect of restricting an individualâs ability to vote, rather than that the practices are intentionally discriminatory. Because of the extraordinary difficulty of proving that discriminatory voting practices are intentionally discriminatory, restoration of the effects test had overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, despite the Reagan adiministation's -- and Roberts' -- initial opposition. The ultimate passage of the Voting Rights Act extension, with the effects test, has paved the way for exponentially increasing the number of minority elected officials in both state and federal government.
Senator Kennedy put it to Judge Roberts very specifically: âDo you believe the effects test in the VRA is constitutional?â Well, after 6 minutes of pretty words with no substance and another round of direct questioning from Kennedy, there was finally an answer out of Roberts. Too bad it was qualified to the point of not having much meaning or reassurance.
Frankly, we wonder if Judge Roberts is getting tired of finding ways to avoid answering substantive questions that could have important, and illuminating, answers. We know weâre running out of ways to make snarky comments about how many ways Roberts has of avoiding giving meaningful answers. (11:25)
Senator Leahy had a spirited exchange with Judge Roberts over the review of death penalty cases. The question as stake was Robertsâ views on the constitutionality of review of death penalty casesâdo defendants on death row have the right to have their cases reviewed in the face of new evidence. Roberts, shockingly, said he wasnât really in a position to answer. Even though he wrote on that very topic, as Senator Leahy pointed out.
Roberts wrote about this issue during his time in the Solicitor Generalâs office, in a case called Herrera v. Collins. Senator Leahy pursued Robertsâ on views based on the writings at the time, but we got the same old ârepresenting my clientâ line and would not give his personal views on the case. (There a quite a number of catch-phrases, maybe we can get a whole line of t-shirts out of it.) His refusal to divulge his personal views make it even more important that the Senate demand the memos he wrote in the solicitor generalâs office on Herrera and 15 other cases. This is the only other avenue besides direct questioning that we have to discover Roberts' own views. If only someone would point out how critical those documents are to understanding Robertsâ legal viewpoints. Though we are having flashbacks to an appearance Senator Leahy made on Meet the Press a few weeks ago. As well as some polling data that shows the American people really want to see what is in those documents. Itâs not just us, because itâs vital. (10:55 am) Unlike many of his Republican colleagues, Senator Specter pressed Roberts to reveal his views on specific issues. But again, Roberts played the duck and deflect game. When Senator Specter asked Roberts whether he believed the record that Congress amassed in the Morrison case was sufficient to support the Violence Against Women Act, Roberts refused to answer, claiming that this issue may come before the Court. Senator Specter called Roberts out, noting that this is a past case and there is nothing to suggest it would come before the Court again. Senator Specter also asked Roberts whether the âcongruence and proportionality testâ, a test that the Court developed to analyze legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment, is an example of judicial activism. Roberts again refused to answer on the ground that the congruence and proportionality test is implicated in cases coming before the Court. As Specter pointed out, however, this question is not about a specific case; it is about Robertsâ legal philosophy. Is Roberts extending his refusal to answer beyond specific cases and even beyond discussing issues all the way to basic philosophy? It looks that way, and that's quite troubling. (10:45 am)
Are these hearings a soap box for the âabortion twosomeâ (our podcast listeners know to what we refer)? Senators Brownback and Coburn have whiled away time that could have been spent trying to understand Judge Robertsâ views by scaling their own personal soap boxes on abortion. At least Judge Roberts is an equal-opportunity dodgerâhe declined to answer or respond to their provocations, instead giving what is going to be the catchphrase on the I Was At The John Roberts Hearings t-shirt: âI cannot answer that as it is an issue that may come before the court.â (Okay, as catchphrases go, itâs no Dyn-o-mite, but these are congressional proceedings, after all.)
Senators Brownback and Coburn also addressed issues beyond abortion, even if they did spend a fair majority of their time making grandiose pronouncements that has very little to do with the hearing at hand, since Roberts had already stated his inability to answer in that area.
On abortion, Brownback, bolted from the conservative pack yesterday to tell The Kansas City Star that he had concerns about Judge Roberts's views on abortion. Mr. Brownback's words reflected what is in fact worry in some conservative quarters about exactly what Judge Roberts thinks about abortion."
However, his concerns that Judge Roberts would not be staunchly pro-life appeared to have been allayed, as he this morning there was a 180 turnâBrownback seemed satisfied, demanding no answers and even praising non-answers. What does he know?
Beyond abortion, Senator Brownback dealt on property rights and the Kelo case, though didnât seem to get an answer that was entirely to his satisfaction. Roberts discussed both sides of the argument, and didnât tell Brownback what he wanted to hear: Congress should usurp the power of the courts. We didnât get a clear sense where Roberts fell, but Brownback didnât get to pat himself on the back over the Terri Schiavo case, either.
Coburn was more of the same: âgood behaviorâ of judges based on their use of international law in reaching decisions, congressional authority, nothing that really deviated from the points Brownback was trying to make. Coburn wasnât terribly successful, either.
Weâre not going to talk about Coburnâs discourse on body language. We read a book about it in junior high, too. (Though sadly it didnât tell us if our crush liked us back, which was our reason for reading it in the first place.) We do commend him for yielding his remaining time back, however. If heâs not going to say anything, he may as well not say anything in the more literal sense. (10:15 am) Well, yesterday we had a civics lesson from various senators, and today we got some instruction in grammar from Senator Specter. He backpedaled a bit on yesterdayâs âThey may be misleading, but they are his answers,â remark with an explanation involving the subjunctive verb form. We prefer âConjunction Junction,â but that could just be us. (9:30)

SCW September 13, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:42:00 GMT
Judiciary Committee - day 2

SCW September 13, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:36:00 GMT
SCW 15

SCW 16

Intro

Judiciary Committee Hearing Day 2 roundtable

Sen. Specter (R-PA) and stare decisis

Sen. Leahy (D-VT) asks tough questions

Sen. Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Sessions (R-AL) lob some serious softballs

Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) is filibustered on Title IX, voting rights and civil rights

Sen. Biden (D-DE) is now everyoneâs favorite action figure with kung-fu grip

Sen. Kohl (D-WI) on changing your opinions since your youth

Sen. DeWine (R-OH) on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) on privacy and choice

Sen. Feingold (D-WI) on post 9/11 civil rights plus ethics

Sen. Graham (R-SC) gets all touchy-feely

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) presses Roberts on talking about past casesâ to no avail

Magic 8 Ball

Is there a Senator holding their powder for the second round of questions tomorrow?

Close

Shownotes â click the podcast badge at supremecourtwatch.org

Comments â podcast@afj.org

Live blog - Day 2

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:00 GMT

Weâre going to keep the wrap-up for today brief because today itself was, in fact, the opposite of brief. (Hey, politicians were involved, they havenât gotten the brevity/wit memo, though we admit at times sometimes we forget about it, too.) Charts! Dodging! Weaving! Soooo many baseball metaphors! To be honest, weâre a bit tired, so weâre going to wimp out on you a bit and let you read what Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron had to say. Weâll see you tomorrow bright and early for tomorrowâs 9 am kick-off. (Another sports metaphorâweâre getting the hang of this. And, for some of us, 9 am does feel âbright and early.â)(8:15)
We donât have much to say on Senator Cornynâs portion of the hearing since it didnât cover any new ground, though we did get to hear some lovely sound bites and buzzwords, so that was fun. (7:23 pm)
Senator Schumer continued to try to get Roberts to answer questions about Congress's power. He asked Roberts about a case from the 40s giving Congress wide latitude to legislate, Wickard v. Filburn. Roberts said he couldn't. Schumer pointed out that he answered questions about a controversial case from twenty years later, Griswold v. Connecticut, finding that the right to privacy bars states from restricting married couples from buying contraception, but Roberts said that Griswold was settled and Wickard wasn't. Schumer pointed out that many people believe the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy and the issue came up a few years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, dealing with gay rights. No dice. Roberts just won't say what latitude Congress has to judge. He also seems to have some logic in applying (the Ginsburg) precedent that lacks any real consistency. It would seem he applies it when it suits him to do so. (7:10 pm)
Reputed Republican âmaverickâ Lindsay Graham disappointingly used his half-hour to ask Judge Roberts about whether he agreed with the policies of the âReagan Revolutionâ and issues of judicial selection. Nothing at all seeking to elicit his views on the law. You know, the views he would rely on if he were confirmed. How illuminating!
On the judicial selection front, Graham suggested the process shouldn't be politicized. and then proceeded to politicize it. inaccurately. Referring to Justice Ginsburg as an ACLU lawyer who had lots of views with which he disagrees, Graham noted that she was confirmed overwhelmingly in spite of those views. Note to Graham: it would have been really weird for the Republicans to oppose Ginsburg, given that her nomination was suggested to President Clinton by none other than the highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch. (He's the guy who now sits a few seats to your left, Senator Graham, if you want to check with him). President Bush engaged in no such meaningful consultation in his selection of Judge Roberts. (7:00)
Following Senator Sessionsâs civics lesson that exposed the practice of, among other things, the Circuit Court judges discussing their cases behind closed doors, weâre back in the thick of actual questioning with Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI).
There was actual questioning, but not a lot of actual answering on the part of Judge Roberts.
Sen. Feingold asked if Judge Roberts feels the gains made since the extension of the Voting Rights Act have been positive.
Voting rights are good, we were working on how to extend it. (Thereâs that brilliant legal mind again, the same one that sought to weaken the VRA and watched his position be overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner rejected by both houses of the Congress.)
Senator Feingold finished up his questioning by asking if the intent test that Roberts wrote in favor of, the position that Congress overwhelmingly rejected, is still the right one. Would the clear benefits that we have seen from the forceful implementation of the VRA have happened if Robertsâs position had been adopted?
Judge Roberts, lauded by several members of the Judiciary Committee the most brilliant lawyer in America, never thought to find out if he was correct. Something that Senator Feingold clearly found hard to believe and said so. Itâs funny how much the nominee clams up when he faces questions that go deeper than Sen. Sessionsâs âhow does the appeals process work?â Apparently real questioning in this case does not necessarily yield up any real answers. (6:15 pm)
Wow. For awhile, we were ready to tune out Senator Sessions because the first part of his âquestioningâ because, well, it wasnât much beyond an ode to John Roberts.
But then our ears perked up. The first thing that caught our attention was Sessionsâ assertion that Roberts would âcall [things] as he sees [things].â The problem, however, is that what we know about how Roberts sees things isnât all that comforting, and Roberts is dodging a number of questions that would let us know how he âsees it.â
Then Sessions started to talk about Roe v Wade. He even chose to read a quotation about supporting a conservative president who would nominate a justice that would overturn Roe. Sessions then immediately asked Roberts if he would âevaluate the matter fairly.â Fairly? What does that mean to you Senator Sessions? Roberts asserted that he would certainly come to the question with an open mind, but with no mention of respect for precedent or stare decisis in his response. Was Roberts telling Sessions what he wanted to hear, or is Robertsâ decision not to mention the precedents that uphold Roe cause for alarm? (5:15 pm)
Candor doesnât seem to be a hallmark of John Robertsâ responses. Careful, perhaps. Measured. Calculated. But candid? Weâve heard âI cannot comment on that because it could be a case before the Courtâ a few too many times to fully come across as candid.
However, he did say that his department in the Reagan administration âencouraged candor.â If thatâs the case, doesnât that mean Robertsâ real opinions were wanted and that is what he gave in those memos? That the client he was representing asked for and received Robertsâ candid opinion? So are Robertsâ attempts to claim that he did not inject personal opinions into his memos because he was âjust working for his clientâ at odds with the statement he made to Senator Feinstein defending his joke on the basis of the environment of âcandorâ encouraged by his employers?
(Just to note: we donât judge Judge Roberts for making the lawyer joke â suggesting homemakers shouldnât be encouraged to become lawyers â we just wish that it would have been funny. But maybe thatâs what passed for humor in the Reagan administration.)
Senator Feinsteinâs questions provided more ground for follow-up: Judge Roberts seemed to assert a conception of individual rights as a zero-sum game â suggesting that giving some people certain rights impinges on the rights of others. We're not sure how Judge Roberts thought end of life decisions would impinge on other person's rights. He seemed to argue that the rights that would be impinged was the right of the legislature to act in this area. Hopefully the Senate will flesh out whether he believes privacy rights can be trumped whenever the legislature acts. (4:57 pm)
Senator Dewine of Ohio covered a lot of ground in his questioning â from civil liberties and national security to free speech and the Americans with Disabilities Act â but didnât press too hard for clear answers. We were glad to hear him raise concerns about the FISA court â an 11-member court that holds secret proceedings reviewing government intelligence actions that may violate civil liberties â and ask Judge Roberts about his role in appointing those judges.
We now know that Judge Roberts believes the FISA judges should be âabove reproachâ given the âunusualâ nature of the court. Dewine went on to discuss his own views on free speech, religion and pornography, with unfortunately little input from Judge Roberts. Hopefully someone will actually ask questions on these vital topics. Dewine also raised concerns about the Supreme Courtâs treatment of Congressional fact-finding â and its dismissal of such findings in its decision to strike down part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Roberts responded that the Congress has an important fact-finding role that courtâs canât do, and that those facts can be very helpful to judges, yadayadayadaâ Weâd like to ask a follow-upâ (4:20 pm)
Senator Kohl asked John Roberts a rather open-ended question about distancing himself from his Reagan-era memos. Broad, yes, but it allowed Roberts the opportunity to meaningfully distance himself from some of the more objectionable views he held. He didnât take advantage of the opportunity. Rather, he prevaricated and avoided the question. If he truly no longer hold these views, wouldnât he be more than willing to admit he doesnât? Or is he scared of alienating conservatives despite protestations that judges do not hold political positions? (3:22 pm)
Remember how we didnât dwell to much on Senator Kylâs remarks yesterday? Well, weâre continuing with that theme. Heâs not saying much, though weâre surprised heâs not in a sweater with a big âRâ on it rather than a suit, such a cheerleader heâs proving to be.
Kyl used his time to ask Roberts about his CV, rather then trying to address anything substantive. Kyl also talked a lot about his views, and what he thought progress is. Granted, weâre not on the circulation list for right-wing talking points, but the impression we got from some of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee is that personal views are immaterial. If thatâs so, why did Senator Kyl dwell so long on his? Maybe he didnât get the full set of talking points?
Roberts didnât say very much this round, but this time it isnât because he was dodging questions and declining to answer so much as he wasnât asked much of anything. (2:49 pm)
In our wrap-up podcast yesterday, we discussed the possibility of Judiciary Committee action figures (with, of course, kung fu grip). We didnât have Joe Biden in mind, really, when we discussed such a (great) possibility, but his performance today shows that he could be Joe âThe Terrierâ Biden.
After a few minutes of ruminating about strike zones (hey, where have we heard that before?), he finally âgot to it.â
With Joe Bidenâs usualâ flair. Oh, okay, combativeness. But beneath the bombast were some very pointed questions on Robertsâ views on gender equality and the Ginsburg standard.
Senator Biden examined Robertsâ stances in memos relating to gender discrimination. As a young lawyer, he had written that governments could intentionally discriminate against women as long as they had a rational reason for it (such as it would cost more money to treat women equally with men). Roberts squirmed a bit, but once he got the memos, he fell back on his old argument that, as a staff lawyer, didnât have positions. Biden wasnât having it. Use of phrases like âstrongly agreeâ indicate that John Roberts had a view on these matters at the time he was writing.
Biden also very clearly pointed out the inconsistencies in Robertsâ approach to answering questions. Ginsburg answered a much broader spectrum of questions than did Judge Roberts, despite his claims he was just following Justice Ginsburgâs lead.
Thereâs more there, but, like everyone in the hearing room, we think we need to take a few breaths before getting back to it. (1:00 pm)
Weâve had our first judicial filibuster. Or at least a filibuster by a judge. In the sharpest exchange of the hearings thus far, Senator Kennedy questioned Roberts about voting rights and other civil rights issues.
Rather than giving clear, succinct answers to these questions, Roberts chose to opine at length on the Reagan Administration's views and the state of the law rather than give his own views. Roberts also tried to toe a fine line of making sure conservatives would not become angered if he disavowed his Reagan-era memos advocating the restriction of certain aspects of the Voting Rights Act without agreeing that he believed in the statements he wrote. We heard a response of âI was merely representing my client.â No agreement, no disavowal even when asked about memos in which he had specifically given his own views, such as the application of Title IX to schools that receive federal financial aid. But, the measures that Roberts advocated would have so undermined advances in civil rights and equality, they must be disavowed. As a Supreme Court justice, John Roberts would become one of nine ultimate authorities on the protection of rights. A restrictive and dismissive view of such critical protections does not bode well for his potential position as an adjudicator and protector of hard-won rights and freedoms. (12:00 pm)
From hardball to softball. (That was an easy sports reference, so we came up with it all by ourselves. Please donât ask us anything else about the subject, though.) Senator Hatch just questioned John Roberts. He concluded his first round of questioning with a high, soft lob (hey, weâre on fire! Though we think that might be tennis so weâre mixing our metaphorsâ). âAs chief justice, would you encourage other lawyers to engage in pro bono work?â Donât put him on the spot too much, Senator Hatch!
A fairly interesting statement did come out of Senator Hatchâs questioning period, notably Robertsâ statement that when a court or judge votes in a way to overturn legislation like in the Morrison case (dealt with the Violence Against Women Act), they are not engaging in activism, they are simply âwrong.â An interesting view. So, when courts expand rights they are activists, but when they restrict rights, rights protected in congressional legislation, they are wrong but not activists? Funny how that works. (11:30 am)
Itâs a one-two punch. Senators are playing hardball. Itâsâ well, never mind, we just exhausted our capability of coming up with sporting metaphors (we have help with those most of the time). But Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee just gave Roberts a very thorough questioning. He addressed issues ranging from torture to detainment to the war time powers of Congress. Roberts had some fairly slick answers on those topics.
Then we came to the Gwinnett v. Franklin case. Long (and horrible) story short, Christine Franklin, a high school student was harassed and raped by a coach and teacher at her school. She sued the Gwinnett School District under provisions of Title IX.
During his time in the Solicitor Generalâs office, Judge Roberts argued for denying Franklin the opportunity to seek damages â the only meaningful remedy available to her. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with Judge Roberts. Writing for six justices, Justice White condemned the argument that Judge Roberts advanced for leaving the girl âno remedy at all.â
So Robertsâ arguments in the hearing that this student could have sought âother remediesâ such as âback payâ are absurd on their face. Robertsâ approach left her with no avenue, no matter how many different ways he tried to explain âstatutory interpretations.â Senator Leahy wasnât buying it, either. What sort of recompense for her suffering could this girl expect in a law interpreted by Roberts? None. (10:58)
Wow, itâs quite a morning. We were struggling to wake up a bit, dragging despite a grande vanilla latte (too bad we donât like espresso), but then Senator Specter started his questioning. Charts! Stare decisis! Privacy! Roe vs. Wade! Evaded questions! Did we mention charts?
Senator Specter engaged in a very thoughtful back and forth with John Roberts over stare decisis, the legal principle of respecting precedent. Roberts had an answer for these questions, even if they were non-answers. (Roberts seems to have gotten the message from the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee about answering questions: donât. There was a lot of âI decline to answer.â)
And then came the chart. A list of the 38 cases that the Court had taken that challenged Roe. Roberts again nimbly stepped around a direct answer, instead going back to his buzzwords of âstabilityâ and âhumilty.â But it seems Roberts is taking the advice of Senator Kyl. et. al. that evasion, and in some cases outright refusal to answer (albeit very neatly phrased) is better than elucidation. (10:15 am)

SCW September 12, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:33:00 GMT
Judiciary Committee - day 1

SCW September 12, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:30:00 GMT
SCW 15

SCW 15

Intro

Judiciary Committee Hearing Day 1 roundtable

Sen. Specter (R-PA)

Sen. Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Schumer (D-NY)

Sen. Kyl (R-AZ)

Magic 8 Ball

Will JR follow the advice of the Senate Republicans regarding not answering issue-based questions?

Will Hasbro release a line of judiciary committee action figures with kung fu grip?

Close

Shownotes â podcast badge at supremecourtwatch.org

Comments â podcast@afj.org

Live blog - Day 1

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:20:00 GMT
Note... the live blogging will be posted here as soon as possible during the day. For the most up-to-date versions go to the source of the Insider Scoop here.
And the first day of hearings has wrapped. Weâre a bit tired (though apparently not as tired as some of the senators and their staff who seemed to be unaware they were visible in the background. We thought about doing a blind item on which senator was caught picking his or her teeth live on national television, but then thought that was perhaps too much), and the actual hearing (you know, questions and answers) hasn't even started yet.
Judge Roberts gave what appeared to be an extemporaneous opening statement (he has had years of lawyerly training in front of the Supreme Court after allâbut his eloquence is not at question here) that touched on the issues raised by many of the senators. His answers, however, must go much deeper than comforting buzzwords like âmodesty,â âhumilityâ and ârestraint.â He MUST answer the substantive questions in a substantive fashion.
He said that a judge acts as an umpire, just calls balls and strikes. That's true, but some umpires have a low strike zone, some have a high one, and some change their strike zone depending on who's pitching. At the risk of going too far with this metaphor, the Committee needs to know what kind of umpire Roberts will be.
There was a theme for the day, as we noted before. Republicans repeated over and over again their talking points about why Judge Roberts should not answer questions. We heard about Justice Ginsburgâs hearings and the way she did or did not answer questions. There was quite a disconnect between reality vs. rhetoric on Ginsburg and on what conservatives once thought judges should be asked. Take a look. Weâll have more for you tomorrow as we get into the questioning portion of the hearing. (4:12 pm)
Senator Durbin urged the senators to evaluate Judge Roberts based on one criterion: whether Judge Roberts will restrict or expand individual freedom. Will Judge Roberts stand up for civil rights in the vein of Judge Frank Johnson--a Republic judge from the South who was branded a judicial activist for protecting the rights of African Americans to protest during the civil rights movement? As Senator Durbin recognized, judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, have a profound impact on our lives. It is important to assess what impact Judge Roberts will have, if confirmed, on issues involving privacy rights, the power of the executive branch during the war on terror, and the separation of church and state. The American people deserve a nominee who will protect us all, one who will expand not narrow rights, and one who will do justice without fear or favor. To ensure that Judge Roberts would be such a justice on the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts needs to answer the questions posed to him during the hearings. (3:30 pm)
The then and now game is not treating the Republican members of the committee kindly. First Orrin Hatch and now Charles Grassley. Senator Feingold just brought up remarks Senator Grassley made years before about the importance of asking about judicial philosophy-a slightly different tack than the good senator from Iowa took today.
And now the junior senator from Wisconsin (On Wisconsin!) is making the case for releasing the solicitor general documents. Does the administration have something to hide? Feingold points out that by stonewalling, the White House is doing Roberts no favors, but creates troubling questions about what those documents might contain.
All in all, a refreshing blast of common sense from Sen. Feingold. (We expect nothing less from the fine state of Wisconsin. We're not showing our biases here, are we?) As many legal scholars have been saying in recent weeks, there's no reason the Senate should be kept in the dark about Judge Roberts' views on the law before voting on his confirmation. After all, Feingold and legal scholars say, we know what the sitting justices think already, and Supreme Court arguments are invariably geared to how they think. If there's nothing untoward about knowing how sitting justices approach the law, why should the Senate and the American people be forced to know anything less as it relates to Judge Roberts? (2:07 pm)
Senator Feinstein just made a very powerful statement on what the true impact of Roe v. Wade was on society, with a chilling vision of what women facedâfrom morbidity to imprisonmentâbefore Roe became the law of the land. This is why it is critical senators ask a nominee their views on issues like privacy and unenumerated rightsâwe must protect the march of progress this country has made. (2:00 pm)
Here's a shocker-the approach of Republicans and Democrats to these hearings differs sharply. We know! Normally they skip merrily hand in hand through the tulips, but not today. We'd tell you all about what Senator Kyl said, but it was, to be kind, more of the same.
Republicans are focusing on the process-trying to set the stage for a justified evasion of questions by the nominee. Our Magic 8 Ball indicates this may not tell us a lot about Judge Roberts judicial philosophy. His record backs up the 8 ball.
Meanwhile, their Democratic counterpoints are focused on a constitutional vision, the idea that, as Senator Biden put it a vision "that allows for expanding protections for liberty and personal dignity and giving the national government the ability to protect the powerless." (Senator Biden also made probably the most provocative comment on the hearings thus far-though we are only an hour or so in-saying that based on Roberts' record thus far, he would vote no on the nomination.)
The approach by the Democrats is backed up by the American people. According to recent polling, Americans by a large majority think that not only is it proper to question a nominee about their views, but that the Senate must ask these questions. A majority also believes that a refusal to answer questions on important legal issues would justify rejecting the nominee. Sounds different than the line the American people's elected representatives were trying to take, huh?
Senator DeWine of Ohio bucked the Republican trend a bit, actually talking about the Constitution rather than relying on talking points and platitudes. (We also want one of those snazzy water bottles with the Senate seal on them like the senator had next to him. Our nerdy friends back home would be very jealous.) Let's hope the rest of his compatriots on the committee realize how important this approach is--the approach of actually discussion a nominees views--in truly examining a potential lifetime appointee to our nation's highest court. (1:46 pm)
Do we have a theme for these hearings? We certainly do on the Republican side of the aisle. Senator Grassley from Iowa joined the chorus of his peers in trying to claim that these hearings were not the proper forum for real questioning. Grassley stressed "civility." Well, funny thing, civility and thoroughness are not mutually exclusive, as just about every case argued before the Supreme Court demonstrates.
Grassley also belabored the idea of checks and balances and accountability. Frankly, we're a bit surprised by those who have so clearly pre-judged Roberts and given him a free pass want to dwell on this point. After all, Roberts writings (the one's we've been allowed to see, in any event) indicate the checks and balances aren't so important to him, at least not as important as expanding presidential power beyond all reasonable restrictions and curtailing judicial authority to protect individual rights.
Grassley also said that the people's elected representatives should have the power to legislate and that the courts should have minimal involvement. Yet Roberts has, time and again, advocated the position of a Court to limit congressional authority to pass laws that protect our rights and freedoms. So far, we're hearing a lot of talking points from the Republican senators at the expense of ignoring the facts before us in Roberts' record. The Senate needs to take its advice and consent role seriously, not become a PR machine for the nominee. (1:09 pm)
Oh, Senator Kennedy. We knew we had a soft spot for you for a reason, and not just because you sound like Mayor Quimby. The senior senator from Massachusetts is a lion of the Senate, with a deep commitment to civil rights.
Senator Kennedy pointed out that we cannot continue to ignore the Americans who are left behind and that we must confront the injustice, inequality and gross disparities that are evident in our society.
Kennedy rightly describes these hearings as Judge Robertsâ interview with the American people. We have a right to know what Judge Roberts thinks, and the Senate is acting as our interviewer. So the question that keeps popping into our head is: âWhy is the White House withholding critical documents from Robertsâ time in the solicitor generalâs office?â The Senate needs those documents to fully do its job.
Senator Kennedy laid out the issues at stakeâprogress, equality, accountability. See the full text of his statement here. (1:00 pm).
A second Repubican senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah (defying conventional political tie conventional wisdom in a very nice gold striped number), seems to be trying to lay the groundwork that itâs okay for Judge Roberts not to answer questions he find uncomfortable. Nice try. Roberts has duty to answer the questions of the Senate. They have a Constitutionally prescribed co-equal role!
Hatch tried to bring up a Harding nomination from years ago, citing a same-day nomination and confirmation as some kind of gold standard. Because to respect the separation of powers that Hatch praised so highly the Senate should be a rubber stamp for the executive branch? No. Speed is not the standard here, thoroughness of review is.
Senator Hatch himself in 1997 said â"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997) (12:35 pm)
And theyâre off! The hearings have begun, and Senator Specter kicked off proceedings with his opening statement. He made a couple of comments that were, if nothing else, surprising. He seemed to call the Supreme Court of nowâthe Rehnquist Court, we might addâas a super legislature. (Judge Roberts has, at times been called a Rehnquist protÃgÃeâhe clerked for the late chief justice early in his career.)
Specter is largely focused on the Court vis-Ã-vis congressional authority, referencing the Violence Against Women Act and Americans with Disabilities Act among others.
Specter belabored the point of answering questions and that Roberts could choose to answer or not answer as the situation applies. Just as senators have a duty to ask proper questionsâand judicial philosophy certainly falls under that rubricâthe nominee must answer all appropriate questions. Donât believe the Ginsburg standard hype. Specter called the questioning a âsubtle minuet.â This is a nice metaphor, but this isnât a dance, itâs the future of our country.
Meanwhile, when we were in college, we didnât think that sitting around eating Chinese take-out and watching PBS qualified as a âparty,â but thatâs what people in our office are calling it. (12:20 pm)

Hearing day arrives

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:08:00 GMT

Well, todayâs the day. The Roberts hearings begin. Today is primarily focused on the opening statements from the senators, and tomorrow we will begin the real questioning of Judge Roberts. And there is much questioning to be done. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times has done a nice overview of what topics certain senators are likely to cover, and a series of op-ed contributors to the same publication has provided a list of questions that should be asked of the nominee (all five pieces are accessible from this index.
We here at the Scoop will be live-blogging the hearings to give you an up-to-the minute account of the hearings, from startling statements to revelations to unfortunate neckwear choices. Your courtside and color commentary starts at noon. (We knew we were telling our mothers the truth when we said we could so get paid for watching television.)
In other Court-related news, speculation continues to run rampant over the will he/wonât he nominate Attorney General Gonzales to fill departing Justice Sandra Day OâConnorâs seat. Senator Arlen Specter threw another log on the fire with remarks on Meet the Press that it was âtoo soonâ to nominate Gonzales for the high court. There are a number of political tensions the White House would face with a Gonzales nomination, both from the right and left, so perhaps Senator Specter was providing cover for the White House, or, given his long-standing service in the Senate and his position as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he got a sense that a Gonzales nomination, on top of the already-controversial Roberts pick, would not go over well.

This week on SCW

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:09:00 GMT
Hearings start at 11:30 AM today for John Roberts' nomination for Chief Justice of the United States. Nuff said. We'll be posting hearing summary shows every day (some later than others due to our intrepid producer's travel obligations).
For the true junkies, tune into the hearings live on C-SPAN radio or C-SPAN 3 (channel 372716768 on some cable systems... check your local listings), or stream it from C-SPAN.org or from C-SPAN's Capitol Hearings site. The Senate Judiciary Committee also has a link to a live feed on its web page. C-SPAN 2 will rebroadcast the hearings at 9 PM.
Here is what C-SPAN says regarding its coverage:
Roberts Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Monday -- 11:30 am ET
On Monday, the confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, begin at 11:30 am ET. We'll be airing them live as they happen on C-SPAN3 and C-SPAN Radio, or watch anytime online at c-span.org. And every day of the hearings, we will re-air them in their entirety in prime time at 9 pm ET on C-SPAN2 when you're home to watch.
Check local listings for C-SPAN2 and C-SPAN3. C-SPAN Radio is available in the Washington, D.C., area at 90.1 FM, and nationwide on Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio.

SCW September 8, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:49:00 GMT
The Rehnquist Standard; Will questions Roberts

SCW September 8, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:47:00 GMT
SCW 13

SCW 14

Â          Intro

Â          Roberts hearing previewâ again

o         The âRehnquist Standardâ

o         Any last thoughts on the hearings since our hearing preview (shownotes here)?

Â          George Will has Some Questions For the Nominee

o         Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School says, "On historical grounds, it would not be at all implausible to say that the ratifiers of the [Equal Protection] Clause understood it to permit racial segregation as well as affirmative action." So what help are "historical grounds" when construing the Constitution?

o         The doctrine of stare decisis -- respect for precedent -- gives the law predictability and has given citizens due notice of what is probably required or permitted. There are, however, occasions -- for example, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and the constitutionality of racial segregation -- for abandoning precedent. What characterizes such occasions?

o         Others that pop out to the roundtable?

Â          OâConnor vacancy

o         Ron Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times

Â          [B]y redirecting Roberts to the Rehnquist seat, Bush set himself back to square one on a more complex political test: filling the swing seat being vacated by retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

o         Bush Urges Senators to Focus on Roberts, Not Next Nominee, Los Angeles Times

Â          Bush joked about the guessing game surrounding his decision. âThe list is wide open, which should create some good speculation here in Washington,â Bush said after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. âAnd make sure you notice when I said that I looked right at Al Gonzales, so we can really create speculation.â

Â          Magic 8 Ball

o         Will the Supreme Court nomination hearings displace the Katrina recovery as the top story?

o         Is the Presidentâs ânotice Iâm looking at Al Gonzales when I talk about nomineesâ a message to conservative critics of Gonzales?

o         Will Timâs travel schedule and podcasting duties next week cause a massive case of laryngitis?

Â          Close

o         Soundseeing tour definition

o         Shownotes blog and subscription links â click on the podcast badge at supremecourtwatch.org

o         Email - podcast@afj.org

Standards

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:38:00 GMT

Yes, Virginia, there is a Rehnquist standard!
In the past few weeks, youâve probably heard right-wing groups casually throwing around the term âGinsburg standard.â Well, thereâs a new standard in town, the Rehnquist standard.
When William Rehnquist was nominated for elevation to chief justice, even then-President Ronald Reagan noted that the release of documents was important because âSupreme Court nominations are so important that I did not want my nominees to enter upon their responsibilities under any cloud.â Documents from Chief Justice Rehnquistâs time in the Justice Department were provided by the Reagan administration, despite previous claims of privilege.
We are in the same situation again. Judge Roberts is now nominated to be Chief Justice of the United States. If confirmed, he would be the head of our nationâs judiciary. The Bush administration has been stonewalling on releasing critical memos from Robertsâ time in the Solicitor Generalâs office. But, as William Rehnquistâs elevation to chief justice shows, the stakes are now different and critical documents must be released.

Funeral for the Chief Justice

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:27:00 GMT

Sorry weâve been quiet and short with you in these last couple of daysâwe experienced some minor technical difficulties that have now been corrected. (NOTE - We've been fine here at the podcast page, it's the main page that was hit with a gremlin or two.)
Today is Chief Justice William Rehnquistâs funeral. A service for family and friends will be held at St. Matthewâs here in DC, with a private burial at Arlington National Cemetary. Again, our thoughts and sympathies are with the Chief Justiceâs friends and family.
Today's post, again, is short, but be prepared for a deluge of information starting tomorrow. In the meantime, if you must have your fix, why not check out our podcast (linked in case you missed the highly-visible graphic on the homepage), which is chock-full of commentary and analysis on the events of the past few days.

SCW September 6, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:38:00 GMT
Roberts nominated for Chief Justice

SCW September 6, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:20:00 GMT
SCW 13

SCW 13

Â          Intro

Â          Rehnquist funeral is Wednesday in DC

Â          Roberts nomination withdrawn!

o         â and he is immediately re-nominated as Chief Justice

Â          President Names Roberts as Choice for Chief Justice, New York Times

Â          Roberts Tapped for Chief Justice, Los Angeles Times

o         OâConnor seat is now without a nominee

o         Roberts is now up to be the 17th Chief Justice

o         Hearings are delayed and will begin Monday 9/12 at noon

o         Until a new CJ is confirmed, Justice Stevens will assume the role as senior AJ

Â          OâConnor replacement part deux

o         Second Court Vacancy Triggers a Scramble, Washington Post

Â          âMany conservatives howled last summer at the prospect of Gonzales replacing O'Connor because they view him as unreliable on abortion, affirmative action and other key issues, and they renewed the complaints within hours of Rehnquist's death.â

Â          "âI don't know what they get by alienating the last remaining 35 percent of the country that's really on his side,â said a conservative ally of the White House who would comment only if granted anonymity.â

o         No word yet on a replacement nominee

o         OâConnor continues to serve on the Court until her replacement is confirmed

Â          O'Connor's Staying on Court May Carry Little Weight, Los Angeles Times

Â          October 5^th is the scheduled oral argument for Oregonâs Measure 16 Death with Dignity Law, one of the more controversial cases on the docket

Â          Roberts hearings

o         No fundamental changes in structure for the CJ hearings

o         Why, more than ever, we need to review the Solicitor General documents

o         Democrats Pledge More Intense Scrutiny of Roberts, Washington Post

o         Democrats, hoping to moderate Bush's next pick, plan to keep heat on Roberts, The Oregonian

Â          Magic 8 Ball

o         Has the President already decided who his next nominee is?

o         Will the second nomination be held until after Robertsâ nomination is decided in the Senate?

o         Will we have to wait a Sopranos-like 18 months for new episodes of the best show on TV, Entourage?

Â          Close

o         Shownotes blog and subscription links â click on the podcast badge at supremecourtwatch.org

o         Email - podcast@afj.org

Roberts nominated for Chief Justice

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:49:00 GMT
President Bush has just nominated John Roberts for Chief Justice of the United States. AP has the story here. It reports confirmation hearings will begin either Thursday or next Monday to account for Chief Justice Rehnquist's funeral on Wednesday. Stay tuned.
UPDATE - The Judiciary Committee will announce the hearing schedule tomorrow.

SCW September 4, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:38:00 GMT
Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1924-2005)

SCW September 4, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:13:00 GMT
SCW 12

SCW 12

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died at the age of 80

CNN

USA Today

Washington Post

New York Times

Boston Herald

AFJ statement

Legacy

One of the longest serving CJs

Advanced the role of the CJ on the Court

Master administrator

Highest respect for the history of the Court

Replacement

Two roles to be nominated, with two options:

Elevate a current Associate Justice to Chief Justice and nominate a new Associate Justice

Nominate a new Chief Justice

Weâll address these in greater detail in a future podcast

AFJ fact sheet on replacement of multiple Justices

Our thoughts, sympathy and prayers go out to the Chief Justiceâs friends and family

AFJ statement on the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:32:00 GMT
See our statement here. Our thoughts and sympathies are with Chief Justice Rehnquistâs friends and family at this difficult time.

Breaking news

Alliance for Justice — Sun, 4 Sep 2005 02:44:00 GMT
Chief Justice Rehnquist has died. CNN has the story. Developing.

Help the Gulf states

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:29:00 GMT

We want to take a break from our regularly-scheduled musings on the Supreme Court for a moment. The devastation wrought by Katrina is horrific. Our thoughts are with the millions of people affected by this disaster. We here at the Scoop, knowing that our readers are the sort to take action and get involved, encourage everyone to do what they canâmonetary donations, care packages, giving blood. For more information on what is most needed, the American Red Cross is a good place to start. Weâve also received word that the United Way of Acadiana is coordinating the feeding of a huge number of refugees, so they can use your help, too. Do what you can. You can do something.
Judge Robertsâ hearings begin after the Labor Day weekendâthings kick-off at 1:30 on September 6th with opening statements from senators. In the following days, we will hear from John Roberts and testimony from witnesses both for and against his confirmation. (The latest edition of our podcast explains what the hearing week will look like in more detail.)
As cheesy as it sounds, this is a historic moment. If you are a regular reader, you are probably pretty into this stuff and might like the opportunity to see the hearings live and in person. Well, too bad. Radical shifts in procedure have been introduced for the Roberts hearing, unprecedented shifts that will limit the publicâs ability to get into the hearings.

Passes are required for, but still do not guarantee, admission. The hearing room is equipped to handle 250 people, but space is being allocated for only 72. Standing will not be allowed, even though it has for every past Supreme Court hearing.

Citizens are being denied the opportunity to watch these historical proceedings of their government in action because of excessive, and unnecessary, restrictions.

Why? We donât know. (Security does not account for these measures.) But there is something you can doâcontact Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and let him know that the hearings should be an open and transparent process and that any and all unnecessary restrictions should be lifted.

SCW September 1, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:23:00 GMT
The pre-hearing edition

SCW September 1, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:00:00 GMT
SCW 11

SCW 11

o          Intro

o         Reunited after Vegas

o         Katrina relief - please consider donating to the relief charity of your choice, such as the American Red Cross

o          News

o         Reaction to AFJ opposition

o          Alliance assails Roberts on rights, Washington Post

o          Coalition assails high court nominee, The State (SC)

o         Law professors oppose John Roberts

o       Law Professors on Opposition to John Roberts Nomination, C-SPAN

o          Erwin Chemerinsky and Peter Edelman represent 100 law professors from around the country

o         "Hey we found another box!"

o          Reagan and Bush libraries release more documents

o          Reagan Library Finds Thousands of Additional Roberts Documents, New York Times

o         In brief

o          Roberts' handlers are Sen. Bayh and Sen. Warner in USA Today

o          Roberts' hearings prep was hard in New York Times

o          Pre-hearing special

o         Major players

o          Snapshot of judiciary committee members, AP

o          The Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington Post

o         Hearing schedule

o         Themes we see going into the hearings

o         Questions we would like asked

o         Coverage plans

o          Soundseeing tour of the line-up

o          Daily wrap shows

o          Final hearing summary show

o          Magic 8 Ball

o         Will the Roberts hearing contain any major surprises or revelations?

o         Will Jay Sekulow approach Tim at the hearings and thank him for the compliment to his hair?

o          Law professorsâ clips

o         Tipping the balance

o         Every piece of paper points in the same direction

o         Privacy primer

o          Close

o         Shownotes blog - allianceforjustice.libsyn.com

o         Email - podcast@afj.org

o         More information - supremecourtwatch.org

Ginsburg Standard

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 1 Sep 2005 03:34:00 GMT

Every few days, it seems that the right has a new rallying cry, a new battle flag, a new standard, to wave. (And, to channel our study of Macbeth in high school, these talking points are generally full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. We'll leave you to recall the rest of the quotation to find out who tells the tale.) For the past few weeks, the official mouthpieces of the right keep trying to hoist what they call the "Ginsburg Standard." Everyone's favorite calm and reasoned commentator Robert Novak first raised the point (such as it is) several weeks ago. Progress for America brought it up again yesterday. Too bad they are so married to a point they can't let it go even when it has been thoroughly refuted.
What is the Ginsburg Standard? Or should we say the so-called Ginsburg Standard? The claim is that Justice Ginsburg refused to answer questions about her views on controversial issues. Therefore, the right is claiming, John Roberts should be allowed, and even encouraged, to evade senators' questions regarding his views on critical issues. There are so many things wrong with that, we don't really know where to begin.
The thing is, Justice Ginsburg did answer questions and, in fact the Judiciary Committee noted that they knew far more about her views on controversial issues like reproductive rights than they had learned about any previous nominee. Furthermore, encouraging John Roberts to be evasive in his confirmation hearings shows a contempt for the constitutional role of the Senate.
Senator Charles Schumer will be addressing the American Constitution Society about "the myth of the Ginsburg precedent" tomorrow. Stay tuned. Also, for a good look at the flaws in the argument, the National Women's Law Center has put together a very good document, as has the American Constitution Society.

SCW August 30, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 03:59:00 GMT
AFJ opposes John Roberts nomination

SCW August 30, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 03:58:00 GMT
SCW 9

SCW 10 - Special Edition

o           Intro - Tim's Long Mic Cord

o           News

o          AFJ opposes Roberts

o          AFJ's final pre-hearing report released today

o           107 pages for all of you who need late-night reading (or doorstops)

o           We reviewed tens of thousands of documents with help from 10 volunteers plus our staff legal team of five.

o           Press conference with President Nan Aron (Real Media via C-SPAN)

o          Senator Leahy met with John Roberts for a second time

o           Roberts Leaves Meeting With Homework, New York Times

o           Gave John Roberts some the famous (at least to us) Bybee memo in which then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee argued that the President could order soldiers to torture prisoners even though the U.S. law makes this illegal. Why did Leahy do this?

o           Meet John Roberts - wait for regular edition

o           Magic 8 Ball

o          Will Roberts disavow reasoning of the Bybee memo?

o          Will we be able to keep any future podcasts this short?

o          Will Jimmy Smits win the next election on West Wing?

o           Press conference clips

o           Close

o          Shownotes blog - allianceforjustice.libsyn.com

o          Email - podcast@afj.org

o          More information - supremecourtwatch.org

Opposition day

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:58:00 GMT

We have a team of over 10 lawyers here at Alliance for Justice, and for the past several weeks, they have been poring over documents, briefs, statements, memos and countless other documents to get an understanding of John Robertsâ views on the law. What we (okay, they) uncovered, was not reassuring. So, after extensive research, fact checking and re-checking, Alliance for Justice has decided to oppose John Robertsâ nomination to the Supreme Court. We have the report for youâ105 pages of fun. Beach reading for your Labor Day weekend.
Honestly, though, this is a thorough and comprehensive look at the Roberts record we know about. We may be a bit biased since it is our report, but we think this is required reading for those who really want to educate themselves about John Robertsâ record.

AFJ announces opposition at 10 AM EDT

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:22:00 GMT
Check out C-SPAN for the press conference. We'll discuss this in a special edition podcast later today.
UPDATE... if you'd like to catch the press conference again, it will be rebroadcast at 5:30 PM EDT on C-SPAN 2.

This week on SCW

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:26:00 GMT
Sorry for the late post folks! The reasons shall be revealed in the podcasts this week. Podcasts, plural? You betcha! This week on SCW... a special edition podcast tomorrow, followed by a judiciary committee hearing preview on Thursday. Point those podcatchers to our feed and stay tuned... we're cranking up the coverage as we turn the corner from Labor Day to Roberts question day(s).

Happy Friday

Alliance for Justice — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:48:00 GMT
Everyone at the Insider Scoop is busily preparing for the upcoming hearings, so we'll have to wait until next week for the wit and wisdom of our favorite Supreme Court nomination bloggers. (Personally, I'm still savoring the astroturf reference from last edition.)
Join us next week for a fresh helping of the Insider Scoop and, of course, the next podcast. Have a great weekend...

Creative astroturf

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:25:00 GMT

Apparently, people debate the use of Astroturf in sports. Some of us here at the Scoop have a better idea about this than others. We all know, however, that there is no substituting genuine engagement by people in the political process.
Other groups seems to be taking a dimmer view of this. In the past two days, weâve seen support for John Roberts from âWomen for Robertsâ and âProject 21,â an organization calling itself a civil rights group. Funny thing. Both of these events were sponsored by Creative Response Concepts. They sound like a PR firm because they are a PR firmâ A highly partisan PR firm behind such fun forays into truth and high-minded debate like the Swift Boat Veterans for âTruth.â They are engaging in something called astroturfingâtrying to create the illusion of grassroots support where none exists.
CRC has a history with the Bush administration, and these events showing âgenuineâ support for Roberts are nothing more than a part of the carefully-choreographed White House script for the Roberts nomination.
Robertsâ record shows high troubling stances on womenâs rights and civil rights. But the spokespeople for Creative Response Concepts didnât want to go into that. So, we did it for them. Find out who CRC really is and what Robertsâ record looks like in terms of womenâs and civil rights.

SCW August 24, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:45:00 GMT
Doc deadline passes; committee hearing details - allianceforjustice.libsyn.com

SCW August 24, 2005 Shownotes

Alliance for Justice — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:42:00 GMT
SCW 9

SCW 9

Intro

News

Document deadline passes

No memos from Bush I assistant solicitor general stint

Fight over Roberts memos doesn't end with deadline, USA Today

The 16 cases â AFJ report

Alliance for Justice press conference last Friday (Real Media)

Sen. Leahy on NPR's Morning Edition (8/23)

Ethical lapse or nothing of significance?

Ethics question for Roberts, New York Newsday

Roberts Urged to Address Ethics Issue, AP

Ruled on a case regarding the Guantanimo detainees while simultaneously interviewing for the nomination

Conflict of interest or how things are done?

Judiciary committee schedule released

Link to 8/17 Specter-Leahy letter

Tuesday 9/6, opening statements

Wednesday 9/7 first round of questions begins

Opposition and support

PFAW announces opposition - report

Women for Roberts a front group?

Senator Specter strikes again

August 23rd letter to Roberts (PDF)

Coming next week - final pre-hearing report

Meet John Roberts - Access to Courts

Standing

Who gets to sue in court as a party

Wrote a 1993 law review article hailing the stricter standing limits in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife authored by Justice Scalia

Environmental citizen suits blocked

Roberts and Scalia: Standing Side by Side, Legal Times

"Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an authority on topics including standing and administrative law, says that Roberts' beliefs about standing reflect a form of judicial activism."

Too supreme? Where to look to find where John Roberts really stands, Contra Costa Times

Jurisdiction

What power do the courts have to hear a case

Radical attempts to reign in jurisdiction of courts on single issues (abortion, school prayer, pledge of allegiance, marriage, etc.)

Roberts believed it was constitutional, but politically a bad idea - CNN

Even Robert Bork, and his old boss William French Smith disagreed with him - PFAW

Magic 8 Ball

Is a large document dump being readied by the White House for September 5th?

Will the Roberts hearings boost C-SPAN to a ratings victory over Regis and Kelly?

Close

Shownotes blog - allianceforjustice.libsyn.com

Email - podcast@afj.org

More information - supremecourtwatch.org

Separation of powers

Alliance for Justice — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:09:00 GMT

For a federal judge and highly-educated lawyer, John Roberts doesnât seem to have the best grasp of the whole âchecks and balancesâ thing. (Maybe a refresher would be helpful.)
He seems to have almost a ranked order for our branches of govermentâ Executive over Congress, Congress over the courts. Recently-released documents indicate that Roberts holds an expansive view of presidential power-âmemos indicate he believed that the president should be able to wage war âwithout the interference of Congress,â and also strongly supported presidential recess appointments in the face of Congressional opposition.
That is not to say that Congress gets left out in the cold in Robertsâ hierarchy. No, no. Roberts was a staunch advocate of court-stripping. And not the fun page-99-of-America-the-Book kind of way, either. Roberts felt that it was perfectly reasonable to limit the courtsâ jurisdiction over certain (politicized) issues like choice and desegregation. (He did admit it may not be the smartest choice politically, constitutionality issues aside.)
So, in John Robertsâ eyes, it would seem that while the branches of government are separate, they are certainly not equal.

New look, new functions

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:04:00 GMT
Just because we look out for you, our loyal listeners, we've made a few changes here at the shownotes blog. First, it's a new and improved look. Second, take a look at the built-in player over on the right hand side of the screen... be a multitasker and listen to us at the same time you read the shownotes or the Scoop!

Access

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:45:00 GMT

Hope everyone had a good weekend. We at The Scoop woke up to an article in The Washington Post that reminded us why we are continuing to have that uneasy feeling about one John Roberts. Set aside political philosophy for a moment and consider the structure of government. The judiciary stands as the only means for an individual to get a hearing on the law when there has been some sort of harm, whether that harm came from an individual, a corporation, or the government. It is a bedrock principle of our democracy.
So why has John Roberts wanted to limit Americans' ability to protect their rights? The Post article describes the movement amongst conservatives to limit access to federal courts by restricting technicalities for admission like "standing" (limits on the person able to make a claim) and "justiciability" (limits on the powers a court has to hear a claim). It should come as no surprise that Roberts has been wanting to jack up the limits on both of these since he was a young attorney in the Reagan administration. So, even if Congress passes laws to protect civil rights and the environment, they are rendered completely useless because there is no place to go.
And John Roberts is perfectly ok with that.

This week on SCW

Alliance for Justice — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:00:00 GMT
Things are starting to heat up a bit out there, and we're not talking about the "so hot you can fry an egg on them" sidewalks of the District of Columbia... we're a mere few weeks away from the scheduled start to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on John Roberts' nomination to the high court, and we're still waiting for a variety of documents from his years in the Reagan and Bush administrations. What's the hold-up? Well, if you've been reading them like we have, you'll find the more you know, the less you like about Roberts' judicial philosophy.
Ahh, but we digress. This week on the podcast... more on the continuing revelations from the docs we do have... another segment of Meet John Roberts, and, of course, a brand new Magic 8 Ball. There might be a couple of shows this week, so keep your podcatchers tuned into the feed!

Weekend viewing

Alliance for Justice — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:15:00 GMT
Did you miss the 11AM press conference yesterday hosted by Alliance for Justice and our fellow coaltion partners of IndependentCourt.org? Surf over to C-SPAN.org this weekend and take a listen here (Real Media required). Also, we'll be taking another look at Roberts' 2003 testimony before the Judiciary Committee for his ultimately successful nomionation to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Just a refresher thanks to C-SPAN, tonight at 7 PM EDT. Have a good weekend!

SCW August 18, 2005

Alliance for Justice — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:14:00 GMT
Doc dumps, spooky sequels and Senate Democrats