Sam Alito Judicial Hearings...

[AuralAssassin]

I don't have a fancy article or a link to a fancy article, but I wanted to hear some ideas.

Thus far, as I'm watching the hearings, it appears as though Sam Alito is going to be an open minded and fair member of the supreme court.

He's fucking insanely smart, and has answered about 98% of the questions they've asked. He is packing some SERIOUS knowledge of case law--this guy should be confirmed. No political affiliation here, just my opinion based upon what I've seen thus far.

[zerojunkie]

Have they bombarded him with Roe v Wade questions yet?

[Adam D]

Considering the abuse of power coming from the administration these days, I would be extremely cautious about any nominee from Bush that wouldn't at least show skepticism about Bush's behavior considering the Supreme Court is one of the checks on executive abuse.

[AuralAssassin]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Have they bombarded him with Roe v Wade questions yet?

Yes, and he has actually answered them. Shocked the shit out of me, but he's also said that the president isn't above the 4th amendment, even in times of war.

He's suprised me with a lot of his answers, and in a good way. I fully expected him to pander to one side or the other, but he hasn't said anything that could even be confused as being partisan. Every answer(98% of the questions he answered directly) has been on point, calm, cool, collected.

This guy is the real deal. I'd take him over Roberts ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. He's answered more questions honestly than the last 10 nominees for the same position--and he's only one day in.

The usual suspects fired tough questions his way... he floundered when questioned by Schumer(sp) and thats about it... it almost seemed as if the republicans had something to prove--Senator Graham was asking very tough questions... there was cheerleading from some of the GOP, and some of them were very reserved.

All in all, even if he is conservative, he's the best you can expect out of Bush--and the way he was talking, he wasn't too thrilled with the Executive branch trying to bypass FISA.

We'll see how it plays out, but I think the Dems will have a very hard time with a blocking of this vote. I don't think it will come to that, though--he's doing far better than expected.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

Considering the abuse of power coming from the administration these days, I would be extremely cautious about any nominee from Bush that wouldn't at least show skepticism about Bush's behavior considering the Supreme Court is one of the checks on executive abuse.

Who is checking the Supremes? How? When?

Originally Posted by AuralAssassin

All in all, even if he is conservative, he's the best you can expect out of Bush--and the way he was talking, he wasn't too thrilled with the Executive branch trying to bypass FISA.

All in all - my understanding is that Congress and POTUS are essentially in a Seperation of Powers pissing match over who gets to authorize the searchs... POTUS through Executive Order or Congress through FISA... not that they are impermissible searches.... though this won't stop anyone from making as much political hay out of the issue that they can (regardless of party affiliation)

[AuralAssassin]

Originally Posted by xian

All in all - my understanding is that Congress and POTUS are essentially in a Seperation of Powers pissing match over who gets to authorize the searchs... POTUS through Executive Order or Congress through FISA... not that they are impermissible searches.... though this won't stop anyone from making as much political hay out of the issue that they can (regardless of party affiliation)

They aren't legal searches, and all they had to do was use FISA. I'll not even get into it, as it's not what this topic is about.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by AuralAssassin

They aren't legal searches, and all they had to do was use FISA. I'll not even get into it, as it's not what this topic is about.

Originally Posted by AuralAssassin

They aren't legal searches, and all they had to do was use FISA. I'll not even get into it, as it's not what this topic is about.

You've missed the point though.... Congress isn't complaining that the searches were impermissible (except those trying to make political hay) they're claiming that their own "agency" the FISA court gets to issue the orders for taps.... so its not a question of "if" but of "whom." Its a seperation of powers issue not one of permissibility.

this is an advocacy piece but still has interesting commentary on FISA - http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terror.../fisa_faq.html
another - also advocacy - http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html

[AuralAssassin]

Again, I'd rather discuss Alito...

but on the issue of wiretaps and a seperation of powers issue...

the president is NOT PERMITTED to call for those wiretaps without first checking with someone else, or at least REPORTING to someone else, as a system of checks and balances. that is the issue at hand, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary that Bush has the right to bypass ANY AND ALL checks and balances.

People can point out that every president in History did it, and that doesn't make it LEGAL. It is ONLY legal, if the correct means are followed to get to the ends, which were bypassed, illegally.

Originally Posted by xian

You've missed the point though.... Congress isn't complaining that the searches were impermissible (except those trying to make political hay) they're claiming that their own "agency" the FISA court gets to issue the orders for taps.... so its not a question of "if" but of "whom." Its a seperation of powers issue not one of permissibility.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by AuralAssassin

Again, I'd rather discuss Alito...

but on the issue of wiretaps and a seperation of powers issue...

the president is NOT PERMITTED to call for those wiretaps without first checking with someone else, or at least REPORTING to someone else, as a system of checks and balances. that is the issue at hand, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary that Bush has the right to bypass ANY AND ALL checks and balances.

People can point out that every president in History did it, and that doesn't make it LEGAL. It is ONLY legal, if the correct means are followed to get to the ends, which were bypassed, illegally.

why is it "illegal" then?

Not because of FISA - Congress and POTUS are coequal branches... for Congress to simply restrain Executive authority is no more valid than an Executive Order outlawing Congressional action on Affirmative Action.

Congress and POTUS are butting heads - they are not arguing about permissibility

[AuralAssassin]

Originally Posted by xian

why is it "illegal" then?

Not because of FISA - Congress and POTUS are coequal branches... for Congress to simply restrain Executive authority is no more valid than an Executive Order outlawing Congressional action on Affirmative Action.

Congress and POTUS are butting heads - they are not arguing about permissibility

There is a difference between checks and balances, and simply saying that the president doesn't have the authority.

He has the authority to do this, so long as he submits a report, for oversight. That is the issue here, and by no submitting his report to the FISA court, he has violated the rights of a LOT of Americans to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as violated the "privacy"(which is arguable, it calls for LIBERTY in the constitution) of lots of Americans.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by AuralAssassin

There is a difference between checks and balances, and simply saying that the president doesn't have the authority.

He has the authority to do this, so long as he submits a report, for oversight. That is the issue here, and by no submitting his report to the FISA court, he has violated the rights of a LOT of Americans to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as violated the "privacy"(which is arguable, it calls for LIBERTY in the constitution) of lots of Americans.

you misunderatnd both the law and seperation of powers.... I'll leave it at that

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Adam D

Considering the abuse of power coming from the administration these days, I would be extremely cautious about any nominee from Bush that wouldn't at least show skepticism about Bush's behavior considering the Supreme Court is one of the checks on executive abuse.

Do a search on today's back and forth discussions by Sen Leahy and Alito.

Alito makes himself clear on executive power.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by AuralAssassin

I don't have a fancy article or a link to a fancy article, but I wanted to hear some ideas.

Thus far, as I'm watching the hearings, it appears as though Sam Alito is going to be an open minded and fair member of the supreme court.

He's fucking insanely smart, and has answered about 98% of the questions they've asked. He is packing some SERIOUS knowledge of case law--this guy should be confirmed. No political affiliation here, just my opinion based upon what I've seen thus far.

A bright individual who seems to be explaining his opinions and dissents quite well. These senators are dumbfounded.

And Ted Kennedy is going to hell. No doubt.

[AuralAssassin]

Originally Posted by bfp

A bright individual who seems to be explaining his opinions and dissents quite well. These senators are dumbfounded.

And Ted Kennedy is going to hell. No doubt.

Never the less, senators should treat every nominee as a hostile witness, in order to do everything they can to trip them up. After all, this is our one shot to do something about someone NOW.

Republicans aren't exactly asking him tough questions, though I think that was to be expected. We'll see how it works out in the other vein in about 50 years, when these fuckers are all dead.