Bush-Authorized Spying Spills Into Alito Confirmation Hearings

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aSqhae7kMZq4&refer=us

Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. senators challenging Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination are focusing on a potentially combustible issue to raise at the confirmation hearings starting today: the limits of presidential power.

Senators say Alito's writings endorsing a strong executive have taken on new significance since the disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized eavesdropping on American citizens without court approval.

Democrats have decided the issue is so politically potent that they are leaving questions on abortion mainly to Republicans -- a tactic that runs the risk of offending some of their strongest supporters. The intense focus on presidential power has unnerved some women's rights groups, which have traditionally played a central role in Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Even two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, say they will query Alito on the responsibility of the courts to constrain presidential authority. The spying ``raises very fundamental questions about how we proceed to gather information, fundamental questions on privacy and the Bill of Rights,'' Specter says.

...more...

...we can't AFFORD to talk about the abortion issue right now. We HAVE to keep the destruction of the constitution and the newly imperial presidency at the forefront.

Democrats Ready to Go After Alito
High Court Nominee's Memos Opposing Abortion Likely to Be Focal Points at Hearings

Alito wrote two memos in 1985 that rocked political circles when they were made public last November. In one, an application for a promotion in the Reagan administration, Alito wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." He said he was proud to fight for such causes in which "I personally believe very strongly," and he cited his membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group that has been widely criticized for opposing efforts to bring more women and minorities to that university.

The other memo outlined a strategy for attacking the landmark 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, asking: "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/08/AR2006010800794.html

of the issues of concern: presidential powers, spying, abortion, etc and hit him hard. If he refuses to respond to the questions presented by members of congress while doing their Cpnstitutionally appointed job then it should be an automatic "no" vote. No where in the Constitution does it say that the President has a blank check and both parties should understand and take a stance against this type of unconstitutional seizure bull pucky.

If they can't wrap their tight narrow minds around and concentrate on more then one issue at a time then they should consider that at least on one level pro-choice is about an American's right privacy and so is spying without the Constitutional protection of "just cause" shown by sworn testimony resulting in a legal court issued warrent.

can't be pussy footing around playing politics. We must demand the best.

should just stop messing around with semantics or they'll lose support. Who wants a pussyfoot for a rep? I want a tiger or lion, myself.

... becoming OUR tools, and not just tools of the corrupt GOP machine. Let the Republicans hammer Alito on abortion for us, while the Democratic Party goes after civil rights! This shows great strategy, and if the Republicans faulter or decide not to play ball, then the Democratic Party can step in, why do the work if someone else seems willing to do it for you in this situation? More resources can then be focused upon domestic spying/presidential powers with out executive order, etc...

Even two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, say they will query Alito on the responsibility of the courts to constrain presidential authority. The spying ``raises very fundamental questions about how we proceed to gather information, fundamental questions on privacy and the Bill of Rights,'' Specter says.

Alito may not get more than about half a dozen Democratic votes, compared with the 22 who voted for Roberts. At the same time, Republicans enjoy a 55-44 majority in the Senate, with one independent. Only a handful of Republicans are even possible Alito foes.

Filibuster Unlikely

Unless the hearings change these calculations, the only way to thwart the nomination would be a filibuster, a parliamentary tactic that requires only 41 votes and is considered unlikely.

``If this were tennis, you'd say advantage Alito,'' says Jeffrey Peck, a former judiciary committee aide who is now a lobbyist at Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart in Washington. ``He's going in with less support than Roberts had, but I think the hearings are going to be critical.''

The prospect of a closer vote has energized the Democrats' political base. ``Alito is no John Roberts,'' says David Bookbinder, senior attorney in Washington for the Sierra Club, an environmental group that opposes the nomination. ``This is not going to sail through.''

Count them out in 2006.

This is their chance to show that, as a whole, they're not cowards- and deserve a chance at leadership. There are literally dozens of issues on the table here- if they let the DINO's give 'em away, that'll set the tone for the rest of the year.

Better the devil you know- that's what many will say when they hold their nose and vote Republican- or they may simply stay home and not vote at all.

Make him say he supports the expanded powers of the executive. Make him agree that he would no matter whether a Republican or Democrat was in office. (Which of course he will because he will say anything to get a job.)

If he's going to be confirmed by the rubber-stamp Congress, so be it. But make it clear that Alito's confirmation will change things forever, and there WILL be a Democratic President SOON.

important issue is that abortion comes under that heading. Already Bush has made many decisions that affects women adversely in every area, including abortion. We must hold him accountable per our Constitution in every area. Those who oppose Alito should stick together and not let Rove and Rove-like figures divide us.

to whichever laws he signs. I have a feeling that unwarrented spying is a drop in the bucket with "King" George W's constitution abuses.

Republicans should be concerned about this as well as Dems iff they actually think about it and realize that by allowing Bush to get away with this unconstitutional expanse of presidential power it sets a precedence that future Dem presidents will be allowed to do the same. Do they really want bills that they want passed changed by, oh let's say President Hillary Clinton's written interpretation upon signing the bill into law? Do Dems want to take the chance that some even worse nut case like Pat Robertson might be elected President with the same expanded presidential powers?

Okay... aAfter that last "if" statement I think I need to go wash mind mind out with some writtings by T. Jefferson or B. Franklin. Egads, President Robertson, what a frightening and disgusting thought. :puke:

Period.

The way he has ruled and they way he is leaning should be enough for anyone to see that Bush and the NeoCons will take over permanently if he is sent to the SCOTUS.

and we need to do that in anyway possible. Figure a good strategy and fight hard! This is for keeps Senators and we expect you to do the best job possible and then filibuster!

...and try to make them controversial, in order to relieve some of the pressure from some of the other scandals that are bugging them. So the Repubs want a fight in this nomination, simply to distract.

and his hearing is that he basically has no credibility (View Ted Kennedy's editorial http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601490.html">here). He excused his 1985 writings as "I was trying to get a job," he lied to the committee in 1990, when asked if he would recuse himself in cases relating to Vanguard, and he lied about his ability to set aside his beliefs when ajudicating cases involving the Government. Why should we believe anything he says now? They sound to me like just more damn lies!