http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801489.html

I have had the honor of serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 43 years, during which I've participated in confirmation hearings for all the justices who now sit on the Supreme Court. Over that time, my colleagues and I have asked probing questions and listened attentively to substantive responses. Because we were able to learn a great deal about the nominees from those hearings, the Senate has rarely voted along party lines. I voted, for example, for three of President Ronald Reagan's five Supreme Court nominees.

Of course, an examination of a nominee's views may cause the Senate to withhold its consent. That is what happened in 1795 to John Rutledge, who was given a temporary commission as chief justice by President George Washington (while Congress was in recess) and was then rejected by the Senate several months later. In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon's nomination of G. Harrold Carswell was derailed when the Senate learned of his segregationist past. At that time, I explained that "the Constitution makes clear that we are not supposed to be a rubber stamp for White House selections." That was also the Senate's view in 1987, when its rejection of Robert H. Bork's extreme views led to the unanimous confirmation of the more moderate Anthony M. Kennedy. The Senate's constitutional role has helped keep the court in the mainstream of legal thought.

But the careful, bipartisan process of years past -- like so many checks and balances rooted in our Constitution -- has been badly broken by the current Bush administration. The result has been the confirmation of two justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., whose voting record on the court reflects not the neutral, modest judicial philosophy they promised the Judiciary Committee, but an activist's embrace of the administration's political and ideological agenda.

Now that the votes are in from their first term, we can see plainly the agenda that Roberts and Alito sought to conceal from the committee. Our new justices consistently voted to erode civil liberties, decrease the rights of minorities and limit environmental protections. At the same time, they voted to expand the power of the president, reduce restrictions on abusive police tactics and approve federal intrusion into issues traditionally governed by state law.

Don't come whining to us about your having tossed away your advise and consent role to the political dogs.

I have the vague memory that he may have tried to filibuster both but I can't remember for sure

but not Roberts due to the clear lack of support. But that doesn't stop dishonest DUers from posting crap like you responded to.

First, there wasn't enough evidence that Roberts was a bad egg. Plus, he was replacing someone equally as bad, so he didn't change the direction of the court. In fact, allowing Roberts showed we were willing to be "bipartisan." (Damn, but I'm sick of that word.)

Alito was a whole nother thing, and anyone with spine needed to filibuster him. Screaming at Kennedy may be stupid, but someone really has to scream about this.

they lie and say they didn't filibuster.

on down the toilet like the turd he is!

And well, he failed, and we're stuck with it. What does he want, sympathy? I don't care for him either way. He's a lot less important than 40 years of Alito and Scalia.

of going nuclear against the filibuster. The democrats should have forced the republicans to go nuclear. I believe the reaction among the public would have been very sympathetic to our position.

Personally I do not have nearly the problems with Roberts as I do Alito. Alito is a real snake.

FH

on. And that was AFTER Kennedy had been dragged through the mud the entire time before, during and after the hearings. Someone else from the judiciary committee should have led a filibuster as soon as the hearings ended. BUT NO ONE WOULD.

It's laugh or cry at this point huh?

Why didn't the Senate? Calls, faxes, all we did to get them to use their precious filibuster that they were 'saving' for something really important and they refused. Life appointments and now we are stuck with them unless they do something impeachable.

How could they NOT know?? How many phone calls a day do you think their staffs handled regarding these assholes??

They all knew, but didn't feel the need to do anything about them.

I hate to say it, but fuck Ted Kennedy,

down on the 'fuck' list....let's start with all those dems on the Cloture vote for I-Lie-Too. Now they can all go to the top of the 'fuck' list. Or better yet....'The Never To Be Fucked Again' List.

I'm hoping that down the line when We, the People are back in power that we can impeach I-Lie-Too.

Doh!

:eyes:

Ya think?

We knew it, and we're not even privy to all the crap congress is...

Sheesh.

Get outside the beltway and talk to some real people every now and then, Ted ...

If they lied, then IMPEACH the bastards. It is virtually the same process as for the president. After Gore vs. Bush, the SCOTUS has no claim to being apolitical. If they lie, they lose their jobs. Simple. Maybe this would stop their criminal behavior.

for being a fascist asshole?

Just one: Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, but even he was not removed from office.

The charges were politically motivated and brought by the Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate. He was, of all things, charged with political bias, but was acquitted.

to get rid of half.

If a guy won't commit to something as central as checks and balances, can you really say he misled you?

The Democrats should have filibustered at least Alito and dared the GOP to use their nuclear option.

It would have been like Newt threatening to shut down the government and Clinton letting him--it made Newt look bad, not Bill. The same would be true if the GOP ever exercised the nuclear option. The public would have seen them as the fascist thugs they are that much sooner.

how many phone calls did i make to these fucking senators, how many calls did my daughter make, how many faxes did i send? i hardly slept--i had to keep calling and faxing! we did this for THREE DAYS!! continuously!

and one thing i have learned: i am not alone. i know i wasn't the only person obsessed with this

and you think just because they tell a senator something they aren't lying? ha! you think you're so above everything that no one will LIE to you??

well--maybe all those senators should think again!

if it walks like a duck, ted....

so now whatcha gonna do about it? how do we get rid of them now? (and get some new senators who haven't lost their sense of reason)

(and might i add that some guy on your phone staff was the rudest asshole i talked to from all the senators offices--and i called them ALL!)

Some of the posts upthread seem to be blaming Kennedy personally for those confirmation votes, but he did vote against both nominees:

Dems voting No to Roberts:
Akaka, Hawaii
Bayh, Ind.
Biden, Del.
Boxer, Calif.
Cantwell, Wash.
Clinton, N.Y.
Corzine, N.J.
Dayton, Minn.
Durbin, Ill.
Feinstein, Calif.
Harkin, Iowa
Inouye, Hawaii
Kennedy, Mass.
Kerry, Mass.
Lautenberg, N.J.
Mikulski, Md.
Obama, Ill.
Reed, R.I.
Reid, Nev.
Sarbanes, Md.
Schumer, N.Y.
Stabenow, Mich.
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2005/09/roberts-confirmation-vote.html

Dems voting No to Alito:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002#position

Voting against them was a pointless exercise. The only hope of preventing the rape of the Supreme Court and the American people was to filibuster.

Kennedy's a good guy, and he may have been willing to filibuster, but anyone who was unwilling to filibuster and wants to complain now can kiss my liberal Oakland butt.

Ted Kennedy needs to have a reality check and stop boo-hoo-hooing if he is surprised by either man's post-committee hearing actions now that they are actually on the Court. He's shocked that they sought to conceal their agenda from the committee??!!!!!!! If any Democrat (or indeed Republican) on the Judiciary Committee actually thought that the Bush junta was going to propose a candidate for Supreme Court justice who had not been 200%, thoroughly pre-examined & vetted by Rove (& God-know-who-else from Neocon/Fascist Central) for absolute, ironclad, positive proof of their right-wing credentials, views, voting record and slant --- then they are f#^%ing idiots. And Justice Stevens is 83 (I think). If he retires or dies during Bush's final 2 years there will be yet another opportunity for Bush to solidify rightwing control of the Judiciary. Ya think Kennedy and the Judiciary Committee will learn their lesson? Do NOT hold your breath! It'll be rubber-stamp-city all over again. The Neocons/Republicans finally have the Trifecta they have been dreaming, salivating about and working for since Goldwater's defeat: control of all 3 branches of government. Our Constitution and checks & balances are being destroyed in front of us. In many ways control of the Court is the most serious. Hell, it was the supposedly more "liberal" court that incoronated Bush after the Florida debacle. What won't a full-fledged Bush Court do for the Neocons now.

I'm going to print out this piece by Kennedy and fax it to every freaking Democrat in the Senate. I'm so sick of these gutless, spineless bastards. Lord, I hope Lamont kicks Lieberman's butt and "sends a message" to every Dino in Congress. (I'm utterly sick of "sending a message," too.)

said on Democracy Now!...'I'm a self-hating Democrat now.' I felt total and complete betrayal by the Dems with both Roberts and I-Lie-Too.

A week from this Tuesday, I hope we are celebrating a Lamont win. I don't think I can take many more defeats.

move on. I really count on Ted Kennedy to be sharper than this. If he didn't know this already -- before even the votes from the forst term were in, I'd be disappointed. I said it when they were nominated, and I haven't been on the Judiciary Committee for years. How come, we out here in the trenches knew not to trust the Bushies' version of "bipartisanship" and our elected Democrats didn't? Can somebody please 'splain it to me?

TC

I don't really think so. Someone pointed out already, Kennedy voted against both. He wasn't fooled. How about the Democrats who voted yes on these right-wing Nazi judges? Fooled on the record? I don't think so either. I think they were scared that the Iraq War was going to become popular. Double dumb.

Then again, who wants to be unpopular because of the war and the stink that right-wing hate radio is raising about filibusters? Apparently, a big chunk of the party is gambling on pro-war.

I think Kennedy is trying to be helpful. "It's not our fault, see? They lied to us." Now, maybe he can get a few of the wavering "pro-war" members to come over to his side of our side of the aisle and say, "yeah, Scalito and Roberts lied to us". Get a block together.

I hope he can smooth this over with HRC somehow. It would be sad if she was undermined in '08, because she's got it in the bag now.

S.

I checked that out and was just coming here to report his nay vote to both, and saw your astute post.

Kennedy has been my Senator for years, and he is a fine one, to say the least.

Thanks so much for strightening that out. Perhaps his peaking out at this point is to actually MAKE A POINT.

TC

having it in the bag. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

I think you're spot on about what Kennedy's trying to achieve here. He's even worked in the mantra "activist."

I wish I were as sanguine about the rest of them. They deserve our complete and utter scorn.

Kennedy is only trying to make it public. Of course he knew. They all knew, but the checks and balances have been gone for a few years now.

I don't think HRC has it "in the bag" - not even close. It seems the republicans would like it that way, because she'd be their best get out the vote candidate, but as a democrat, she has done nothing to make me want to see her as president. I have nothing against Hillary personally, and I don't like to bash ANY dem candidate (with the exception of Lieberman), but she would get out the republican vote like no one else could, because, they feel about her almost EXACTLY the way we feel about bushit. In her case, it's undeserved, which is sad, but still, it's fact. IF she had Bill's charisma, maybe she could overcome that, but she doesn't.

I think the "she's got it in the bag" is republican spin. I don't know a single democrat - and I know a lot, who wants to see Hillary run. I know she's got a following on here, as do many candidates, but IMO she'd ensure a republican win. She's my senator, and I'd like to see her remain that, so we can elect a democratic president.

are lobbying for and tacitly support Hillary. She would be just about the best thing for the republican party.

I actually don't like her from a position of substance, I see her as being much the same ilk as many of our republican targets. More than lacking charisma, I do not trust her. I could be wrong on this, but it is the image I get. Beyond this, I do not think this nation will elect a liberal president from the Northeast/New England region. The last time we did that, it took over 100,000 dead people in Chicago to get it done.

a few questions for all those who are using this as an excuse to come out against one of the relatively few people in the senate staunchly on our side:

would you rather he had voted FOR roberts?

would you rather he had voted FOR alito?

would you rather he just stand idly by and approve what happened?

or, would you rather he set the stage for impeaching them, or at the very least, mounting a successful challenge to the next shrub nominee?

don't you think he needs to work on his colleagues a bit? isn't that exactly what he's doing?

:eyes:

against I-Lie-Too. Kerry was in Switzerland for some conference and he came back to try to get the Dems together on the Cloture vote...remember?

He was in Ohio a few weeks ago at a small get-together that I was lucky enough to attend. I thanked him for trying to fight I-Lie-Too. He told me that his Dem colleagues ALL disliked I-Lie-Too and didn't want him in the SC...yet they wouldn't go along with the Cloture vote. He acted as if he was mystified by their behavior. Of course, he isn't going to tell me any great 'truths' about the interworkings of the Dem senators. But I did tell him that I was now, along with Daniel Ellsberg, a self-hating Democrat...he laughed, but seemed to very much understand why.

edited for typo.

There are many who could've told you if only you would ask and listen, rather than ignore and vote the corporate ticket. :grr:

Democrats who voted for these two are total idiots.

They're just playing for the other side.
Anyone who watched 10 minutes of the hearings knew they were lying and evading.

I've watched SCOTUS confirmation hearings, as the nominee ducks, dodges and weaves better than a top rank pro boxer. Every question is skillfully evaded, deflected or outright ignored.

Now these people are interviewing for what is probably the most important job in this country. Any other office allows the American people to eventually vote the office holder out, but not this one.

So tell me how these people can get the job that they're applying for when they act in a manner that would not get them hired at a local McDonald's?

Now convince your Democratic colleagues to stop going along with bushco's nominees.

:grr:

I find it interesting that at this time Sen. Kennedy details just how professionally corrupt Alito and Roberts are -- this looks like the opening salvo for a larger battle. I get the same feeling reading this that I had when I read Joseph Wilson's original op-ed in the NY Times.

are pissed and the Dems just might like to get on board with us.

is it me...?

I saw through their thin veneer of "moderation" and could call them out as right wingers..yet Ted didn't realize this...?

The claim was that his adopted children came from Ireland - but it's illegal for non-Irish residents to adopt Irish children. On the face of it, he knowingly broke Irish law by adopting them via a Latin American country. Did anyone ever show that his strange method was in fact legal?

You'd think our senators were born yesterday and still wet.

Roberts and Scalito lied under oath to garner lifetime seats on the highest court in the land? Even if there was a stained blue dress it's OK if you're a Republican. So now we have four SC justices eligible for impeachment. Things turn around when we hit bottom, and since the bottom feeders are calling the shots..................

Across the page of the article in WaPo was a conservative viewpoint that the questioning of
nominees is pointless and should be eliminated.

I'd like to see someone like Kennedy (or fill-in-the-blank Senator X - I'm not picking on Kennedy) stand up DURING the hearings, NOT after the fact when it's too fucking late, and go on record (while the TV cameras are on) saying something to the effect of, "Judge Smith I think you have not given this committee truthful answers. I think you've wasted our and the American people's time and spent the entire session being evasive, noncommittal and, frankly, insincere. We Committee Members, after days & weeks of hearings, have NO real idea of where you stand on the vitally important issues facing our Republic, or whether you will be able to rule impartially, fairly & agenda-free on cases brought before you, should you attain a seat on the Court. I will not vote for you, and I urge all my colleagues not to vote for you until such time as our questions are answered in a forthright manner; not evaded and danced around. I have no doubts your selection by President Bush came with specific instructions to avoid committal to any hot-button issues while facing this Committee. However, the position you are under consideration for is too important & crucial for this country's future for middle-of-the-road, grey, vague or evasive answers." Etc, etc, etc.

And while I'm on this rant there's another thing I'd like to feel just once before I die. I am so sick of going into the voting booth my whole life and everytime saying/sighing to myself before I pull the lever, "He's/She's the lesser of two evils!"

the Executive usurping Judicial powers...EXCUSE ME!!! That is the Executive that YOU put into that office Ms. O'Connor! and it might have been more effective, and a helluva alot more meaningful, if you would have voiced that opinion while you were still on the bench...or perhaps if you had stayed on the bench a bit longer.

when she was one of the Felonious Five responsible for putting the moran into office...
Way late and way short, Honey...
She has blood on her hands too.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year, after year, after year, after year, having to choose between the lesser of who cares. Of trying to get myself excited about a candidate who can speak in complete sentences. Of setting the bar so low I can hardly look at it. They say a good man can't get elected. Well, I don't believe that."

I feel the same way about Kerry late-found clarity on getting out of Iraq.

:crazy: :silly:

NOT surprising though. There is NO JUSTICE in the "Supreme" court and there hasn't been since 2000 perhaps even before that.

after reading like 25 threads ripping Ted a new butthole, my mind was like swiss cheese.

now, back to the circular firing squad!
dp

He used to be my Senator; now I have two Repubs, Gregg and Sununu. Ted has consistently fought for the little guy, year after year. And if I recall, he did speak out at the confirmation hearings of Alito and Roberts about their vague, noncommittal answers to questions. He voted against both of them. He's alerting the citizens now that the confirmation hearings need to change to prevent another Alito or Roberts from getting on the Supreme Court. Give him a break, Ted is one of the good guys. He gets skewered enough by Republicans, he doesn't need to be trashed by the party he fights for.

DUH, LEWI!

:silly: :crazy:

NINE months after it was all over.

Too fucking late.

We are in a new era of total bullshit......Lying to Congress and the American people is in, right along with stomping all over everyones rights. I prefer Democrats not crying after the fact but making the Republicans cry during the act. This Republican Bullshit has to be stopped and that is why people are turning their backs on veteran Senators like Joe blows Bush and looking for fresh faces with solid values.

Because we told them this shit!


All I have to say is


DUH

Because even with GW in the White House, if we had 50 Democrats on Senate plus Chafee (who did vote against Ailito and is a true moderate), then no more far-right loons could get confirmed...Of course, never know how Ben Nelson is going to vote but I still like the chances way better than they are now....

Kennedy did all he could...He voted against Roberts & Ailito & if not mistaken, wanted to filibuster Ailito...

I hope that John Paul Stevens lives to be 150, as we certainly don't want him leaving the court before 2009!...

These are life time appointments!

Like the DINO' care anyway.

They'll vote for almost anyone or anything the far right puts before them.

Roberts and Alito were lying. They were both reading off the same script, and given a thorough prepping by the Bush White House. I'm not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and even I could see that!

The photo ops with Roberts and his squeaky-clean family, Mrs. Alito's crying jag - all of it was a put-on to garner sympathy from the American public (and the right-wing, in particular). Anybody who didn't see it is either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive.

Fool me once, Senator, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.

The Dems were well aware of the past documented actions of both ideologues. If anyone lied, it was the Dem Senators to themselves and their constituents. The Dems are crying wolf on many issues they let slide by over and over.Where was the Filibuster? When you never show any opposition, the repugs will run right over you.Never exposing with the records. There has to be an unwritten pact between the Dem Congress and the Repugs. The Dems didn't demand a thing, and so got nothing but a royal Stuping.They deserved it, WE DIDN'T.

him and the other peckerhead "moderates" that found it more important to be bipartisan caused this. There was ample proof of what Roberts and Alito were actually all about, but no, mustn't look bad by doing your fucking jobs. And now to say: Aw, we was lied to just don't cut it.

Just because someone sports a "D" after their name doesn't make them some kind of hot shit.

Sure enough, Bu$h has caused plenty of damage, but he couldn't have done it if the guys like Kennedy had done their jobs.

as a matter of course from the git-go? Well, maybe Congressman Paul.

This is not addressed to Kennedy - who voted right, But all poor little Senators misled on this one and that (war, judges, spying, torture etc).

If I can find out the truth, so can you!

I knew they'd vote against civil rights and civil liberties.

It would be fine by me if Supreme Court nominees weren't publicly questioned by the Senators, and the Senators concluded if a nominee embraces civil liberties enough to deserve the promtion based on their records.

Any nominee can claim to be a moderate and open-minded and follow the law during a few days of hearings. Big Whoop! Decide whether to vote for them based on how they've voted on the bench.

A Democratic Senate = no more new right wing Supreme Court Justices!

They lied on their applications so fire their lying, IMMORAL, asses! It's what happens in the real world, with REAL PEOPLE, with REAL Jobs! Are they somehow better than Joe Sixpack? I think not.

There has been much talk about changing the electoral college system. How about making Supreme Court Justices serve limited terms and then be approved or disapproved by their bosses...you and me?