MRS. ALITO [Jonah Goldberg]
NRO
Is really the Democrats worst nightmare at this point. The hail Mary pass on the CAP papers turned out to be a terrible bust. And the story of the day on the network news was partly Kennedy's tantrum but the emotional high point was Mrs. Alito weeping, which the networks had to put in context and that only made the Democrats look worse.
Even though we've seen worse attacks on nominees before, I have great sympathy for Mrs. Alito. Imagine having to sit through days of these hearings not being allowed to speak or read or do anything but be a prop for your spouse, as one pol after another deliberately tries to make your husband look like an idiot, a racist and a snob. It is much harder to watch a loved one get attacked than it is to get attacked yourself. And to have to sit quietly and endure it would be amazingly stressful.
SEN. LEAHY ON FURRIN LAW [Roger Clegg]
Senator Leahy’s assertion that relying on English common law as being a kind of reliance on foreign law is just silly. I mean, it wasn’t foreign at the time; we were part of England.
Re: Washington Post as Cheerleader for Democrats
[Ed Whelan 01/12 07:20 AM]
The Post article asserts at one point that Alito's answers on Roe and stare decisis "departed notably from those that [John Roberts] gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearing four months ago." But three paragraphs later, it contradicts itself, noting that Roberts was "reluctant" to address the issue and relying instead on his statements from his D.C. Circuit confirmation hearing in 2003.
The article does note that Roberts stated the tautology that Roe is "settled as a precedent of the court." But in Roberts's usage, every precedent is settled; that is the necessary predicate for calling it precedent and for addressing whether it should remain settled. The article then quotes as seemingly authoritative Senator Durbin's statement that Alito "would not use those same words." In fact, Alito, in his exchange with Durbin, said essentially the same thing that Roberts did:
"If settled means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis and all of the factors that I've mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way."
In sum, Roberts's and Alito's answers on Roe and stare decisis are substantively identical. |
