After reviewing the latest papers released regarding US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, I find him to be a true Conservative that is trying to “lay low” in order to be confirmed!
You can read the MSM report here.
Reports like that are simply reporter summaries of the following documents.
First the memo Mr. Alito submitted when trying to get a job with the Reagan Administration. In it he wears his Conservative values on his sleeve as proud as ever!
While working with the Justice Department in May of 1985 he released this memo, where he attempts to chip away at Roe v. Wade. He realizes it can’t be totally defeated in one swift action! In the memo he mentions:
From page 17 of the memo:
There may be an opportunity to nudge the Court toward the principles in Justice O’Connor’s Akron dissent, to provide greater recognition of the states’ interest in protecting the unborn throughout pregnancy, or to dispel in part the mystical faith in the attending physician that supports Roe and the subsequent cases.
|
Working at it like a smart Conservative! Then there is this questionnaire that he just recently filled out! Now he’s laying lower on his Conservative views. Playing off his membership in groups like Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Personally I don’t think he should downplay that he was part of groups that wanted everyone to earn entry into schools based on merit! He played it up when trying to get a job with the Reagan Administration and downplays it now. He’s just trying to lay low in order to be confirmed.
Here are some interesting items from the questionnaire:
From page 49 of the questionnaire:
In 2002 – 2003 and 2003 – 2004, I taught a one-semester seminar called “Terrorism and Civil Liberties” at Seton Hall Law School.
|
His time teaching that class happened AFTER he was informed he might be a SCOTUS candidate!
From page 59 of the questionnaire, when he first became aware he was being considered:
A short time before June 24, 2001, I was invited to an interview with then-Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales and then-Deputy Counsel to the President, Timothy Flanigan. I was told that the interview concerned a possible future Supreme Court vacancy. I was interviewed by Judge Gonzales and Mr. Flanigan on June 24, 2001.
|
So he wanted to make sure he appeared to be up to speed on terrorism and related civil liberty issues! Can’t blame him for that. I’ll have to try and find the syllabus, which I’m sure is interesting reading!
Also in the questionnaire, he mentions that he recused himself from 23 cases! There has been so much fuss about 1 case that he did not recuse himself from because of a computer error. But nobody talks about the fact he opted out of 23!
He was asked about “judicial activism” and here is some of his response:
From pages 60-62 of the questionnaire:
The Constitution sets forth a limited role for the judicial branch. As the question notes, in recent years there have been charges that the federal judiciary has exceeded the proper bounds of judicial authority through court decisions. My experience has taught me that any such criticism should be informed by a balanced understanding of the role that the federal courts should play.
The Constitution charges the federal courts with the duty to exercise “[t]he judicial Power of the United States,” Art. III, sec.1, and as Alexander Hamilton aptly put it in Federalist 78, the courts should carry out that role with “firmness and independence.” “Without this,” he observed, “all the reservations of particular rights or privileges [in the Constitution] would amount to nothing.” But while the federal courts should act firmly and independently within their proper sphere, they must always keep in mind that their proper sphere is circumscribed. The “judicial Power” is distinct from the “legislative Powers” given to Congress and from “the executive Power,” and the federal courts must engage in a constant process of self-discipline to ensure that they respect the limits of their authority.
…
A paradox is inherent in our constitutional structure. The framers of the Constitution generally did not think that government institutions and actors could be trusted to refrain from unduly extending their own powers, but our constitutional system relies heavily on the judiciary to restrain itself. To do this, judges must engage in a continual process of self-questioning about the way in which they are performing the responsibilities of their offices. Judges must also have faith that the cause of justice in the long run is best served if they scrupulously heed the limits of their role rather than transgressing those limits in an effort to achieve a desired result in a particular case.
…
|
The man speaks the truth!
And the last document is his financial disclosure.
I think Alito is OK. He’s trying to cover in order to be confirmed. I’d like him to be more upfront and let the chips fall where they may, but he’s doing what he feels will get him where he should be.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:57 am
US Senator Charles Schumer playing dirty tricks with the Samuel Alito nomination
Now that Liberals are trying to stir anger about Samuel Alito being a Conservative, Chucky Schumer is using some interesting tricks in the media.
…
January 13th, 2006 at 1:31 am
Fellow Judges and The ABA say Sam Alito is OK
At the last day of Judge Samuel Alito’s Senate nomination hearing, there was a panel of judges and ABA lawyers that had nothing but great things to say about him. They totally shot down every single lie and trash comment made by Democrats against…