Democrat Charges U.S. Justices "Duped" Senate

Source: Reuters

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito "duped" the U.S. Senate into confirming them, a top Democratic lawmaker charged on Friday, days after a key Republican questioned if they had lived up to their promises.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.

Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

"Were we duped?" he asked.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-court-congress.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

---

just a little reminder Chuck
Arguing against cutting off debate, Sen. John Kerry -- who spearheaded the filibuster effort with his fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy -- said Alito's record during his 15 years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given "the extreme right wing unbelievable public cause for celebration."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/index.html

Kennedy was also among five Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote against Roberts. Others voting in opposition included Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California and Evan Bayh from Roberts' home state of Indiana.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/roberts.nomination/index.html

We begged you not to confirm Alito, but of course you were wiser than us and you see what has happened.

Can you imagine how much better off we'd be had DU been
at least taken more seriously when we warned them ?

:argh:

Jan 28, 2006

Sen. Mikulski,

I am asking you to support the filibuster of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court.
As you know the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the presidency in 2000. This was entirely outside
its authority and against the process outlined in the Constitution. I know that you would not believe
me because I am a liberal blogger, would you believe the words of Justice Stevens.

"Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irrepable harm," On the other hand, there is a
danger that a stay may cause irreparable harm to the respondent (Gore) and, more importantly, the public
at large because of the risk that the entry of the stay would be tantamount to a decision on the merits
in favor of the applicant. Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on
the legitimacy of the election."

George Bush is now in office based on two problematic elections, if you can write down 5 good things
that have been the result of this man being handed the presidency by the Supreme Court, I will agree
with your belief that this is bad strategy and will hurt the Dems chances for 2006 and 2008. I give to
the Dems monthly through my Democracy Bonds and Dean speaks for me. I am however, concerned about the
State of the Union since George Bush assumed the reigns of power.

She did support the filibuster.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00001

but I think we were outgunned by Mrs. Alito's tears and a biased media

WE KNEW HERE AT DU it was all a lie. Why couldn't you see that as well?

Did you not want to see it, perhaps?

You were so damn busy keeping your powder dry, you let the crooks in and showed them where the money was hidden!

You should realize by now that you MUST expect lies at all times from people who want power and/or are currently already in power.

It is simply an embarrassment to our party and our nation that you do not expect lies, that you seem to know less than many of us who spend our time reading blogs and international news sources.

I fought like hell against Alito - I knew who he was, why didn't you?

:mad:

The entire confirmation process is a sham. The nominees can say anything and then upon confirmation adjudicate completely differently. That's why I think any nomimee should have a sufficient paper trail and it should be that past behavior that determines whether the nominee should be confirmed. It is the difference between talking-the-talk and walking-the-walk. Their past behavior is the best indicator of the future, not their testimony for confirmation.

god, why can't our reps talk like Malloy?

for the Iraq War Resolution. Of course you were duped, and if you'd paid any attention to the "angry left" you wouldn't even have to ask that question now.

How could a group of supposedly intelligent adults be so gullible?

Take it up with him.

do you think they'd really lie? do you think they are capable of telling truth?

that there ARE remedies, and I saw two of the ideas I have brought up cited somewhere else recently. Can't recall the source right now--oh, I think it was (incredibly) Arlen Specter, thus...

1. The FDR remedy: "Packing" the court. The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices. Nine is an arbitrary number. Congress can change that number without amending the Constitution (simple majority vote). During the height of the Great Depression, and FDR's New Deal efforts to turn that catastrophe around with innovative new programs, the SC, all appointed by the previous regimes--who had CAUSED the Great Depression, with their failure to regulate big business and investment--began knocking down FDR's New Deal programs as "unconstitutional" (i.e., big business and the super-rich didn't like them). FDR proposed that Congress "pack the Supreme Court," that is, use its RIGHTFUL power to expand the number of justices, so that FDR could appoint newer, younger, more liberal and compassionate justices, to balance the dinosaurs who couldn't care less if millions of Americans were starving, homeless, jobless, and dying of malnutrition and exposure. The rabid right--protectors of the rich and powerful--went into high gear, and trashed this perfectly legal idea as "packing the Supreme Court" (their phrase), and FDR ultimately had to withdraw the proposal. But one of the justices, at that point, changed his mind about the New Deal and started voting the other way. Thus Social Security was saved!

Congress CONTINUES to have the power, by simple majority, to change the number of justices, so that a new President can appoint people to balance the Bushite fascists.

2. The impeachment remedy: Any SC justice or other federal judge can be impeached and removed from office by Congress. The standard for impeachment of a SC justice (or other federal judge) is lower than the standard for impeachment of the President of Vice President. The Prez and VP have to be found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be removed from office. For SC justices, however, the standard is "good behavior." That lower standard could include, a) lying to Congress about your intentions on the SC (for instance, saying that you will respect existing precedents, then voting to overturn precedents--which Roberts and Alito are already guilty of); b) showing contempt for the Constitution and other laws of the land (--for instance, if they rule in favor of the "unitary executive" crap that Bush and Gonzales have been pushing, or for unprecedented powers of "executive privilege" used to obstruct Congressional or other investigation of White House crimes); and c) basing decisions on political considerations or political or business cronyism.*

I believe Specter mentioned both of the above. Here are some others:

3. The special prosecutor remedy: I don't know of a precedent, but my notion is for Congress to appoint a special prosecutor for the Supreme Court, to dog their every hunting party, and investigate them for (c)--political corruption and cronyism. Get the goods on them; impeach them. At the least, the pressure might prevent some of the more extreme rulings they may have in mind.

4. The Constitutional amendment remedy: Nix the life terms, shorten their terms of office, and make it retroactive. Or, make them subject to popular election (also retroactive), so that current sitting justices, and any future justices, will be subjected to the scrutiny of the American people. (An amendment requires a 2/3rds vote of Congress.) This suggestion could also be applied to all federal judges.

--------------------------

*(I would add another impeachment cause of action, if they rule in favor of corporate private property rights--the "trade secret" code--in the voting machines (non-transparent, privately controlled vote counting)--and against the right of the people to know how our votes are being counted. This, to me, would be an egregious breach of the most fundamental tenet of democracy: transparent vote counting. It would mean that they don't believe in democracy, and are solely beholden to the corporate rulers.)

Both Alito and Roberts, in the past, helped to research and write about the 'Unitary Executive' branch - if this issue should find its way to SCOTUS, these two men should recuse themselves because it poses a bias and conflict of interest. I think Scalia at one point said they alone control whether they recuse themselves or not, but that doesn't sound right to me. So, my question is, can we and/or how do we force recusal?

in a conflict of interest, is impeachment by Congress.

If it were a lower court judge, the lawyer for the losing side could use a conflict of interest on appeal, as an issue to overturn a bad ruling. But when it gets to the Supreme Court level, there is no further appeal. Only Congress can remedy it. I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied Constitutional law, and worked as a paralegal, and I'm pretty sure of this.

And, yes, it is up to the judge himself, both in the Supreme Court and lower courts. They are supposed to be honorable enough to disclose conflicts. The standard is to avoid "even the appearance" of a conflict of interest. But with Bushite judges--as with Bushite anything--we cannot count on honor, or any adherence to normal standards of conduct, or even the rule of law.

In some instances, a lawyer in a case before a particular judge has the right of a peremptory challenge--that is, the lawyer can force a recusal without stating the cause. After that, the lawyer would have to have some evidence of a conflict, to get a judge removed from the case. But if the conflict is hidden, and the judge is not honorable, bad rulings can ensue. There are judicial review panels and lawyers' groups that try to monitor judges, but they usually only act in egregious cases of judicial misconduct. Lawyers/judges, like doctors, tend to protect each other and the political establishment.

Which is why they're all making a bad name for themselves. They're rewarding each other's bad habits. And by "habits," I really mean crimes.

If I remember correctly, both Alito and Roberts, or maybe just Roberts, hid some of their earlier writings. How can we know all the cases they should be recused from if we don't know all the cases they were involved with?

We all knew they were lying, just as we all knew they were lying about Saddam's WMDs.

I knew those two were socially regressive from the beginning
and would side with big business and not with people.

I think it's extremely disingenuous of ANY senator to claim
otherwise.

Court Packing....
Expand SCOTUS to 11 members by law.

Suppose Congress reduces the number of justices to say seven. Who gets to pick which two would be removed? I'd volunteer!

They sold us out- and they'll KEEP selling us out (whinging about it later).

It's apparently their nature- which of course, is something (like it or not) Nader predicted.

This is the same crew (or many of them) who were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Bush didn't seek diplomatic solutions in Iraq.

Either they're painfully naive or painfully stupid. But how many times do we have to do this?

Than telling everyone they knew and did nothing about it.

to have to think about though, isn't it?

but they never listen to us, and in fact we still get labeled "far-left" :eyes:

There is one observation I have made.

Just because a Republican has anice smile and charming
ways, he is still a Republican. The Media and Our
Congressmen refer to people as Moderate all the time
when they are as conservative as they come.

Federalist---should be a red flag that stops one cold.
When one denies being a Federalist---that is a real stopper.


Bush duped alot of them about the war. Remember that.

supporting the IWR?

It's a good thing we out here in the boonies are not so easily duped by transparent lies, huh?

Maybe they should all follow bu$che's advice?

"...fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again"

Right... In another Galaxy, perhaps...

And I think you knew it even then.

How could you not? Are you and your colleagues THAT clueless as to what is going on?

:puke:

Hee-hee. I had to say it.

I don't really buy that an experienced Senator could have fallen for that bullshit testimony. All of us on DU knew that the Bush Administration was not to be trusted with those appointments, and the fact that they were so secretive about their early writings should have tipped off even the greeniest of Senators. I'm angry that any seasoned Senator could even pretend to be "duped."

of course his comment sounds pathetic, but I don't think Schumer is actually talking about the confirmation hearings. I think he knows that a lot of the current battles with Bush are going to end up in the Supreme Court, and is strategizing, preparing the field.

He could have said, "When the GOP threatened us with the nuclear option if we didn't support these nominations, you didn't tell us that they'd be driving the getaway car for bush. When we went along with these nominees, they reassured us that they could put their more extreme ideologies aside, not that their most extreme views would be put to use obstructing justice." So, instead, he suggests they were duped. Of course, DU knew better at the time. The country would be better off if the left wing was respected more.

... and I wondered about Specter addressing this the other day.

Was it in preparation for some eventuality, or was it part of some nefarious plan to get in front of the issue in order to spin it away, neutralize it somehow? He always makes it seem like he's doing the right thing, but then "poof".
:think:

PEOPLE, AGAIN!!

that these two neo-con justices were going to tip the court hard right. Schumer should resign in disgrace.

They lied their ass off. Isn't that perjury......

He also voted against cloture on the Alito nomination. So why all the vitriol directed at him?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00001
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

...there have been times...since 2000...that members of congress HAVE really been 'duped' by this administration (going into Iraq, prescription drug plan, etc.). But if being 'duped' becomes an excuse for every DLC Democrat to avoid responsibility for making a wrong decision, then it negates the times when they really were purposely mislead.

President :) Kerry wasn't 'duped' ... he lead the filibuster against Alito. Schumer could have joined him.

These words are telling:

"Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?"
Schumer asked. "Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?"

These guys have to stop voting their hopes (which are completely unfounded with this administration)...and stop caring so much about re-election fears...and do what's right.

DUPED...not this time, Chuck.



:patriot:

Never, ever believe a single word that a republican says.

It's that simple. I live by this credo. As soon as a republican opens their mouth, I say "They're lying!".

Haven't been wrong yet.

No one was duped. Stop trying to cover your friends asses.

Any one who let these monsters in deserves to be retired.

of un-American, unpatriotic and unconstitutional extremism: let the party begin and continue unabated until the job's done once and for all time.

Instead of making excuses about being duped, how about we make sure a Dem is choosing the justices?

It's in the Constitution - the president chooses the court. The "advice and consent" stuff is weak tea next to that. That's why we win the presidency or suffer the consequences. And not by 46 votes, so there can be no repeat of 2000.

Politics ain't beanbag. This duped excuse is embarrassing. Duped in 2000, duped into war, duped into approving justices, I'm tired of the whining about being taken for dupes. All day long we say Bushco is soooooo stupid and yet Bushco dupes us till our heads are spinning? WTF?? How smart does that make US? Get rid of these dupe-able jellyfish Dems NOW, and replace them with Dems who know how to play and win at politics. Bare knuckles and no more excuses.

I could we all know there were a couple of rightwing slimes and Shumer didn't???

by pretending to care.

what kind of bone heads do they think we are? hello...it isn't like these guys didn't have records. either schumer is a complete idiot or he thinks we all are. which is it?

please! you and your buddies signed the patriot act without reading the goddam thing, so just stuff this "duped" nonsense in your ass!

The filibuster was the only weapon we had to prevent another Scalia from joining the Court. Reid & Co. were pissed when Kerry announced he was going to filibuster Alito.

Kerry was right!

...AGAIN. :patriot: