Pat Leahy unloads on Alito, on Senate floor

[Enrique]

somewhere Alito is watching this on his computer, mouthing "not true"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/leahy-slams-alito-for-und_n_440509.html

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lashed into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday morning on the Senate floor, calling out the swing vote who overturned a hundred years of precedent to legalize deep corporate involvement in elections.

Leahy said that, in 36 years in the Senate he had never come to the floor to criticize a court decision, but was moved to do so by the activist nature of last week's 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case.

He personally attacked Alito, noting that his confirmation testimony was under oath, yet was proven false by his brazen and radical dismissal of a century of precedent.

"In his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito -- and I might say, under oath -- testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly, but it has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress," Leahy recalled Alito apparently lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That was then -- when he was seeking confirmation. This is now."

Leahy said that he was speaking on the floor as chair of that committee and there are few historical precedents for such a direct rebuke of the court. "The conservative activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections," said Leahy. "It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."

(...)

[Joanne98]

1. Lying under oath is grounds for impeachment.

[cali]

14. not for some vague promise to do this or that, it's not. not by any stretch

of anyone's fevered imagination.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[11 Bravo]

27. Try the decaf, Sparky.

Alito did not say that he would never vote to overturn a previous decision. He paid lip service to stare decisis, and said previous decisions should be given "deference". I know he lied, you know he lied, and cali knows he lied; but cali and I both realize that it is unprovable, and therefore cannot be the grounds for a successful impeachment.

[Autonomy]

36. DECAF SUX!!!

But not overreacting on internet forums is still a good idea. I lol'd at your post title. :)

Yeah, perjury cannot be on such vague and ambiguous grounds.

[tavalon]

54. Yeah, that's the bitch of it

We can't prove it. But, in a way, that's good because otherwise impeachment would once again be off the table and I hate that fucking table.

[totodeinhere]

58. Right, we could never get him on something like this.

The Dems in Congress wouldn't even try, especially with the GOP holding 41 votes in the Senate. Heck, they didn't even try to impeach Bush or Cheney, yet they are going to try to impeach Alito? Lets get real here.

And for that matter, not to excuse this terrible court decision at all, but Alito is not the first one to say something in his confirmation hearing and then do something else on the bench. In fact, I always take anything said by a SC nominee during the confirmation hearings with a grain of salt, be it a liberal or a conservative.

[LaydeeBug]

67. but the repigs would have gone after it if it were Ginsburg

for real.

[totodeinhere]

72. Well, they could try it.

But they would no more succeed in that endeavor than they did when they tried it with Clinton. And again, just like last time, they would come off looking very petty, vindictive, and stupid. I would hope that the Democrats in Congress are smarter than that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. You mean, you expect America's top jurists to lie?

Peachy.

[totodeinhere]

80. In this case the word "lie" is relative.

You and I might agree that he lied but do you for one minute think that the Republicans in the Senate will think so? Yes, Alito did testify under oath that he did not believe in judicial activism, but if he were pressed on the subject now he could simply maintain that he does not believe that the decision overturning part of McCain/Feingold is an example of judicial activism. We might disagree with him on that, but there is no way that the Republicans would ever even consider removing him from office over this point. And you know that I'm sure.

[Hosnon]

69. I agree. We can disagree with this but it's hardly an impeachable offense. Let's not start

impeaching judges for their decisions. If we disagree with them, there are ways to fix it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. It is not about impeaching for this decision - it is about his lying to get the job.

The Senate confirmation hearings are his job ap, and if anyone else in the country lied on THEIR job ap, they'd get fired.

He lied, under oath, before congress.

Don't I remember something about a president being impeached for the same thing?

[Hosnon]

77. What did he lie about? This isn't like finding out that he never graduated from law school.

Or anything as easily characterizable as a lie as that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

79. My post #70 below. nt

[Hosnon]

83. It's just simply too subjective to call it a lie.

For one, judicial philosophies change over time. This was undoubtedly known to the Founders yet they still made the position a lifetime appointment. And that's assuming that the judicial philosophy reflected in this opinion is substantially different from the one at confirmation he claimed to follow.

In all likelihood, Alito honestly believes this decision is consistent with what he said he would do at his confirmation hearing. That fact alone undercuts one of the major elements of a lie: intent.

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. If he honestly believes this decision is consistentwith the philosophy

he claimed at the hearing, then he is an idiot because it is obvious that it is 180 degrees away from that position. Considering his lifetime achievements it is far easier to believe he is a liar than he is an idiot.

His intent was to get on the supreme court. Like Thomas and Roberts, he did not consider lying to be an unworthy way of getting there.

You see, they learned from Bork. Bork did NOT lie about his conservative activist agenda, and got Borked for it.

Yes, judicial philosophies change over time - he's been on the court for THREE FUCKING YEARS. Short of getting hit by lighting on the road to Damascus, that's hardly time enough to do a 180 on your core beliefs.

He. Is. A. Liar.

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. He was asked, and aswered, about his judicial philosophy.

This ruling flies in the face of that philosophy, indicating that he was lying about what his judicial philosophy was.

If a person looking to manage a meat packing plant is asked if he has objections to animal slaughter and he denies it, gets the job, then is found to be a member of PETA, that would be grounds for dismissal.

This was NOT a 'vague promise to do this or that'. It is the foundation of his judicial ethics, and the grounds upon which he was given the job.

[Scruffy1]

87. Gerald Ford understood impeachment

When he said the only honest answer is high crimes and misdemeanors means"whatever Congress wants it to mean." Congress is not a court of law.

[Raineyb]

91. Ford should have never pardoned Nixon.

The precedent it set has been making it impossible to hold anyone to account in the executive branch for decades.

[hvn_nbr_2]

16. And Alito isn't the only one who brazenly lied under oath. nt

[lib2DaBone]

2. Finally.. someone speaks out....

[Tippy]

17. Several spoke out on the day the decision came down.....

and have continued to speak out...Rep. Barney Frank was on target since day one.. and was looking into way to reverse...or moderate the decision. Rep. James Clayburn. Even the President spoke the day the decision came down....Heard several statements of others on the issue...

[aquart]

53. I'm glad they speak. When do they act?

[ginnyinWI]

3. he was good.

I think they are going to do something to stop the court ruling.

[tavalon]

55. There isn't much recourse, actually

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. Actually, there is.

Pass a law that defines 'person' to be of flesh and blood. Eliminate corporate personhood, you eliminate corporate 1st amendment 'rights'. The truth is, as we all know, the coporate speech being protected is actually the speech of the CEO and the board of directors - and they already have 1st amendment rights.

[tavalon]

76. That actually is the way to go

At first I thought only a constitutional amendment would do it but this would too.

[me b zola]

4. K&R

:kick:

[Blue Owl]

5. MORE MORE MORE

Pile on Alito while the pilin' is good, and expose this Bu$hCo crony for the turd he is.

[KonaKane]

6. Pat's always been a good one.

He took it all in stride when he had every right to paste Cheney in the mouth for telling him to go fuck himself. I am happy he is not restraining now, over an issue much more important than watching Cheney pick up his dentures from the Chambers floor.

[inna]

7. KR, excellent. See this thread, too: Is Alito insane?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7591880

[brentspeak]

8. Roberts lied, too

Roberts during his confirmation hearings claimed he would simply be an "umpire" calling "balls and strikes".

[Democat]

65. Roberts should be investigated like the right did to Clinton!

The Democrats should hire 1000 private investigators to monitor Roberts every move - and publish info on everything he does that is suspect. He is as corrupt as a judge has ever been, it's just a matter of proving it.

[mike_c]

9. the senate is barking up the wrong tree on this one, IMO...

...and so is Obama. And much of the rest of us, too.

I think the ACLU was correct initially. IF corporations are persons, then they deserve equal rights under the constitution, and Alito, Scalia, and Roberts were correct, IMO, along with the rest of the majority. The precedents they overturned NEEDED to be undone, because they essentially limited equal rights under the constitution.

Rather than attacking this decision, Congress should be attacking the circumstance that makes it necessary and just-- corporate personhood. Take that away, and this decision becomes meaningless. AND it becomes meaningless in a way that cannot set a precedent that might be used to deny real persons any rights in the future.

But of course, Congress will NEVER bite the corporate hand that pays feeds them.

[hlthe2b]

11. Money does not equate to free speech...

The founding fathers never meant the two to be conflated.

[mike_c]

15. well, THAT opinion differs from previous precedents, too...

...if I'm not mistaken. And it's an unnecessary argument anyway if corporate personhood is rescinded. That's the problem with trying to have their cake and eat it too-- folks want to somehow reverse this decision without going right to the corporate personhood that underlies it, and the only way to do that is to split hairs about what "speech" is and what it isn't. Rescinding corporate personhood solves that problem MUCH more neatly, IMO.

[hlthe2b]

22. Actually, some of the legal eagles whose posts I've read...

argue that there has never REALLY been an establishment of Corporations as personhood... Rehnquest apparently went out of his way to avoid either taking cases that would require clarification or for them to establish that once and for all... There supposedly has been a chipping away given enough cases that some have assumed that to be the case. Nonetheless, the dissenting opinions on the USSC did not use the corporate personhood argument in their dissent.

[KamaAina]

38. Correct

it was written into the margins of a decision favoring a railroad -- by a court reporter who had once been president of a railroad!

[tomp]

40. but wsn't it scotus that established corporate personhood?

how does congress address that?

[SlingBlade]

45. Your Making WAYYY to much sense here ......

No Soup for You !

[intheflow]

48. Yes, of course the the concept of Corp personhood should be rescinded.

But a concept is not a ruling, nor using that phrase. It was a series of smaller decisions setting precedent, and this one is the topper on the cake. Even rescinding this one will start building new precedent--as if the founders of the country hadn't set enough of a precedent with the Constitution, which is all about affording rights to Persons while there's relatively little about Commerce in general and absolutely nothing at all about Corporations.

[BunkerHill24]

10. Please Sen. Leahy....you decide.....the facts are staring at you....

make us all proud Senator...C'mon.

[hootinholler]

25. It's not up to Leahy

It would be up to Mr Conyers to bring impeachment charges.

-Hoot

[totodeinhere]

59. Which won't happen. n/t

[swilton]

12. A lot of hot air

Alito's record on Roe v. Wade was discussed at length before his senate confirmation hearings. The public warned the senators that Alito couldn't be trusted - why did these Democratic Senators approve him anyway

I am a fan of Leahy's but

Activists who were monitoring the Bush supreme court justice nominees are not surprised. Why is Leahy whining? He ought to save his energy and try to do something about it instead of grandstanding.

Same old same old -

[Bluebear]

13. You're a fan of Leahy but he's whining and full of hot air? Wow!

Imagine if you didn't like him!

[spanone]

19. whining? i suspect he's speaking his mind....and if that's the same old same old, bring it on

[Enrique]

24. he led the fight against Alito

go look up some of his speeches, your history is totally wrong.

[rhett o rick]

46. Well said. When someone lies that you expect to lie, who is the idiot? nt

[Ian David]

18. Pat Leahy told Alito what to do... though it was physically impossible I think Alito knew... n/t

[LiberalFighter]

20. Every Democratic Senator should know that you can't trust members of the Federalist Society.

Especially when they say they won't be activist judges. Or won't consider precedent.

[Brother Buzz]

21. Is Alito's wife crying yet?

[Binka]

28. Alito's Wife Is Thinking "Shit I'm Wearing The Sofa, Must Have Been Hammered Last Night."

Hence the tears.

[JanMichael]

29. I was thinking drapes or curtains...

...under both definitions hideous to wear in in public.

[cali]

23. people should listen to his entire speech

it's 12 minutes long and packed with good stuff. love his repeating activist conservative justices over and over.

[Cha]

30. Thank you, Senator Pat Leahy!

Wow!

<snip>

"Alito's 'Not True' Was Out of Line; Court Deserves Obama Smack"

.."So, kudos to Barack Obama, that former constitutional law professor, for saying it right to the justices' faces last night.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," said the president. "They should be decided by the American people."

<snip>

"The Court deserved the smackdown it got from the President of the United States last night, and Justice Sam Alito's rude protest--this year's Joe Wilson outburst--was just further proof of what a bunch of political hacks the justices have become."

<Some History of the Court>
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2010/01/28/alitos-not-true-was-out-of-line-court-deserves-obama-smack.html

[DefenseLawyer]

31. I'm shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

They all knew Alito was a crackpot, yet none of them had the political will to even try to filibuster, choosing to crouch in the corner in the face of the fearsome "Gang of 14" and the "nuclear option" (which no one in their right mind thought the Republicans would actually do). Cry me a river, Pat.

[Enrique]

35. they did try to filibuster

a majority of dems voted against cloture.

And Leahy isn't "shocked" at anything. He was speaking this strongly against Alito from the start.

[DefenseLawyer]

37. "A majority of Dems"

Notice that the Republicans now with 8 or 9 less members are able to successfully filibuster anything they want. There is no talk about "a majority of republicans". If the Democratic members wanted to mount a filibuster they could have. IF they had had the political will to unify against the nominee. We knew they weren't going to. They knew they weren't going to. So all the rest was just bullshit, since the outcome was already decided.

[Enrique]

39. what about Sotomayor?

we fought Alito harder than the GOP fought Sotomayor.

I'm not sure if they even filibustered her, and for the confirmation vote we were virtually unanimous against Alito but Sotomayor actually got some GOP votes.

[DefenseLawyer]

42. Maybe because Sotomayor is a center-right judge

based on her voting record. Obviously, the Republicans didn't want to waste political capital on fighting her nomination. Just as obviously, the Democratic Party didn't make keeping Alito off the bench a priority either, even though they now cry about what a utterly terrible justice he is. I'm not sure what your point is. There is no "fought harder", we had 50 fucking votes. More than enough to block him if the party had had the political will. You either do it or you don't. There is no "fought harder" about it.

[patrice]

32. One of the few statesmen left

[omega minimo]

33. THAT'S WHY ALITO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED AND IT WAS CLEAR AT THE TIME

god dammit.

[tomp]

44. agreed and dems allowed it. nt

[omega minimo]

51. The only Senator who tried to slow the runaway Bushco armed robbery train was

Sen. Russ Feingold in the Judiciary Committee.

[midnight]

66. Yes, and why was that? He is the only one awake?

[western mass]

56. Exacty right

[inna]

34. Just heard him on Rachel. F*cking awesome!!

Why is it that people from Vermont get the best Senators??

[Mopar151]

62. Their only commercial TV station is locally owned WCAX, ch3

And a staunch CBS affiliate. One of their owners, Stuart Hall, was their weatherman for many years, and took real pride in his work. Their news people seem to be selected for competence - even the weekend anchors. Their coverage of local events seems driven by viewer interest. They have covered our Mt. Philo hillclimb a couple times, and did a very good job.

[DrZeeLit]

86. We get the BEST because we have values in Vermont and a lot of civility and

this is a very very political state. People are always talking politics. And the operative word is "talking" -- not yelling or screaming or calling names.

When somebody attempts to bring in "out of state" values and money, they don't go over very well at all.

I've lived here 10 years and I'll never be a real "vermonter" but I love this state so much! It's a joy to live here.
Yeah, it's cold.
But the hearts are warm.

It's small. I can actually talk to my representatives -- walk right in the office and sit down and talk.
Last summer, in July, the state's secretary of state, Deb Markowitz (i'm probably spelling that wrong) called me on the phone.
Not a phone bank. She was on the line.
At the time, I don't think she had declared she was running for Governor, but I'm sure she was sticking her toe in for a temp check. We had the nicest conversation for about 20 minutes.
Something of the same sort happened the very first year I lived here. A candidate for state senate actually walked up my long driveway and we sat on the porch and talked for about half an hour. A couple years later, I ran into him in the market (no, I didn't hurt him) and he remembered that I was a teacher. It's that sort of place.

We still have Town Meeting Day. Everybody can have the day off to go to the Town Meeting. Each town actually does meet and vote on items, including the budget. If the budget isn't passed, we rewrite and revote until it is.
Seriously, my town debated the purchase of new wheelbarrows for the cemetery.

I'm a 3rd generation native Californian and honestly, I adore CA and my entire family is still in San Diego, but I don't want to move back.
This is my home now.

And YES! We do have the BEST representatives: Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders, and Peter Welch. (and the irrepressible Dr. Howard Dean!)

[inna]

89. Very interesting! Thanks for your perspective. :) nt

[orbitalman]

41. Alito is soooooo deserving,

but then so are the other four. He just got called out because he was the most STUPIDLY obvious. I think tho, that he needs removal. There just needs to be a way somehow.

[defendandprotect]

43. This is a fascist Supreme Court declaring war on Democratic Party and democracy -- !!

... but how could it be that Leahy never criticized Bush v Gore on the floor of the Senate!

Shouldn't they all have?

Imagine what Repugs would have done had a liberal court stolen the election for a Dem!!

[Art_from_Ark]

49. Yeah, when the Senators were asked if they contested the 2000 outcome

the crickets became the loudest occupants of the Senate chamber.

[totodeinhere]

60. Yes, some people try to claim that the Dems control Washington now, but that's not even close.

As long as these five dinosaurs sit on the SCOTUS, the Dems DO NOT control Washington.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. kick and recommend

[veganlush]

50. I saw this, he was great ...I hope they keep it up..

maybe we should call him and thank him for standing up and saying this

[Enthusiast]

52. Alito is a

filthy Republican. They can't be honest and achieve their ends, they just can't. So a lying "conservative" should come as no surprise.

Look at it like this. Even the GOP clergy lies, and constantly. If GOP members of the clergy can't be honest why would we expect a member of the judiciary to be honest?

[wizstars]

88. "filthy Republican" is a redundancy..... n/t

[deacon]

57. And, verbally unloading on the entire extremist GOP is what all Democrats should be doing.

Yunno, our leadership isn't performing all that great right now - but that party is bad for America. All they want is power and they don't care how they get it.

Not too long ago they were yapping about image change. They've achieved it. They now are officially all lunatics.

[Rockholm]

61. Republicans have unloaded on courts for years. "ACTIVIST JUDGES"

Remember people, this is their tactic. They routinely attack "activist judges" when rulings go against what they want. Marriage equality? Abortion rights?
The right wing noise machine does not get a pass on this one and they should not be allowed the opportunity to change the topic.
By the way, where has the reporting been that the Democrats won the NY congressional seat that had been held by Republicans for 138 years? Scott Brown's win wasn't the only upset.

[Mopar151]

63. It's just a smokescreen

So that when their boys on the court pull one of these moves - like giving Al Gore the bumrush - they can point and say "you guys do it too". The Repugnicants cried lots of bitter tears when my one-time neighbor, David Suiter, made decisions on merit rather than ideology - I beleive the word traitor was used.

[Rockholm]

64. Merit is a long lost art.

[KansDem]

68. GOP = "Gang Of hyPocrites" nt

[jeanmarc]

75. Pat has stood up to at least two Jokers now then(nt)

.

[nvme]

78. Maybe Senate a-holes will learn

Its not like Alito or Roberts were put forward by a liberal President. there is such a thing as NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. obviously they are Outraged Harumph Harumph! dumb asses always do see clearly in hindsight.

[kmac3]

81. Let's Act On This Now

This is just one of way too many cases of wrongful actions that are allowed to happen by persons elected and paid for, by the people, that are never brought to justice. They take an oath to get into office and then forget thier duties and the constituents that put them there. A slap on the hand is not enough. Our Founding Fathers devised a way to prevent such happenings .... why do we not exercise those rights?

[bongbong]

82. Alito is scum

I attended oral arguments at the SCOTUS one day last year, and in addition to watching Thomas sleeping, I got to witness the evil of Alito.

He actually helped the incompetent lawyer who was representing a corporation by suggesting a way to argue his side.

Disgusting. Now I kinda know how Americans felt during the Gilded Age period.

[DrZeeLit]

84. I am so freaking PROUD of my Senator!

He's up for re-election. I don't think a tea-bagger would even think of challenging him.
He is so respected in Vermont -- by both parties.

Besides... all he has to do is show this film! The Supremes are not held in any esteem here since they shot down our campaign finance laws.

[liberalla]

85. I loved it. K&R for Senator Leahy!