Posted on | January 11, 2006 |
(Pittsburgh post-Gazette) Critics call Specter softer on Roe: Some Democrats, liberal groups contend grilling didn’t match Roberts hearings “Mr. Specter has often said the “dance” between Supreme Court nominees and senators is subtle minuet in which nominees answer just enough questions to be confirmed. But he said Mr. Alito had set a higher bar yesterday. “I think the dance pattern has changed,” the chairman said. “I was trying to think of an appropriate reference. Maybe the foxtrot.”
Maybe Maureen Dowd has the right dance “step”: (NYTimes)Doing the Alito Shuffle. (And if you’re unwilling to subscribe to Times Select, the worst marketing idea the Grey Lady was ever sold, you can find the entire article here
(WashPost) Vanguard Ruling Defended: ‘Oversights,’ but No Conflict, Alito Say But what about the old prohibition against “conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest”? The correct thing to do is ALWAYS recuse oneself when you have an involvement with one of the plaintiffs, whether there is a profit potential or not. With Alito, as with Scalia, we are asked to trust their judgment, and I, for one, would more likely trust the judgment of someone who was a “strict constructionist” when it came to recusing himself because then you’d KNOW he had the highest ethical standards to heart and wasn’t saying “TRUST ME.” As it stands, Judge Alito pledged to recuse himself WHENEVER Vanguard was involved in a case, not “If he was going to profit from it.” He didn’t recuse himself, therefore he broke his pledge, no ifs, ands, or buts. Do we want a liar on the Supreme Court?