 | Do you know Jack?Become his contact | Who is on Multiply?Find your friends | Want to learn more?Take the Tour | Already a Member?Sign In |
Supreme Court Allows Manufacturers To Dictate Minimum Prices, Screws ConsumersThe Supreme Court ruled today in Leegin v. PSKS that manufacturers can collude with retailers to set the minimum prices of products, arguing that such a decision was good for competition. Succumbing to the court's recent bender of conservatism is a 96 year-old precedent from Dr. Miles v Park that held minimum price accords as intrinsically - or in legalese, "per se" - illegal. Writing for the majority, swing-Justice Anthony Kennedy showed kiddies the dangers of taking crazy pills: Minimum price agreements can benefit consumers, Kennedy wrote, by enabling retailers to invest in greater customer service without fear of being undercut by discount rivals. The agreements also could make it easier for new products to compete, he added, because a retailer could recoup the costs of marketing a new good by charging a higher price.Pardon us for scoffing at the notion that Best Buy might "invest in greater customer service" now that they can work with manufacturers to screw consumers out of an additional $20 for a DVD player. Or as Justice Stevens put it slightly more eloquently in his dissent, "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail.'' Under the old system, manufacturers could send pricing signals to retailers by way of a Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP,) though retailers were free to compete by selling products below MSRP. Under the new system, championed by Justices who promised to respect stare decisis at their confirmation hearings, manufacturers can now use resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements to ban retailers from offering discounts. Leegin is the 15th ruling this term that harms consumers by shielding businesses and corporations from lawsuits. Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors [NYT]Minimum-Price Accords May Be Allowed, Top Court Says [Bloomberg] Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS (PDF) [Supreme Court]
Rehnquist's Skeletons, Part 2 The Supreme Court justice's bad trip. By Bonnie Goldstein Posted Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2007, at 5:18 PM ET From: Bonnie Goldstein Posted Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2007, at 5:18 PM ET Time for another nibble from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's twin background checks on William Rehnquist, conducted when Rehnquist was nominated for Supreme Court justice in 1971 and, later, when Rehnquist was nominated for chief justice in 1986. (To see our previous "Hot Document" on Rehnquist, click here.) Today's document is a medical record from Rehnquist's Dec. 1981 stay at George Washington University Hospital for a chronic back ailment. While in the hospital, Rehnquist was taken off the prescription sedative Placidyl, to which he'd been addicted for at least four years. The hospital's "clinical record" (see below) describes the hallucinations that Rehnquist suffered as a result. In the record's fourth entry, we learn that Rehnquist told a nurse, "Voices outside the room are saying they're going to kill the President." The nurse "walked the [patient] out in the hall so he could see that no one" was there. Rehnquist was returned to his hospital room to eat his lunch. At "1300 hours" (in civilian time, 1 p.m.), the Supreme Court justice cried, "There is gas coming out of the radiator." Mr. Justice Rehnquist bolted from his room, hospital gown flapping, and made it all the way to the elevator before he was spotted and escorted back by hospital security. This at a time when Rehnquist was already considered the most influential justice on the court! Oyez iz mir! Thanks again to attorney Alex Charns, author of Cloak and Gavel: FBI Wiretaps, Bugs, Informers, and the Supreme Court, who provided the document, which the FBI released as part of a giant Freedom of Information Act dump of Rehnquist-related material. Got a Hot Document? Send it to documents@slate.com. Please indicate whether you wish to remain anonymous.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2157684/
FBI Files: Rehnquist Had Hallucinations Jan 04 10:49 AM US/Eastern By MARK SHERMAN and PETE YOST Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI's file on former Chief Justice William Rehnquist _ made public more than a year after his death _ indicates the Nixon and Reagan administrations enlisted its help in blunting criticism of him during confirmation hearings. The file also offers insight into the hallucinations and other symptoms of withdrawal that Rehnquist suffered when he was taken off a prescription painkiller in 1981. A doctor was cited as saying that Rehnquist, an associate justice of the Supreme Court at the time, tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him. The FBI on Wednesday released 1,561 pages of documents on Rehnquist to The Associated Press, other news organizations and scholars in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act following Rehnquist's death in September 2005. An additional 207 pages were withheld under the federal disclosure law, and the FBI said an entire section of his file could not be found. Much of the FBI's file on Rehnquist appears to have been compiled almost exclusively for his two Senate confirmations _ his initial nomination to the court by President Nixon in 1971 and his nomination as chief justice by President Reagan in 1986. Administration officials apparently hoped to prevent any surprises from sinking his nominations. In 1971, Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst directed the FBI to conduct investigations of witnesses who were planning to testify at a Senate hearing against Rehnquist's confirmation. Fifteen years later during the Reagan administration, the FBI was enlisted to conduct background checks on witnesses who were scheduled to testify against Rehnquist's nomination to become chief justice. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 when Rehnquist was nominated to be chief justice. John Bolton, who resigned in December as President Bush's U.N. ambassador, was an assistant attorney general under Reagan. "Thurmond just gave these names to Bolton they will testify for the Democrats and we want to know what they are going to say," a Justice Department official told a counterpart at the FBI, according to a memo in Rehnquist's file. Alexander Charns, a Durham, N.C., lawyer who received the file and has extensively researched the FBI's relationship with the court, said the new disclosures show the two administrations went to some lengths to discredit Rehnquist opponents. "In many ways, I guess it's the same old story of the political use of the FBI," Charns said. The documents show that the FBI was aware in 1971 that Rehnquist had owned a home in Phoenix with a deed that allowed him to sell only to whites. The restrictive covenant was not disclosed until his 1986 confirmation hearings, at which Rehnquist said he became aware of the clause only days earlier. Also detailed in the declassified file was Rehnquist's 1981 hospital stay for treatment of back pain and his dependence on powerful prescription pain-relief medication. The FBI investigated his dependence on Placidyl, which Rehnquist had taken for at least 10 years, according to a summary of a 1970 medical examination. When Rehnquist checked into a hospital in 1981 for a weeklong stay, doctors stopped administering the drug, causing what a hospital spokesman at the time said was a "disturbance in mental clarity." The FBI file, citing one of his physicians, said Rehnquist experienced withdrawal symptoms that included trying to escape the facility and discerning changes in the patterns on the hospital curtains. The justice also thought he heard voices outside his room discussing various plots against him. The doctor said Placidyl is a highly toxic drug and that she could not understand why anyone would prescribe it, especially for long periods. Prior to his hospitalization, Rehnquist occasionally slurred his speech in his questions to lawyers at Supreme Court arguments. Those problems ceased when he changed medications, the doctor said. Charns said some of the censored documents provide intriguing hints of what else Rehnquist's file might contain. In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, "No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist's morals or professional integrity; however ..." The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law's exception for matters of national security. "It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later," Charns said.
Judicial intemperance - Scalia flips message to doubting Thomases By Laurel J. Sweet Monday, March 27, 2006 - Updated: 12:36 PM EST Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state. 
  
Frist Not Allowing Senators To Speak On The Senate Floor About Alito... The Huffington Post | Posted January 19, 2006 09:49 AM READ MORE: Bill Frist, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tried to secure time this week to speak on the Senate floor about Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would not allow any time for speeches until January 25, a day after the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Alito's nomination. The normal practice of the majority leader is to give senators time to make floor speeches about the nominee. Instead of speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Leahy will give a speech today at Georgetown University Law School. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will also give speeches today regarding Alito's nomination -- Kennedy at a think tank in Washington, and Durbin at Northwestern Law School.
Okay, well, maybe there are two paths. I'm ganna skip the linking, because you can just fucking google it if you want back-up, have questions, or desire more information. Today we learned:
So I say filibuster. This is the only path --assuming he makes it out of the confirmation hearing and it goes to the full senate. What the hell have they got to lose? Unless you believe Pat Roberstson that his god told him their would be another vacancy on the court this year. But that shouldn't be of concern. Regardless of who that was--if it happened--the court would already be lopsided with Alito. So I say filibuster now. Block this asshat from being confirmed. Call the Repubs bluff about the nuclear option. So WHAT is they actually use it. They'll be shooting themselves in the foot. Frankly, at this point, I think the Dems on the committee should just refuse to further take part in the hearing. It is a waste of time. No ones mind is going to be swayed. I suspect the CAP documents are the Dems only shot...maybe something in there will kill this nomination now. Prove Alito lied on his 1985 application to the Reagan Administration. I don't know... All I know is that the fuckin' Dems better DO SOMETHING, otherwise we should just call this game over....
Alito: A Defeat for Working Women By Martha Burk, Ms. Magazine Posted on January 11, 2006, Printed on January 11, 2006 http://www.alternet.org/story/30645/ When most people think about women's rights and the Supreme Court, abortion is the first thing on the list. Though organized women's groups are vehemently opposed to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the high court because he is almost certain to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy is not the only thing on the line for women. In nominating Alito, President Bush abandoned the idea of advancing gender fairness on the Court after his own side hounded Harriet Miers into withdrawing. Conservatives feared she would bring a woman's point of view to the bench, as have retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the only female who will be left standing if Alito is confirmed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There's no substitute for personal experience, and both O'Connor and Ginsburg suffered sex discrimination in trying to get an education and a decent job practicing law afterward. O'Connor was offered only legal secretary positions after getting her law degree. Ginsburg was asked by the law school dean what it felt like to occupy a place that could have gone to a deserving man, and she was refused even an interview for law clerk after graduating. The stated reason? Her gender. Those kind of experiences undoubtedly played a role in Ginsburg's consistently pro-woman rulings and O'Connor's upholding of principles underlying women's rights in the workplace. Alito's confirmation, if it happens, could also have profound implications for working women, only from the opposite point of view. Like the other seven men on the Court, he's never experienced sex discrimination firsthand, so he doesn't see it as a problem. His record is clear -- big business rules. During his 15 years on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, he compiled a stunning record of backing corporations over workers in sex and race discrimination cases. He has bragged that he is "particularly proud" of his work in opposing affirmative action, and never expressed regret for joining a militantly anti-woman club dedicated to keeping women out of Princeton. This mindset does not bode well for female employment rights. One case that could come before the Court in the near future just happens to be the largest sex discrimination suit in history, Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Current and former female employees of the nation's largest employer are seeking class-action status to pursue pay and promotion discrimination claims. They've won in lower courts, and Wal-Mart is of course appealing. If the case reaches the Supremes a vote against the women could effectively torpedo female workplace rights for a generation. Just as the Court itself is hugely gender unbalanced, so is the Judiciary Committee holding hearings on Alito's confirmation. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) brings the only female perspective among the 18 members who will vote on whether Alito's confirmation goes to the full Senate. I'd bet money none of these 17 men have ever experienced sex discrimination either, so the topic is not likely to be high on their list of concerns. News reports do say some, including the Republicans, are very disturbed that Alito has backed the idea that domestic spying on Americans without a court order is ok. That may be the only hope for scuttling a nomination that otherwise will be a clear defeat for women at work. Martha Burk is the money editor for Ms, and author of Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in the Workplace and What Can Be Done About It. © 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/30645/
Judge Alito and Executive Power
Sandy Levinson Samuel Alito may turn out, perhaps fortunately for the rest of us, to be a victim of cruel fate, being the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Here he is, a noted-and more than competent, in any conventional sense-ultra-conservative who has the misfortune of having to face the Senate on January 7 in effect to defend his nomination to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. The initial response to his nomination revolved almost entirely (though not exclusively) around the implications, should he join the Court, for the maintenance of the legal regime regarding abortion signified by Roe v. Wade. Opponents emphasized the possibility that he would vote to overrule a decision that he clearly believes was illegitimate when issued in 1973; supporters either applauded that possibility or proclaimed his fidelity to the purported "superprecedent" of Roe, given that many following decision affirmed its basic holding.But Alito was clearly not
nominated simply because he has doubts about Roe v. Wade. One could
reel off at least a dozen of plausible nominees who share that
hostility. Nor was he nominated because he is generally protective of
the rights of the religious and skeptical of the Establishment Clause
doctrines associated with Justice William Brennan. There are many other
potential justices who share that view as well. Indeed, if Roe and
sympathy to the claims of Evangelical Christians were Bush's (or Karl
Rove's) main concerns, there literally could have been no better
nominee than 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael McConnell, a
former professor at the Universities of Chicago and Utah who was warmly
supported by many liberal law professors (including myself) when the
Senate considered his nomination in 2002 (when he was delayed by
Democrats who were then in the majority) and then in 2003, when he was
confirmed. So what does explain Alit's nomination, given
that by any plausible account McConnell would have been a more
distinguished nominee with easier prospects of confirmation? The
answer, I suggest, is the belief by insiders in the Bush Administration
that he would be better on the one issue they REALLY care about, which
is the aggrandizement of Executive power. The events of the past two
weeks, following the disclosures about literally unwarranted
wiretapping and data-mining by the National Security Agency, bring into
sharp focus the intent by the Administration, led by Dick Cheney, to
assert almost unlimited executive powers linked to the
"Commander-in-Chief" Clause of Article II of the Constitution. Recall
that then-Judge John Roberts gave the Administration a major victory in
the D.C. Court of Appeals in the Hamdan case literally the week before
he was nominated to the Supreme Court. He will, of course, have to
recuse himself when the Court hears the case on appeal, as it voted to
do on November 7, but there can be little doubt that there will be
other similar cases dealing with the scope of executive power. Roberts
is likely to be a dependable ally of the President. But the
Administration needs ever more votes. From their perspective, they
suffered a defeat in the various cases in 2004 dealing with treatment
of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Only Clarence Thomas accepted
an argument similar to those made by the German (and many would add
"Nazi") legal philosopher Carl Schmitt during the 1920's and '30s that
the Chief Executive (or "dictator") has basically unlimited power
during a time of emergency. Antonin Scalia, the other justice often
picked out for special adoration by the Republican right, in fact wrote
an eloquent dissent in one of the major cases that emphasized the
necessity for congressional authorization before access to a write of
habeas corpus can in effect be denied, as the Administration was trying
to do with regard even to American citizens held within the United
States. It may be a mistake, then, to view Alito as a clone
of Scalia. It is just as likely that one should speak of "Thomalito"
instead of "Scalito" with regard to the major issue before the Court,
and the nation, both now and in the foreseeable future, which is the
ability to stave off ever more aggressive assertions of executive power
uncheckable by either Congress or the judiciary. To be
sure, if the Administration has the commitment to Executive branch
aggrandizement that I am describing, one might think that an even
better nominee would have been Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig. But
Luttig is in fact too visible; he has written too many opinions that
allow easy identification of his views with those of Justice Thomas. To
this extent, Alito is more the "stealth" nominee. The Third Circuit
simply doesn't have the array of relevant opinions on national security
issues, not least because the Administration explicitly places as many
such cases as possible in the conservative-dominated Northern District
of Virginia and then the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, secure in the
knowledge that it will rarely lose. But it is wildly unlikely that the
justice-pickers were indifferent to Judge Alito's likely proclivities. This
makes it essential, obviously, that every member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee grill Judge Alito on his views of Article II, the
Commander-in-Chief Clause, and, for that matter, the Oath of Office,
given that University of Minnesota Law Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen
reads the Oath to license the President basically to do whatever he
wishes so long as there is a good faith belief that it is "defense" of
the Constitution. Quoting Lincoln, Paulsen argues that just as one can
amputate a limb in order to save the life of a person, so can a
President in effect ignore any given part of the Constitution,
including, of course, any of the protections of the Bill of Rights, in
order to save the Nation. To put it mildly, this theory of the
"amputated Constitution" should give us all pause. Had Alito
been nominated two years ago, many of these questions might have
sounded "academic." In the aftermath of the disclosure of memos written
within the Department of Justice justifying the President's "inherent"
right to torture and then, more recently, of Bush's own public claims
to almost limitless executive authority following the NSA disclosures,
there is nothing at all academic about them. They go to the heart of
whether we can maintain ourselves as a constitutional republic. Some observers are throwing around the idea of impeaching George W. Bush. For a variety of reasons, that is unlikely to happen. We are almost certainly be stuck with Bush until 2009. But we are not stuck with having to ratify the would-be-king's choice of his courtiers. Samuel Alito is undoubtedly very bright, and he is probably as pleasant a person as many of the stories make him out to be. But there is also a very high likelihood that he has been chosen to assist in the overall project of executive aggrandizement, and no senator should vote to confirm his nomination unless he or she is absolutely assured that that is not the case. The stakes are simply too high to allow any deference at all to this president (and vice-president), whose hunger for power, if tolerated, will transform us into a country that none of us should wish to live in.
 Samuel Alito’s AmericaCNN reports that “President Bush will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Who is Samuel Alito? ThinkProgress has the facts: ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991] ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997] ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991] ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000] ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004] ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Is it me? Miers looks like Palpatine and Alito looks like 2nd rate bounty hunter Bossk. You decied!
From HERE.
CBS REPORTER TO WHITE HOUSE: ALITO 'SLOPPY SECONDS?' Damn, I've been wondering about this very topic since I heard the news this AM!
Mon Oct 31 2005 11:26:56 ET CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?” Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.” Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as: Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’” Developing...
So, Alito's wife is a Martha: "Off the bench, friends and colleagues describe Alito as quiet and self-effacing with a wry sense of humor. He is a voracious reader with a particular love for biographies and history. With his wife, Martha, he has a son in college and a daughter in high school. "He's mild mannered and generous and family oriented," Lustberg says. "I don't agree with him on many issues, but I have the utmost respect for him. No one can question his intelligence or integrity." Yes, first obligatory Handmaid's Tale reference...
By NEDRA PICKLER
WASHINGTON President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts." He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove. Not even a congressional recess nor Bush's preoccupation with hurricane recovery and affairs of state have shrouded the continuing controversy surrounding his selection of Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Debate about Miers' credentials was prominent on the Sunday television talk shows and has continued to occupy considerable attention on the Internet. Some of Bush's conservative critics say Miers has no judicial record that proves she will strictly interpret the Constitution and not _ as Busy says _ "legislate from the bench." They argue that Bush passed up other more qualified candidates to nominate someone from his inner circle. On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: "The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know." "We don't confirm Justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals," the Vermont senator said. "No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun." Earlier Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted that Miers would bring "a unique brand of experience" to the high court and would that the concerns of critics would be eased once more is known about her. Gonzales, himself once considered a leading candidate for a vacancy there, said there is "nothing unique or earth-shattering" about Miers' nomination and said people should give her time to say who she is and what she believes. Also, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged there were some prospective candidates who told the White House that they preferred not to be considered, citing the ordeal of the confirmation process. "Washington scares people away? Is that new?" McClellan asked. "There are plenty of good people willing to be considered. The president found the best person." McClellan later said that "it was just a couple of people" who asked that their names be withdrawn, and it happened when the field of candidates was "in the double digits." He declined to say whether "a couple" meant just two _ or more. Asked why Rove would have discussed Miers' religious views if the president ascribes to a conservative judicial philosophy that backs a strict interpretation of the Constitution regardless of one's views on various issues, McClellan said it was just part of an "outreach" to help people get to know Miers. "What we have seen so far," Leahy said, "is more of a commentary on the litmus tests and narrow motivations of vocal factions on the Republican right than it is a commentary on the qualifications of Harriet Miers."
By NANCY BENAC
WASHINGTON Jack and Josie came in right on cue, trailing their father, the man in line to be the next chief justice of the United States. Senators stooped first to greet the youngsters, 5-year-old Josie, in her baby blue party dress and white headband, and 4-year-old Jack, in his blue blazer, bow tie and short gray flannel pants. Only then did the senators rise to welcome Dad, also known as John Roberts. In the gilded, marbled and pillared majesty of the Caucus Room of the Senate's Russell office building _ site of hearings on momentous national events ranging from the sinking of the Titanic to Watergate _ it was the children who stole the show at the start of Day One of Roberts' Supreme Court confirmation hearings. "That is as staged a photo op as you'll have," happily proclaimed Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., after posing with Roberts and his wife Jane, committee Chairman Arlen Specter and the kids, who occupied the center spots. Jack, already something of a national figure for kicking up his saddle shoes to dance as President Bush first nominated Roberts for the court in July, was fidgeting even before Specter, R-Pa., banged the meeting to order. He flexed his muscles for photographers, then snuggled shyly into his dad's arms as camera shutters whirred like a cloud of locusts. Wide-eyed Josie softly patted Jack's back reassuringly, then reached out for her mother's hand for her own reassurance. Introducing his wife to the senators, Roberts observed with a grin, "You see she has a very tight grasp" _ on the children, that was. The youngsters managed to make it through Specter's 10-minute opening statement before winning their freedom. Almost before Specter finished his remarks, they popped out of their seats to be ushered out. The packed hearing room was evidence of how the stakes had changed since two years ago, when Roberts appeared before the same committee after he was nominated for a seat on the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia. Then, Roberts was one of six judges crammed onto the agenda, and he appeared before the senators only as part of a three-witness panel. So scant was the questioning of Roberts then that he was called back for a second turn before the senators a few months later_ this time appearing as one of four nominees up for review. This time, he was the lone attraction, and the hearings were scheduled to go at least four days.
|
