Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Supreme Court Battle]   [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

SUPREME COURT BATTLE
S060109       Schumer warns of filibuster of Alito
S060109E     Borking Judge Alito
S060109E     The Alito hearings
S060110       Democrats dig into Alito's opinions on guns, race
S060110       Gloves are off in Alito hearings, metaphorically speaking
S060110       Opening statements set tone for Alito hearings
S060110        Teddy's performance
S060110E     The closing of Ted Kennedy's mind
S060111        Alito won't prejudge Roe
S060111        Arousing sympathy
S060111        In the mainstream
S060111E     Out of the closet on abortion
S060111E      The reasonable Judge Alito
S060112        Alito accused of racism
S060112        Alito probe is a bust
S060112       Biden and Princeton
S060112       Congresswomen deem Alito unfit
S060112        Kennedy belongs to exclusive university club of his own
S060112        One-sided game
S060112        Q&A: From Roe and recusal to full faith and credit
S060112        Senators show claws at hearing, sling zingers
S060112       Yackety-yak
S060112E     The calm judge and the angry senator
S060112L      Judging Alito
S060113       Downhill ride
S060113       Alito emerges unscathed from grueling hearings
S060113       Alito expected to be confirmed
S060113       Alito strives to 'emulate' O'Connor on bench
S060113       Alito used group to show Reagan accord
S060113       Kennedy belongs to exclusive club
S060113       Public divided on support for Alito
S060113       Republicans say Alito personal jabs went too far
S060113E     The candid Judge Alito
S060113L     Alito and the side show
S060114L     Confirming Judge Alito

LIFE
L060112Md Ehrlich proposes stem-cell funding

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H060109       UTAH   Theater resists 'Brokeback Mountain'
H060113      RHODE ISLAND   'Survivor' winner goes on trial

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R0601017     Navy chaplain to break fast
R060108       Chaplain ends 18-day fast
R060109       'Justice Sunday' hails religious liberty
R060109       KANSAS   Foes to attend forum on intelligent design
R060109Va   Difference in values spurs Suffolk church to quit denomination
R060110E     European secularism
R060112       Bishop reveals he was abused by priest
R060113L      'Strictly neutral'?
R060114       Former priest gets 111 years in prison

EDUCATION
E060113       School vouchers called a success

MEDIA
M060109      Scandal yet to show up in polls
M060111      Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers
M060111      Dean denies party ties to Abramoff
M060113      Sleeping media

OTHER
O060109Md Cardin picks up support in Western Maryland
O060110       Approval ratings for Ehrlich rebound
O060111       IDAHO   Father gets life in girl's rape, stabbing
O060112       Republicans protest election of speaker
O060113Md Ehrlich, Steele leading in poll
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

R060109   KANSAS   Foes to attend forum on intelligent design
    LAWRENCE -- Attorneys who blocked intelligent design from being taught in Dover, Pa., schools plan to participate in a forum in Kansas. Eric Rothschild and Stephen G. Harvey, who argued the case in which a federal judge ruled that intelligent design is repackaged creationism, will appear Jan. 28 at the University of Kansas.
    State officials haven't endorsed intelligent design but did change science standards to include more criticism of evolution.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H060109   UTAH   Theater resists 'Brokeback Mountain'
    SALT LAKE CITY -- A movie theater owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller abruptly changed its screening plans and decided not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain."
    The film, an R-rated Western homosexual romance story, was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Instead, it was pulled from the schedule.
    A message posted at the ticket window read: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060109   Schumer warns of filibuster of Alito

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2006

Democrats said yesterday that they may block the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., depending on the answers the nominee gives at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, which begin today.
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and a member of the committee, said that if Judge Alito refuses to answer questions on issues that Democrats deem vital, the party will be more likely to block the nomination.
    "If he continuously, given his previous record, refused to answer questions and hid behind 'I can't answer this because it might come before me,' it would increase the chances of a filibuster," Mr. Schumer said.
    Also yesterday, another Judiciary Committee Democrat said she would likely block the nomination if she concludes that Judge Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that declared abortion a constitutional right.
    "If I believed he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe ... most likely 'yes,'" said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether she would filibuster the nomination.
    In 1985, Judge Alito wrote an application essay for a job in the Reagan administration, saying the Constitution contains no right to abortion.
    Republicans, meanwhile, prepared to defend President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and have laid the groundwork to assure Judge Alito's confirmation.
    Majority Leader Bill Frist has said all along that he would employ the "nuclear option" to ban judicial filibusters if Democrats lodge one against this nominee. But Mr. Frist doesn't have public commitments from the 50 senators whom he would need to ban the filibusters.
    A deal on judicial nominees struck among the "Gang of 14" senators -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- requires that Democrats allow an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances."
    Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and one of the "Gang of 14," said yesterday that Mr. Frist would get his vote if Democrats blocked Judge Alito based on his stance on abortion or Roe v. Wade.
    "I would consider that not only not an extraordinary circumstance, but a threat to the independence of the judiciary, and I would stop it in its tracks with my vote," he said on Fox.
    For two months, Democrats have exhaustively researched Judge Alito's personal background and his record as a federal judge.

    Starting with their opening statements today, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will begin a broad array of attacks on the nominee's judicial philosophy, personal integrity and credibility.
    A primary focus of the hearings, Democrats say, will be Judge Alito's position on presidential authority, especially in light of the recent New York Times leak that revealed Mr. Bush's approval of warrantless spying on international communications involving terrorism suspects.
    "Those issues are front and center in terms of the national dialogue," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, on ABC's "This Week."
    Democrats also have begun challenging Judge Alito's credibility and integrity.
    For instance, Mr. Kennedy criticized Judge Alito for not recusing himself from a case involving Vanguard Corp., which handles the judge's investment portfolio.
    Democrats also criticized Judge Alito for touting his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which once opposed the acceptance of women at the university.
    Originally, Democrats had included freelance writer Stephen R. Dujack in their witness list for the hearings. Mr. Dujack says the organization, which was founded the year Judge Alito graduated -- 1972, opposed the admission of women and minorities at Princeton.
    Mr. Dujack was removed from the witness list, however, after it was revealed that Mr. Dujack once wrote a column that compared killing animals for food to killing Jews during the Holocaust.
    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and Judiciary chairman, said he expects a Jan. 17 vote in his panel on the nomination, paving the way for a vote by the full Senate on Jan. 20.
    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said yesterday that Democrats may not stick to that schedule.
    "Obviously, if he doesn't answer the questions, then it gets out of my control," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Some senator would move to hold it over. Let's hope we get all the answers so that doesn't happen."
    Mr. Kennedy added, "There's no plan at the present time, but we're not eliminating any procedural actions by the Senate members or by the Democratic leadership."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M060109   Scandal yet to show up in polls

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2006

The downfall of lobbyist Jack Abramoff so far has yielded little political impact, pollsters and campaign strategists say.
    While one recent poll showed Democrats with a slight edge going into this fall's midterm congressional elections, several observers say there is no indication that the scandal surrounding Abramoff -- a former conservative activist who pleaded guilty to several felony charges last week -- has begun to influence voters' perceptions.
    "It's too soon in terms of the story really breaking into the public imagination," said independent pollster John Zogby. "It's less than a week old. Prior to that it was purely an inside the Washington Beltway story."
    Republicans have been quick to point out that Abramoff, along with his clients and associates, gave millions to Democrats, and Mr. Zogby said this requires "a note of caution to both sides" in the scandal.
    "The Democrats' tendency to portray the Republican Congress as the most corrupt in years could backfire on them, because clearly that opens the door to the Democrats who have received money from Abramoff," Mr. Zogby said. "On the other hand, I don't think Republicans want to be out there saying everybody does it."
    An Associated Press/Ipsos poll of 1,001 Americans, taken between Jan. 3 and 5, showed that more people were leaning toward voting Democratic in this year's congressional elections, with Democrats favored over Republicans by 49 percent to 36 percent.
    That survey was taken before Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, under scrutiny for his close ties to Abramoff, announced that he would not seek to return to his Republican House leadership position.
     Republicans discounted the AP "generic poll" -- which is not based on what voters think of actual candidates -- saying such surveys tend to exaggerate the Democratic vote. But some said it was an accurate political measurement of the mood of the country at any given time.
    "Generic polls are not predictive at all at this point, but it is a good indicator of the general mood of the country at this point. That number is pretty consistent with other [poll] numbers out there," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
    "Voters will make distinctions about their own representative and senators regarding their own actions in connection with Mr. Abramoff, but the problem is the image of Congress, which is not healthy at the moment and which is likely to take another Democratic hit," he said.
    Throughout most of last week, Democrats were attempting to tie the lobbying scandal to the Republican Congress and Republican lawmakers who had accepted campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff, or did legislative favors for him. The Democratic National Committee said their party would make Washington's "culture of corruption" a major campaign issue in November.
    House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that "this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history, and the American people are paying the price." Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the Abramoff imbroglio "a Republican scandal."
    Republicans countered with a detailed list of Democratic lawmakers, including Mr. Reid, who have accepted Abramoff-connected campaign contributions. "A Republican problem? Not so fast, Senator Reid," was the headline on one of more than a dozen Republican broadsides last week.
     "From the polling data we've seen, it's not one side or the other that's getting fallout from the corruption charges that are out there," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R060109   'Justice Sunday' hails religious liberty

January 9, 2006

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Conservatives rallied in defense of religious liberty and in favor of reforming the federal courts on the eve of Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
    The evening rally, dubbed "Justice Sunday III," was held in the state where Judge Alito sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, told the gathering that liberal judges are "destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent."
    "The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito," Mr. Santorum said. "Unfortunately, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee seem poised to drag these hearings into the gutter so they can continue their far left judicial activism on the Supreme Court."
    The Rev. Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also attended the event.
    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which organized the event, said the event was a response to rulings such as last year's 5-4 Supreme Court decision prohibiting a display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky, and a federal judge's declaration that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
    "The demand by judges that a Christian check his or her faith at the door before entering the public realm is a tyrannical use of judicial power, and it must cease," Mr. Perkins said at a press conference before the event.
    Liberal groups and some religious leaders organized a protest at the rally, maintaining that the sponsors of "Justice Sunday" back a dangerous mixing of church and state and an agenda that threatens civil rights.
    The Rev. Herbert Lusk, pastor of Greater Exodus Baptist Church, where "Justice Sunday III" was held, drew the ire of some activists when he endorsed President Bush during the 2000 Republican National Convention. The church's charitable arm was awarded nearly $1 million in federal money in 2002 to help low-income Philadelphians with mortgages. Mr. Bush spoke at the church in 2004.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060110   Democrats dig into Alito's opinions on guns, race

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 10, 2006

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. would prevent Congress from regulating machine guns, block minorities from seeking justice in discrimination cases and allow police to strip-search children without warrants, Judiciary Committee Democrats asserted yesterday.
    Even before opening statements were completed, Republicans accused Democrats of unfairly smearing the nominee by knowingly distorting complex court cases handled by Judge Alito.
    "In an era when America is still too often divided by race and riches, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. "In 15 years on the bench, not one."
    Republicans quickly circulated details of at least four such cases in which Judge Alito ruled in favor of minorities. "Any student in his third week of law school would know this stuff," said one Republican staffer. "It has to be intentional."
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, accused Judge Alito of determining in the case of U.S. v. Rybar that Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate the sale of machine guns.
    "You took this position even though the Supreme Court had made clear in 1939 -- the Miller case -- that Congress did have the authority to ban the possession and transfer of firearms and even though Congress had passed three federal statutes that extensively documented the impact that guns and gun violence have on interstate commerce," she said. "I am concerned that the Rybar opinion demonstrates a willingness to strike down laws with which you personally may disagree by employing a narrow reading of Congress' constitutional authority to enact legislation."
    Simply false, Republicans countered.
    "Judge Alito wrote that Congress DOES have the authority to regulate machine guns," Brian Jones, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, wrote in an e-mail message to journalists. "What's more, he set out a roadmap showing Congress how to do so."
    Judge Alito's complaint in that case was that Congress had simply failed to include in the legislation the basis for its authority in the matter.
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, told Judge Alito he was "the only judge on your court to authorize a very intrusive search of a 10-year-old girl."
    Republicans responded that, in the first place, no judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals "approved" any search, but rather the court ruled on a technical matter in an appeal stemming from the search. On that technical issue, Judge Alito said that police officers searching a drug dealer's house were not wrong to search the suspect's daughter because the affidavit extended to everyone present.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060110   Opening statements set tone for Alito hearings

January 10, 2006

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The following are excerpts from opening statements during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court:
    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican: "Hearings for a Supreme Court nominee should not have a political tilt for either Republicans or Democrats. They should ... be for all Americans. ... While I personally consider it inappropriate to ask a nominee how he would vote on a specific matter likely to come before the court, senators may ask whatever they choose, and the nominee is similarly free to respond as he chooses. It has been my experience that the hearings are a subtle minuet with nominees answering as many questions as they think they have to in order to be confirmed."
    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat: "The challenge for Judge Alito in the course of these hearings is to demonstrate that he will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans and serve as an effective check on government overreaching. The president has not helped his cause by withdrawing his earlier nomination of Harriet Miers in the face of criticism from an extreme faction of his own party."
    Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican: "Groups are trying to defeat your nomination because you will not support their liberal agenda. And the reason they oppose you is precisely why I support you. I want judges on the Supreme Court who will not use their position to impose a political agenda on the American people. I want judges on the Supreme Court who will respect the words and meaning of the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress and the laws enacted by state legislatures."
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat: "While every Supreme Court nominee has a great burden, yours, Judge Alito, is triply high. First, because you have been named to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the pivotal swing vote on a divided court; second, because you have been picked to placate the extreme right wing after the hasty withdrawal of Harriet Miers; and finally, because your record of opinions and statements on a number of critical Constitutional questions seems quite extreme."
    Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican: "I know that there is a pitched battle going on outside the Senate, with dueling press conferences, television ads, e-mail petition drives, and stacks of reports and press releases. The Senate can rise above that battle if we remember the proper role for the Senate and the proper role for judges."
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat: "Time and again the vacancy you seek to fill was the most important vote on the court for civil rights, human rights, women's rights, workers' rights, and restraining an overreaching president. ... The person who fills the O'Connor vacancy will truly tip the balance of the scales of justice in America."
    Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican: "Judge Alito has an impressive and extensive legal and judicial record, certainly one worthy of a Supreme Court justice. ... Yet, some liberal interest groups have come out in full force and have attempted to paint Judge Alito to be an extremist and an activist. ... I don't like to see facts twisted or untruths fabricated to give the nominee a black eye even before he sets foot in front of the Judiciary Committee."
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat: "In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture, and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling."
    Sen. Mike DeWine, Ohio Republican: "Your decisions are usually brief and to the point. You write with clarity and common sense. And, in most cases, you defer to the decision-making of those closest to the problem at hand. I don't expect to agree with every case you decide. But, your modest approach to judging seems to bode well for our democracy."
    Judge Alito: "I have been shaped for the last 15 years by my experiences as a judge of the court of appeals. During that time, I have sat on thousands of cases — and I have written hundreds of opinions. And the members of this committee and the members of their staff, who have had the job of reviewing all of those opinions, really have my sympathy. I think that may have constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
    "I've learned a lot during my years on the 3rd Circuit; particularly, I think, about the way in which a judge should go about the work of judging. ...
    "A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn't have a client.
    "The judge's only obligation — and it's a solemn obligation — is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.
    "Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One of those habits of mind is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered.
    "Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read, or the next argument that's made by an attorney who's appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case when the judges privately discuss the case.
    "It's been a great honor for me to spend my career in public service. It has been a particular honor for me to serve on the court of appeals for these past 15 years because it has given me the opportunity to use whatever talent I have to serve my country by upholding the rule of law.
    "And there is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.
    "Fifteen years ago, when I was sworn in as a judge of the court of appeals, I took an oath. I put my hand on the Bible, and I swore that I would administer justice without respect to persons, that I would do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I would carry out my duties under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
    "And that is what I have tried to do to the very best of my ability for the past 15 years. And if I am confirmed, I pledge to you that that is what I would do on the Supreme Court."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060110   Gloves are off in Alito hearings, metaphorically speaking

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 10, 2006

Baseball is back.
    No, not the Nationals, but the Senators. The national pastime has once again taken the pitcher's mound in Supreme Court confirmations hearings.
    Last year, it became the cliche of the hearings for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who led off by asserting that he would call cases the way an umpire calls balls and strikes.
    Senators fielded a full roster of baseball-isms yesterday with the start of hearings for federal Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., himself a big fan.
    Yesterday's first home run came from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican.
    "We do not evaluate an umpire's performance based on which team won the game, but on how that umpire applied the rules inning after inning," he said. "We do not hire umpires by showing them the roster for the upcoming season and demanding to know which teams they will favor before those teams even take the field."
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, was calling the game a little differently.
    "If the record showed that an umpire repeatedly called 95 percent of pitches strikes when one team's players were up and repeatedly called 95 percent of pitches balls when the other team's players were up, one would naturally ask whether the umpire was really being impartial and fair," he said.
    As the hearings -- and the increasingly strained baseball metaphors -- dragged into extra innings, Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, offered Judge Alito a little hope. "You have only two more pitchers and then you get to bat," Mr. Brownback said.
    When Judge Alito got to the plate, he avoided baseball metaphors, though he did feel it necessary to pay homage to the national pastime in describing his good upbringing.
    "I attended the public schools," he said. "In my spare time I played baseball and other sports with my friends."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060110   Teddy's performance
    "In 1987 Sen. Edward M. Kennedy crystallized opposition to a conservative Supreme Court nominee by warning that 'Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution,' " the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Michael McGough writes.
    "Even those who denounced that indictment as a demagogic caricature of Judge Bork's views conceded that it made for a sensational sound bite, and of course Judge Bork eventually was rejected by the Senate," Mr. McGough noted.
    "I thought of that famous Kennedy quote Thursday when I attended what was billed as a roundtable discussion (actually, four tables were arranged in a square) between Sen. Kennedy and reporters on the subject of this week's confirmation hearings for [Judge] Samuel A. Alito Jr.
    "Unlike his clarion call in 1987, Sen. Kennedy's presentation was meandering and listless.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M060111   Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers

By Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 11, 2006

A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
    Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.
    A source working with the Justice Department on the investigation told The Washington Times that Abramoff was questioned during several interviews about the lawmakers and their purported ties to the lobbyist and his former clients.
    The source said prosecutors asked Abramoff whether the lawmakers had performed "official acts" in exchange for campaign cash or other favors. Although it is unknown whether any of the five will be charged in the case, the source said Abramoff was being "prepped" by five Justice Department attorneys in that event.
    Others familiar with the investigation confirmed the names of the three Republican and two Democratic legislators.
    All five lawmakers said that they have not done anything illegal and that all their dealings with Abramoff and his clients were legitimate.
    The sources also said that at least two legislative directors and other lobbyists are under investigation in the preliminary round of inquiry. The probe is expected to widen and could ensnare "a minimum" of 20 members of Congress, they said.
    Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has not been directly implicated by Abramoff in the probe, but the Texas Republican's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, has emerged as a person of interest in the preliminary probe, the sources said.
    Mr. DeLay's former communications director, Michael Scanlon, also worked as an Abramoff business partner and pleaded guilty in November to corruption charges. Scanlon also is cooperating in the government probe.
    Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington on Jan. 3 to conspiracy, tax evasion and fraud in a scheme involving what he described as the "corruption of public officials," saying he raised campaign cash, funded trips and gave other items to lawmakers "in exchange for certain official acts."
    Seeking to reduce a 30-year prison sentence to 91/2 years, Abramoff has agreed with prosecutors to cooperate fully in the government's influence-peddling investigation. Prosecutors have seized his computer hard drive and are reviewing 500,000 e-mails.
    Jim Manley, Mr. Reid's spokesman, said that no official acts were performed for Abramoff and that the senator has always opposed the expansion of off-reservation gambling, a stance favorable to Abramoff's clients.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060111   Alito won't prejudge Roe

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 11, 2006

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. told senators yesterday that he would approach any abortion case before the Supreme Court with an "open mind," but left himself plenty of room to overturn the decision that made abortion a constitutional right if given the chance.
    Of the three abortion cases he's heard while sitting on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito has upheld abortion restrictions in one and struck them down in two.
    "In each instance, I did it because that's what I thought the law required," he said in response to questions about a 1985 job application essay in which he said the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion.
    But, he added later in yesterday's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court precedents on abortion are not sacred.
    "It is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents," Judge Alito said, a reference to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. But "it's not an inexorable command."
    But Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, seemed fairly sure where Judge Alito stood after nearly 30 minutes of questioning.
    "We can only conclude that if the question came before you, it is very likely that you would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade," he told the nominee.
    Abortion was among a wide range of issues about which Judge Alito was questioned yesterday during about 10 hours of testimony.
    It was a day of some sharp exchanges but no major revelations that would doom his nomination to become the 110th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeding Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a frequent swing vote on the court.
    Republican staffers said privately that Democrats have been so docile in questioning Judge Alito that they fear they might have some blockbuster hidden up their sleeves.
    Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter suggested that the hearing was going smoothly because the nominee is answering more questions than many nominees do, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
    "Judge Alito has answered all the questions," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "It's been an unusual proceeding from that point of view."
   Although he's avoided compromising his independence on cases that might come before him on the Supreme Court, Judge Alito has freely discussed "the factors and circumstances that he would be looking toward," Mr. Specter said. "And I think that's a very good approach."
    A top area of concern for Democrats was Judge Alito's initial failure to recuse himself from a case before him involving Vanguard Inc., the company that handles the nominee's investment portfolio.
    Although Judge Alito never violated any ethics rules, Democrats said he violated a promise to the committee 15 years ago to remove himself from any such case. Yesterday, he said it was an oversight, and he recused himself as soon as he realized his mistake.
    "If I had to do it over again, there are things that I would do differently," Judge Alito said.
    Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, told Judge Alito that his memory lapse was no big deal.
    "Let me assure you, don't lose any sleep over that," he said. "If senators kept every word they made to their constituents, there wouldn't be any senators left."
    Democrats also quizzed Judge Alito about his past statements on presidential authority.
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, reminded him of a 1985 statement in which he wrote, "I believe very strongly in the supremacy of the elected branches of government."
    "It's an inapt phrase," Judge Alito told Mr. Kennedy yesterday. "I certainly didn't mean that literally at the time, and I wouldn't say that today. The branches of government are equal."
    Concerns about presidential authority are heightened in the wake of revelations about President Bush's approval of warrantless eavesdropping involving terrorism suspects.
    Judge Alito said the Bill of Rights applies "in times of war and in times of national crisis," but said he could not answer questions on the propriety or constitutionality of the National Security Agency program because it "is very likely to result in litigation in the federal courts" and "certainly could get to the Supreme Court."
    Democrats also tried linking Judge Alito and former Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court by President Reagan ended in defeat. They read back statements Judge Alito made at the time that were supportive of Judge Bork.
    "I was an appointee in the Reagan administration and Judge Bork had been a nominee of the administration and I had been a supporter of the nomination," Judge Alito replied.
    By last night, Democrats were not proclaiming any major victories, but said Judge Alito's testimony had not eased their concerns about his judicial integrity and credibility.
    But at least one leading liberal saw the abortion exchange with Mr. Schumer as the highlight.
    "I have been involved in judicial nominations debates for thirty years, and I have never seen a stronger performance by a senator than we saw from Senator Schumer today," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way. "He was clear, focused on questions of critical importance, and tenacious in seeking answers on behalf of the American people. It was a masterful job."
    The highlight for others, however, came when Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, apologized to Judge Alito for his colleagues' insistence upon repeatedly asking the same questions about the Vanguard matter.
    "I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember [Jack] Abramoff, you will tend to believe us," Mr. Graham said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O060111   IDAHO   Father gets life in girl's rape, stabbing
    WALLACE -- A man who raped and stabbed his 12-year-old daughter and left her for dead was sentenced to two life prison terms without the chance of parole after she read an angry statement to him in court.
    John Rollins Tuggle pleaded guilty to rape and kidnapping with a deadly weapon, taking responsibility and sparing the victim from the ordeal of a trial, 1st District Judge Fred Gibler said at Monday's sentencing.
    "Other than those two things, it's hard to find anything positive to state about Mr. Tuggle," Judge Gibler said.
    Tuggle's daughter, who has changed her last name, looked directly at him as she read a letter to him in court, saying she was determined to overcome the loss of her innocence.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M060111   Dean denies party ties to Abramoff

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 11, 2006

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that Democrats took no money from Jack Abramoff in the lobbying scandal, but a public-interest group official said yesterday that they did accept contributions from the lobbyist's clients, who were trying to buy influence.
     Mr. Dean has stepped up attacks on Republicans, charging, "Every person named in this scandal is a Republican."
     "Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal," Mr. Dean said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."
     But Republican officials and a major public-integrity group counter his assertion with a growing list of Democrats who have received contributions from American Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to tax evasion and fraud in connection with his lobbying activities.
     "What our list shows is that both Republicans and Democrats received contributions from Indian tribes that were represented at one time by Jack Abramoff," said Lawrence Noble, executive director and general counsel for the Center for Responsive Politics.
     "So the answer to Dean depends on how you define scandal," Mr. Noble said. "I would say, broadly defined as a question of the tribes' buying influence in Washington, it includes Democrats."
     The political news wire the Hotline has compiled a list of nearly three dozen Democrats who have received campaign contributions from Abramoff-related tribes. More than a dozen of them to date have refused to give back the money, saying that the contributions were legal.
     Leading the list of Democrats is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has received $61,000 in campaign contributions from various donors with links to Abramoff. His office has said he will not return any of the funds because they "were part of lawful fundraising."
     Other Democrats listed who have refused to return Abramoff-linked money include Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
     Some of the Democratic senators who have returned a portion of the money from Abramoff clients or donated it to charity include Max Baucus of Montana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, and Kent Conrad and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota.
     A top aide to Mr. Dean defended the assertion that "as far as we know," no Democrats were directly or indirectly part of the influence-buying scandal that is under a Justice Department investigation.
     "Indian tribes are not criminals. Jack Abramoff is a criminal who did not give any money to Democrats," said Karen Finney, the DNC's spokeswoman.
     But Mr. Noble said Abramoff may have had a hand in who received money from the tribes he represented.
    "We assume that Abramoff gave the tribes a list of names of members [of Congress] who should receive contributions," Mr. Noble said.
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060111   In the mainstream
    " 'Judge Alito Must Not Be Confirmed.' That's the headline atop the Web site of People for the American Way," syndicated columnist James P. Pinkerton writes.
    " 'Oppose Alito,' proclaims Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. And the New York Times editorial page worries, 'Judge Alito's record appears extreme.'
   "Yes, you read that right: The Times, the bastion of Manhattan ideology, which never met a social-engineering program it didn't like, is now delivering lectures to Americans on what should be considered centrist," Mr. Pinkerton said.
    "But a strange thing has happened on Alito's way to the Supreme Court: nothing. After the first day of Senate hearings, he is still moving forward. In the two months since his nomination was announced, Judge Samuel Alito has been relentlessly battered and bludgeoned by the left, and yet his support is still solid. According to a poll in [Monday's] Washington Post, the public supports his nomination by 53 percent to 27 percent.
    "All of which suggests that the left, and the Democrats who follow the left's lead, will fail in their bid to stop Alito, just as they failed to block John Roberts last year. ...
    "What's the source of Alito's strength? Simple. To a degree that should alarm his detractors, Alito represents America. He represents the mainstream of American opinion, which has shifted from Democratic to Republican in the decades since Alito was born in 1950."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060111   Arousing sympathy
    "If the Democrats seriously wish to secure the rejection of Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, then they made a very bad start with Monday's hearings," John O'Sullivan writes in the Chicago Sun-Times.
    "Only by making Alito deeply unpopular with the American people will they get their own party and five or six Republicans to join together in filibustering the nomination. But the opening day of the hearings might almost have been designed to arouse popular sympathy for the nominee," Mr. O'Sullivan said.
    "There sat Alito, quiet, composed and seemingly reasonable. Against this modest, neatly dressed man, however, the senators preached, hectored and threatened in their most self-righteous manner."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Alito accused of racism

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 12, 2006

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday raised the volume of their objections to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. by grilling him over his ties to a Princeton alumni group that they called racist and misogynist.
    They also accused Judge Alito of always ruling against "the little guy" and of evading their questions on abortion and such other hot-button issues as his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed the admission of women to the all-male school.
    "Explanations about the membership in this sort of radical group and why you listed it on your job application are extremely troubling," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. "And, in fact, I don't think that they add up."
    Mr. Kennedy demanded during yesterday's hearing that records about the group be subpoenaed, and panel chairman Arlen Specter secured access to the documents during yesterday's lunch break. By yesterday afternoon, staffers for Democrats and Republicans were going through the records at the Library of Congress, a task expected to be finished by this morning.
    Republicans dismissed the dust-up -- the most dramatic exchange in three days of hearings -- as a desperate, last-ditch effort by Democrats to stop certain confirmation of Judge Alito.
    "Your critics are, I think, grasping at any straw to tarnish your record," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.
    "It's kind of like we're in the fourth quarter of a football game, and you're the quarterback," he said. "Your team is way ahead here in the fourth quarter, and opponents are very desperate, keep trying to sack you and aren't doing a very good job of it."
    But it did get to Judge Alito's wife, Martha, who sat directly behind him.
    Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, questioned the nominee about his association with the alumni group in an effort to portray Democratic accusations as ridiculous.
    "Are you really a closet bigot?" he asked.
    "I am not any kind of bigot. I'm not," Judge Alito replied.
    "No, sir, you're not," agreed Mr. Graham. "You seem to be a decent, honorable man."
    During the exchange, Mrs. Alito left the hearing room in tears. She later returned to her seat and resumed her constant smile for the rest of the day.
    "Graham's statement brought out some long-held emotions about how he was being characterized," former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats, who is assisting the Bush administration on the nomination, told reporters later. "Her emotions just caught up with her after 2 1/2 days of hearing her husband's record mischaracterized."
    Several Democrats made it clear yesterday that after a placid first two days, they were waging an election-year fight.
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, expressed frustration with Judge Alito's answers on abortion, in which the nominee said he could not commit to voting one way or another and had to keep an "open mind" on issues that might appear before the court.
    "Judge Alito has responded, but he has not answered," Mr. Schumer complained.
    Democrats also said they didn't believe Judge Alito's "open mind" reassurance on abortion, which he gave Tuesday.
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said the judge's past statements, including a 1985 job application letter in the Reagan administration, reveal "a mind that sadly is closed in some instances."
    Much of the Democratic questioning yesterday suggested that Judge Alito was unwilling to give the "little guy" a fair shake in the courtroom.
    "I find this as a recurring pattern," Mr. Durbin said. "It raises the question in my mind whether the average person, the dispossessed person, the poor person who finally has their day in court are going to be subject to the crushing hand of fate when it comes to your decisions."
    Judge Alito, who was an earnest student throughout school, disagreed and discussed one case in which he ruled against schoolyard bullies.
    "This was a case in which a high school student had been bullied unmercifully by other students in his school because of their perception of his sexual orientation," the judge told senators. "He'd been bullied to the point of attempting to commit suicide."
    After the school board tried blocking the parents' attempts to move him to a different public school, Judge Alito sided with the family.
    But Mr. Kennedy led the inquisition on the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.
    In a 1985 job application for a position in the Reagan administration, Judge Alito noted his membership in the group, which published a magazine, and was founded by alumni upset that the previously all-male university had admitted women.
    Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said in a statement he distributed with copies of articles from the group's publication.
    "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," author H.W. Crocker III wrote in a 1983 issue of the magazine. "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."
    Judge Alito rebuked the sentiments and said he had no recollection of the group. He said that he must have joined because he was in the Reserve Officer Training Corps, and the group also opposed the expulsion of Princeton's ROTC program from campus during the anti-war years of the 1960s and 1970s.
    Conservative activists, meanwhile, were eager to point out that Mr. Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing the nominee of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions.
    The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.
    A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.
    "No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."
    Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Q&A: From Roe and recusal to full faith and credit

January 12, 2006

The following are excerpts from the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings yesterday for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for a seat on the Supreme Court:
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat: John Roberts said that Roe versus Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?
    Judge Alito: Roe versus Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it's been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions ... and I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis, for at least two reasons. First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. And secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices ... . And when they examine a question, and they reach a conclusion, I think that's entitled to considerable respect.
    Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican: The Congress has passed the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA ... basically did two things: first, establishes, for purposes of federal law, marriage would be defined as the union of a man and a woman, and second, it provides that no state would be forced to recognize a marriage entered into in another state. [A] number of legal scholars believe that this second part violates the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. ... What's your understanding of the meaning of the full faith and credit clause? And does this apply to the institution of marriage, which has been traditionally an issue and an area left up to the states?
    Judge Alito: ... The full faith and credit clause in general means that one state must honor judgments that are issued by a court of another state. ... The doctrine has ... certain boundaries to it. There are exceptions, and it covers certain areas and doesn't cover other areas. And a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act under the full faith and credit clause would call into question the precise scope of the doctrine, and I believe that scholars have expressed differing views about how it would apply in that situation.
    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat: ... Does the president have unlimited power just to declare a statute, especially if it's a statute that he had signed into law, to then declare it unconstitutional, he's not going to follow it?
    Judge Alito: If the matter is later challenged in court, of course the president isn't going to have the last word on that question, that's for sure. And the court would exercise absolutely independent judgment on that question. It's emphatically the duty of the courts to say what the law is when constitutional questions are raised in cases that come before the courts.
    Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican: ... How do you react to this suggestion that the way you've ruled in the past shows or even suggests that you're biased and that entire categories of litigants may not get a fair shake before you?
    Judge Alito: Well, I reject that. I believe very strongly in treating everybody who comes before me absolutely equal. ... And I don't think a judge should be keeping a score card about how many times the judge votes for one category of litigant versus another in particular types of cases. That would be wrong. We're supposed to do justice on an individual basis in the cases that come before us.
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat: ... You promised the committee that you would recuse yourself on Vanguard issues. Now, I'm just hearing from you that you believe that that pledge was somehow a condition. ... You made a pledge to the Senate, effectively, to the American people that you're going to recuse yourself. Now, you say, "Well, it was just for an initial time, and I think 12 years is more than I really had in mind," or you just qualified your answer. How long when you made that pledge and that promise to the committee, how long did you intend to keep it?
    Judge Alito: As I said, I can't tell you 15 years later exactly what I thought when I read that question. It refers to the initial period of service. And looking at it now, it doesn't seem to me that 12 years later is the initial period of service.
    Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican: Chief Justice Roberts, in his hearings ... indicated that he was concerned about activism by the court, overreaching by the court, and he felt that this overreaching — created a danger that it could undermine respect for law in our country. Do you share that view?
    Judge Alito: I agree that overreaching by the courts can undermine respect for law. Our authority is based on the belief that what we are doing is different from what Congress is doing, because otherwise, why would people tolerate our functioning? Nobody elects us. And we have a system of government that is fundamentally democratic. It's based on the sovereignty of the people, so how do you explain an unelected branch of government making decisions? So all of our authority is based on the idea, which was expressed in Marbury versus Madison, that the Constitution is law. It's not conceptually different from statutory law, and our job is to interpret the Constitution.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R060112   Bishop reveals he was abused by priest
    COLUMBUS -- Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit revealed in written remarks prepared for an appearance yesterday that he was abused by a priest 60 years ago. He is thought to be the first U.S. bishop to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse by clergy.
    "I speak out of my own experience of being exploited as a teenager through inappropriate touching by a priest," Bishop Gumbleton, 75, wrote.
    The written remarks were prepared for a press conference near the Ohio State House in support of a bill pending in the Ohio House that would open a one-year window for victims to sue the church for abuse that occurred up to 35 years ago.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Senators show claws at hearing, sling zingers

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 12, 2006

The Alito confirmation hearings had been a largely placid affair, but things got downright personal yesterday between members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, accused Democrat Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois of hypocrisy while panel chairman Arlen Specter and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy fell out over mail delivery.
    With senators coming and going, Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, instituted a rule that no more comments could be made about another member unless that member was there to defend himself. At one point, a visibly distraught Martha Alito, who had sat behind her husband through the entire hearings excused herself from the room to regain her composure.
    The brouhaha came after many observers had decided that Democrats had been neutered during the first two days, mastering the art of softball pitches. The Washington Post had called the sessions "a most tender roast of Alito."
    Not yesterday.
    The sharpest exchange came after Mr. Kennedy accused Mr. Specter of lying about whether he had gotten a letter requesting more information from the Library of Congress that Mr. Kennedy said would shed light on Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton.
    "We actually didn't get a letter," Mr. Specter said.
    "You did get a letter," interrupted the Massachusetts Democrat.
    Then Mr. Kennedy tried invoking a parliamentary challenge to Mr. Specter, the chairman nearly snapped his little wooden gavel as he called the meeting back to order.
    "If I'm going to be denied that, I'd want to give notice to the chair that you're going to hear it again and again and again and we're going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution," Mr. Kennedy said.
    A testy Mr. Specter snapped back: "I'm not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again and again. And I'm the chairman of this committee. ... And I'm not going to have you run this committee."
    But Mr. Specter's staff was later able to get the records Mr. Kennedy wanted without issuing a subpoena.
   The most personal exchange came after Mr. Durbin took up the matter of abortion with the nominee.
    He told Judge Alito that he could not support a nominee who would not uphold the Supreme Court precedents that guarantee the federal right to abortion. He then quizzed the nominee about the 1985 job application essay he wrote in which he said there was no basis for abortion rights in the Constitution.
    When it was Mr. Coburn's turn to question the nominee, he turned the spotlight to Mr. Durbin.
    "For 45 years, Senator Durbin was adamantly pro-life and he wrote multiple, multiple letters expressing that up until 1989," he said. Today, "he is a very strong advocate for the abortion stance and a free right to choose."
    All the while, a Coburn staffer held aloft a large blue placard of a blown-up letter by Mr. Durbin when he was in the House.
    "Thank you very much for taking the time to express your opposition to abortion," Mr. Durbin wrote in 1989. "I believe we should end abortion on demand, and at every opportunity I have translated this belief into votes in the House of Representatives."
    Mr. Durbin, who had left the hearing room by the time Mr. Coburn's turn to speak had come, issued a statement explaining his change of position on the matter.
    "Senator Durbin reconsidered his position on abortion after meeting with victims of rape and incest and weighing the implications of making all abortions illegal," spokesman Joe Shoemaker said. "Senator Durbin has always been forthright about his thinking on the subject and has made his position clear to the voters over the course of more than 12 elections. In contrast, Judge Alito has not made clear whether or not he still stands by his 1985 job applications to the Reagan Justice Department."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Congresswomen deem Alito unfit

By Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 12, 2006

Democratic congresswomen yesterday said Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s failure to define abortion as a guaranteed right makes him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court, but senators said they are taking a wait-and-see approach.
    "We believe that Judge Alito poses a direct threat to the rights of women in America," 20 House Democrats wrote in a letter urging senators to block President Bush's nominee. House members have no formal role in confirming presidential nominees.
    At issue is Judge Alito's position on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional right to an abortion. The nominee wrote in 1985, while serving in the Reagan administration Justice Department prior to becoming a judge, that he did not believe the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion and advocated that it be overturned.
    Senators sought to have Judge Alito explain that position in this week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Unlike Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who during his hearings last year called Roe "settled law," Judge Alito would only say it was precedent and all precedents should be given weight.
    Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee were satisfied with that answer, but many committee Democrats and outside interest groups, who consider abortion rights sacrosanct, were not.
    Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, said his answers show Judge Alito would seek to overturn Roe if given the chance.
    "I think he's being evasive on purpose. I think he's done nothing to distance himself from his prior writings and decisions," she said.
    Many senators who are not on the Judiciary Committee are traveling overseas or busy with home-state constituent work, but their aides said they will review hearing transcripts before they vote.
    "I don't know who the real Samuel Alito is or what his true views are," said Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Democrat, who has been watching the televised proceedings. "Is he just telling us what we want to hear? What is his judicial philosophy? What does he believe in -- privacy, the right to executive power?"
    Alex Glass, a spokeswoman for Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, said Judge Alito's comments on Roe were "clearly concerning, particularly in light of the stance John Roberts took" that Roe was settled law.
    Still, Ms. Glass said it's too early to decide how her boss will vote or whether the issue merits a filibuster.
    Steve Hourihan, spokesman for Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island Republican and a member of the "Gang of 14" senators who have agreed not to filibuster any judicial nominee without extraordinary reasons, said that from their vantage point, Judge Alito is not that far off from what Chief Justice Roberts said.
    "Right now, he thinks there's basically a lot more to come, and a finer point to put on it," Mr. Hourihan said.
    Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat and another of the 14 senators involved in the no-filibuster deal, hasn't had time to review the specific hearing questions, according to spokesman David DiMartino, but "he hasn't seen anything that's come up that would be problematic to the nominee."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Yackety-yak
    "Perhaps Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could rally to defeat Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. But to do so, they'd have to conduct themselves like intelligent adversaries, rather than behaving like a gaggle of boorish, clownish, hectoring geese," the New York Post's John Podhoretz writes.
    "They would have to ask him probing questions that might lead Alito to contradict himself or back himself into a legal corner. They would have to engage in quick question-and-answer sessions in which they sought to make the nominee agree or disagree to various propositions and act disappointed if he tried to evade them," Mr. Podhoretz said.
    "Mostly, they'd have to stop talking and let Alito talk — because the only way Alito can be defeated is for Alito to defeat himself.
    "But Alito's opponents on the committee are just too deeply in love with the sounds of their own voices and too deeply limited by their own limited understanding of constitutional law to give the judge a run for his money.
    "Welcome to the court, Justice Alito. Your ascension is a foregone conclusion, thanks in large measure to people like Sen. Joseph Biden. ...
    "In the course of Biden's questioning, Alito spoke for maybe four or five minutes, while Biden ran on for 25. This is not how you defeat a formidable adversary."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   One-sided game
    "To understand the pain liberals felt during the Samuel Alito hearing [Tuesday], imagine yourself a die-hard fan of the New York Giants," New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin writes.
    "You were revved up for Sunday's playoff game, confident Big Blue would smash the Carolina Panthers. By the first quarter, though, it was obvious Carolina was a far better team. When a TV announcer said Carolina was good enough to go to the Super Bowl, you got the point. The hometown hype was just that. The scoreboard confirmed the misery, with the Giants shut out 23-0.
    "Ditto for the Democrats," Mr. Goodwin said.
    "The Supreme Court game's not over, but my scorecard after the first half of the hearings has Alito way ahead. Calmly, concisely and in a rumpled, everyman manner, Alito tackled the Democrats' most hostile questions. He had help from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who took turns praising him and feeding him leading questions so he could put his actions in a favorable light. But it was his responses to hostile charges by Dems where we glimpsed his conservative and fair legal mind and a measure of humility so lacking in his interrogators."
   Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, put on "another shameless performance," the columnist added. "He huffed and puffed about how Alito had not initially recused himself from a case involving a mutual fund company where he owned shares, as though an innocent young woman drowned. Never mind that he twisted or ignored the key facts, as Alito convincingly demonstrated when another senator let him finish his answers. You know Dems are in trouble when Kennedy takes the lead on ethics issues."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Biden and Princeton
    Not long ago, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. had nothing but praise for Princeton University. But now that a Princeton graduate is a Republican nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, the Delaware Democrat apparently has changed his mind.
    At the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., Mr. Biden said he "wasn't a big Princeton fan."
    "I didn't even like Princeton," he said, drawing laughter from the audience. "I mean, I really didn't like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had," he told Judge Alito.
    However, the Princetonian student newspaper says Mr. Biden had nothing but praise for the university in a 2004 speech at the school.
    "It's an honor to be here," he said then. "It would have been an even greater honor to have come here." Mr. Biden also said he had tried, unsuccessfully, to talk his three children into attending Princeton.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Alito probe is a bust

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 12, 2006

A bipartisan group of Senate lawyers did not find any mention of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. in four boxes of materials from a Princeton alumni group Democrats have dubbed racist and misogynistic in confirmation hearings.
    The search dealt a blow to some of the final Democratic opposition to Judge Alito, spearheaded by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. He demanded the papers be subpoenaed from the Library of Congress before the hearings resumed this morning.
    "Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who secured access to the documents without a subpoena. Democrats have questioned Judge Alito's commitment to civil rights and equality for women because he said he belonged to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) on a 1985 job application.
    Democrats say the group is racist and anti-woman for its opposition to co-education at Princeton University and essays that appeared in its magazine, Prospect. Judge Alito disavowed the magazine and said he doesn't recall ever associating with the group. He said he assumes he must have joined the group because it also objected to the expulsion of the ROTC program from Princeton's campus.
    The CAP records contained cancelled checks for subscriptions to the group's magazine, but none from Judge Alito. It also contained lists of board directors and contributors.
    "The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984, just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings," Mr. Specter said. "He's not even mentioned in the minutes."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060112   Kennedy belongs to exclusive university club of his own

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 12, 2006

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.
    According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information -- including the address of his home that is in his wife's name -- on Sept. 7.
    The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.
    Mr. Kennedy has spent much of this week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings interrogating Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. for his ties to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that is critical of admissions quotas but was formed in the early 1970s in opposition to the admission of women.
    Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said Wednesday.
    Mr. Kennedy's spokeswoman, Laura Capps, said there is "absolutely no comparison" between the Owl Club, a social group, and an organized effort to "exclude women from getting an education" at Princeton.
    "It's a social club. It's like a fraternity," she said. "He has been fighting to break down barriers for decades."
    Ms. Capps said she doesn't know how many minorities are members of the Owl.
    But the university views organizationssuch as the Owl -- called "final clubs" -- quite differently from fraternities and sororities, which are considered a form of housing and therefore not coeducational.
    In 1984, "Harvard disassociated itself from the nine all-male clubs in accordance with Title IX of the 1972 Education Act, which prohibits federally funded institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex," according to a 1986 article in the Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper.
    Mr. Kennedy is widely regarded as the father of that education bill, which has been used for decades to enforce precise equality on college campuses.
    Student opposition to the Owl Club -- even after it had been expelled from campus -- was so strong that involvement in it was fodder for scandal.
    After one student government officer's association with the Owl was exposed in 1986, student Jennifer L. Mnookin took the young man to task in a column published in the Crimson.
    His "membership in a final club is an insult to women undergraduates and to the 90 percent of the student body that the clubs deem unworthy of membership," she wrote. "Final clubs perpetrate an attitude that encourages members to treat the rest of the world as second class citizens -- to make them enter the clubs through side doors, to bar them from certain rooms, to devalue and look down upon them."
    Around the same time, another student, James E. Canning, wrote a column in which he explained why he declined to follow the footsteps of his father and grandfather by joining the Owl
    "I listened to two members brag about their liaisons with various women," he wrote in disgust. "Even more unpleasant are the signs of elitism that pervade the clubs."
    Ms. Capps said two clubs catering exclusively to women have opened in recent years.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060113   Alito expected to be confirmed

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 13, 2006

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. yesterday appeared headed for confirmation to the Supreme Court after Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats exhausted their arsenal of questions without landing any devastating blows.
    "It is clear to me that Judge Alito should be confirmed," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and member of the committee. "And he will be confirmed."
    Although Democrats on the committee seemed unified in their opposition to Judge Alito, a filibuster does not appear to be in the offing.
    Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and a member of the panel, told reporters that Judge Alito is "very bright and very conservative."
    Mr. Biden added that although he probably will vote against him, "I think he is going to be confirmed."
    "I don't see anything that indicates" a filibuster, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said on CNN. "At this stage, I don't see anything that really indicates a filibuster."
    Like other Democrats, Mrs. Feinstein warned that the sentiments of her caucus could change.
    "We can only afford to lose five senators favoring Judge Alito before a filibuster is impossible," said Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. "It's a very tight margin, and I'm not going to presume one way or the other whether my colleagues are even interested."
    The Judiciary vote, expected to be a 10-8 party-line vote, is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, with a target of next Friday for a final floor vote.
    Minority Leader Harry Reid said after Judge Alito completed his testimony yesterday that Democrats would meet next week to discuss a strategy.
    "Democrats on the committee did their jobs by asking tough questions about important issues: civil rights, privacy, environmental protections, the danger of unchecked presidential power and others," the Nevada Democrat said. "Unfortunately, Judge Alito's responses did little to address my serious concerns about his 15-year judicial record."
    Although committee Chairman Arlen Specter hopes for a committee vote Tuesday, panel Democrats haven't said for certain that they will forgo their right to hold over the nominee for one week.
    As it stands, Judge Alito appears likely to win the votes of all Republicans on the committee. Virtually all the Democrats on the panel have indicated -- either to reporters or in their questioning of Judge Alito -- that they will vote against the nomination. The only Democrat still subject to speculation about his vote is Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who broke ranks to vote in favor of the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
    Judge Alito's confirmation appeared to pass its last major hurdle early yesterday morning, when Senate lawyers came up empty-handed after reviewing four boxes of materials pertaining to Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group Democrats say is misogynist and bigoted.
    All week, Democrats had grilled Judge Alito about his membership in the defunct group, which was formed to oppose the admission of women at the university.
    In the final hours of Judge Alito's testimony, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy demanded in a dramatic exchange with Mr. Specter that more records about the group be subpoenaed.
    Democratic staffers, meanwhile, whispered to reporters that the records contained plenty Republicans wouldn't want revealed about their nominee.
    But instead of resisting Mr. Kennedy's request, Mr. Specter sided with it but secured the records without all the drama of a congressional subpoena. They were housed in the Library of Congress just across the street.
    By the time the hearings reconvened, the issue of Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton had all but evaporated.
    "Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document," Mr. Specter said at the start of yesterday's hearings.
    Throughout his testimony, Judge Alito disavowed a magazine published by the group that contained essays pejorative of women and minorities. He said he had no recollection of joining the group and assumed that he must have done so after his ROTC program was kicked off Princeton's campus, a move opposed by the group.
    The group records that Mr. Kennedy had wanted to subpoena included canceled checks for magazine subscriptions, but none from Judge Alito. It also contained lists of board directors and contributors.
    "The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984 -- just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application -- but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings," Mr. Specter said. "He's not even mentioned in the minutes."
    From that point forward, the issue had lost all momentum. When Mr. Kennedy raised one final time yesterday, it was almost by way of a compliment.
    "I was pleased that Judge Alito distanced himself from its repulsive, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-disability, anti-gay pronouncements," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060113    Downhill ride
    "Since 1969, when his presidential hopes drowned alongside Mary Jo Kopechne, it has always been a pathetic peculiarity of modern American politics to watch Sen. [Edward M.] Kennedy indignantly lecture others about ethics and morality — especially on the occasions when he has simultaneously engaged in distorting records and smearing reputations," Tom Bevan writes at www.realclearpolitics.com.
    "But things have changed considerably since the days of [Robert H.] Bork. Democrats have lost 10 seats in the Senate since 1987, going from a 55-seat majority to a 45-seat minority. Conservatives now enjoy much more media parity today as well, making the campaign to defeat a nominee based on distortions much more difficult. And, generally speaking, a slightly more conservative public seems less inclined to buy into the same sort of dire, apocalyptic rhetoric Democrats have used successfully in the past to demonize Republican judicial nominees," Mr. Bevan said.
    "Nobody has felt, or suffered, the weight of changes in the electoral landscape and the resulting shift in the power structure in Washington, D.C., over the last 25 years more than Kennedy. He came to Washington in November 1962 as the brother of a sitting president and an attorney general and as the member of a party that controlled 66 seats in the Senate and had an 83-seat majority in the House of Representatives. It was the height of both his family's and his party's power, and it has been more or less a downhill ride ever since."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M060113   Sleeping media
    Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, accuses the media of allowing Senate Democrats "to publicly commit character assassination" against former members of a Princeton alumni group.
    "On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee harshly criticized nominee Alito because he once belonged to a college group that they falsely claimed was racist and anti-women," Mr. Bozell said yesterday.
   "The questioning was so intense Mrs. Alito broke into tears and had to leave the room because of the unfounded character attacks. And did the media set the record straight on the Princeton alumni group? No. Did the media interview the many former members, female and minority, for their views on the group? No.
    "The media are allowing the Democrats to publicly commit character assassination and make a mockery of the confirmation process. The media have yet to report the true nature of the group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), to which Alito belonged. As a matter of fact, ABC News adopted as fact the dishonest, liberal Democratic allegations about the supposedly bigoted agenda of CAP. World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas referred to Alito's 'membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college.' Yet, CAP has had as editors of its publication Laura Ingraham, a woman, and Dinesh D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution and a native of India.
    Mr. Bozell added: "The media are failing to perform their duty of exposing the distortions being propagated by Democrats, which are ludicrous and unfounded."
    Robertson's regret
    Religious broadcaster the Rev. Pat Robertson has expressed regret that he attributed Israeli leader Ariel Sharon's recent stroke to God's wrath over ceding part of the Promised Land to Palestinians.
    Mr. Robertson, in a letter hand-delivered to Mr. Sharon's son Omri on Wednesday, said the press had ignored his expressions of regard for Mr. Sharon during the same broadcast in which he made the remarks.
    "Regrettably, few, if any, of these heartfelt sentiments were carried by the news media in America or by the news media in Israel. However, I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel for remarks I made at the time concerning the writing of the holy prophet Joel and his view of the inviolate nature of the land of Israel," Mr. Robertson said.
    Israeli officials announced Wednesday that the nation had suspended contact with Mr. Robertson.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060113   Alito used group to show Reagan accord

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 13, 2006

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. cited his membership in a now-defunct Princeton alumni group in a 1985 application for a politically appointed Reagan administration position to prove he was in line with the administration's legal agenda, said the man who hired him for the job.
    Judge Alito listed the conservative Federalist Society and Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) in his application to become a deputy to Charles J. Cooper, who was assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel.
    Democrats criticized CAP this week during Judge Alito's confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court.
    "The only purpose of that essay was to satisfy the Office of Presidential Personnel that he was simpatico with the Reagan administration's legal policy agenda," Mr. Cooper said yesterday.
    People with ties to CAP, meanwhile, say Democrats are using the politically correct environment of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings to smear the group by misrepresenting its ideology. The organization folded in 1987.
    "It was a respected mainstream conservative organization," said Dinesh D'Souza, a native of India and conservative best-selling author who began his career as editor of CAP's magazine in 1983.
    "The organization's criticism of affirmative action and race and gender preferences is being manipulated to make it look like the organization opposed minorities and women," he said.
    On Tuesday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and other Democrats hammered Judge Alito with questions about his ties to CAP.
    William A. Rusher, former National Review publisher and a founding CAP member, said, "Kennedy is trying to give CAP the worst possible reputation in the hope that some of that will rub off on Judge Alito."
    "CAP was none of the things Sen. Kennedy is smearing it as being: anti-black, etc.," Mr. Rusher said in an interview posted on the National Review's Web site (www.nationalreview.com).
    CAP was founded in 1972 by Princeton graduates seeking to expose a dominance of liberal ideas on the campus, Mr. Rusher and Mr. D'Sousa said.
    When asked about CAP this week, Judge Alito said he had no recollection of the organization other than listing it in an essay portion of his 1985 job application.
    Mark Dwyer, a New York lawyer and friend of Judge Alito, says he doesn't recall discussing CAP when the two roomed at Yale Law School from 1972 to 1975. But, he said, he could understand if Judge Alito supported the group because he participated in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) at Princeton, which had CAP's support.
    Mr. Cooper doesn't specifically recall seeing the essay portion of the 1985 application. "I'm sure I saw his resume, but I don't remember seeing his essay of his political bona fides," he said.
    "Keep in mind this wasn't a resume; it's not something that basically remains fairly stable just adding to it as you continue to add things that warrant mention on a resume," Mr. Cooper said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060113   Public divided on support for Alito

By Joyce Howard Price and Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 13, 2006

Customers at Steve's Barbershop in downstate Illinois differ in their opinions of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., with much of that difference running along party lines.
    Democrats don't like him, while Republicans "say he is the greatest thing since sliced bread," said barbershop owner Steve Bainter, who added that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings this week on Judge Alito's nomination have remained on the television at his business almost continuously.
    That partisan split seems to be the case not only across the Midwest, but in much of the country.
    On radio talk shows nationwide there has been a similar divergence of response based on political ideology, said Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers Magazine, which covers the radio talk industry.
    "On the conservative shows, the callers talk about how mean, partisan and vicious the Democrats are and how they caused Martha Alito (the judge's wife) to get so upset she left the hearing room," Mr. Harrison said. "On the liberal shows, the callers say Alito has no respect for civil rights and women's rights. So there is a complete schism."
    In his heavily Democratic home state of New Jersey, however, Judge Alito is enjoying some bipartisan support, where 1.5 million Americans of Italian descent make up the largest ethnic group.
    "Last Friday, there was a rally held by the National Italian American Foundation in Jersey City in support of the judge that was attended by Democrats and Republicans," said Tom Wilson, Republican state chairman.
    Among the New Jersey Democrats in Judge Alito's corner were former Rep. Frank Guarini and former Gov. Brendan Byrne. Rutgers University law professor Ronald Chen, who recently was nominated by Democratic Gov.-elect Jon Corzine to be state public advocate "has publicly come out in support of Judge Alito, too," Mr. Wilson said.
    Italian-American groups around the country, a pivotal ethnic vote that is especially strong in heavily Democratic states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, also were lobbying heavily for Judge Alito.
    "We're proud of him as the son of Italian immigrants, but we got involved because there were some innuendos said about his Italian ancestry that he would be weak on crime because he's Italian," that angered Italian Americans, said John Marino, managing director of government relations and public policy at the National Italian American Foundation.
    Mr. Marino said his organization, which is nonpartisan, has been coordinating events in half a dozen Northeast states on Judge Alito's behalf that have drawn bipartisan support.
    "The feedback we're getting has been almost entirely positive," except for Italian Americans angry over the way liberal Democrats such as Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles E. Schumer of New York have treated Judge Alito, he said.
    "Some people think Kennedy and Schumer didn't handle him so kindly."
    Barbershop owner Mr. Bainter also said that he and his customers weren't always pleased at the Democrats' handling of Judge Alito.
    Asked if anyone in his shop thinks Judge Alito harmed his chances for confirmation by saying he could be willing to revisit Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion -- Mr. Bainter said, "No. [Democrats on the Judiciary Committee] beat that into the ground, and that issue already has been beaten into the ground."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060113   Republicans say Alito personal jabs went too far

By Amy Fagan and Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 13, 2006

President Bush and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday said Democrats went too far this week in their repeated questioning of the personal ethics and integrity of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
    "The attacks on Judge Alito's character have gone beyond the pale," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, said yesterday after the panel concluded four days of questioning the Supreme Court nominee.
    "It is unfortunate for the American people to see such an ugly side of Washington during the hearings for our nation's highest court," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
    Democrats became more aggressive midweek, repeatedly questioning Judge Alito about his purported ties to a Princeton alumni group they called racist and misogynistic. They also questioned Judge Alito about why he initially failed to recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard, though he had investments with the mutual fund company.
    "I can understand bringing the Vanguard and Princeton issues up, but to repeatedly harp on these accusations shows how desperate the Democrats have become. They can't win on the facts, they can't win on integrity and they can't win on the law, so they have to resort to innuendo," Mr. Hatch said.
    Judge Alito's wife left the hearing room in tears Wednesday, and some Republicans said the public empathized with her.
    "We have gotten quite a few calls," said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. "The unfortunate episode with Judge Alito's wife I think illustrates the hostility and mean-spiritedness of public confirmation hearings, and I think the public finds it revolting. That's the tone of the calls we're getting."
    Other Republican committee members' offices reported receiving few, if any, calls on the issue.
    The office of ranking committee Democrat Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, had no official comment but said they received fewer than a dozen calls specifically referencing Martha Alito or any questioning.
    Democrats said they were only doing their job in vetting a potential lifetime nominee.
    "We would be remiss ... if we didn't ask the important questions," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. "What we were dealing with was the record in front of us."
    Mr. Durbin said he empathized with Mrs. Alito when she became upset, adding that he asked Judge Alito yesterday in a private meeting if she was OK. The lawmaker said he understands firsthand how tough public office can be because his own family has become upset in the past when he has faced public criticism.
    Mr. McClellan, however, said some committee Democrats this week sought to "lower the discourse" by making "pathetic personal attacks to please a small, but vocal constituency of outside-the-mainstream liberal groups." Judge Alito showed he is "a brilliant, honorable, open-minded and fair jurist," he said.
    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, defended the Democrats' actions as necessary.
    "Democrats on the committee did their jobs by asking tough questions about important issues: civil rights, privacy, environmental protections, the danger of unchecked presidential power and others," he said. "Unfortunately, Judge Alito's responses did little to address my serious concerns about his 15-year judicial record."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S060113   Alito strives to 'emulate' O'Connor on bench

January 13, 2006

The following are excerpts from the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings yesterday for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for a seat on the Supreme Court:
    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat: ... Would you agree that a patient would have a right — for example, if you have a living will, you have a right to designate somebody who can speak for you in a case of terrible injury or [unconsciousness], can speak for you on a do not resuscitate or do not use heroic measures, all the rest. Do you agree with that?
    Judge Alito: Yes, senator. That's, I think, an extension of the traditional right that I was talking about that existed under common law. And it's been developed by state legislatures, and in some instances by state courts, to deal with the living will situation and with advances ... in medical technology, which create new issues in this area.
    Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat: Do you think the president has the authority to invade Iran tomorrow without getting permission from the people, from the United States Congress, absent him being able to show there's an immediate threat to our national security?
    Judge Alito: ... The Constitution divides the powers relating to making war between the president and the Congress. It gives Congress the power to declare war, and obviously, that means something. It gives Congress the power of the purse, and obviously, military operations can't be carried out for any length of time without congressional appropriations. Congress is given the power to raise and support an army, to maintain a navy, to make the rules for governing the land and the naval forces. The president has the power of the commander in chief. And I think there's been general agreement and the Prize Cases support the authority of the president to take military action on his own in the case of an emergency when there is not time for Congress to react.
    Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican: ... You've been asked a lot about separation of power, FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] and those kinds of things. This Congress has not clarified its position. As a judge, if some of these issues were to come before you, involving congressional power or something, you would expect the Congress to have formulated its position first, would you not?
    Judge Alito: Well, that would certainly be very helpful. These are momentous issues and they're difficult issues, and they've just come to the surface in the last few weeks. And I couldn't begin to say how I would decide any of these issues without going through the whole judicial decision-making process. I think it would be the height of irresponsibility for me to try to do that.
    Sen. Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Democrat: ... If confirmed, you'll be replacing Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor, who is a justice who will be remembered by history as one of the most influential justices of the 20th century. ... How will you be different from her? ... How do you think Justice O'Connor ought to be remembered? ... And how are you like or not like Justice O'Connor as a judge?
    Judge Alito: She certainly will be remembered for many reasons and I think with great admiration by ... the American people ... and I think that when people look back they will have great admiration for her work. She obviously was a pioneering figure and was an inspiration for many people. ... She has been a very dedicated justice and has been known for her meticulous devotion to the facts of the particular cases that come before her and her belief that each case needs to be decided on its complex facts. ... I would try to emulate her dedication and her integrity and her dedication to the case-by-case process of adjudication, which is what I think the Supreme Court and the other federal courts should carry out. ...
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat: ... If we have explicit authority under the Constitution to pass a law, and we pass that law, is the president bound by that law, or does his plenary authority supersede that law?
    Judge Alito: The president, like everybody else, is bound by statutes that are enacted by Congress, unless the statutes are unconstitutional, because the Constitution takes ... precedence over a statute. But in general, of course the president and everybody else is bound by a statute. There's no question about that whatsoever. And the president is explicitly given the obligation, under Article II, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. ...
    Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat: Do you think it could ever be constitutional to admit evidence obtained by torture against an individual who is being charged with a crime?
    Judge Alito: Well, the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled self- incrimination, and it has long been established that evidence that is obtained through torture is inadmissible in our courts. That's the governing principle.
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat: Let's just assume that it was found that the presid