And I have to ask, base on the first paragraph in the snip: Do people actual hear what they listen to?
Snip...
Kerry and his close ally, Sen. Ted Kennedy, didn’t help their cause much either by failing to concentrate on Alito’s advocacy for giving the President sweeping authority as a “unitary executive” and his support for the President’s “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief during wartime.
Much as Democrats did during poorly focused Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Kerry and Kennedy recounted what sounded like a checklist of favorite causes of liberal single-issue groups. The threat that Alito represented to constitutional checks and balances – and thus the liberties of all Americans – often was treated as an after-thought.
So, some Democrats who opposed Alito decided that his confirmation didn’t measure up to the “extraordinary circumstances” that the Senate’s centrist “Gang of 14” – seven Democrats and seven Republicans – said were needed to justify a filibuster of Bush’s judicial picks.
That meant Kerry could muster only 25 votes, while the Republicans amassed 72 votes for cloture – a dozen more than the 60 needed to shut off debate. Those votes included 19 Democrats freed from party discipline by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
On the final confirmation vote, however, Alito was approved by a much smaller margin, 58-42, meaning that he could have been kept off the Supreme Court if all those who considered him a poor choice had backed the filibuster.
By contrast, when Republicans were in the minority, they aggressively used the filibuster to get their way.
In 1991, for instance, Senate Republicans blocked funding for an investigation into whether George H.W. Bush and other senior Republicans illegally met with radical Iranian mullahs behind President Jimmy Carter’s back in 1980.
An Angry Base
The Alito capitulation by Senate Democratic leaders has infuriated much of the Democratic base, which recognized the constitutional stakes of putting another supporter of the “unitary executive” on the Supreme Court. But Reid and other top Democrats chose to mount only a symbolic battle.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/020106.html What Kerry devoted huge chunks of every speech to this, even citing examples:
Jan. 25 speech
Snip...
“In his speech, Judge Alito ‘preach the gospel’ of the Reagan Administration’s Justice Department: the theory of a unitary executive. Though in the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the scope of the power of the executive branch but rather addressed the question of who controls the executive branch, don’t be fooled. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of executive power.
“In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, has stated that ‘he practical consequence of this theory is dramatic: it renders unconstitutional independent agencies and counsels.’ This means that Congress would lose the power to protect public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission—which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace—and the Securities and Exchange Commission—which protects Americans from corporations like Enron—and the President would gain it.
“Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.
“Judge Alito’s endorsement of the unitary executive theory is not my only cause for concern. In 1986, while working in the Justice Department, Judge Alito endorsed the idea that presidential ‘signing statements’ could be used to influence judicial interpretation of legislation. His premise was that the President’s understanding of legislation was as important as Congress’ in determining legislative intent—startling when you consider that Congress is the legislative branch.
Jan. 27 speech
Snip...
“His eagerness to buy the FBI's arguments, particularly in light of the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, raises serious questions about how he would approach serious constitutional violations to the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping. Americans across the board are concerned about the violation of the law with respect to what we passed in the Congress overwhelmingly. After all, with the eavesdropping in Lee and the eavesdropping being conducted now, we see some startling similarity. Both are defended on the basis of Executive discretion and self-restraint.
“The fourth amendment is not defined that way. It is defined by judicial restraint itself, not the Executive restraint, and by judicial review.
“We also should never forget, as we think about this issue, the words of an eminent Justice, Justice Brandeis, who said:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent....The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
“I believe that is what we need to protect ourselves against. That is what the Framers created the judiciary to do. And that is what I fear the record shows Judge Alito has not been willing to do.
“Now, if his judicial opinions and legal memoranda do not convince you of these things, you can take a look at the speech he gave to the Federalist Society in which, as a sitting judge, he ‘preached the gospel’ of the Reagan Justice Department nearly 15 years after he left it; a speech in which he announced his support of the ‘unitary executive theory’ on the grounds that it ‘best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure.’
“As Beth Nolan, former White House counsel to President Clinton, describes it:
‘unitary executive’ is a small phrase with almost limitless import: At the very least, it embodies the concept of Presidential control over all Executive functions, including those that have traditionally been exercised by ‘independent’ agencies and other actors not subject to the President's direct control. Under this meaning, Congress may not, by statute, insulate the Federal Reserve or the Federal Election Commission...from Presidential control.
“Judge Alito believes you can. The phrase is also used to embrace expansive interpretations of the President's substantive powers, and strong limits on the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is the apparent meaning of the phrase in many of this Administration's signing statements.
“Now, most recently, one of those signing statements was used to preserve the President's right to just outright ignore the ban on torture that was passed overwhelmingly by the Congress. We had a long fight on this floor. I believe the vote was somewhere in the 90s, if I recall correctly. Ninety-something said this is the intent of Congress: to ban torture. But the President immediately turned around and did a signing in which he suggested an alternative interpretation. And Judge Alito has indicated his support for that Executive power.
“During the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to convince the committee that the unitary executive theory is not about the scope of Presidential power. But that is just flat wrong. Not only does the theory read Executive power very broadly, but, by necessity, it reads congressional power very narrowly. In other words, as the President gains exclusive power over a matter, the Constitution withholds Congress's authority to regulate in that field. That is not, by any originalist interpretation, what the Founding Fathers intended.
“Let me give you a real-life example, as described again by Beth Nolan:
Jan 30 speech
Snip...
“Mr. President, a fair amount has been said about Judge Alito’s endorsement of the unitary executive theory. This is a complicated and somewhat abstract theory of Constitutional interpretation, but if it is ever endorsed by a majority of the Court, it will have a significant practical impact on our every day lives.
“What it says is that the President alone is responsible for enforcing the laws. At its most simplistic, it seems somewhat reasonable: Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws. The theory, in fact, dates back to the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, and it has been championed by liberal and conservative scholars and administrations as a way of asserting the President’s ability to retain control over independent agencies. But, use of the theory in recent times has been changing.
“During Judge Alito’s tenure, the Reagan Administration developed new uses for the theory. It was used to support claims of limitless presidential power in the area of foreign affairs—including the actions that became the Iran-Contra affair. And, this view of presidential power has been carried on by the current Bush Administration, claiming in Presidential signing statements, that the President can ignore anti-torture legislation overwhelmingly passed here in Congress. Not only is the substance of that message incredible, but the idea that the President can somehow alter Congressional intent—the meaning of legislation agreed upon by 100 Senators—with a single flick of a pen is absolutely ludicrous. It turns the meaning of legislative intent on its head.
“In the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the scope of the power of the executive branch, but rather, addressed the question of who controls the executive branch. Don’t be fooled by that explanation. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of executive power.
These speeches are not the only times Kerry focused in on this issue. The only thing I can take from this is that Parry is talking about the Judiciary hearings and Kerry is not a member of that committee.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
