The NUMBER ONE issue to find out about Alito is not abortion

[Norquist Nemesis]

It is Executive Powers. The Senate Judicial Committee has to delve deep into his perspective on this and, tragically, all he's going to be able to answer is: "I can't comment on cases that might come before the court."

Here's why:

Fitzgerald has in evidence classified information. Libby's lawyers are entitled to see that information. But before they can see it, they have to gain security clearance.

Now, think about the trial. What evidence can be presented? Can classified evidence be presented and what steps need to be taken before that can happen? If it is a closed court, do the jurors have to get security clearance as well? What about the public's right to know?

This is going to get very, very sticky and a lot of the motions are going are bound to be in front of the Supreme Court. My guess is the Bush Administration's going to fight it tooth and nail on the basis of national security and/or executive privilege.

The Alito seat will be a critical vote in this matter, especially if it divides the court along party lines as in Bush v Gore.

[patrice]

1. Thanks for this orientation. Can you recommend further reading?

Can we take Energy Policy (secret task-force) and Energy Bills (Crony Pork Barrels) as examples of Executive Powers' concrete effects on voters?

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Well, if the SCOTUS ruled on those

then precedent is being set. I think it would all depend on whether the lawyers aguing cited the decisions and made the case how it relates to their argument. :shrug:

As to more reading, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Hopefully, some of the DU lawyers will help us wade through all of this from a legal aspect. Still, Alito is going to be facing these issues on Exec Power and we really, really, really need to know where he draws the line between dictator and commander in chief.

[patrice]

3. There, that's what i NEEDED for my next phone call or letter.

Thanks.

Will blog this locally and use in my phone calls.

Also : The line between dictator and commander-in-chief has become somewhat BLURRED lately, which is alarming in itself, but NOW we have MORE WARS added to the situations "we" are in.

WE ARE NOT WAR SLAVES!!!

[Peace Patriot]

4. This may be why Harry Reid was on about the "balance of powers" the...

...other day. He said something like "the balance of powers does not exist in Washington DC." We knew that already, but I was surpised that he would say it in such a forthright way. This is not far from saying that we are literally suffering tyranny--not far at all, indeed, is the very definition of tyranny (no "balance of powers").

It is outrageous that a prez with a 35% approval rating (and a vp with a 19% approval rating (!), I just learned), with their top officials involved in a high crime and misdemeanor that amounts to treason, and may even BE treason--are appointing the Sup Ct judges who will determine the outcome of the case.

Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany are the precedents--and tyrants throughout history.

This very situation is WHY Jefferson, Madison & Co. SEPARATED the courts from the executive.

This is way, way beyond Nixon/Watergate and the "Saurday Night Massacre." (That was interference with the DoJ, not with the courts!)

I agree. If Fitzgerald is seeking declassification of Plame's status--which has already been blown by the perps--and it is blocked by a vote that involves Roberts and the new appointment (whoever it turns out to be), we most certainly will have a Constitutional crisis on our hands. In fact, the Constitution will not be worth the hemp that it is written on.

That may be the case whatever Fitzgerald is asking for. But using executive privilege to deny a piece of info like that, critical to Libby's prosecution for OBSTRUCTION, and with no good reason for withholding it, is obstruction in itself. And we will then have the prez and the courts colluding on obstruction.

Cheney's hunting parties must be pretty interesting these days. (Didn't he just cancel a hunting party? Seems like I picked that up in the newsstream recently. Hm-m-m.)

[Peace Patriot]

5. Please recommend this thread!

[slipslidingaway]

6. K&R. n/t

[Czolgosz]

7. Alito taught a class on Terrorism and Civil Liberties at Seton Hall Law.

There will be indications of Alito's views on Executive Powers in the materials from his class on Terrorism and Civil Liberties at Seton Hall University School of Law (link <http://law.shu.edu/samuel_alito.htm>). Does anyone have access to his course materials, former students, lecture notes, etc.?

Also, Alito's pre-New Deal 1937 view of the commerce clause indicates that he has NO respect whatsoever for congressional authority and, therefore, is likely to have a super-broad view of Executive Powers (as does Roberts by the way -- no coincidence).