Sen. Biden Suggests Scrapping Hearings

[leftchick]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_go_co/alito_biden

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday.

"The system's kind of broken," said Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

"Nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about the important issues," such as a president's authority to go to war, said Biden.

As the committee headed into its fourth day of hearings on the Alito nomination, Biden told NBC's "Today" show that a better solution might be to skip hearings and send nominations straight to the Senate floor for a vote.

"Just go to the Senate floor and debate the nominee's statements," the Delaware senator said, "instead of this game."

[rodeodance]

1. god, he is so right!--as it is right now Dems are fodder in the media.

[mmonk]

2. Good idea

in some respects at least until the fairness doctrine is reinstated to the press.

[bemildred]

3. So BIden wants to just give up?

The notion that the Senate cannot MAKE these people talk as a condition of confirmation is ridiculous.

[hippiechick]

8. His point is that

... yeah the nominees are TALKING, but they're not saying SHIT.

It's all a dodge and weave, they're prepped and coached and nothing really comes of them.

When the Dems try to force answers from Alito, they get branded as 'extremists' over the edge, rather than being portrayed as just trying to get a serious answer from the guy.

[trogdor]

14. Even worse than that...

...the nominee gets to go on the record as being officially against all the bullshit (racism, fascism, links to extremist organizations, etc.) that has accumulated on his/her record over that person's career. These lies get brought to the full Senate as if they were the truth and used to browbeat the opposition. It then become politically difficult to mount a significant opposition.

All the nominee has to do is smile, tell a few jokes, dress up the family and sit them down for the cameras, etc. The questions don't matter, the answers don't matter, except that they put a softer focus on whatever skeletons the nominee has in his or her closet.

To this extend, Sen. Biden (as much as I hate his usual wishy-washiness) is dead right on the money. Send the nomination to the full Senate, let the prior record speak for itself, and enough with the dog and pony show.

[Orsino]

15. Bingo!

If the Senate had the guts to demand full accounting as a prerequisite for consideration, nominees would talk. If the Congress had the guts to impeach a President who witheld key documents needed for the Senate's advice and consent, they would get that cooperation.

Biden's implied blaming of the nominees is disingenuous. He's going to vote to confirm anyway, isn't he?

Punk.

[saigon68]

100. YES HE WILL

He is a Dino- the Senator from MBNA

[bornskeptic]

120. Biden will vote against confirming Alito.

He voted against confirming Roberts, and there's no reason for anyone who voted against Roberts to vote for Alito, who is clearly much worse.

[unblock]

82. the MINORITY party cannot make them speak.

the majority party controls too much of the process, to the point when ted stevens can even refuse to put witnesses under oath!
if the majority party wants it to be a sham show, then that's what it will be.

the majority could certainly be tough and demand clear answers, but THAT'S EXACTLY the part that's broken.
i think the thomas confirmation circus is what broke it.

[bemildred]

96. Filibuster. nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

102. How do you MAKE someone talk?

It's not possible.

Biden's right, even though his antics have contributed to the current sorry state of affairs.

They should hold open debates on the candidate's history and paper trail on the floor of the Senate and then filibuster him or vote.

[Bucky]

128. I could make'im talk. Me, Alito, & a rubber hose at Gitmo... Oh he'll talk

I'd have him confessing to his involvement in 9/11 in no time.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

131. Uh....

.....be my friend....please?

[mom cat]

113. Agreed. If they refused to confirm a few mealy mouthed weasles,

we might begin to see some value to the hearings.

[shaniqua6392]

4. I completely agree!!

They are a sham and we learn nothing about the nominee. It is just an opportunity, for Dems and Repukes alike, to bloviate endlessly.

[KittyWampus]

36. It's an opportunity to catch the nominee LYING! Get him on record saying

something.

[cascadiance]

141. This is what I've been saying...

That will be fuel to impeach them with later on, if we feel that is necessary with an extreme judiciary that is doing unconstitutional things. Get him on record saying that using "State Secrets" act to protect executive power towards wrongdoing versus it being used to really protect national security is wrong and an impeachable offense. If he says that, he can be impeached with his own words if it is shown that some of the recent rulings using this justification were in fact a coverup of wrongdoing and not protecting our security.

[demnan]

5. The real question is

will this Democratic Senator have the guts to stand up and vote no on Alito?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

21. Biden said this am he DOES plan to vote no. He's pissed that Scalito won'

t answer Dems' questions.

[Little Star]

65. I like Joe but...

He is all talk no walk. Get it?

[unblock]

85. voting no is a vote to confirm.

the only way to prevent confirmation is to filibuster.
if it goes to the vote, then he's confirmed, and the actual votes of the democrats are meaningless posturing and/or deal-cutting.

the choice is filibuster or confirm.

[IkeWarnedUs]

109. can't filibuster in Committee

Senator Biden can only vote yes or no in Committee. He can participate in a filibuster when the vote comes to the full Senate.

[baal]

119. You people are idiots to suggest a filibuster....

The only way a filibuster would work is if we had every single democrat at atleast 5 or six solid republicans. Anything less just guarantees that the Repugs would "go nuclear" and remove the filibuster as a tool in judicial nominations forever. Once its gone, its gone. And if these right wing wackos are ever correct in anything, they are correct that the whole concept of the filibuster isn't found in the constitution at all, as it calls for a majority vote except in clearly spelled out circumstances. If the judicial filibuster goes down the drain, then ALL filibusters will die forever, then the party with a one vote majority will push through any thing they desire. We MUST retain filibuster power or we're doomed. Filibustering Alito just GUARANTEES the filibuster would die.

.... NO, the ONLY answer for us is too get up off of our asses and WIN some damn elections.

[Laurab]

121. When SHOULD we use the filibuster then?

If not in the case of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court that will tilt the court completely over to the right? If we can't use it, what good is it?

IMO if we can't use it NOW, it doesn't do us a damn bit of good anyway. Save it for WHAT?

[Justitia]

122. There is no "majority vote" in the Constitution, that is incorrect.

The Constitution does not specify that a majority of any sort is required for confirmation, or even for passing laws.

All the Constitution says is that the Senate gets to make it's own rules.

What version are you reading??

[Wordie]

137. But in your analysis, it's effectively dead anyway. Why try to preserve it

for the future, when this is probably the biggest, most significant vote that will come up for ages? The Republicans don't want to lose the filibuster either. Why not call their bluff? How can you say that we must retain filibuster power and at the same time say not to use it now? What use is it to retain it, when this nominee, if confirmed, will be such a disaster that it might not even matter that the filibuster remains as a technical option?

At the very least, Dems must make a concerted effort to identify and convince some other Republicans to go along with the Dem effort to deny confirmation to Alito. It worked with the Patriot Act, remember.

[WyLoochka]

139. This makes no sense

Why preserve the filibuster and then completely fail to use it when the chips are down - as they are now? Alito's well documented, life long extremism absolutely requires his confirmation be filibustered.

The Democrats must take this stand no matter what the yet to be indicted Frist may do in response. We sent them there to fight for our principles. Whether they number 1 or 99, or the 44 as it now stands, they must stand for OUR principles and OUR values and do battle with the right wingers. Elsewise they can just pack up and go home because capitulating on Alito will hand all power to the executive branch permanently and Senators Dem & Rep alike will be, in the very near future, be no more than useless set decorations.

I think a lot of Repubs are waking up to realization of the consequences of the ruthless seizure and abuse of power by the thugs in the exec branch and will be secretly relieved that the Dems come to the rescue by filibustering Alito. There is a high possibility that the Repubs can be forced to draw back from the cliff that BushCo is trying to push us over. That can't happen unless the Dems fight like hell using every single tool they have.

[cascadiance]

143. The nuclear option wouldn't stop "all" fillibustering...

The Rethugs would only try to go nuclear on fillibustering of judge confirmations. In their minds, that carries the least risk, since even if the Democrats regain control over congress, they would still have Bush in power of the presidency and nominations coming down. Filliisbustering wouldn't be an issue then, as the Republicans wouldn't want to fillibuster Bush's nominations, and Dems then would just vote a nominee down without fillibustering. The Dems would have to control both the presidency and the congress, that can't happen until 2008 (barring an impeachment, which might also be kept from happening by a packed supreme court).

If the Rethugs go nuclear here, then step two would be for the Dems to shut the rest of the government down. Use fillibustering and other procedural rules (such as having everything read completely to congress before voting on them, etc.) in other congressional business. Trying to go nuclear on other congressional business is something that Rethugs would be a lot more cautious in doing, because if they do so, then if the Dems regain control of congress, congressional bills *written by Dems* then couldn't be fillibustered by a Rethuglican minority, and they would really pay a price then. Reid threatened to take step two earlier, and the only way this becomes a real threat where the Rethuglicans don't just "step on" the Dems, is for the Dems to take the first step and fillibuster Alito now.

And fillibustering IS justifiable in democratic terms. It was written specifically to allow the minority party in terms of seats who may in fact represent a greater segment of the population (which IS the case now for the Dems in the Senate) to have a way of balancing a "minority majority" where the majority of Senators representing a minority of population doesn't try to exercise too much power. We should remember this and defend our right to use it for this very reason.

[Wickerman]

6. Katie was frothing at the mouth that he was being too rough

on Scalito. All under a continuious banner that read "Democrats Gone Too Far?"

A half dozen clips of the Mrs. crying and scurrying from the room.

Biden was right on. Not very concise as usual, but still right on. Glad to see someone leading with his quotes in context.

[Surya Gayatri]

7. He should know,

that blowhard, blowdried asshat. If the system is broken, it's in part thanks to grandstanding by clowns like him. What a sorry excuse for a legislator. He is an embarrassment. As I said the other day on another thread, Biden is badly in need of an enema of the mouth to control his verbal diarrhea. Delaware needs to get a clue and kick his ass out.
:puke: SG

[Gman]

12. Huh?

Granted, Biden hardly is the classic progressive. But that's a lot of venom for someone that simply made a statement that's right on the money.

"Kick his ass out" and replace him with whom or what?

[Surya Gayatri]

16. Just venting

some of my frustration after watching his excruciatingly convoluted and self-centered question session on Tuesday. He wasted precious time of his 30 minutes bloviating about college days at Princeton. He's unbearably bombastic & self-aggrandizing. Surely, Delaware has better talent than this??? SG

[bunkerbuster1]

45. I couldn't stand Biden during the Clarence Thomas hearings

Any time Biden's in front of the camera, it's all "Me me MEEEEEE!!!"

Beyond that I can't quite put a finger on it, but at the time I was thinking--"Jeez, Joe, you've got this guy whining about 'high-tech lynchings' and he's getting the upper ground, slap him! Knock the lying SOB down!" And Biden didn't, and the rest is history.

Pretty weird of him, of all people, to cry about how lame these proceedings are now.

[Little Star]

I have no problem with the me, me, me tactic

It works for the republicans. How about some action on what you are spewing. This is where me-joe falls short.

[Nye Bevan]

97. I'm not a Biden fan either

ever since he plagiarized Neil Kinnock's speech years ago.

I do wish the senators on the committee would try a little harder not to come across as pompous windbags. I think some new blood is needed on the judiciary committee- how about Barack Obama?

[Gman]

125. Granted, Biden is pretty high on his self

[DemonFighterLives]

26. I agree, he is playing a part in breaking the system

Much of his time in the spotlight at the inquiry was spent blah blahing.
Just do the job Joe and save the critiquing for the voters.

[Safe as Milk]

136. Joe's part of the problem

The GOP are acting like spoiled bullies. They won't stop bullying until they are stopped. The Dems will keep rolling over until the stop rolling over. They can stand up and insist that they won't take it any more, or they can emulate Joe Biden and roll over so many times, they'll have spun their own cocoon. I truly can't stand to watch any of it on television. I get incensed.

They're all buffoons, and the Bush/Rove love nest is laughing their asses off. Every chance they get, they trot out some baboon to get in front of the cameras, and they watch the fun. Bush/Rove are laughing at everyone, Alito included. My guess is that they think that Alito is a wannabe joke, a useful sycophant idiot. If they thought that he'd serve their purposes if they got him twirled in a pole auger, they'd pour themselves a drink and watch the action.

Bush knows that he'll never see a jail cell, and he'll pardon anyone really important, like Rove. And he couldn't give a shit about anyone beneath him. So nothing can touch him.

[0007]

63. You gotta be kidding, eh?

You should be practicing Avighata, instead of parroting Gayatri.

[Inland]

93. Biden wants to eliminate the nominee and do ALL the talking.

It isnt enough that he grandstands his way and dominates the hearing with this long winded questions without listening to the answers and following up. He wants to get rid of the answers altogether so it's all biden all bloviating.

[Gman]

9. The hearings are a sham anyway

what's the use. I had the same thought earlier this week. The nominee isn't going to say shit. The whole thing is an orchestrated, scripted circus. Why bother? It's a sham anyway.

[Benhurst]

24. Sorry, duplicate post. NT

[Benhurst]

27. Then why not take it one step further

and not even have a vote in the Senate, which is increasingly becoming an orchestrated, scripted circus?

Talk about shams.

Send in the clowns. Or send them away as the case may be.

:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: + Electric Dick:silly:

[EST]

10. Biden is correct, but like all us backward looking folks,

the past always looks a little better. The battle lines are being drawn and if it weren't this fight, it would just be something else to keep the fire going.
This has to happen. the only way to get past it is to go past it. The way we stumble from crisis to crisis will have to happen until we create such an awful flare that we start asking each other in horror, "God, what have we done?"

[stepnw1f]

11. Wow... Where Did This Come From. Joe?

Highlighting an issue this way is very effective in getting the attention of the media to ask whether the process of appointing (E)lito is legit. It highlights the fillibustering of these nominees during hearings too.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. So, you've just announced to the world

that the United States Senate is impotent? There's just not any response to that.

[President Kerry]

129. truth hurts doesn't it?

These hearing are a sham, where Alito and Roberts both get away with saying nothing. There you have it. What's the use?

[bleedingheart]

18. The answer is to fillibuster that bastard Alito as a warning to others

cuz that is what they should have done with Roberts...


Make people accountable for their conduct. If they don't answer, they don't get confirmed.

[wordpix]

19. I saw Biden on Today-he also said * plans to send troops to Iran tomorrow

no joke---he was saying this to let the public know how important this appt. is in relation to presidential power. Biden said BushCo's lawyers have the legal argument all laid out for TOMORROW.

wtf?:nuke:

[nickinSTL]

23. WHAT?

Tomorrow? He SAID that?

That's a pretty major statement for a prominent Dem to be making publicly. :wtf:

[wordpix]

28. That's right--said *'s lawyers have legal case all ready and tomorrow is

the day. Biden said this in relation to importance of having a SC judge who knows about separation of powers and won't give prez and blank check.

I believe Biden was trying to get the word out so let's spread it!

[stop the bleeding]

35. so he said this yesterday and tomorrow is today? or did he say it today

and tomorrow is Friday?

[wordpix]

38. Biden said this at 7:15 Thurs. on TODAY show about TOMORROW

[stop the bleeding]

33. wordpix could you point us to were you heard this, this would be the

mother of all headlines and discussions here at DU.

Thank you in advance.

[wordpix]

34. it was on TODAY show and Biden was being interviewed by Katie C.

right after the news report, first person interviewed.

[woodsprite]

40. And what did little Katie have to say about that? n/t

[stop the bleeding]

42. good question, I went to the Today Show's site and transcripts are not

available or become available within 24 hours. All of the video links are for the 01/11/06

[stop the bleeding]

43. Also wordpix could you give us a detailed summary??? this is HUGH!!11

[wordpix]

55. see post #47. It appeared that Biden was using the interview re: Scalito

hearing to say the Senate must consider in this appointment some weighty matters such as presidential power and its limits; for example, the president, with his lawyers making a legal case to back him, is planning to send US into Iran TOMORROW and has not consulted Congress. He repeated this at least twice before I had to turn off TV and head to work.

[wordpix]

56. It seemed to go over Katie's head! She said nothing! WTF!

[Caoimhe]

108. Katie is no deep thinker

Her interviews with politicos are always an exercise in her giving the puke talking points, and if they are Dem, her talking over them or rolling her eyes. If they are pukes, she just gives them more bullets for their spud guns. It's disgusting and she annoys the hell out of me, can you tell? I don't mind Matt Lauer as much, but he's still a shill for the Administration.

[Exiled in America]

57. If he actually said this, it'd be AP right now.

[Wickerman]

69. I saw the interview and can confirm that he said it n/t

[stop the bleeding]

71. in what context? as in a metaphor or literally?

[Wickerman]

76. It was NOT metaphor

It was very deliberate and brought it up at least twice in the interview. Katie let it sail by as she was so intent to follow the meme of the day that Dems are big meanies. The caption on all screens read "Did Democrats Go too Far?"

The silence on this is deafening.

[stop the bleeding]

77. watching interview now here is the link - from another poster

that Bush and his lawyers have argued that they have the authority to delare war on Iran without telling Congress. That should be alarming enough. He DID say to Couric "How would you react, and I don't expect you to answer, if the administration said 'we have the authority to declare war on Iran tomorrow and not tell Congress?"
The "tomorrow" part was hypothetical. War authority & Iran... not so hypothetical.
BTW, you can watch the video. I can't link to it, but go to the Today Show/MSNBC page here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?, enter "Biden" in the MSNBC Video Search box & it'll be the first one.

[Wickerman]

79. thanks for the link

I certainly won't argue the context that the idea of tomorrow was hypthetical - but the intent was not - this is a serious concern and Biden used the interview to draw this info out.

[stop the bleeding]

83. Agreed I have a thread in GD started linking to the video to create

awareness.

I listened to it about 6 times and here is what I heard:

Biden tells Couric 2X's that Bush and his lawyers have argued that they have the authority to delare war on Iran without telling Congress. That should be alarming enough.

He quoted this 2X's and sounded like this has been on going argument between the WH and the Seanate/House

"This administration's Lawyers argue that president has the right to goto war in Iran, tomorrow without even telling the US Congress, that is what they argue Katie" this was said the second time.



The "tomorrow" part was hypothetical.

War authority & Iran... not so hypothetical.

BTW, you can watch the video. I can't link to it, but go to the Today Show/MSNBC page here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?, enter "Biden" in the MSNBC Video Search box & it'll be the first one.

[Wickerman]

88. Biden talking to Alito now about context

be interesting to see. He just said *could* invade Iran tomorrow.

thanks for staying on top of this.

[stop the bleeding]

89. No sweat that is what we do here at DU and the thanks goes to wordpix

I have a thread in GD started linking to the video to create awareness.

[wordpix]

107. after seeing video again, I must say that my interpretation is probably

wrong---I now think Biden meant "tomorrow" as in "any day now," and not literally.

Sorry---this is what you get turning on news first thing in the morning and being paranoid about that wacko insane Bush Cabal.

[stop the bleeding]

110. timing is not the important detail here, it is the fact there appears to

be an ongoing argument between Congress and the WH Lawyers on who's authority or approval is needed to invade Iran if any approval is needed at all.

We all know the WH wants regime change in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, and Syria see Michael Ledeen ) and it is not a matter of when, it is just a matter of how and under who's authorty.

[Surya Gayatri]

105. Took the words

out of my mouth, stop. Was it tomorrow Jan. 12th/13th or "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow", more in the Shakespearean vein?

[stop the bleeding]

106. see this thread located in GD

SOS/HELP! *'s Lawyers argue no approval needed to invade Iran- IMPORTANT

[wordpix]

70. I would imagine his office is flooded with calls now. Why would I make it

up? I am at DU to get factual information (and a few good laughs with the commentary).

[stop the bleeding]

73. it is 9:55 am EST and no one has checked back in from the west coast

to watch..

[wordpix]

47. clarification re: Biden's wording about US going to Iran TOMORROW

Since I don't have the Today show (where I saw Biden at 7:15 today) transcript, the phrase, "send in troops" might not be exact. Biden might not have worded it exactly that way and the wording could have been, "go into Iran tomorrow." However he worded it, the gist was that * plans to go to Iran tomorrow with some kind of force and my first reaction was (based on Biden's wording): we don't have enough troops.

Maybe * plans air strikes, I don't know WTF that asshole plans--- but it sounded ominous and Biden was certainly trying to get out the message.

[stop the bleeding]

48. either way if it is with planes or bodies it is still invading and Iran

will not be down with that and neither will the whole Middle East. We need to see what he said exactly

[underpants]

49. I took the whole thing as sort of a hypothetical

IF Bush was to try to make that case how would Alito or any other nominee decide on it?

That's what I took from that.

[wordpix]

58. no, Biden was sending a message thru M$M * going to Iran tomorrow

[The empressof all]

53. Wait a second.

The Today show hasn't been on yet in the West Coast but is it possible he was saying "tomorrow" in a more global hypothetical sense.

Do you all really think Biden would discuss this on National TV and give away what I would assume would be secret military plans?

Do you think that if this is true that the Bush Administration would even bother to inform Biden of these plans?

Lets not jump to conclusions here about the context of this statement.

[stop the bleeding]

59. I know I have been trying to get an exact copy of what he said and how

he said it. It could just be a metaphor or Biden may be giving a peak. Either way the shows transcripts are not up yet and all of the videos are from 01/11/06

[wordpix]

62. West Coast---watch TODAY and let us know

[stop the bleeding]

67. I am on the east coast and the part of the show looks like it will be in

22-23 minutes right?

[wordpix]

61. OK, someone pls. watch TODAY on West Coast and type gist fast

[stop the bleeding]

64. is that in about 25 minutes?? I am on the east coast but just so people

have a heads up.

[wordpix]

72. 10 a.m. East Coast time, 7 a.m. West Coast time

[stop the bleeding]

74. But the actual interview is about 15 minutes after the show starts right?

based on your time approximations listed above. 4 minutes until start of show

[wordpix]

78. Interview right after national news. Maybe 5 min. in

[stop the bleeding]

84. Here you go.

I have a thread in GD started linking to the video to create awareness.

I listened to it about 6 times and here is what I heard:

Biden tells Couric 2X's that Bush and his lawyers have argued that they have the authority to delare war on Iran without telling Congress. That should be alarming enough.

He quoted this 2X's and sounded like this has been on going argument between the WH and the Seanate/House

"This administration's Lawyers argue that president has the right to goto war in Iran, tomorrow without even telling the US Congress, that is what they argue Katie" this was said the second time.



The "tomorrow" part was hypothetical.

War authority & Iran... not so hypothetical.

BTW, you can watch the video. I can't link to it, but go to the Today Show/MSNBC page here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?, enter "Biden" in the MSNBC Video Search box & it'll be the first one.

[Silverhair]

54. BULLCRAP.

It will still be several days before Alito is on the court. The entire Senate has to vote on him, and that won't be today.

[jean]

60. bush plans to attack Iran tomorrow? Let's get on this people

[jefferson_dem]

86. He just offered this exact *HYPOTHETICAL* when questioning Scalito.

Hmmmmm...

[stop the bleeding]

94. check this out..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=117625&mesg_id=117625

Biden tells Couric 2X's that Bush and his lawyers have argued that they have the authority to delare war on Iran without telling Congress. That should be alarming enough.

He quoted this 2X's and sounded like this has been on going argument between the WH and the Seanate/House

"This administration's Lawyers argue that president has the right to goto war in Iran, tomorrow without even telling the US Congress, that is what they argue Katie" this was said the second time.



The "tomorrow" part was hypothetical.

War authority & Iran... not so hypothetical.

BTW, you can watch the video. I can't link to it, but go to the Today Show/MSNBC page here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?, enter "Biden" in the MSNBC Video Search box & it'll be the first one.


This fact that the administration has argued this and Biden has used this interview to state it 2X's is super alarming to anyone with a pulse.

We all know they want regime change in the Iran and the Middle East and it is not a question of when -

The question is how and under who's authority.

Congress is the voice of the people.

[wordpix]

20. self delete

[stop the bleeding]

22. I can't believe I am only the 2nd person to Recommend this??!!?

After all when I saw him do this, I said finally someone there at the hearings has the BALLS to say what really needs to be said. Maybe I am naive but I think he is correct on this.

[wordpix]

25. recommend and KICK: * PLANS TO ATTACK IRAN TOMORROW

[Vidar]

29. kick

[oneoftheboys]

30. What a wonderful idea!

[Vidar]

31. kick

[Vidar]

32. kick

[oneoftheboys]

37. What a wonderful idea.

With the exception of the Kennedy/Specter exchange, they are :boring:

[oneoftheboys]

39. What a wonderful idea.

With the exception of the Kennedy/Specter exchange, they are :boring:

[oneoftheboys]

41. What a wonderful idea.

With the exception of the Kennedy/Specter exchange, they are :boring:

[Triana]

44. Good idea...

...go straight to the Senate floor and filibuster his butt and stop wasting time on this rediculous dog and pony show.

[robbedvoter]

46. Elections - also a sham. Let's nominate W for life already & stop

pretending we're a democracy.
And speaking of shams, when did the Senate approve a war with Iran? or on wars, they already took Biden's advice and skipped the formalities?

[Julius Civitatus]

50. Biden is a tool. Does this mean he's confirming Alito anyway? n/t

[MadHound]

51. So rather than fix the system, Biden wants to give up

Geez, what a typical fucking modern day Democrat. Spineless and doing everything he can to stay out of a fight.

Yo, Joe. Instead of scrapping these hearings, why not introduce legislation that would fix them, you know, requiring the nominee to actually answer the questions rather than tap dance around them.

[jillan]

66. I don't know is he is giving up

I'm glued to the hearings and they are a joke.

Dems trying to get a straight answer from Scalito.
And Repubs kissing Alito's lying ass.

Do we really know anything more today than we did on Monday?

[Julius Civitatus]

52. Biden is a tool. Does this mean he's confirming Alito anyway? n/t

[wordpix]

68. he said he would vote against Alito on Today

[Chiyo-chichi]

75. The tomorrow part was hypothetical.

He DID say that the administration and its lawyers have argued that they can declare war and not tell Congress.

FYI, you CAN watch the clip of Biden on Today. Go here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?, enter "Biden" in the "MSNBC Video SEarch" box & it's the first clip.

[zann725]

80. "System is broken," Joe. And "skipping" one of the steps (hearings)...

is only going to break it even more. Joe, you ARE part of the "broken" part...a BIG part. You're "this" far from being a Lieberman. You consistently, bi-polaraly almost, strongly oppose a nominee...then a day later, often HEAP praise on the earlier scorned nominees. Randi Rhodes ran one of those tapes of Joe she often replays, saying, "I REALLY like you." A nominee that the day earlier "Joe" had harshly criticized.

[mopinko]

81. try doing your job, instead, joe- get your fellow senators

to stand up on the floor and say "we are not voting for this joker because we think he is a liar." try telling the fucking truth on the senate floor and see what happens. that would be why the checks and balances are broken down, joe. stop hiding behind roe. nobody has the nerve to tell the truth, and call bullshit by name.
nothing wrong with the process, joe, just spineless senators.

[robbedvoter]

87. Or maybe ask a few questions yourself - see Ted Kennedy? he keeps

it relevant!

[LynneSin]

98. Have you thought about what Biden is saying?

Sure, it's always fun to bash on Joe Biden but he's basically saying that the whole hearing process is a joke because Alito is out there fricking coached by the republicans on what to say, staged crying fests by the wife and somehow the democrats are made to look like the bad folks on the 6:30 evening news.

It is a broken process which is what Biden is trying to tell the public who are all gung-ho to vote in online polls that ask if "Democrats are just big playground meanies who make women cry" when we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Republicans are staging a Dog & Pony show called "Judicial Hearings". It's about time we bring this out in the public and I think Biden is doing the right thing.

And I can assure you that Biden won't even think twice about voting no on this asshole AND filibustering. He is one of our best allies in keeping judicial numnuts out of the Supreme Court - a hell of alot better than Russ Feingold who voted "YES" for Roberts

[karynnj]

103. Russ Feingold did far better asking relevent questions

I don't think it's the hearings process that is broken. It is the Congress itself that is broken. Although it was less important, consider the Bolton hearing. The Democrats found an amazing amount of reasons why no one should ever hire this man for any job where interfacing with people occurs. Kerry proved by reading Bolton's statements that he had lied to the committee. When the Democrats wanted to pursue more information - Biden (I think) had requested to know the names US citizens whose taped phone calls were requested by Bolton, the Republicans tried to ram it through. Even the usually polite Kerry was heatedly asking "if they wanted to vote blind?"

Only one Republican choose to stand up, Voinivich, who then was harrassed by the RW. Kerry mentioned in a speech that one Republican mentioned that he had never seen anyone do that - where disenting from the party often happened in the past.

If you just had floor speeches, it would be worse. It would be all talk with members trying to outdo each other in rhetoric. The hearings (in all committees) at least have the function of letting the Senators get more information. It is nearly the only source of any power the Democrats have left in the Senate. Without hearings, Alito would have no chance of not being confirmed. If the hearing can open up an issue that the real conservative Senators hold dear, there is some chance that he will fail. As to that, Biden, with his "folksy" irrelevent comments is wasting a huge amount of his time.
(I really wish a tougher questioner like Kerry were there instead of Biden.

[debbierlus]

90. Biden just asked Alito point blank - Does the President have the power

To invade Iran without consulting Congress in the absent of a IMMEDIATE threat?

Alito won't say no.

FILIBUSTER NOW.

Who would have thought BIDEN would ask the question that would give true merit to a filibuster!?

[Oceansaway]

91. send Biden and them others a message.....

go here and vote em down.......

http://newpoliticalreview.com/poll.php

[redqueen]

92. What about having lawyers question the nominees?

Maybe they would be more insistent on getting an answer. Scrapping the whole process seems to me a ridiculous idea.

[tex-wyo-dem]

112. See post #111 n/t

[Strawman]

95. Biden is free to walk out if he thinks its a sham

Oh wait, that would mean less face time...forget it. Bad idea.

The hearings suck, but at least there's some risk that the nominee could trip up no matter how well coached he or she is. In the case of Alito, I want to use every shot we have. Full court press this guy.

If the hearings turn into a PR campaign for Alito Biden can partially thank himself for taking 20 minutes to ask one question and being generally incoherent.

[LynneSin]

99. Biden is pointing out the obvious: We're watching a Dog & Pony show

I hope you all got your Cotton Candy & Hot Dogs as you sit back and watch the show.

Biden knows these hearings use to be very important like back when we got the goods on Bork. But after Bork the repukes just refined their process so you only see what they want to show you. It's all smoke and mirrors including scripted crying sessions that somehow the Democrats get blamed

[barb162]

138. Dog & pony show, sham, travesty, waste of time, joke, etc

A committee of constitutional scholars, professors at law schools, should have done the questioning and presented their findings to the Congress. Too much grandstanding and a candidate who used every trick in the book not to answer questions is what happened . Filibuster and make the point that this candidate is not acceptable.

[DKStreet]

101. The system's "kind of broken?"

God, that is the biggest under-statement I've ever heard. Try FUBAR Senator Biden, then you'll be a little closer to the truth.

[democrat_patriot]

104. So - give 'em the up or down vote?

My god * was right!!

[tex-wyo-dem]

111. Biden may be right considering...

a.) apparently nominees to the SCOTUS aren't held to the same standards as, say, witnesses in a trial or deposition who are under oath and required by law to answer questions fully, openly and truthfully, otherwise risk being found in contempt...

and

b.) these senators on the Judiciary Committee have long forgotten or never were trained in how to effectively question/follow-up/cross-examine a witness. Too many golden opportunities are missed in which follow-up questions could be asked to pigeon-hole Scalito into some very awkward positions. They need to get a top-notch litigator in the room to really grill the witness.

[madmark]

127. Exactly, I just posted on this; these senators are terrible questioners

[VP505]

114. If you want a clear

assessment on how this is going, have a look at The Left Coaster http://www.theleftcoaster.com/ "Democrats Punt Another One Away On Alito".

[Moochy]

115. Katie Couric on Bork

Katie(paraphrased): When Bork spoke up,we all know what happened to him, so why should anyone who wants to get confirmed speak up?

My Comment: Well you vapid fool, the process demands oversight and swearing in of the nominee for a reason. OVERSIGHT. If the ends justifies the means, yeah he should just clam up and not answer any question. Huzzah for the majority!

I agree with Biden, this process is broken.

Then Katie brings up the Washington Post hit piece by Richard Cohen.. comparing Biden's blabber mouth to womanizing, evoking the Clenis.. despicable.

[Voltaire99]

116. Biden on his knees, again.

And some of you like it. Do the habits of surrender come so easily to Democrats these days?

If the nominee evades and lies, then it is the job of the opposition party to press harder. If the press takes the side of the nominee, then it's the job of the opposition party to get the message out more vigorously.

We all know the problem: few Dem pols are comfortable with pushing for anything, their eyes fixed on the illusion of courting suburban NASCAR votes to the unprincipled third way. That is one reason the Alito charade is working; a party that has been so easy to trample and bully doesn't get respect. A quarter century of accomodating right wing positions has left it looking like the GOP's bitch. And man, does the GOP enjoy it.

Thank your corporate party leaders for that. Or here's a shocking idea: get new ones who'd rather fight than bitch.

[Stevious]

117. What's next?

When the process is as broken as it is now, the only way to effect a change is to go outside the process.

:banghead:

[AZBlue]

118. I'd rather see them change the process.

Somehow make them answer the question - don't ask me how because I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know what's allowable and what's not.

I'm hoping that Biden may be overstating his feelings to try to get some changes made.

Then again, if we can't make changes, I agree with him - at least make it just one day and stop wasting time and taxpayer's money.

[Solly Mack]

123. "The system's kind of broken," Kind of? Like being a "little" pregnant?

understatement for the ages

[eek]

124. fwiw: tomorrow is Friday the 13th

though Biden was making a rhetorical statement.
It was a good one, though. nice sound byte.
He is craven but nonetheless can dig deep at times.

[madmark]

126. I suggest scrapping Captain MBNA

These Senators are terrible questioners plain and simple; and that's when they bother to ask questions. Most of them, and Biden may be worst, simply make grandstanding statements instead of questioning the witness. My god if I conducted a deposition that way we would never learn anything or get any useful admissions. Simple questions:
"Under what circumstances, if any, can the President abrogate the 4th amendment?"
"What are the constitutional requirements for a warrantless search?"
"How broadly would you define exigency?"
"Does an exigency extend to an undeclared war? To an undeclared war of a prolonged and open ended nature at the discretion of the executive?"
"Does the President have the unilateral power to determine the limits of his unenumerated powers under the constitution?"

Ask this witness specific questions so you can figure out what he is all about. Quite frankly the stuff about the "Unitary Executive" bothers me, so Biden, ask the witness questions about it you moron instead of making statements.

[tex-wyo-dem]

130. You nailed it, madmark!

What's more is that Scalito was undoubtedly coached by legal and political experts for endless hours before these hearings and probably was not surprised by any of the questions...so what do these Dem Senators do for counter-preparation? Do they consult with constitutional legal experts? Do they consult with expert litigators to formulate their attack? Do they treat this like a court of law where they are the prosecutor trying to find cracks in the witnesses' testimony?

If not, they might as well just throw in the towel early and stop wasting our time.

[cornermouse]

132. They might as well.

[cosmicdot]

133. can we scrap the Diebold, ES&S machines, too?

did you say anything about them, Joe?

let's really talk about 'the system's kind of broken' ... it's that fraudulent election thingy which is delivering these federal court nominees, and tainting our system with these life-time appointments ... Smirk's up to 25.5% of the federal court with these Federalist Society-CNP-AEI et al nominations, and still going ...

BFEE/Bu$hCo's nominations are not the will of the people ... it's the will of certain corrupt people who have no shame in subverting the system and our country ...

what about all the corporate and corporate PAC money? did you say anything about that, MBNA Joe?
let's really talk about 'the system's kind of broken' if we're serious about fixing what's kind of broken ... who bought and paid for Bu$hCo and the other corporate shills hijacking our destiny? Only 22 Senate Democrats voted against Roberts ... I guess the seriousness of a hijacked country just hasn't registered for some ...

re 'the system's kind of broken': let's get down to the nitty-gritty ..... or,

heck, let's just hang our cleats ... game's over ...

"I take him at his word that he didn't know what"...CAP stood for ... well, I guess that's part of the game, too.

[tn-guy]

134. time to inject a little historical context and some sanity

For those who think Sen. Biden is nuts for saying the current system is broken:

1. Having a judicial nominee answer questions from the Judiciary Committee is a relatively recent practice. For the first 150 years or so under the constitution judicial nominees didn't even appear before the committee. The thinking was that to have hearings with the nominee present would demean the status of the judge (the office, not the individual).

2. Be honest. Is Alito being any less forthcoming than Ginsberg was? I think the rule for all nominees over the past couple of decades is to be as noncommittal as possible.

3. When we get down to it what difference does it matter what a nominee's personal views on any particular law are? The role of a judge is to set aside his personal views and rule based on the merits of the case before him. If he is able and willing to set aside his personal views then they are irrelevant. If he cannot or will not set aside his personal views, then he should not be on the bench no matter what those views are.

Frankly, I think Sen. Biden is on to something. A return to the practice of evaluating judges on the basis of scholarship, diligence, character, judicial temperament, professionalism and integrity would go a long way to restoring confidence in the judiciary as well as make the Senate look much better.

[nicknameless]

135. I STRONGLY DISAGREE! Anyone who relentlessly evades questions has NO

right to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. What are they hiding behind their fake smiles and fake tears?

Get a spine, Biden. Hold all nominees to a reasonable standard. Make them tell the truth!
Their refusal to answer questions is disrespectful to Americans, to the process, and to Committee members!
The only reason these nominees have for concealment is that they know the truth would be considered unacceptable, thereby costing them that appointment!
SO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD!
IF THEY THINK THE TRUTH WOULD MAKE THEM LOOK UNACCEPTABLE -- THEN THEY *MUST BE* UNACCEPTABLE!

[urlborg]

140. Kennedy nailed Alito cold, but the Dems apparently don't understand TRUTH!

There was a very simple issue before this committee, it involved what was either an outright lie on a government job application, or an outright admission by Alito of his own thus acknowledged promotion of hateful racist extreme right wing hatred.

When Alito refused to own up to his supposed, bragged about 'principles', represented by this claimed proud membership and then feigned Alzheimers or amnesia on the issue of that statements truthfulness, the committee urgently reviewed the records of the organization to which Alito had proudly touted his membership on the job application.

In the result of the subsequent investigation, either the records were completely expunged of any unsavory reference to Alito or he had never had anything to do with the Princeton Hate Club.

In the former case he would have merely been an opinionated dis informer, but in the latter result He was unequivocally proven to be an untrustworthy liar!

Unfortunately it seems that only his wife, perhaps a well worn victim of the good judges notions of domestic truth, tearfully caught the magnitude of this damning indictment of his character!

Unfortunately to the good Senators, honesty is apparently not considered to be a very important qualification for a Supreme Court nominee!

[henslee]

142. Maybe the judiciary committee & alito should just play Truth or Dare in

the Whitehouse basement.