WASHINGTON - With Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito watching the theatrics from his chair, two senior senators on Wednesday engaged in a fiery exchange over a request for records tied to Alito’s membership to a Princeton alumni group more than 30 years ago.
Questions about Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that at the time tried to limit entry to Princeton by minorities and women, led to the exchange between Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Last month, Kennedy sent a letter to Specter seeking a committee subpoena for private documents of William A. Rusher, a founder of the group, that Kennedy said might shed light on Alito’s membership when he attended Princeton. Specter said he had not received the letter and bristled at Kennedy’s pledge to push repeatedly for a committee vote on a subpoena.“I will not have you run this committee,” said Specter, who brushed aside Kennedy’s threats.Kennedy later submitted for the record a letter from Specter’s staff responding to Kennedy’s letter.Alito, for his part, reiterated earlier statements that he had no recollection of his membership, which he listed on a job application. “If I had been involved actively in any way in the group, I’m sure that I would remember,” Alito said.
Accused of inconsistencies Earlier Wednesday, Alito was aggressively questioned by Democrats who accused him of inconsistencies on issues ranging from voting rights to ethics to his membership in a conservative organization.On the third day of confirmation hearings, Democrats also expressed frustration as Alito described the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion as “an important precedent” but declined to echo Chief Justice John Roberts, who has called it settled law. Republicans on the panel dismissed the criticism and defended Alito, President Bush’s choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, as a conservative jurist with a solid 15-year record on the federal appeals court.“Your critics are grasping at any straw to tarnish your record,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Republicans hold the majority in the Senate — 55-44 with one independent — and Alito is expected to win confirmation to the high court when the Senate votes later this month. The Democrats’ only hope of scuttling the nomination rests with defections among the GOP ranks and solid opposition among it own members.After challenging the 55-year-old Alito’s court record and Reagan-era writings on Tuesday, Democrats took a new tack in accusing him of inconsistency.“A number of us have been troubled by what we see as inconsistencies in some of the answers,” Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, the panel’s ranking Democrat, told Alito.
Abortion resurfaces Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois cited Alito’s testimony Tuesday in which he said he would have an open mind if faced with the question of abortion on the Supreme Court. The senator said the nominee’s writings and testimony suggested otherwise, with “a mind that sadly is closed in some instances.”Roberts has described Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling, as settled law. Alito said the ruling “is an important precedent of the Supreme Court,” but he declined Durbin’s repeated prodding to use the term “settled law.”On the Republican side, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said some Supreme Court decisions are indefensible and invite reconsideration. The court, Brownback said, had revisited some 200 cases for that very reason.“Some precedents are undeserving of respect,” he told Alito.
Other Democrat concerns Leahy listed several concerns, among them Alito’s comments on the principle of one-man, one-vote and his inability to recall details about his membership — which he listed on a Reagan administration job application — in a conservative organization that opposed the admission of women and minorities at Princeton University, Alito’s alma mater.Democrats also voiced concern about Alito’s answers concerning whether he told the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that he should not be hearing cases involving investment company Vanguard. He holds six-figure investments with Vanguard.
Alito promised the Judiciary Committee at his 1990 confirmation hearing as an appellate judge that he would remove himself from cases that present a conflict of interest. He said his participation in a 2002 Vanguard case was an oversight, although he also said he didn’t do anything wrong. The American Bar Association and his supporters have accepted that explanation.Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., pressed Alito on whether he had told the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that he should not be hearing cases involving investment company Vanguard.“So you don’t recall whether you notified them or not?” Feingold asked.“I do not. No,” Alito said.Sen. Kennedy suggested that Alito had added another interpretation as to why he did not recuse himself in the Vanguard case. At issue was whether Alito would avoid any conflict of interest during an “initial period of service” as a judge. Kennedy pressed him on whether that amounted to three years, five years. Alito’s participation in the case occurred 12 years into his service. Alito said he has tried to go beyond the code of ethics, and he maintained that his failure to recuse himself from the case was an overs
