Compassionate Liberalism Makes Alito's Wife Cry

Senator-MA Ted Kennedy, along with the usual suspects, tried to paint Bush Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as an anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-minority bigot at today’s hearing.  The political accusations from so called "compassionate liberalism" were so bad that Mrs. Alito sat dissolved in her tears at the lies directed at her husband.  A new low for Democrats?  Not really.  Almost nothing is off-limits…..Democrats targeted John Roberts’ 2 adopted children from Latin America, saying they were "too white", suggesting that Roberts, who was overwhelmingly approved to be Supreme Court Chief Justice in September 2005, was a racist who preferred fair children to dark. 

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, read from an essay published in 1983 in a magazine put out by the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that Judge Alito listed being a member of when he applied for a job in the Reagan administration, in order to tie this statement to Alito’s view:  

"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," the essay said, according to Mr. Kennedy.

Alito holds no such views, of course, but interestingly enough, Ted Kennedy was in an all-male club called "The Owl" at Harvard University…..

Mrs. Alito crying video (with Fox News commentary via John Gibson)

Political Teen
Michelle Malkin
Stop the ACLU
Pro Life Blogs
Sister Toldjah
Political Pit Bull
Flopping Aces
EIMC
Don Surber

Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/350211

Update on Thursday, January 12, 2006 at 10:35AM by Amy Proctor

One of the few successful liberal blogs, Daily Kos, claims Mrs. Alito staged her tearful reaction to liberal Democrats’ pounding her husband during confirmation hearings.  Yes, in the face of humiliation for the Democrats in their immature and misguided attempts to smear the judge, the damage control now calls for outing Mrs. Alito’s emotional reaction. 

Here is what fake crying looks like:

 

Here are more examples of staging.

Finally, Samuel Alito’s name does NOT appear in the Princeton alumni group records:

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) — Records support U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s testimony that he was not an active member in a Princeton University alumni group that drew fire from Democrats, said the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I guess the Democrats attempt to smear Alito was not a success.   I wonder who’s crying now?

Comments

[douglas]

If Alito doesn't hold such views...why did he join?
Why is it proudly one of the key parts of his CV?

If it's okay for Alito...why not Kennedy?
You rail about Dems being of poor character and want to set a standard of behaviour? A standard of honour? Yet you freely give a free pass for the guy you agree with?
Come on.

[Trent]

Once again, liberals show themselves to be hateful, spiteful bureaucrats.

Sidenote- am I the only one somewhat put off by the Left's obsession with abortion? One would think there's no other qualification by which to judge a Supreme Court nominee than where he or she stands on Roe v. Wade. Are the priorities of the Democratic party so screwed up that they make decisions based on that single issue?

[J Rob]

And just when did Alito leave a girl to drown in an act of cowardice, an act that will forever define Ted Kennedy.
Are you saying that you agree with every utterance made by every organization you are a member? You've never joined something over a single issue then left after the issue was resolved? Or once a member you are forever tarred with what they say or do?
Be careful how you answer that, remember Robert Byrd and Hugo Black.

[Old Soldier]

Douglas, you’ve missed the point. The point is; the inquisitors are guilty of the very thing they now portent to be unacceptable for the nominee. This line of accusations has nothing to do with “qualifications”. It is an attempt to cast an unfavorable light in the court of public opinion. They are not executing their public duty; they have assumed the duty of public executioner.

Contrast this confirmation hearing with that of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. The only difference is that this nominee is a conservative appointed by a GOP president; a president who won 51% of the popular vote, no less. Should he not be afforded the same courtesy of appointing judges as given to Clinton?

I also find it personally insulting that Ted Kennedy would sit in moral and ethical judgment of anyone on the planet.

[PCD]

Let's see, JRob covered Kennedy. Schumer is a liar and a hypocrite. Biden is an admitted plagarist. Feinstein is a hypocrite, too (she carried a gun), and Boxer is nuts. Yup, some people to preach morals.

Only thing is this hearing is supposed to be about Alito's fitness to be a Supreme Court justice. Not one bit on the Constitution. Oh, I forgot, most of these Dimocrats do not recognize the US Constitution.

[Amy Proctor]

Addressing Trent's sidenote about the left's obsession on abortion, here's what I posted on Don Surber's site under the same topic. I think it's worthy to note that the left truly is OBSESSED with abortion. This is why, among their obvious hatred for conservative ideology, that they didn't want John Roberts and don't want Samuel Alito to be confirmed:

Abortion is the sacrament of liberalism. If it can be justified, anything can be justified. It is the cornerstone in justifying their lifestyles, promoscuity, distaste for religion and disassembly of the nuclear family. They NEED it to be socially relevant since they fail on most other social and political topics from war to peace.

But you're right, the obsession is creepy. When I hear their absurd "what if's" aimed at Alito, like, "What IF a woman is raped by a 2 headed martian?" or "What IF the woman will be abused by her husband if she tells him she's pregnant?" and so on, it's clear they want to fasciliate the 97% of women who use abortion as a form of birth control rather than the .05% whose lives are at risk. (the other 2.05% is unaccounted for). They use women and children for their own loose moral premise and don't care about the social or moral ramifications. If you look at America after Roe V. Wade, you'll see an increase in STDs, rape, child abuse, child murder, domestic abuse, divorce rates, rate of couples cohabitation without marriage, pornography, etc., etc., and they are undoubtedly all tied to abortion's legalization. Anyone can argue against that theory but I'd be interested in another explanation.

Democrats lose on the most basic freedom in America as they press forward with their sickening abortion agenda: that is, the freedom to live. Life is not granted to those visible, but to all, whether in utero or stuck in a hospice somewhere like Terri Schaivo.

[Hawkeye®]

Should we be surprised at this disgraceful behavior from the Democrats? They conspired to oppose ANY nominee that Bush put forward, knowing that he would nominate a conservative. Schmuckie Schumer was overheard saying so when he was on a telephone call. And yet, these are the same hypocrites that accuse Alito of not having an open mind, or of having an agenda... Sheesh!

BTW, I added a link to your blog in my sidebar Amy. Keep up the good work!

[skittles]

The "inquisitors are guilty of the same offenses...."? Good thats why they aren't being nominated to become a supreme court judge. Whats your point?

I am still trying to figure out how "democratic" this process really is, when one dictator, ahem I mean President, gets to choose the men or women who are assigned to guard national rules of law for years if not decades. I should have known that your country isn't as much a "democracy" as it is a fascist state.

[Mullah Mohammed]

Venerable site owner, do you accept the possibility that a woman might need protection from a man who learns that she is pregnant or may want to look closely at her options following a rape.

I can assure you that these problems do exist and are not very amusing. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum regarding ladies who are raped may not cause such ladies to fall to the floor with laughter. Have you yourself had to grapple with the problem of having been raped and made pregnant, may I enquire?

The experience of many countries who have similar abortion legislation to the USA is that they have not experienced the same level of social problems that you identify. I fear you must look elsewhere for an explanation, I offer no solution, but if I may (mis)quote,

"the journey of education leads from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty"

[Johnny]

The democratic obesession with abortion is disgusting. How dark are the days we live in when millions of people brazenly champion the right to dismember human babies in their own mothers' wombs! How abhorrent when political leaders boldy advocate with moral certainty that sustaining a 'right' fabricated out of whole cloth to kill one's unborn child becomes the determinant for fitness to adjudicate the land's highest court cases!
Roe v Wade is immoral, and even if you can't conceive that (blind hypocrites!) then anyone who is a serious student of the US Constitution can see that is just BAD LAW. Is our day THAT dark and wicked that we can't see the obvious irony of US Senators threatening a potential Supreme Court justice that he'd better not jepoardize the 'right' to kill children when our nation was founded on the Right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hello???

[Leticia]

I have been watching the hearings and it was (R)Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah that initiated the tears of Mrs. Alito. He began with his first question,"Judge Alito, are you a biggot? Of course Judge Alito denied the accusation and with that Senator Orrin replied with,"of course you aren't." He began to compliment and apologize for the Democrats behavior on how they were drilling him and accusing him of things he did not do. That is why she was crying. Later on (R) Senator Graham, not sure what state, spoke with Mrs. Alito and the pressure of her husband's questionning just tore her apart. Who wouldn't? Seeing someone you loved being treated like a criminal?

He was part of CAP group in Princeton, however he joined it to defend the ROTC, Princeton wanted to remove it from his campus. Later on the President, at that time, of CAP, spoke up and said that Judge Alito did not partake in any of their activities and later on they brought the papers that Senator Kennedy demanded to be subpoenaed. They had to drop that line of questioning. No where on there was Judge Alito's name.

And bravo to Senator Spector for silencing Kennedy who began to throw a temper tamtrum regarding a letter he allegedly wrote to Senator Spector. Unbelievable!

Now they are hitting me with a statement he made in 1990 or '93 regarding Vanguard Mutual fund.

Sorry Amy, I didn't mean to take up so much space.

[Trent]

Skittles, "this process" is not democratic. The people don't vote for Supreme Court justices, despite whatever MoveOn might've implied in those ridiculous TV spots.

I fail to see how America under President Bush in any way qualifies as a fascist state.

[Johnny]

The people elected a President KNOWING FULL WELL he has the preroggative to appoint justices to the high court. Pres. Clinton was able to appoint justices and he never enjoyed a majority vote in 2 elections (43% in 1992; 49% in 1996) - something president Bush has done twice.

[Old Soldier]

<i>”The "inquisitors are guilty of the same offenses...."? Good thats why they aren't being nominated to become a supreme court judge. Whats your point?”</i>

The point is not lost on those with a moral compass…

<i>”I should have known that your country isn't as much a "democracy" as it is a fascist state.”</i>

Just curious, do you berate your own country, too, or reserve the vitriol for we that deserve it? By the way, what is your country?

[Amy Proctor]

Skittles said:

"The "inquisitors are guilty of the same offenses...."? Good thats why they aren't being nominated to become a supreme court judge. Whats your point?"

I think the point is that if you want to cast stones, you shouldn't live in glass houses. Are you admitting Dems aren't clean enough to be on the Supreme Court, but somehow good enough to judge one who is?

As for your comment,

"I am still trying to figure out how "democratic" this process really is, when one dictator, ahem I mean President, gets to choose the men or women who are assigned to guard national rules of law for years if not decades. I should have known that your country isn't as much a "democracy" as it is a fascist state."

(please God, please don't let skittles be an American. Amen)

I have a flashback to an interview with a lady during the big world wide "peace" rallies in March just before the war began in '03. Someone asked this peacenik lady in San Francisco how she could justify leaving such an evil dictator as Saddam in power. She, speaking FREELY from her anti-American foxhole, replied, "If a dictator gives free healthcare and education to the people, I like that dictator." Such is the rationale of skittles. Of course, having no clue what life was actually like under Saddam (free health care and education? Give me a break! You couldn't by a frig without his permission and speaking ill of him would cost you your life, your wife or your fingers).

I said this because, since we here in America are under such an evil dictator ourselves, I know my kids get "free" education and health care. I LIKE this dictator! Viva Bush!

There's this thing called Democracy which, you're right, you really have not figured out. It's called "The people elect the President and he acts on their behalf.". Then if they reelect him, that means they want him to continue to act on their behalf. See how that works? Math is hard!

By the way, Nat. Guard and Reservists know the deal. They don't want to be saved by you, either. They're free to get out.

[Amy Proctor]

Oh, and skittles, please enlighten us as to how the United States is a fascist state. Please do some research, use definitions and do a little write up for us. I'm very sincere, I want to see in an informed manner, not just flinging words around, how the US is fascist.

Waiting....

[douglas]

"Douglas, you’ve missed the point. The point is; the inquisitors are guilty of the very thing they now portent to be unacceptable for the nominee."

Well i would agree and disagree with that. I agree that the inquisitors are guilty of such things themselves. Hell this is politics everyone has skeletons in the closet...Kennedy, Byrd, Black (as Jrob pointed out) they should i agree all be held up to the harsh light. And quite frankly held to task. Wether that happens or not...who knows.

What i disagree with here...is you're losing the forest for the trees. Alito has an equally dubious record...he has lied about his association with this allumni group. He has essentially said "I only held that view back then to get the job." and "I can't remember anything about that" (And he wants to become supreme court justice where memory retention is one of the most key skills?) So he's either associated with a dubious allumni group or he's incompetent. Which one is it?
The point would be...and this is the forest...it doesn't matter in this case wether the inquisitors are of similarly dubious character. This isn't about them. It's about what arguably is a position more powerful than president being offered to someone of dubious background. It's all well and good to rail against some democrats for being hypocrits and of ill moral character. I agree with you, sure they're hypocrits...but what you're saying is that Alitos background is irrelevant if the inquisitors are guilty of similar things?

No. I'm sorry. Thats crazy. It's a free pass and you're basically saying "yes" yourself to that which you condemn. You want to set a moral standard great but it's not set by saying whats not good for them is alright for us.


Contrast this confirmation hearing with that of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. The only difference is that this nominee is a conservative appointed by a GOP president; a president who won 51% of the popular vote, no less. Should he not be afforded the same courtesy of appointing judges as given to Clinton?

I also find it personally insulting that Ted Kennedy would sit in moral and ethical judgment of anyone on the planet.

Whoops i left that last bit in from your post without commenting. I'd say what i originally stated applies to that too in a sense.
Sure he should be given that courtesy...does Ruth Bader Ginsburg have a dubious background? If not it's an irrelevant point to make.