Compassionate Liberalism Makes Alito's Wife Cry
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 09:24PM 
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
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?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (41)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW, I added a link to your blog in my sidebar Amy. Keep up the good work!
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.
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"
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???
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.
I fail to see how America under President Bush in any way qualifies as a fascist state.
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?
"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.
Waiting....
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.
Sure he should be given that courtesy...does Ruth Bader Ginsburg have a dubious background? If not it's an irrelevant point to make.
In all fairness, I agree that there are “dirty” politicians in both camps. I do not blindly tout that all GOP politicians are above reproach and that all Democrat politicians are hiding something. But when Kennedy started in on Alito’s ethics and morals, it was just too much to take.
In case the link failed, go to the following site for the CAP story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/12/MNGPMGLV0K1.DTL
And a second reference:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060112-102242-3157r.htm
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..."
The basic premise of the pro-life movement is that all human life deserves liberty, among which is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If this is true,that we are all endowed these rights by our creator, then it is morally wrong to abort.
It is an undeniable scientific and medical fact that human life begins at conception. There are no two ways around that fact.
Rape, therefore, is not a good enough reason for an abortion. Although it requires some strength from the woman to say the least to endure a pregnancy began in such a way, she morally has no more right to abort the baby than does the man to have raped her.
With that said, an incredible devalueing of life occurs on almost every level in countries that wound their consciences by abortion.
I will do some research. I am positive that other countries with abortion have similar problems: prostitution, pornography, child abuse, etc. I shall prove it.
Why would you put such a group as CAP on a resume if you disavow what the group stands for?
Samuel Alito is NOT a stupid man. He is extremely well learned, and intelligent. His placement of a anti-minority, anti-woman group on his resume was a DELIBERATE MESSAGE to President Reagan, who himself was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was letting his potential employer know he was one of "them"...part of the "team".
The appeal is the same appeal used by Republicans in the Southern Strategy which was racial antagonism. Of course the entrenched white monocultural power structure embraces Alito. He's insurance that not only the status quo remains in place, but is further enhanced.
Look at his decisions on one man one vote, lethal force by police against unarmed blacks, racial composition of juries and racial discrimination lawsuits, and then come back and tell me why any conscious minority citizen living in America should support this guy.
--Cobra
It is not my intention to argue against this theory, per se, but I would like to point out some other possible explanations, or at least some points that probably contribute to the situation other than the legalization of abortion. First of all, it's unlikely that statistics for rape, child abuse, or domestic abuse became even remotely reliable until approximately the point when abortion was legalized, simply because of underreporting. Rape, for example, is still underreported because victims are afraid or ashamed, and surely these issues were even more serious a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago.
As far as STDs are concerned, the simple fact that HIV didn't become an issue until the very late seventies/early eighties means that a huge STD problem developed only after Roe v. Wade had been decided, and HIV didn't appear as a result of that. Whether it spread more rapidly because of legalized abortion is another issue, but what is more likely is that American (and Western) culture just became more permissive in a very general way. Other phenomena you cite, like cohabitation before marriage and the prevalence of pornography, would also be symptoms of a general cultural permissiveness. Same for increased divorce rates. It seems more likely to me that a loosening of social mores is responsible for all these things as well as for the legalization of abortion, not that abortion caused the rest.
You point out in a later comment that this is related to a general devaluing of life. This also seems possible, but as I see it it's the social permissiveness that leads to a (potential) devaluation of life which leads to an increase in the phenomena you mention, including abortion. I just don't see abortion itself causing a rise in child abuse, for example. It seems to be more about pervasive cultural attitudes than specific practices.
Now, I think this is a pretty interesting area for serious research, but I've been hard-pressed to find it. Everyone has his own agenda here (not on this blog, but in the field itself) and it's too easy to force statistics to make whatever point you want. But I did decide to take a (very brief) look at some abortion and divorce rates in Canada, done by province, at
www.statcan.ca
A quick example: Divorce rates in Ontario and Quebec (Canada's two largest provinces) are nearly identical. In 2002 in Ontario, for every 100 live births, there are 29.7 abortions. But in Quebec, for every 100 live births, there are 42.6 abortions. That's 43% more, with no visible correlation in divorce rates. Of course, this is only two provinces in only one country looking at only one correspondence, but it is a bit interesting (and shows what I can do with statistics if I feel like it!).
On a bit of an aside, I think it's slightly troubling that cohabitation before marriage is on a list with child murder...even if there is some sort of causal relationship, I hope that even a religious person would be unwilling to put the two on the same level of immorality.
Because..... apparently he had no idea the group was about what they assumably are. It's that simple.
I'm sure the vast majority of people could be "trapped" in lies about what took place nearly thiry years ago if thrust into such a position.
The bottom line is that Alito is a conservative constructionalist jurist that the liberals don't like. If the tables were turned, I'd probably be just as noisy about a liberal activist jurists being nominated. However, there is a GOP president nominating the jurist and the senate's roll is to confirm based upon qualifications that do not include ideology and Roe v. Wade.
Just tears? She’s a strong lady. I’d tear my hair out listening to those pompous Senators.
Actually, the story got misreported. Here is what happened according to my sources: Mrs. Alito sat up too close to the front, got a good look at Kennedy, and started puking in a napkin and ran out of the room.
AMY -
Wow - you sure know how to throw a party! Since I can't choose a starting point (or, more accurately, which of your lefty-guests to address), I'll just comment on your article and leave the moonbat-schooling to you, Johnny and the others 9all of whom are doing a splendid job, by the way!).
I think that the Democrats, particularly Ted Kennedy, made themselves look pretty foolish over the last few days. After 15 years of serving on a federal bench, with thousands of cases and hundreds of written opinions, was this the best they could do?
I especially enjoyed the CAP fishing expedition. Can you imagine being one of the poor staffers pouring through four large boxes of old notes until 2 a.m. this morning looking for one name? And all of this based on one editorial article (which I don't completely disagree with, by the way)?
Hilarious. Pathetic.
I was listening to C-Span on the way to work today (my wonderful 42-mile commute through Baltimore/DC corridor HELL) and one of the callers said this:
"Ted Kennedy is a bloated, philandering alcoholic who left a woman in his car - dead at the bottom of a river. And HE feels qualified to question this man's morality and character?"
I ALMOST had to pull over - I was laughing so hard! I recalled his shaking hands, red face and childish temper-tantrum with Specter over an imagined rejection of his request for CAP documents' subpoena....and then in fact reached my exit and DID pull over!
Great article - great discussion!
Timmer
Timmer, I always love it when you comment! Great comments, bro.
Peace...
"Because..... apparently he had no idea the group was about what they assumably are. It's that simple."
You're kidding, right? A man who, under pressure can recite verbatim his decisions in 67 dissent cases, and give a dissertation level explanation on Constitutional issues on national television at his hearings, can turn around and put a racist sexist organization on a resume to the President of the United States and "have no idea what the group was about and what they assumably are?"
You see, I'm giving Alito credit that he's a brilliant man.
Many dangerous people are brilliant. Samuel Alito knows EXACTLY what the Concerned Alumni of Princeton were all about. That's why its inclusion on a resume for an anti-civil rights President like Reagan was a "brilliant" move. It got him the job, right?
Timmer,
The fact that there's no record of him belonging to CAP tells you what about honesty on his resume?
Makes you wonder exactly what color robe Alito's going to wear if he does get placed on SCOTUS.
--Cobra
With all due respect, one can be part of an organization without agreeing with or knowing about every other member's personal positions. As stated in my original post, this is what one individual wrote in a school newspaper about Affirmative Action:
**********************
"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,"
**********************
Judge Alito said he rejects that line of reasoning. His career seems to bear him out. Frankly I'm against Affirmative Action as well. We see that all day long here in the Army, where minority females, for example, who are far less experienced and qualified than my husband (and the fact that he's a white male has nothing to do with it, so don't go there!) promote faster and make more money as a result SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITY FEMALES. That negatively affects morale. I know a lot of female soldiers who run from deployments and aim for cushy desk jobs who in less time outrank my husband and other very qualified men who have combat and leadership experience, and are frankly better soldiers in every sense of the word (leadership abilities, experience, hours worked, etc., etc.). It is an insult when we see these PC (politically correct) chicks make it when they are inferior substantively than my husband, Ruth's husband, Betty's husband, Erin's husband, Christine's husband..... all Army wife friends.
Judge Alito was then and probably is now, from what I gather, opposed to Affirmative Action as it stands. So am I. So are lots of people.
And if you read my entry update above, under the crying Clinton image, I wrote and referenced:
"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."
The whole attempt to smear Alito was a farce. He was minimally involved with the group so much so that they don't even have a record of him. The Dems went fishing for dirt where there was none.
Here's some interesting info:
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9890
Judge Alito and Concerned Alumni of Princeton 1/11/2006
The reason Sam Alito was involved with CAP was because Princeton kicked the ROTC off campus in 1970. In Alito's view, Princeton was blameworthy for thinking that it was "too good for the military."
Alito was a member of Army ROTC while at Princeton. He thus knew from firsthand experience how ROTC can open doors for students who otherwise wouldn't be able to attend an elite Ivy League institution like Princeton.
The very first issue of CAP's biweekly newspaper, the Prospect, contained an article about Princeton's efforts to run ROTC off campus.
A 1985 article from the Princeton Packet, a university newspaper, confirms that one of the principal reasons CAP was formed was because of "a campaign to eliminate the Army ROTC program." See Charles Stile, A Conservative Voice Targets the University, Princeton Packet, Feb. 12, 1985.
Princeton was awash in anti-military sentiment in the 1970s. During Alito's senior year, vandals firebombed Princeton ROTC headquarters. Andrew Napolitano, an Alito classmate and fellow member of ROTC, has indicated that: "we had to leave Princeton and go to a state school because radicals at Princeton had firebombed the ROTC offices. And rather than building little new offices, the university just let the military leave and stay off campus." Fox News, Jan. 10, 2006.
Princeton discriminated against ROTC in other ways, too. In the spring of 1969, the university faculty voted to end all academic credit for ROTC classes.
Alito's involvement with CAP was exceedingly minimal. Andrew Napolitano, who was on CAP's board for seven or eight years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, has indicated that: "I have no recollection of Sam being a member of the organization or involved in any way." Fox News, Jan. 10, 2006.
CAP was not opposed to the admission of women and minorities. Some in the group's leadership expressly endorsed coeducation. And while CAP was opposed to racial quotas, it didn't believe that it was appropriate to discriminate on the basis of race.
One of CAP's co-founders, John Thatcher ('53) wrote to the college newspaper to correct "the very unfortunate impression" that the group was against coeductation: "I support coeducation at Princeton, and have done so since its inception."
>>>"Judge Alito said he rejects that line of reasoning. His career seems to bear him out. Frankly I'm against Affirmative Action as well."
There are blogs, like "Discriminations", where I passionately argue for Affirmative Action. I won't carry that argument here, because there are other racially tinged cases I can bring up against Alito, like him saying police shooting unarmed black teenagers in the back of the head,and four consecutive all white juries for black defendants are both Constitutional, which I'll get into later.
But, I just want to remind you that when my late father and uncles served in the Armed Forces, fighting for this country in World War 2, it was SEGREGATED, so back then, your husband would've faced no competition from minority females for any position. As late as the Vietnam conflict in 1969, it would've still been a felony in many southern states for a black soldier to have a relationship with a white female. Sadly, there are many Americans who pine for a return to those days, as vocalized by Republicans like Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and the late segregationist Justice William Reinquist.
I can fill this screen with modern day statistics on discrimination against African Americans, from hiring, lending, housing and the justice system. That's why I still support Affirmative Action, and will continue to do so.
--Cobra
>>>"Cobra, there's no threat from valid competition"
If there was valid competition in America there wouldn't be anti-minority discrimination in hiring, promotion and wages. Since those things irrefutably exist, why are you therefore against Affirmative Action and measures to combat such discrimination?
--Cobra
The target point needs to be zero discrimination.
The statistics don't support your argument.
--Cobra