Senator Durbin just finished questioning Samuel Alito, in Day 3 of the hearings, and he referred more than once to "the crushing hand of fate" in Alito's decisions. According to Durbin, Alito has time and time again come down on the side of corporations and other big institutions.
Durbin accused of Alito of seeking out ways to decide cases against the little guy and even tried to connect a decision of Alito's to the recent mining disaster. Alito defended himself in his usual way: I decide cases according to the law. That case relating to mining was about the statutory definition of "mine," and the above-ground pile of coal at issue in the case did not fit the definition.
Durbin just repeated his accusation: There's a pattern, a pattern of decisions, you know, the crushing hand of fate. (Crushing miners underground?) Durbin sounds a litttle dimwitted saying this, but his point is one made by some of the smartest people in the legal academy: I don't care what your excuse is for any given case that you might want to explain. I will just retreat to my observation, based on every case you ever decided, that there is an overall pattern of siding with the big guy.
Alito's last response to Durbin, as the time is running out, is the assertion that there are many cases where he has sided with the little guy -- not enough to alter the pattern, the pattern, you know -- and a description of one case where his decision favored a schoolboy who had been bullied because of his perceived sexual orientation -- doesn't matter because there's still the pattern, the crushing-hand-of-fate pattern -- and I'm not sure if Alito is sounding sympathetic, whiny, or just naturally nasal, and then he clamps his lips shut with his jowls in the pulled-down position that makes me think he's pretty pissed off at Durbin.
January 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Please, Ann, a little kindness and understanding. Historically, there have been many different approaches taken to the “dimwitted”. In some places even today they are hidden away. In some places they've been venerated.
In the United States today they frequently receive special care and resources to help them lead productive and happy lives.
Here in Illinois, of course, we elect them to the U. S. Senate.
I am not proud to call Durbin one of my senators. I swear I've eaten pudding more sentient than him.
Durbin sounds a litttle dimwitted saying this, but his point is one made by some of the smartest people in the legal academy: I don't care what your excuse is for any given case that you might want to explain. I will just retreat to my observation, based on every case you ever decided, that there is an overall pattern of siding with the big guy.
But maybe the big guy is usually right, and that's how he got to be big.
(Crushing miners underground?)
snicker snicker
I can't believe this guy is my senator either... He tried sooo hard to get Alito to say that Roe was "settled law", to mean that it is untouchable. Alito did say that Griswold is pretty settled. Cases don't come before the court anymore. Roe cases most certainly do.
Dave, based on the evidence at hand, I would assert that all fifty states elect the "dimwitted" to the US Senate.
(Pooh, I hope this doesn't continue to harsh your mellow.)
My Con. Lay professor this semester had a pretty good term for Durbin: infracaninophile
infra- under
canine- dog
phile- love
It wasn't a compliment, either.
Senator Durbin's first name seems to be definitional.
And, really, the gist of all of Sen. Durbin's nonsense was
Sen. D,'we see a pattern of crushing the little guy'
Nominee A answers, 'but this, and this, and this case show a pattern that refutes your assumption, and besides the specific facts with which I was dealing are what matters'
Sen. D, 'but we see a pattern, and I'm quoting Springsteen, so therefore I'm cooler than you'
Nominee A, 'I'm glad you've heard of Springsteen, I don't know how I can change your mind about me, so there are various acts I can think of that you should be doing to yourself with long hard objects (obviously, these sentiments would be thought, not voiced)'
Ice Pick,
Gotta disagree. My Senators are certainly dull, but they are sentient. Heck, I'd wager that their IQs break into the low three digits.
But Durbin is dumb as a post.
Old Dad, where do you live?
And, just to make Pooh feel a little better if he reads this, there is actually one Senator who isn't a total waste of space. Russ Feingold actually has some brains, and does use them.
The question is, what curse of Fate led him to the Senate? My guess is that he has an under-developed sense of humor. He must have heard that crack about the US Senate being "the greatest deliberative body in the world" and not realized it was sarcasm.
I've always thought Russ Feingold has a great sense of humor, especially compared to some of his opponents. Snarling Mark Neumann comes to mind as someone particularly unfunny. So I don't think his lack of a funnybone is why he's in the Senate .
Icepick,
That's classified information, but if you're truly interested, Karl Rove has tapped my phone, and my address will be leaked to the NY Times.
He should be pissed off at Durbin. The man is trying to smear him for following the law and favoring the "big guy" when it's the Durbin's and the legislature's fault that the laws are against the "little guy" in the first place.
Durbin (2006): "You have refused to refute that statement in the 1985 job application. I'm concerned. Many people will leave this hearing with a question, that maybe you will be the . . . deciding vote" in a decision to overturn Roe. http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2006/01/sen_durbin_1.html
Durbin (1985): "I believe we should end abortion on demand, and at every opportunity I have translated this belief into votes in the House of Representatives. . . . Also, notwithstanding the result in Webster, I continue to believe the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade should be reversed." http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2006/01/sen_durbin_1.html
Stop with the Star Trek definition of sentient! You mean sapient!
I do believe you've laid a curse on North America
A curse that we now here rehearse in Philadelphia
A second flood, a simple famine,
Plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake
I'd accept with some despair;
But, no, you sent us Congress.
Good God, sir, was that fair?
You see, we piddle, twiddle, and resolve
Not one damn thing do we solve
Piddle, twiddle, and resolve
Nothing's ever solved in
Foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy
Philadephia!
Durbin sounds a litttle dimwitted saying this, but his point is one made by some of the smartest people in the legal academy: I don't care what your excuse is for any given case that you might want to explain. I will just retreat to my observation, based on every case you ever decided, that there is an overall pattern of siding with the big guy.
The counterargument that Alito can't be biased because he never expressly said, "I'm voting for the big corporation, the law be damned, neener, neener, neener," is equally facile. Even a biased judge is going to write an opinion with legal arguments in it; that Alito wrote such opinions does not prove his lack of bias.
My guess is that Appellate Courts see many more cases from 'little guys' with sure loser cases than they see from big guys.
Large corporations have in-house counsel who make business decisions on whether to appeal and the cost of the appeal versus the cost of settlement. If a large corporation loses at the trial level, they carefully weigh the cost and potential benefits and settle the loser cases.
Little guys are much more likely to go after a big corporation to prove a point or to get back at the company. Lots of 'little guys' are represented by lawyers on contingency looking for a big win or they are represented by advocacy groups looking to change the law. Both of these judge benefits differently from corporations in their cost benefit analysis and are willing to take bigger risks on appeals.
Pick, at least one Senator from my state has a brain. But she didn't get elected in the first place, she got appointed when daddy became governor, so that hardly counts. (Of course she got re-elected as well, but still)
Murkowski? Pooh, you're in ALASKA?! You have my sympathy! But don't worry, the sun will be coming up any month now....
I've got Biden, whose temperature exceeds his IQ, to "represent" me. And he's gearing his son up to govern me!
on the positive side, Durbin did sound at least calm and rational when he delivered his questions (I watched the replay on cspan last night)
Alito clearly showed a huge command for the cases he was asked about, and an ability to hear the question asked and respond directly to the flaws in the question (if not the actual question itself).
Post a Comment