Fritz Feds |
Front page
Federalist Society members corresponding from the Walter F. Mondale Hall at the University of Minnesota. |
Monday, January 16, 2006
Posted
2:33 PM
by Jason
FEINSTEIN: So if I understand this, you essentially said that you wanted to follow precedent, newly established law in this area. And you left a little hedge that if Congress made findings in that law, then that might be a different situation. If Congress did make findings, would you have agreed that that statute would been constitutional? ALITO: What I said in the opinion and what I will reiterate this afternoon is that it would have been a very different case for me. I don't think I can express an opinion on how I would have decided a hypothetical case. FEINSTEIN: It's not hypothetical. I'm just asking you, if there were findings as you said, you might have sustained the law. ALITO: And I reiterate that... FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law... ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me. Come on, they make it so easy. You knew that she was going to be off from the first five words. “So if I understand this” was a dead give-away that she wouldn’t. Now, it just isn’t my fault that they made fools of themselves. Apparently T.A. Frank, at TNR Online (ht Prof. Adler at Bench Memos), thinks that eliminating camera’s (reg req’d) from the hearings would fix this. Somehow I doubt it actually would stop the foolishness, maybe just the obvious preening. It would, however, allow enterprising NYT reporters to fix things, so the public got the “fake but accurate” view of things. Wait, that’s why we have C-Span 0 comments
Comments:
Post a Comment
|