US Democrats hoping that Samuel Alito will derail his own nomination are so far finding little ammunition in his comments. As President George W. Bush's pick for the Supreme Court entered his third day of the hearings yesterday, Alito was showing that he has mastered the language of politics: Say nothing -- at least nothing controversial.
The conservative Alito's by-the-book responses to the grilling by Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee has earned him nods of approval from Republican supporters.
But a leading Democratic opponent, speaking to reporters on Tuesday, the second day of the hearings, complained that Alito was speaking in generalities to avoid answering questions.
"We are not asking him to take a certain position. We are asking him to take a position. It's that simple," New York Senator Charles Schumer said. "So far he has not."
Democrats are particularly worried because Alito, in replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate, could throw the balance of the nine-member court to the right. That potentially could undercut US women's right to abortion, first read into the Constitution in 1973, and broadly expand executive powers that many critics of the Bush administration believe the president has unconstitutionally usurped.
Alito has been careful to avoid fueling such fears.
Typical of his testimony: "There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law."
That was his response to a question from the committee's top Democrat, Senator Patrick Leahy, who asked whether the president could "override the laws and immunize illegal conduct."
Such responses did not sit well with Democrats.
"Americans have no better answers than they did at the outset of the hearings," said Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.
And when he does answer, it is "vague, inconsistent, and at times, contradictory testimony to what his record shows," Leahy added.
Many Democrats fear Alito would give the nine-justice Supreme Court the fifth and deciding vote to approve Bush's admitted use of warrantless electronic snooping within the US.
O'Connor, retiring after 25 years on the nation's highest court, has provided the fifth and deciding vote in 148 cases. Many of those involved contentious issues such as abortion and affirmative action, or preferences given to nonwhites to promote racial diversity in schools or employment.
Throughout hours of grilling by Democrats and less-stressful questioning by Republicans on Tuesday, the 55-year-old appellate judge repeatedly refused to speak in concrete terms on the ground that he should not air an opinion on a subject that might come before him.
Republicans complained that Democrats have already made up their minds about Alito.
"I do think that there are those who have already decided to vote against your nomination and are looking for some reason to do so," Republican Senator John Cornyn said. "And I think one of the reasons that they may claim is that you've been nonresponsive."
Despite the Democrats' frustration, Alito was to go into further hearings yesterday with a decreased likelihood that they may resort to the politically risky delaying technique of a filibuster to block his nomination.
In the US system, the Senate must approve presidential nominations to most federal courts. The hearing in the 18-member committee, expected to last at least until today, is the first step, supposedly laying groundwork on which the 100 senators can base their votes.
In his testimony, Alito seemed polished and well-prepared to face the Democrats' hostility. He was pressed repeatedly for his views on abortion, one of touchiest questions in US politics.
"I would approach the question with an open mind, and I would listen to the arguments that were made," he told one senator.
Le Tuan Binh keeps his Moroccan soldier father’s tombstone at his village home north of Hanoi, a treasured reminder of a man whose community in Vietnam has been largely forgotten. Mzid Ben Ali, or “Mohammed” as Binh calls him, was one of tens of thousands of North Africans who served in the French army as it battled to maintain its colonial rule of Indochina. He fought for France against the Viet Minh independence movement in the 1950s, before leaving the military — as either a defector or a captive — and making a life for himself in Vietnam. “It’s very emotional for me,”
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Central Committee is to gather in July for a key meeting known as a plenum, the third since the body of elite decisionmakers was elected in 2022, focusing on reforms amid “challenges” at home and complexities broad. Plenums are important events on China’s political calendar that require the attendance of all of the Central Committee, comprising 205 members and 171 alternate members with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the helm. The Central Committee typically holds seven plenums between party congresses, which are held once every five years. The current central committee members were elected at the
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed his pledge to replace India’s religion-based marriage and inheritance laws with a uniform civil code if he returns to office for a third term, a move that some minority groups have opposed. In an interview with the Times of India listing his agenda, Modi said his government would push for making the code a reality. “It is clear that separate laws for communities are detrimental to the health of society,” he said in the interview published yesterday. “We cannot be a nation where one community is progressing with the support of the Constitution while the other
CODIFYING DISCRIMINATION: Transgender people would be sentenced to three years in prison, while same-sex relations could land a person in jail for more than a decade Iraq’s parliament on Saturday passed a bill criminalizing same-sex relations, which would receive a sentence of up to 15 years in prison, in a move rights groups condemned as an “attack on human rights.” Transgender people would be sentenced to three years’ jail under the amendments to a 1988 anti-prostitution law, which were adopted during a session attended by 170 of 329 lawmakers. A previous draft had proposed capital punishment for same-sex relations, in what campaigners had called a “dangerous” escalation. The new amendments enable courts to sentence people engaging in same-sex relations to 10 to 15 years in prison, according to the