Alito: Not such a textualist, after all

So Samuel Alito is supposed to be a "textualist", right? Who views the constitution strictly as a "text", not a "living document"?

His own promises to the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, apparently are living documents. What he wrote in his Senate questionnaire in 1990 (according to Newsday, which had the most complete version of the quote that I could find)was:

I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney or the First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, N.Y.

Today, however, he says:

As my service continued, I realized that I had been unduly restrictive on my 1990 questionnaire [...]

So clearly, Alito does believe that written documents have to be interpreted according to evolving circumstances. This is clearly a setback for the strict constructionalists.

Incidentally, I think that other public figures might want to use this same approach to getting themselves out of hot water. Imagine:

"I said I would never, ever take steroids," explained Palmeiro, "but later I realized I had been unduly restrictive."

See? It sounds so darned reasonable!

•  Tip jar

  ...with bonus quote from legal ethicist Stephen Gillers: "A promise to the Senate does not by itself create a legal obligation."

  Or, in other words, lie all you want to the Senate; once you're on the Supreme Court, what're they gonna do?

  by GreenCA on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 10:31:08 AM PDT

  •  Good catch

    asdf

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 10:37:12 AM PDT

  •  Especially When

    On the Supreme Court, each justice decides on recusal based on the philosophy that they have a "duty to sit" on a case, absent some disqualifying conflict.

    by eafredel on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 10:56:59 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps Mr. Gillers

    Does not realize that David Safavian, another appointee of President Bush, is facing criminal charges for failing to tell the truth in a questionnaire he submitted to a Senate committee in connection with his confirmation to the position as Director of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.  Mr. Safavian allegedly failed to acknowledge in his questionnaire that he had been investigated by the Inspector General of the GSA for a golf outing organized by Jack Abramoff.

    by eafredel on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

    •  Strictly speaking....

      lying under oath is different from making a promise under oath and then not keeping it. Legally, that is. Ethically, the difference is minimal.

      by jmcl89 on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 12:00:24 PM PDT

      •  So Then You Are Saying

        It's not lying when a judicial nominee testifies under oath that he will respect stare decisis and he votes on the first opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, announcing that stare decisis is overrated in a case involving abortion.

        Or when he is asked about his recusal policy, to say "I will recuse myself in any case involving Vanguard" or "any case on which I have ruled as a member of the Court of Appeals" that is mere puffery and not perjury.

        by eafredel on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

        •  It's not perjury, legally...

          ... but it could be grounds for impeachment if the Senate objected strenuously enough.

          by jmcl89 on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 01:29:13 PM PDT

•  Brutal

  There is probably no good way to explain away a pledge that just sort of "slipped his mind" a few scant years later, and he may be the nicest guy on the block, but what a completely, marvelously ham-fisted explanation of his waffling, and dare we say it, his "flip-flopping" on the issue?

  Bush NOMINATES Flip-Floppers!?!?!?!   I love it.  Do as I say, not as I do.

  by arthura on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 10:53:05 AM PDT

•  Repugs don't know from recusal!

  In the infamous 5:4 SCOTUS decision that won Bush the WH, 3/5 of the judges voting in Bush's favor should have recused themselves due to financial interest of close relatives in the outcome. Thomas' wife was working as a recruiter for neocon WH staff, Rehnquist and Scalia had close relatives in line for WH jobs. They all would have been out of jobs had Gore prevailed. Pretty blatant, but of course MSM ignored it.

  by vulcangrrl on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:15:56 AM PDT