I didn't see a thread on this and would like to get your opinion. Among the Americans I expect the response to be fairly partisan, but am interested nonetheless.
First off, according to CNN, Alito told the committee yesterday, "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."
I'd like to know what the hell that is supposed to mean. So "above the law" usually means that one can ignore or perhaps in this case even alter the law with impunity. What does "no person . . . is beneath the law" mean? And if we are neither above nor beneath the law, does that mean we on "on the law"? And what would "on the law" mean?
Is this just the standard obscurantism that nominees use to slip past the confirmation hearings?
Originally posted by telerionI take it you're actually kidding, so I won't respond. Sort of.
I didn't see a thread on this and would like to get your opinion. Among the Americans I expect the response to be fairly partisan, but am interested nonetheless.
First off, according to CNN, Alito told the committee yesterday, "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." ...[text shortened]... the standard obscurantism that nominees use to slip past the confirmation hearings?
Originally posted by telerionThe law is there to protect the victims by making sure that the aggressors are kept in line. Yes? So, to say that noone is beneath the law is, if somewhat obscured, to say that noone is unprotected by the same laws that others are not above. Or?..
Nope. Not kidding. Bosse's suggestion is possible, but then Alito says that no person is beneath the law.
Of course, it's all just crap. I think most people are either below or above the law.
Originally posted by stockenThis makes the most sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up.
The law is there to protect the victims by making sure that the aggressors are kept in line. Yes? So, to say that noone is beneath the law is, if somewhat obscured, to say that noone is unprotected by the same laws that others are not above. Or?..
Of course, it's all just crap. I think most people are either below or above the law.
Oh yes, Alito? Two thumbs way down from me.
Edit: Other than to do a little song and dance for the cameras, why would he say something like this? Would any respectable candidate not agree with Alito's statement?
Well, Alito is by no means the first person in Washington to use the "above/below the law" quote.
You may recall that during Bill/Hilary years, Democrats would go on the Sunday talk shows during a scandal, and be asked the scripted question "Is the President above the law"...to which they would reply, "No, of course the President is not above the law...but neither is he below the law". So the phrase goes back at least that far...and it was a very popular phrase at the time...
It really doesn't mean anything, other than to try to say that no one is above the law applying to them, and no one is so bad that they're not entitled to whatever protection the law provides. It's just one of those phrases that people in Washington think is really clever. And, if we looked through enough video, we would find that every Senator on this idiotic committee had used those exact words at one time or another.
Originally posted by telerionWhat does "no person . . . is beneath the law" mean?
'Heard the same line, and from what little I have gathered of the man, he sees the rule of law as being the central issue in civilized societies.
As such, his comment that all are subject to the same speaks of both ends of the spectrum: those who hold positions which tempt them to act with impunity, and those without position being taken advantage of without recourse. His thoughts on the rule of law level the playing field... in theory, at least.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy problem with Alito is his prior extremely conservative record on several issues, I find it hard to believe that he can be a good objective judge true to the constitution when he seems to have strong dispositions to right wing conservative thought. Not that I want a liberal leaning judge either, but I don't see why we need to settle for a judge with a troubled record. I'm sure there must be other highly qualified judges without the compromised history.
[b]What does "no person . . . is beneath the law" mean?
'Heard the same line, and from what little I have gathered of the man, he sees the rule of law as being the central issue in civilized societies.
As such, his comment that all are subject to the same speaks of both ends of the spectrum: those who hold positions which tempt them to act wit ...[text shortened]... ut recourse. His thoughts on the rule of law level the playing field... in theory, at least.[/b]
Also, the no person beneath no person above the law is kinda dumb to me. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, hence, everything, people include are clearly below it. However I don't mind senators or politicians saying this because that sort of vague meaningless banter is commonplace and used to try and gain support from both left and right. However, Alito is not a politician, he is a judge and should not be participating in that vague political language so common with Senators. Judges are supposed to be non-politcal and objective, I don't think Alito can be either of those.
Hmmmm.
Alito testified this morning that he can't actually recall his activity (ca. 1985) within the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (a group reportedly "concerned" about minorities and women attending the school) yet names the group as one of which he was a member on a job application.
Interesting.
Originally posted by TheBloopPoliticianese, eh? Figures. Damn frustrating watching these clowns try to do anything "for the people."
Well, Alito is by no means the first person in Washington to use the "above/below the law" quote.
You may recall that during Bill/Hilary years, Democrats would go on the Sunday talk shows during a scandal, and be asked the scripted question "Is the President above the law"...to which they would reply, "No, of course the President is not above the law... ...[text shortened]... ry Senator on this idiotic committee had used those exact words at one time or another.
I watched a subcommittees interview of Bernanke. As an economist, I was mortified at the ignorance of our representatives on Capitol Hill. I don't know how Professor Bernanke got through the day without calling some one a moron.
Originally posted by telerionWhen one considers one's audience, graciousness is easier to appropriate.
Politicianese, eh? Figures. Damn frustrating watching these clowns try to do anything "for the people."
I watched a subcommittees interview of Bernanke. As an economist, I was mortified at the ignorance of our representatives on Capitol Hill. I don't know how Professor Bernanke got through the day without calling some one a moron.
As the overwhelming majority of the in-bred crooks have never been involved with any economics outside of fundraising and hide-the-sausage, our 'esteemed' representatives are limited to questions of, "How do we know trickle down won't actually harm the endangered geese of my constiuencies' local environs?"
No wonder Tom Delay is coming back for more: who outside of the Beltway would hire such an incompetent bully?