This is from the Washington Times, so consider the source:

Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a “first tier” of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation’s opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

A source working with the Justice Department on the investigation told The Washington Times that Abramoff was questioned during several interviews about the lawmakers and their purported ties to the lobbyist and his former clients.

The source said prosecutors asked Abramoff whether the lawmakers had performed “official acts” in exchange for campaign cash or other favors. Although it is unknown whether any of the five will be charged in the case, the source said Abramoff was being “prepped” by five Justice Department attorneys in that event.

I have no idea if this expansive list is accurate, or this is just the Washington Times doing their part to spread the bi-partisan nature of the Abramoff ties. For now, the only one of the above listed who I think is in hot water is Bob Ney.

Abramoff Probe UpdatePost + Comments (13)

Jonathon Turley comes out against Sam Alito, and he comes out hard:

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito’s cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

***

Likewise, Alito authored another memo that argued strongly in favor of giving immunity to officials who violate the rights of citizens — a position long rejected by the federal courts.

As he did as a Reagan administration attorney, Judge Alito often adopts standards so low that any government excuse can overcome any government abuse.

***

An independent judiciary means little if our judges are not independently minded. In criminal, immigration and other cases, Alito is one of the government’s most predictable votes on the federal bench. Though his supporters have attempted to portray this as merely a principle of judicial deference, it is a raw form of judicial bias.

The Alito vote might prove to be the single most important decision on the future of our constitutional system for decades to come. While I generally defer to presidents in their choices for the court, Samuel Alito is the wrong nominee at the wrong time for this country.

Again, if there is a basis for opposing Alito, I would think this would be it, and not the absurd attempts to portray Roe v. Wade as good law. The complaints listed by Turley are but a sample of his rulings, and they are troubling. Despite the fact that Alito is clearly qualified to be on the Supreme Court, I don’t know if I could vote for him were I a Senator. In fact, I would probably have to say I would vote against the man, the more I learn.

*** Update ***

Stuart Taylor has an interesting take.

*** Update ***

Big Round-up here.

*** Update ***

Hugh Hewitt says, in essence, I am all wet:

This is a curious, and ultimately reflexively anti-majoritarian position given that “the government” is simply the accumlation of the laws proposed, refined and eventually passed by a bicameral legislature and signed into law by the executive, operated by a largely career civil service of more than a million overseen by a few thousand political appointees the most important of whom must pass through Senate confirmation, watched over by a judiciary that is diverse and jealous of its powers. Reflexively pro-governemnt is the same as “reflexively pro separation-of-powers and checks and balances.”

A preference for the laws and actions of the government –except in those cases where government treads on established Constitutional rights– is a preference for the politics of the many as opposed to what Justice Scalia had branded the “democratic vote of nine unelected judges,” nine justices who are pretty much products of the elites. Those nine change slowly over time in response to political tides. Bill Clinton got two. Now W is getting his second. I hope he gets a third and a fourth, and not because of a cavalier attitude towards civil liberties, but beecause of a deep regard for self-government under the sturdy dictates of the Constitution, not made-up decrees driven by elite opinion as to what is “just” and “good.”

I like elections.

Example: Would Alito be more or less likely to vote with the majority in Kelo? No more reflexively pro-government opinion can be found than Kelo’s blank check to the condeming authority, but Alito is much, much more likely in my view to be with the dissent than the majority. Is John pro-Kelo, or is he, like I suspect Alito is, anti-government in that case?

Read Hugh’s whole post. Hugh is correct on my opinions regarding Kelo, and, I hope to goodness, Alito’s position on issues such as Kelo. I do, however find some of his opinions (and we must be clear- I am not a lawyer, so most every opinion I have read is actually a distillation of his opinions by another source and subject to the biases of those authors) to be curiously slanted towards granting additional government authority. I don’t think there was anything in the hearings that would disabuse me of that notion.

Hugh touches on something else:

Unless John and the like-minded are proposing a set of rules which dictate that they will always win, they ought to recognize the great wisdom in the many and not encourage senators to posture rather than acknowledge that presidential elections have consequences. I am happy that the GOP did not throw such tantrums when Bill Clinton sent forward his nominees. The disturbing trend of obstructionism in ever instance displayed by the Senate Democrats is far more troubling than one justice’s alleged “reflexive vote” for the government.

Hugh probably would agree with this piece from earlier, and I will have to cede that pointless obstructionism, particularly for show, is to be avoided. As to whether or not I have come out against Alito, I think Hugh has me pegged wrong- my position on Alito has been one of reliable and fixed vacillation. One minute I think Alito is little more than a right-wing statist, other moments I think he is merely someone who I probably would not agree with on much, but who I see no real reason to vote against. And you thought Kerry was a flip-flopper?

In general, though, I do agree with Hugh- Alito is qualified, and Senators should not be urged towards shows of obstructionism. I have the luxury of not being a Senator, but I probably shouldn’t encourage the behavior. I know I do not agree with Alito on a number of issues, but I really can not muster the strength to oppose him. He seems like a decent man who is supremely qualified for the job, and I don’t see how my possible political disagreements disqualify him.

Which gets us back to the point of this post to begin with- the Democrats could possibly have made a case that resonated- had they tried. Instead, they decided to show some leg to the NARAL crowd by pretending Roe v. Wade is the only issue that Alito will ever look at, they engaged in a little recreational race-baiting with the CAP nonsense, and they tried to play absurd games with the Vanguard non-issue.

In the end, Hugh is right. Elections do mean things. If Alito decides cases solely on the merits of the case and possesses the temperament my conservative friends state he has, I doubt that Alito will be as good as some Republicans think he will be and he most certainly will not be as bad as many Democrats claim he will be. And if we don’t like it- well, we can vote accordingly in 2008 and again in 2012.

Turley Says NoPost + Comments (67)

David Mayer has an interesting piece up on the confirmation hearings discussing “Senatorial Activism”:

If Harriet Miers, President Bush’s original nominee to succeed Justice O’Connor, had not withdrawn her nomination – in other words, if the Miers nomination were still alive for Senate consideration – Senators would have good reason to regard her nomination quite skeptically. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings would focus on the critical question – Is she qualified to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court? – along with a second important question about her ability to be independent of the executive branch. That’s because Ms. Miers was a close personal friend and crony of President Bush; she also was someone whose record showed no background – no prior judicial experience, no expertise in constitutional law – that would qualify her for any federal appellate court, let alone the most important court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. By all accounts, Harriet Miers was a crony of the President, absolutely unqualified for the position he was nominating her for – a textbook example of the kind of person whose appointment to high government office the framers of the Constitution gave the Senate the “advise and consent” power to thwart. (For more on this, see my October 27 entry, “Mier’d in Mediocrity and Mendacity.”)

Samuel Alito is as different from Harriet Miers as a nominee can be. Like John Roberts, he is superbly well-qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Indeed, Judge Alito’s qualifications far exceed those of Chief Justice Roberts, in terms of prior federal appellate judicial experience. Judge Alito, after having been confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1990, has served 15 years as a federal appellate judge, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit – giving him more federal judicial experience than 105 of the 109 Supreme Court justices appointed in U.S. history.

Because no one can seriously question Judge Alito’s superb qualifications for the Court, the debate over his confirmation has focused on his judicial philosophy. (In other words, because the Senate has no legitimate basis for refusing to confirm Judge Alito to the Court, the special-interest groups that oppose his confirmation have been urging members of the Senate Judicial Committee to engage in “Senatorial activism” – to inquire into matters that go beyond the legitimate scope of the Senate’s confirmation powers, to inquire into Judge Alito’s personal views, not only the legal positions he has taken as an appellate judge over the past 15 years but also the positions he took 20 years ago when he worked as an attorney in the executive branch of government – matters that are irrelevant to his confirmation, properly considered.) And the debate over Judge Alito has resurrected, with a new twist, the traditional “left versus right” debate over constitutional interpretation that has dominated most issues of constitutional politics for the past 20 years or more.

He is on to something. Were the roles reversed, and we had a Democratic President who had put forward a wholly qualified nominee (as, I think, we all agree Alito is), Republicans would have to focus all of their attempts at derailing the nomination on aspects of judicial philosophy they dislike. Or, as I feel is the case with the Democrats and Alito, they would simply put on a good enough show to appease their interest groups.

Alito is clearly qualified. I don’t think I care much for the man, and I don’t think he and I would see eye to eye on damn near anything politically, but is that enough to stop the confirmation fo a man the President has chosen to be elevated to the court?

Senatorial ActivismPost + Comments (40)