Alito to USSC

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m not pretending. You’re either missing or mischaracterizing my answer. I’m not saying that I disagree with you as to the reason he put it there. Per my example, I had a reason to list all those clubs on my college application as well.

The issue is whether, 20 years later, I could recall them or give bona fides on any position taken on any issue by any of their members. The same holds for Alito and CAP.

BTW, what’s wrong with the Federalist Society? I was VP of my chapter at Vanderbilt when I was a 2L. It’s not some secret cabal, and it’s not some “extremist” organization. It’s a legal organization formed to promote debate, and the membership tends to be either libertarian, conservative, or both.

100meters wrote:

The pretending is your comparison. It’s not a list of clubs, it’s 2 organizations. And Alito was able to remember for 13 years that he was a member. Anyway its a moot point. He’ll get the job. (Cue sound of Founders rolling in graves)[/quote]

Luckily it is a moot point – imagine, a good judge actually getting confirmed to the bench. Amazing…

Now, your second sentence – how do you know he remembered for 13 years? Alito was a friend of Andrew Napolitano at Princeton. Napolitano was a state judge and also was actively involved with CAP.

As, I’m sure, were others of Alito’s acquaintance at Princeton. It’s hardly inconceivable that, as he tried to put together a list of organizations for his resume that would impress an employer, they would remind him of CAP, with which he was loosely associated.

But even if that weren’t the case, it’s also quite believable that one might remember a small detail for years immediately following it, but that it would fade from memory a further 20 years down the line.

I went to my 10 year high school reunion a couple years ago – I couldn’t remember the names of some people who I knew very well in high school, even though I remembered their faces. ANd I couldn’t remember which classes we shared either.

This whole “issue” is amusing insomuch as it shows the straws at which people are willing to grasp to try to smear a highly qualified nominee with whom they disagree.

102

Any serious professional knows what they have/had on their resume and why it is/was there.

If there is/was shit on your resume and you don’t/didn’t have a reason for it being there, you were/are a dumbass.

So, is Alito a dumbass? No, I don’t think so.

103

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m not pretending. You’re either missing or mischaracterizing my answer. I’m not saying that I disagree with you as to the reason he put it there. Per my example, I had a reason to list all those clubs on my college application as well.

The issue is whether, 20 years later, I could recall them or give bona fides on any position taken on any issue by any of their members. The same holds for Alito and CAP.

BTW, what’s wrong with the Federalist Society? I was VP of my chapter at Vanderbilt when I was a 2L. It’s not some secret cabal, and it’s not some “extremist” organization. It’s a legal organization formed to promote debate, and the membership tends to be either libertarian, conservative, or both.

100meters wrote:

The pretending is your comparison. It’s not a list of clubs, it’s 2 organizations. And Alito was able to remember for 13 years that he was a member. Anyway its a moot point. He’ll get the job. (Cue sound of Founders rolling in graves)

Luckily it is a moot point – imagine, a good judge actually getting confirmed to the bench. Amazing…

Now, your second sentence – how do you know he remembered for 13 years? Alito was a friend of Andrew Napolitano at Princeton. Napolitano was a state judge and also was actively involved with CAP.

As, I’m sure, were others of Alito’s acquaintance at Princeton. It’s hardly inconceivable that, as he tried to put together a list of organizations for his resume that would impress an employer, they would remind him of CAP, with which he was loosely associated.

But even if that weren’t the case, it’s also quite believable that one might remember a small detail for years immediately following it, but that it would fade from memory a further 20 years down the line.

I went to my 10 year high school reunion a couple years ago – I couldn’t remember the names of some people who I knew very well in high school, even though I remembered their faces. ANd I couldn’t remember which classes we shared either.

This whole “issue” is amusing insomuch as it shows the straws at which people are willing to grasp to try to smear a highly qualified nominee with whom they disagree.[/quote]

Being a racist/bigot/sexist, would of course, hardly be a straw…That is really pretending. Being a liar also wouldn’t be a straw during confirmation.

Being a member of CAP would be very distressing to anyone who cared about things like civil liberties, etc.—anybody not bigoted would be ashamed of such a membership–as noted by Mrs. Alito’s tears, who hopefully gave her husband an earful in their next private moment for putting her through such an embarassment.

104

[quote]vroom wrote:
Any serious professional knows what they have/had on their resume and why it is/was there.

If there is/was shit on your resume and you don’t/didn’t have a reason for it being there, you were/are a dumbass.

So, is Alito a dumbass? No, I don’t think so.[/quote]

Actually, no.

I’ve had several resumes for different positions, and you put different things on them – and take them off. If they cease being relevant, why would you keep them on. I could probably remember the big stuff on my resume - as in job experience. But the interests/clubs stuff? Not really.

As has been pointed out, Alito put together a politically oriented resume to get a politically oriented position. After getting that position, he probably kept the resume on file. After becoming a judge, he probably tossed it in a file somewhere and forgot about it (remember, this was most likely pre-computer-generated resumes for him – we’re talking mid 80s).

105

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

I’m not pretending. You’re either missing or mischaracterizing my answer. I’m not saying that I disagree with you as to the reason he put it there. Per my example, I had a reason to list all those clubs on my college application as well.

The issue is whether, 20 years later, I could recall them or give bona fides on any position taken on any issue by any of their members. The same holds for Alito and CAP.

BTW, what’s wrong with the Federalist Society? I was VP of my chapter at Vanderbilt when I was a 2L. It’s not some secret cabal, and it’s not some “extremist” organization. It’s a legal organization formed to promote debate, and the membership tends to be either libertarian, conservative, or both.

100meters wrote:

The pretending is your comparison. It’s not a list of clubs, it’s 2 organizations. And Alito was able to remember for 13 years that he was a member. Anyway its a moot point. He’ll get the job. (Cue sound of Founders rolling in graves)

BostonBarrister wrote:

Luckily it is a moot point – imagine, a good judge actually getting confirmed to the bench. Amazing…

Now, your second sentence – how do you know he remembered for 13 years? Alito was a friend of Andrew Napolitano at Princeton. Napolitano was a state judge and also was actively involved with CAP.

As, I’m sure, were others of Alito’s acquaintance at Princeton. It’s hardly inconceivable that, as he tried to put together a list of organizations for his resume that would impress an employer, they would remind him of CAP, with which he was loosely associated.

But even if that weren’t the case, it’s also quite believable that one might remember a small detail for years immediately following it, but that it would fade from memory a further 20 years down the line.

I went to my 10 year high school reunion a couple years ago – I couldn’t remember the names of some people who I knew very well in high school, even though I remembered their faces. ANd I couldn’t remember which classes we shared either.

This whole “issue” is amusing insomuch as it shows the straws at which people are willing to grasp to try to smear a highly qualified nominee with whom they disagree.

100meters wrote:

Being a racist/bigot/sexist, would of course, hardly be a straw…That is really pretending. Being a liar also wouldn’t be a straw during confirmation.

Being a member of CAP would be very distressing to anyone who cared about things like civil liberties, etc.—anybody not bigoted would be ashamed of such a membership–as noted by Mrs. Alito’s tears, who hopefully gave her husband an earful in their next private moment for putting her through such an embarassment.[/quote]

You’re right – something that actually might show or be related to the possibility a nominee was a racist/sexist/bigot wouldn’t be a straw. However, the CAP thing isn’t in that category.

In fact, the more I read about CAP, the more I think the whole issue about CAP is trumped up, let alone any controversy over Alito’s possible association with CAP.

From what I understand, the crux of the whole argument – the attempt to smear the whole organization, if you will – hinges on one or two artilces written by one or two members, at least one of which was supposed to be a parody. Cascading levels of ridiculousness - you’d think Sens. Kennedy et al would be ashamed, but no, they do the trained chimp bit for the MoveOn.org crowd’s organ-grinding, in order to try to spur donations…

Being a liar would also be problematic - but of course, you haven’t shown that either, beyond some wishful thinking.

In short, pretty pathetic – especially given the parade of judges and former clerks who worked with Aliton on the 3rd Circuit, all testifying to his intellctual honesty and commitment to the rule of law as a judge. You’d think that might be relevant information – though Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, and all the Democrats save Feinstein didn’t bother to stay to listen to that testimony. I guess the testimony of such distinguished and relevant observers of Alito the judge didn’t have the alluring siren-call quality of listening to their own voices.

106

RE: CAP

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/payne200601131703.asp

EXCERPTS:

As a Princeton senior in 1984, I met the editor of Prospect, a magazine published by a conservative group called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). He was a minority ? an Indian immigrant named Dinesh D’Souza. The following year, his ex-Dartmouth College colleague, Laura Ingraham, succeeded him as editor. Fast forward 22 years to this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room where committee Democrats declared Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito a bigot. Their evidence? In 1985 he was a member of CAP, an organization “opposed to the admission of women and minorities.”

How did an organization that gave its top jobs to a minority and a woman oppose minorities and women? “To say that Prospect was against minorities and co-ed education is absurd,” says D’Souza, now a Hoover Institution fellow and author of Illiberal Education, a groundbreaking book on academic political correctness.
…

True, opposition to Princeton’s coeducation was the motivating factor in CAP’s 1972 creation. But CAP soon became a refuge for conservatives on a campus radicalized by Vietnam. Under President William Bowen, an outspoken liberal, campus activism was reenergized in the '80s, protesting Reagan’s military buildup, affirmative action policies, and Navy and Air Force ROTC. In short, there were many reasons for conservative alums like Alito to subscribe to an organization like CAP.

To raise its profile, Prospect hired young graduates from The Dartmouth Review, a student publication giving establishment liberals heartburn at Dartmouth College. “Prospect had been around a while,” says Dinesh, “but it was incidental, inconsistent. (Dartmouth Review grads) had a mixture of skills to bring to the magazine.”

That skill set included sophomoric tendencies, which often got the young staff unwanted attention. Critics of the publication were quick to pounce on items like this shot at Sally Frank, a shrill feminist who sued to gain entrance to a male campus eating club: “Marilyn McCuster, who successfully won a sex discrimination suit compelling a mine company to hire her, became the first woman to be killed in a mining accident. Sally Frank, take note.”

In poor taste, to be sure. And then there is this line from “In Defense of Elitism,” plastered on Kennedy’s poster boards this week: “People nowadays just don’t seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they’re black and Hispanic, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.”

“I think it was intended as satire,” says D’Souza, who can’t recall the exact article, even as he winces at its ham-handedness. It does sound just like the strained satire Prospect’s student writers often engaged in. And it would be just like politically-correct, feverishly anti-Alito Democrat staffers to take it out of context.

107

No further comments necessary…

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_15_corner-archive.asp#087492

HIGH-FRICK’N-LARIOUS

Ted Kennedy is going to quit an organization he’s been a member of for five decades ( http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=121646 ) – and to which he still pays dues – because he’s just discovered that it discriminates against women. When Kennedy tried to smear Alito as a sexist, critics noted the Senator belongs to an all-male group called the Owl Club ( Kennedy belongs to exclusive club - Washington Times ). In 1984 Harvard cut ties to the group because of legislation Kennedy sponsored but he remained a member nonetheless.

But here’s the best part. He says he will quit, “as fast as I can.”

Because, you know, the Owl Club is like one of those LA gangs where you gotta walk the line of a beat down by other members and so it takes a while to get in good enough shape to quit.

Oh, he also says that he “probably” couldn’t pass muster on the Judiciary Committee himself.

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

108

[quote]Actually, no.

I’ve had several resumes for different positions, and you put different things on them – and take them off. If they cease being relevant, why would you keep them on. I could probably remember the big stuff on my resume - as in job experience. But the interests/clubs stuff? Not really.

As has been pointed out, Alito put together a politically oriented resume to get a politically oriented position. After getting that position, he probably kept the resume on file. After becoming a judge, he probably tossed it in a file somewhere and forgot about it (remember, this was most likely pre-computer-generated resumes for him – we’re talking mid 80s). [/quote]

You are getting too deep into the spin issues for your own good.

Now you are arguing that competent professionals don’t actually know what is on their resumes, or review them, before sending them in when applying for a job.

Nowhere did I argue that people don’t change their resumes or take things off their resumes. What the heck have you been smoking.

You could show me any resume I had sent anywhere, since I started my career, and I could explain to you what I was trying to get across with every single damned detail on the resume, whether or not I could remember what was on it before you showed it to me.

A man of Alito’s obvious motivation and ambition (and I don’t mean that negatively, but you don’t climb to the top by not caring) would have taken care when targeting his resume towards a job application.

To argue otherwise is silly.

Shit, I think I’ll just put random stuff on my resume and fire it around next time I look for a position. That will work well I’m sure!!!

I mean really, if you aren’t putting that much care into your resume, when you attempt a job or career change, I suggest you reconsider.

109

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Actually, no.

I’ve had several resumes for different positions, and you put different things on them – and take them off. If they cease being relevant, why would you keep them on. I could probably remember the big stuff on my resume - as in job experience. But the interests/clubs stuff? Not really.

As has been pointed out, Alito put together a politically oriented resume to get a politically oriented position. After getting that position, he probably kept the resume on file. After becoming a judge, he probably tossed it in a file somewhere and forgot about it (remember, this was most likely pre-computer-generated resumes for him – we’re talking mid 80s).

vroom wrote:

You are getting too deep into the spin issues for your own good.

Now you are arguing that competent professionals don’t actually know what is on their resumes, or review them, before sending them in when applying for a job.[/quote]

No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that he might not remember the list of clubs, activities and whatnot that he included on his resume 20 years after the time he submitted that resume.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Nowhere did I argue that people don’t change their resumes or take things off their resumes. What the heck have you been smoking.[/quote]

The point was made in response to 100meters allegation that Alito was lying when he said he couldn’t remember much about CAP.

[quote]vroom wrote:

You could show me any resume I had sent anywhere, since I started my career, and I could explain to you what I was trying to get across with every single damned detail on the resume, whether or not I could remember what was on it before you showed it to me.

A man of Alito’s obvious motivation and ambition (and I don’t mean that negatively, but you don’t climb to the top by not caring) would have taken care when targeting his resume towards a job application.

To argue otherwise is silly.

Shit, I think I’ll just put random stuff on my resume and fire it around next time I look for a position. That will work well I’m sure!!!

I mean really, if you aren’t putting that much care into your resume, when you attempt a job or career change, I suggest you reconsider.[/quote]

You’re completely missing the point - which, to reiterate, was that Alito wouldn’t necessarily recall a lot of details about a club/organization he listed as an affiliation on a resume – particularly if 100meters was correct and he was throwing anything on from his background, no matter how tenuous the association or how involved he was, that he thought would sound good to his prospective employer.

The point being, again, that making a bold assertion that Alito was lying in the confirmation hearings when he said he couldn’t recall or didn’t know a lot about CAP is a stretch, a guess, and an insult to a guy about whom his colleagues on the bench had nothing but superlatives to say in terms of his integrity.

110

No, I’m not.

If there is something on your resume, you had damned well better know why it was put there.

You don’t have to know everything about the club, but if you don’t remember putting it on your resume or why you did so, I’d find that hard to believe. Most prospective employers will talk to you about whatever things on the resume catch their eye…

Someone going to the Supreme Court had better not be a clod that simply lists random crap on his resume.

111

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re completely missing the point - which, to reiterate, was that Alito wouldn’t necessarily recall a lot of details about a club/organization he listed as an affiliation on a resume – particularly if 100meters was correct and he was throwing anything on from his background, no matter how tenuous the association or how involved he was, that he thought would sound good to his prospective employer.

vroom wrote:

No, I’m not.

If there is something on your resume, you had damned well better know why it was put there.

You don’t have to know everything about the club, but if you don’t remember putting it on your resume or why you did so, I’d find that hard to believe. Most prospective employers will talk to you about whatever things on the resume catch their eye…

Someone going to the Supreme Court had better not be a clod that simply lists random crap on his resume.[/quote]

Yes, you are. I’m sure he knew very well at the time why he put it on there – because it was a conservatively leaning organization with which he was loosely associated.

However, to ask him specific details, now, 20 years after the fact of his listing it on his resume, about such organization, which he likely didn’t know at the time, given how loose the association was, and then to say that it proves he’s lying if he doesn’t know them, is pretty ludicrous.

Again, 20-year-old reference to organization on resume. As I said before, I had my 10-year high-school reunion in the summer of 2002, and I couldn’t remember the names of people I knew fairly well. Hell, right now I can’t remember the name of my college honors thesis advisor, and that was fewer than 10 years ago… it is simply amazing to me that anyone who has been alive more than a few years would have any problem with this explanation.

“What do you mean he doesn’t have 100% recall of details we think he should know about the guy he listed as a reference on his college application? What a liar!”

112

[quote]However, to ask him specific details, now, 20 years after the fact of his listing it on his resume, about such organization, which he likely didn’t know at the time, given how loose the association was, and then to say that it proves he’s lying if he doesn’t know them, is pretty ludicrous.
[/quote]

No, I’m not… :wink:

We are arguing different points. I’m not saying he needs to know everything about the organization.

I’m saying he needs to know why he put it on his own resume.

Once you get out of university, and you start taking your career seriously, there isn’t anything on your resume that you didn’t put thought into before including it… at least not if you are competent.

Are you telling me you didn’t craft your resume carefully?

Like I said, I may not recall everything on my old resumes, but if you show me an old one, I can tell you why every single item that is there was put there. Everything has a purpose.

I don’t think someone as successful as Alito get’s there without paying attention to such details. Especially given how those in the legal profession play with words for a living.

113

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

You’re completely missing the point - which, to reiterate, was that Alito wouldn’t necessarily recall a lot of details about a club/organization he listed as an affiliation on a resume – particularly if 100meters was correct and he was throwing anything on from his background, no matter how tenuous the association or how involved he was, that he thought would sound good to his prospective employer.

The point being, again, that making a bold assertion that Alito was lying in the confirmation hearings when he said he couldn’t recall or didn’t know a lot about CAP is a stretch, a guess, and an insult to a guy about whom his colleagues on the bench had nothing but superlatives to say in terms of his integrity.[/quote]

He wasn’t just “throwing anything on from his background”—that’s the whole point! He SPECIFICALLY mentions 2 things, just 2. In no way is it anything like a “stretch”. It is almost a certainty he knew why CAP was on that resume, because it would look good to Meese! I mean it strains all credibility to even suggest he couldn’t remember CAP, let alone why he put it on his resume.

114

[quote]100meters wrote:

He wasn’t just “throwing anything on from his background”—that’s the whole point! He SPECIFICALLY mentions 2 things, just 2. In no way is it anything like a “stretch”. It is almost a certainty he knew why CAP was on that resume, because it would look good to Meese! I mean it strains all credibility to even suggest he couldn’t remember CAP, let alone why he put it on his resume.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, that should have been “anything from his background that looked political and thus would have served the function he wanted for the purpose of applying for that particular position.”

So, he dredged up two items that looked politically conservative and put them on there to impress Meese. So, then, what about that makes you think he would recall that organization 20 years later? And specifically any details about it?

Once again, that strengthens my point. He was looking across his connections and found something that looked good and put it on the application. This wasn’t a politically active individual - as evidenced by the lack of other items on said application, and in his background overall.

The fact that he’s completely unmentioned in all the CAP docs that Kennedy wanted to subpoena (HA! - he just wanted to sound scary, and then they turned them over…), and that CAP officers who knew Alito, like Andrew Napolitano, couldn’t remember Alito’s ever having anything to do wit CAP, should augment that point. He was merely looking for something to stick on his resume that would make him look more like what he thought Meese wanted to see – something I can’t imagine ANYONE doing on a job application? I mean, who would do such a thing?

115

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

However, to ask him specific details, now, 20 years after the fact of his listing it on his resume, about such organization, which he likely didn’t know at the time, given how loose the association was, and then to say that it proves he’s lying if he doesn’t know them, is pretty ludicrous.

vroom wrote:

No, I’m not… :wink:

We are arguing different points. I’m not saying he needs to know everything about the organization.

I’m saying he needs to know why he put it on his own resume.

Once you get out of university, and you start taking your career seriously, there isn’t anything on your resume that you didn’t put thought into before including it… at least not if you are competent.

Are you telling me you didn’t craft your resume carefully?

Like I said, I may not recall everything on my old resumes, but if you show me an old one, I can tell you why every single item that is there was put there. Everything has a purpose.

I don’t think someone as successful as Alito get’s there without paying attention to such details. Especially given how those in the legal profession play with words for a living.[/quote]

It probably doesn’t help that I keep saying “resume.” It was a job application, not a resume - thus he was answering a questionaire focused on one particular job. I think that buttresses my position, though you may disagree.

And, I’m sure it was there with a purpose. Heck, I list “gourmet nutrition” under my “Other Interests” section on my resume with a purpose. The purpose being to promote conversation, if the interviewer wants to ask about it.

I also list “Phi Alpha Delta” as an organization I was in in law school. I attended exactly one meeting. I wouldn’t know what, if anything, they’ve published in their newsletter. All I know is that it’s a legal fraternity that I thought might look good on my resume, which is why I joined it to begin with…

116

The whole CAP thing is a joke. It obviously is not a racist/sexist organization.

Alito’s minimal involvement is meaningless.

Kennedy having to quit the Owls Club is funny and show his hypocrisy but is also meaningless.

I wish these assholes would stop playing these dumb ass games and discuss issues.

This is politics at its worst.

117

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The whole CAP thing is a joke. It obviously is not a racist/sexist organization.

Alito’s minimal involvement is meaningless.

Kennedy having to quit the Owls Club is funny and show his hypocrisy but is also meaningless.

I wish these assholes would stop playing these dumb ass games and discuss issues.

This is politics at its worst.[/quote]

I’m sure you mean CAP is a racist/sexist organization (otherwise nobody would care, no wife crying etc.)
How else would you define a group that is “concerned” with the admittance of minorities and women.

A SCOTUS nominee’s membership in a racist/sexist group would obviously be a huge deal. Lying about it would also be an issue.

The owl club, is funny only in its desperation as a comparison. (I was an eagle scout–and member of a sexist organization, football team–sexist organization, God–how stupid are the Washington Times.)

A SCOTUS nominee’s disdain for minorities isn’t a game. It’s an issue. A nominee’s respect for precedent is an issue. A nominee’s stated personal opinion on major rulings and current precedent is an issue—Hold on, did you watch this thing or just get clips on FOX? That’s what I thought.

118

Didn’t CAP have a minority and a female president? Doesn’t sound too racist or sexist to me.

Just because an organization insists that high academic standards should apply to everyone doesn’t make them racist or sexist.

If someone argues that academic standards should be different based on race and gender it does appear to be racist/sexist.

I really don’t know too much about the Owl Club or CAP but what little I do know makes the Owl Club seem a little worse on the issue of racism and sexism.

The fact that you can so easily excuse Kennedy while railing against Alito shows that you have no interest in the facts of the matter.

You appear to want to play gotcha politics. Frankly I bbelieve this is the lowest form of political discourse.

I would prefer to discuss issues.

119

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[/quote]
You don’t even understand the issues.

Note your lack of understanding:

"Just because an organization insists that high academic standards should apply to everyone doesn’t make them racist or sexist.

If someone argues that academic standards should be different based on race and gender it does appear to be racist/sexist.

I really don’t know too much about the Owl Club or CAP but what little I do know makes the Owl Club seem a little worse on the issue of racism and sexism."

Is that really what makes CAP sexist/racist or was it their disdain of the admitting of women, minorities, and eek!.. homos! and there is no comparison to the Owl Club. Good lord.

120

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

You don’t even understand the issues.

Note your lack of understanding:

"Just because an organization insists that high academic standards should apply to everyone doesn’t make them racist or sexist.

If someone argues that academic standards should be different based on race and gender it does appear to be racist/sexist.

I really don’t know too much about the Owl Club or CAP but what little I do know makes the Owl Club seem a little worse on the issue of racism and sexism."

Is that really what makes CAP sexist/racist or was it their disdain of the admitting of women, minorities, and eek!.. homos! and there is no comparison to the Owl Club. Good lord.

[/quote]

There’s not much to understand. Since they had nothing substantial to use to attempt to smear Alito, they attempted a smear by association. Not only did they fail to establish that Alito had any link to anything objectionable about CAP, they failed to establish that there was anything objectionable about CAP during the time Alito was a member or afterward. Pathetic.