Unitary executive -- we discussed Judge Alito's expansive views on presidential authority. He distanced himself from the theory of the so-called unitary executive, one that promotes extremely expanded executive power. He gave the committee the platitudes about Supreme Court precedent and the Constitution. But his comments before this committee run away from his statements of the past, some as recently as five years ago that embrace this very radical and I believe bizarre theory. Professor Steven Calabresi, one of the originators of the unitary executive theory, says that the impact on this nation is vast and dramatic. It obliterates the independence of agencies that protect the public, such as the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Election Commission, Security Exchange Commission and much more. It makes no sense to describe the effects of this bizarre theory in any other terms. That's how its founders brazenly described it. But somehow Judge Alito expects us to buy his unique and lonely portrayal of this radical theory as something less than it is.

On the Concerned Alumni of Princeton -- much has been made of the wide interest in Judge Alito's interest in this organization and its frankly bigoted views. I was pleased that Judge Alito distanced himself from its repulsive, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-disability, anti-gay pronouncements, views that we especially pronounced at the time that Judge Alito believes he joined. But we still do not have a clear answer to why Judge Alito joined this reprehensible group in the first place. We still do not know why he believed that membership in the group would enhance his job application in the Reagan Justice Department. We still don't know why he chose this organization among so many other organizations that he likely belonged to, but somehow can't remember why.

In the Vanguard -- some of our Republican colleagues find it shocking that we would even question Judge Alito's -- about his failure to recuse himself from Vanguard cases. But the real shock is that Judge Alito failed to meet his sworn promise to this committee more seriously. He says it was an oversight that he corrected 12 years after he made that promise. But now we never -- we know from his own testimony and records that he apparently never put Vanguard on the recusal list, even immediately after his promise to this committee. He has failed to give us any plausible explanation. The bottom line is that he just didn't think his commitment to the committee and to the United States Senate was important enough to honor.

In the 1985 job application -- in my office, Judge Alito tried todistance himself from the ideological views and legal opinions expressed in the '85 job application to the Reagan Justice Department. He brushed it off as just a job application. Now he has tried before the committee to distance himself from the stunning statement that the White House and Congress somehow are superior to the Supreme Court, the keeper of our liberties.

He didn't back away one inch from his view that a woman's right to make her own reproductive decision is not protected under the Constitution. He didn't back away from his criticism of the principle of one person, one vote.

And on the cases he decided, in case after case we see legal contortions and inconsistent reasoning to bend over backwards to help the powerful. He may cite instances to think that he helped thelittle guy, but the record's clear that the average person has a hard time getting a fair shake in Judge Alito's courtroom. We're not expecting judges to produce particular results in their decisions, but we do expect fairness, for understanding the real-world impact of their decisions. Frankly, it would be more comforting if Judge Alito gave individuals the same benefit of the doubt in his courtroom that he's asking from this committee on Vanguard, CAP, the unitary executive, and women's privacy.

Now the debate over the nomination continues. In the end, this debate really is about the path of progress and the kind of America we hope to become. America is noblest when it is just to all of its citizens in equal measure. America is freest when the rights and liberties of all are respected. America is strongest when all can share fairly in its prosperity. And we need a court that will hold us true to these guiding principles today and into the future.