“We think the $2.25 deters some people from participating,” said Bryan Spragg, recreation services manager at the park located at 10130 Gunn Ave. Officials have submitted the proposal to the Southeast Area Social Services Funding Authority (SASSFA), which provides the lunches. SASSFA must OK the change. Spragg said the site, which has had the senior lunch program for three years, is only averaging about 16 seniors per lunch. That’s too low, he said. Park officials need to increase the number of seniors served to more than 20 per day. Otherwise, the program might be canceled, he said. On Wednesday, as seniors enjoyed a lunch of stuffed bell peppers, mashed potatoes, green beans, carrots and cranberry juice, their reactions to the proposal were mixed. SOUTH WHITTIER – They say there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the adage soon might not apply to seniors at Adventure County Park. In a bid to attract more seniors to Adventure’s weekday lunch program, parks and recreation officials are seeking to make the meals free of charge. Seniors now are asked to donate $2.25 for lunch. Although everyone still gets fed, even if they don’t pay a cent, if the change is approved, seniors no longer would be asked to make a contribution. “It sounds good, ” said Manuel Carrillo of La Mirada. “You would save money.” But Dolores Ramirez of unincorporated South Whittier thinks $2.25 for lunch is a pretty good deal as it is and doesn’t see a need to make the lunches free. “You can’t eat anywhere for this price,” she said. “Where are you going to eat for $2.25? It’s really a nice place to come to.” Margarita Carlos of unincorporated South Whittier, who comes to the park for lunch because she enjoys the company and the food, said she likes the idea of seniors no longer being asked to make a donation. “We’re seniors, and we live from check to check,” Carlos said. firstname.lastname@example.org (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3022 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
Alito’s wife returned with him following a brief recess. The nominee commands the support of all 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and while the Democrats could delay his approval by the panel they cannot block it. His prospects for confirmation by the full Senate are also strong, although Democrats have not ruled out the possibility of a filibuster that could require supporters to post 60 votes in the 100-member chamber. Still, unlike Chief Justice John Roberts last fall, Alito could draw the opposition of all eight Democrats on the Judiciary panel, and partisan maneuvering was evident Wednesday. Abortion triggered one incident. Sen. Richard Durbin, who supports abortion rights, told Alito that his 1985 written view on abortion “does not evidence an open mind. It evidences a mind that sadly is closed in some areas.” Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, saying he wanted to “razz” Durbin, soon noted that the Illinois Democrat had himself changed his mind on abortion. “For 45 years, Senator Durbin was adamantly pro-life, and he wrote multiple, multiple letters expressing that up until 1989,” said Republican Coburn. Later, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy pressed the committee’s chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to subpoena records at the Library of Congress that might shed light on Alito’s membership in the conservative Princeton group. “If I’m going to be denied that, I’d want to give notice to the chair that you’re going to hear it again and again and again and we’re going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution,” said the Massachusetts Democrat. Specter, bristling, said, “I’m not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again and again. And I’m the chairman of this committee. … And I’m not going to have you run this committee.” The tempest proved short-lived. Specter later announced the committee would have access to the records. Kennedy questioned Alito sharply about the organization, which drew notice for opposing admission practices that resulted in rising numbers of women and minority students at the Ivy League school. “If I had received any information at any point regarding any of the matters you referred to … I would never have had anything to do with it,” said Alito, who listed his membership in the group on a 1985 job application for the Reagan administration but now says he does not recall anything about it. Outside the committee room, Kennedy was scathing. “He can remember all 67 dissents … in great details,” he said of Alito and his judicial record. “But he can’t remember anything about this organization.” Those judicial dissents drew the attention of several Democrats, as did other rulings over the course of Alito’s 15-year tenure on the appeals court. Durbin cited rulings in cases involving a black man accused of murder, a retarded man who had been sexually molested and an injury at a coal work site. He said that in each case, Alito had made rulings that favored the powerful at the expense of the powerless. “I find this as a recurring pattern, and it raises the question in my mind whether the average person, the dispossessed person, the poor person who finally has their day in court … are going to be subject to the crushing hand of fate when it comes to your decisions.” Alito defended his rulings one by one, then was offered a chance for a general reply. He cited a case in which a “high school student had been bullied unmercifully by other students in his school because of their perception of his sexual orientation, been bullied to the point of attempting to commit suicide.” The school board refused a request from the parents to move their child to a different school, but Alito said, “I wrote an opinion upholding their right to have him placed in a safe school in an adjacent municipality.” Underscoring the political significance of the nomination, Durbin had scarcely completed his 20 minutes of questioning when the nominee’s supporters circulated written material titled, “A sampling of cases where Alito rules for the ‘Little Guy.”‘ Democrats countered with a document of their own. It accused Republicans of distorting Alito’s record by “citing uncontroversial cases with obvious outcomes or by distorting the facts or outcomes of the cases they cite.” Alito’s views on abortion were a recurring theme for Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., picking up where Durbin had left off, asked Alito why he felt comfortable renouncing 20-year-old statements he had made questioning the principle of one person, one vote, when he wouldn’t do the same on Roe v. Wade. Alito said once again there are cases making their way through the courts on abortion. Feinstein noted four voting-rights cases currently pending that raise questions of whether the principle of one person, one vote has been violated. “If you’re willing to say that you believe one man, one vote is well settled and you agree with it, I have a hard time understanding how you separate out Roe,” she said. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito turned aside Democratic attacks on his judicial record and credibility at contentious confirmation hearings Wednesday that left his wife in tears. “If I’m confirmed I’ll be myself,” said Alito, a 15-year veteran of a federal appeals court, named to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for a swing seat on the high court. Challenged by Democrats, Alito repeatedly said he had no memory of involvement with the conservative Concerned Alumni of Princeton, though he highlighted his membership in a 1985 job application for the Reagan administration. He repudiated the opinions expressed in articles in the organization’s magazine. “They’re not my views … I deplore them,” he said of writing that contained material that was racist, sexist and homophobic. AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREGift Box shows no rust in San Antonio Stakes win at Santa Anita Under persistent questioning, Alito also declined for a second straight day to say whether he believes, as he did in 1985, that the Constitution contains no right to an abortion. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to speak about issues that could realistically come up” before the courts, he said. Alito, 55, was unflappable for hours on end in marathon questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But his wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, grew emotional near the end of the day and left the hearing room weeping. “Judge Alito, I’m sorry that you’ve had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham. A moment earlier, the South Carolina Republican had offered Alito a chance to defend his integrity, asking whether he was a “closet bigot.” “I’m not any kind of bigot, I’m not,” said Alito. “No sir, you’re not,” Graham agreed.