Why the democrats must fight
If this morning’s (Sunday January 8, 2006) “Meet the Pres” was any indication Samuel Alito’s nomination process is going to be divisive, and arduous. Before I get into a discussion of why this is going to be the case let me make it very clear that it does not have to be this way. There is no doubt that Alito is qualified to sit on the high court. He has argued over a dozen cases before the Supreme Court, served as an assistant to the Solicitor General and for the last fifteen years has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The American Bar Association, which rates every judge nominated as a federal Judge, has on two occasions given Sam Alito its highest rating.
Altio’s opponents will argue that they will oppose Alito, not because he lacks qualifications, but because they believe that he lack integrity. They claim that he will substitute his personal feelings for the law and write what can only be considered dishonest opinions. This argument is disingenuous. It ignores the fact that the ABA’s rating is an assessment of the nominees "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament." After serving as a Federal Judge for 15 years the American Bar Association has once again unanimously given Alito their highest rating. The ABA is certainly not a conservative organization that is “right of the mainstream”. Even if Alito’s opponents are (for some reason) unwilling to accept the ABA’s assertion of his integrity there are other reasons to believe that the current attacks on his integrity are disingenuous. In 1990 the Senate unanimously approved Altio to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If he were truly the dangerous ideologue, who wanted to tear down the judicial system, roll back civil rights, oppress women, and generally destroy everything dear to America than this vote was nothing short of a reprehensible dereliction of duty. The same statements and documents that are currently being used to oppose Samuel Alito were available in 1990 and not one Senator voted against him. Many of the same Senators who are now saying that Alito is such a grave threat to America that he should be filibustered actually voted for him in 1990. I cannot imagine how these men who view themselves as such great defenders of America values could have been so negligent the last time around.
The most ardent of Alito’s opponents may make one last attempt at justifying their opposition by claiming that stopping Alito now is more important because he is being nominated for the highest court. I don’t see how this argument can be taken seriously. I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I were a senator I would not sit idly by when a dangerous ideologue was being placed on any federal court. I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him. I would venture to guess that they mean that opposing a Supreme Court nominee is more important to their raising money and energizing their base. Alito’s opponents may claim that when it comes to something as important as the Supreme Court we cannot stomach any partisanship at all. This is an impossible standard and one that the Senate has never made a pretense of enforcing. No one makes it to the Supreme Court Justice without having a career that touched on politics and no President would nominate a candidate if he didn’t think he shared a similar philosophy. No one can seriously expect any President to nominate a completely nonpartisan nominee. Alito has proven to be no further “out of the mainstream” than either Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer who were both passed by large majorities in the senate. Ginsburg served as general counsel for the far left ACLU, and presented opinions that most people would consider far out of the “mainstream” in issues including lowering the age of consent to 12, and legalizing incest, polygamy and prostitution. Stephen Breyer was asked by Senator Ted Kennedy to work for as a lawyer for the Senate Judiciary committee. It is no stretch of the imagination to describe Ted Kennedy as one of the most liberal Senators. The point here is not to impugn Ginsburg or Breyer. It is to demonstrate that in the past nominees for the Supreme Court were not held to some super strict standard were any sign of having a person ideology would disqualify them.
Despite all of this it is beginning to become clear that this nomination will not sail through the Senate. On “Meet the Press” this morning (Sunday January 8, 2006) Chuck Schumer made it very clear that he intends to vote against Samuel Alito just like he recently voted against John Roberts. He also mentioned that he would not rule out a filibuster until after he found out how Alito answers his questions. (Which based on everything I said above is patently absurd) This is a piece of political theater and nothing more. What Chuck Schumer really means is that he is going to wait and see if Alito makes a mistake that he can exploit for his own political gain. Chuck Schumer knows to ,a very large degree, how Alito will act as a judge. Schumer has certainly read dozens of Alito’s opinions in preparation for these hearings. He has already looked over the first nomination of Alito and largely formed his opinion. Right now he is engaged in political theater in order to pander to his base, and he isn’t fooling anyone. Alito is not a “stealth” candidate. Schumer knows what he is getting himself into but he wants to keep the door open for a filibuster just in case Alito makes a mistake and Schumer can jump out with a headline like “Alito hates puppies.” Blocking one of President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees would be a major feather in Schumer’s cap as blocking Robert Bork was a major accomplishment for Ted Kennedy. Schumer disingenuously put himself in a position where he can capitalize on and misstatement made by Alito in order to curry favor with his base.
Speaking of Chuck Shumer’s base. The next guess on “Meet the Press” this morning was former NAARAL (pro abortion group) President Kate Michelman. She was shockingly honest in admitting that she and her supporters very strongly want their Democratic party (I mean their party, it is not a typo) to oppose any nominee that is not willing to openly declare himself proabortion and to swear that he will ignore the law and always rule in favor of abortion. She described this as “the most important” Supreme Court “battle” she ever fought. When Tim Russert asked her if she thinks that Alito should be filibustered she answered “He should be—he should be—should not be confirmed. If it takes a filibuster, it takes a filibuster.” With constituents like Kate Michelman and her associates is it any wonder that Chuck Schumer isn’t willing to close the door on a filibuster?
Over the next two weeks we will see the Democrats get ready to wage a battle that they cannot avoid. Their base will not allow them to back down without a fight. That is why the hearings are seen as being so important. If Alito is perfect the Democrats can react just like they did to Roberts. They can say “oh darn it, we were all read to go to war but this guy was perfect and there was nothing we could do”. If however Alito slips up and is anything less than perfect the Democrats will be forced into a war.
Altio’s opponents will argue that they will oppose Alito, not because he lacks qualifications, but because they believe that he lack integrity. They claim that he will substitute his personal feelings for the law and write what can only be considered dishonest opinions. This argument is disingenuous. It ignores the fact that the ABA’s rating is an assessment of the nominees "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament." After serving as a Federal Judge for 15 years the American Bar Association has once again unanimously given Alito their highest rating. The ABA is certainly not a conservative organization that is “right of the mainstream”. Even if Alito’s opponents are (for some reason) unwilling to accept the ABA’s assertion of his integrity there are other reasons to believe that the current attacks on his integrity are disingenuous. In 1990 the Senate unanimously approved Altio to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If he were truly the dangerous ideologue, who wanted to tear down the judicial system, roll back civil rights, oppress women, and generally destroy everything dear to America than this vote was nothing short of a reprehensible dereliction of duty. The same statements and documents that are currently being used to oppose Samuel Alito were available in 1990 and not one Senator voted against him. Many of the same Senators who are now saying that Alito is such a grave threat to America that he should be filibustered actually voted for him in 1990. I cannot imagine how these men who view themselves as such great defenders of America values could have been so negligent the last time around.
The most ardent of Alito’s opponents may make one last attempt at justifying their opposition by claiming that stopping Alito now is more important because he is being nominated for the highest court. I don’t see how this argument can be taken seriously. I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I were a senator I would not sit idly by when a dangerous ideologue was being placed on any federal court. I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him. I would venture to guess that they mean that opposing a Supreme Court nominee is more important to their raising money and energizing their base. Alito’s opponents may claim that when it comes to something as important as the Supreme Court we cannot stomach any partisanship at all. This is an impossible standard and one that the Senate has never made a pretense of enforcing. No one makes it to the Supreme Court Justice without having a career that touched on politics and no President would nominate a candidate if he didn’t think he shared a similar philosophy. No one can seriously expect any President to nominate a completely nonpartisan nominee. Alito has proven to be no further “out of the mainstream” than either Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer who were both passed by large majorities in the senate. Ginsburg served as general counsel for the far left ACLU, and presented opinions that most people would consider far out of the “mainstream” in issues including lowering the age of consent to 12, and legalizing incest, polygamy and prostitution. Stephen Breyer was asked by Senator Ted Kennedy to work for as a lawyer for the Senate Judiciary committee. It is no stretch of the imagination to describe Ted Kennedy as one of the most liberal Senators. The point here is not to impugn Ginsburg or Breyer. It is to demonstrate that in the past nominees for the Supreme Court were not held to some super strict standard were any sign of having a person ideology would disqualify them.
Despite all of this it is beginning to become clear that this nomination will not sail through the Senate. On “Meet the Press” this morning (Sunday January 8, 2006) Chuck Schumer made it very clear that he intends to vote against Samuel Alito just like he recently voted against John Roberts. He also mentioned that he would not rule out a filibuster until after he found out how Alito answers his questions. (Which based on everything I said above is patently absurd) This is a piece of political theater and nothing more. What Chuck Schumer really means is that he is going to wait and see if Alito makes a mistake that he can exploit for his own political gain. Chuck Schumer knows to ,a very large degree, how Alito will act as a judge. Schumer has certainly read dozens of Alito’s opinions in preparation for these hearings. He has already looked over the first nomination of Alito and largely formed his opinion. Right now he is engaged in political theater in order to pander to his base, and he isn’t fooling anyone. Alito is not a “stealth” candidate. Schumer knows what he is getting himself into but he wants to keep the door open for a filibuster just in case Alito makes a mistake and Schumer can jump out with a headline like “Alito hates puppies.” Blocking one of President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees would be a major feather in Schumer’s cap as blocking Robert Bork was a major accomplishment for Ted Kennedy. Schumer disingenuously put himself in a position where he can capitalize on and misstatement made by Alito in order to curry favor with his base.
Speaking of Chuck Shumer’s base. The next guess on “Meet the Press” this morning was former NAARAL (pro abortion group) President Kate Michelman. She was shockingly honest in admitting that she and her supporters very strongly want their Democratic party (I mean their party, it is not a typo) to oppose any nominee that is not willing to openly declare himself proabortion and to swear that he will ignore the law and always rule in favor of abortion. She described this as “the most important” Supreme Court “battle” she ever fought. When Tim Russert asked her if she thinks that Alito should be filibustered she answered “He should be—he should be—should not be confirmed. If it takes a filibuster, it takes a filibuster.” With constituents like Kate Michelman and her associates is it any wonder that Chuck Schumer isn’t willing to close the door on a filibuster?
Over the next two weeks we will see the Democrats get ready to wage a battle that they cannot avoid. Their base will not allow them to back down without a fight. That is why the hearings are seen as being so important. If Alito is perfect the Democrats can react just like they did to Roberts. They can say “oh darn it, we were all read to go to war but this guy was perfect and there was nothing we could do”. If however Alito slips up and is anything less than perfect the Democrats will be forced into a war.
posted by the-rubber-stamp at 5:18 PM
<< Home