Posted on 01/23/2006 6:57:40 AM PST by harpu
The bitingly contentious U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are causing some senators to question the validity of the process.
With Alito having answered 700 questions in 3 1/2 days last week, the 18-member panel is expected to confirm him Tuesday and forward his nomination to the full Senate in Washington. A filibuster is not foreseen.
Sen. John Cornyn, a former state district judge in San Antonio and former Texas Supreme Court judge, said last Tuesday the episode was "a new low, not only because it was virtually unprecedented but also because it reflected a breach of trust among committee members.
"In November, we entered into an agreement to vote on Judge Alito's nomination today. But now members of the other party have decided not to honor that agreement because it wasn't in writing."
Noting he and other committee Republicans had wanted to start Alito's hearings in December but delayed to give Democrats more time, Cornyn said, "The committee has now had far longer to consider his nomination than it had for either of President Clinton's nominees, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.
"I am therefore left to conclude committee Democrats have breached the good faith understanding, acceding to the 'You name it, we'll do it' tactics of the hard left, which has been intent on defeating Judge Alito's nomination from the moment it was announced."
Alito, a 55-year-old graduate of Princeton and Yale universities, has been serving on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. He would succeed the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
A Cornyn spokesman said Thursday Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York were particularly obstreperous. "Sen. Biden questioned the usefulness of the hearings, but nobody has proposed changing the process," he said.
"It needs to be self-correcting by the senators. They've been taken to task in editorials and articles for grandstanding and attacking for the sake of attacking. Hopefully, they'll get back to the real purpose -- to gauge the qualifications and abilities of nominees."
With a 10-8 advantage, Judiciary Committee Republicans will recommend President Bush's nomination of Alito to the full 100-member Senate, where the GOP has a 55-44-1 advantage, the spokesman said. Floor debates will start Wednesday, go for three days and end with the showdown vote Friday or Saturday.
He said there won't be a filibuster, or prolonged debate to forestall a vote, because Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Dianne Feinstein of California and Schumer have said they will not support one. It takes 60 votes to end debate with a cloture motion. Feinstein is a committee member.
"Judge Alito was so even-tempered the whole time," the spokesman said. "Kennedy demanded access to some records and said he would fight until he got them, and Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania gave them to him.
"The judge was very calm, reasonable and intelligent."
Other committee Republicans are Orrin Hatch of Utah, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Other Democrats are Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Herbert Kohl and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin.
supreme court nominees are only an issue when a republican nominates them. when a democrat nominates them, there never is a problem.
who opposed clinton's nominees? carters?
who opposed reagans? Bushsr's?
it's democrat childish tempet tantrums - they want to rig the process to their liking.
I know John Cornyn (worked on many of his campaigns).
He is a VERY nice man. And very smart. And relatively conservative.
He is, however, a bit too intellectual for his own good.
He's a terrible campaigner, so a court appointment would be great.
All said, he'd be light-years ahead of Ginsberg or Stevens, so I hope you are correct.
(And do I know you, BTW?)
No Supreme Court vacancies occured while Carter was President (thank God).
obstreperousThere's a word you don't see every day. How refreshing to see it in a LSM article. Maybe there is hope for them after all.
And...
Thank you for NOT excerpting this article.
Can you imagine who that clown might've appointed? Ramsey Clark?
AND, you can thank the Forum ('the moderators') for this one not being excerpted.
"No Supreme Court vacancies occurred while Carter was President (thank God)
Agreed, but keep in mind that the White House WAS certainly vacant while Mr Carter wandered it's halls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.