Posted on 01/02/2006 10:20:03 AM PST by wagglebee
As Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito prepares for testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, supporters and independent media organizations say he might not be exactly what the American public expects.
Supporters are downplaying Alito's presentation skills, saying he is not nearly as polished as newly-confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts. Meanwhile, the Washington Post claims that Alito's judicial record defies convenient stereotype.
Supporters say Alito will benefit from his lack of polish. One participant in Alito's mock hearings told the New York Times that Alito's rough edges would appeal to average Americans.
He painted a less than flattering portrait of Alito's style.
"He will have a couple of hairs out of place," the unnamed participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like his is from New Jersey, because he is."
But, the anonymous tipster thinks those are good things.
"That is a very useful look," he continued, "because it is a natural look. He's able to go toe-to-toe with senators, and at the same time he could be your son's Little League coach."
At the same time, the Washington Post analysis reveals that Alito's opponents will have difficulty portraying him as an ideologue.
Instead, according to the Post, "Alito takes consistently restrictive stances on some social issues and criminals' rights but does not differ substantially from the typical judge in other areas."
Perhaps more importantly, the Post concludes that Alito's opinions as a federal judge were rarely ideologically driven.
"Overall," the Post writes, "the opinions Alito wrote are largely devoid of impassioned rhetoric or broad philosophic assertions. He grounds his views in close readings of legal precedents, statutes and government regulations."
Despite his lack of ideological flair, Alito might not be a passive witness before the Judiciary Committee.
The Times' anonymous tipster said Alito challenged role-playing attorneys in his mock hearings – often volleying questions back to the would-be senators. Alito purportedly stumped the would-be senators a few times with his return questions.
The tipster said Alito could pose a serious challenge to real-life senators reading from talking points memos prepared by staff. Some opponents hope Alito will become combative.
Senator Charles Schumer (D–N.Y.) dismissed the idea that Alito might turn the tables on his inquisitors.
"That may be the advice someone gave Robert Bork," Schumer told the Times. Bork, rejected as a Supreme Court nominee in 1987, has the unenviable honor of having his name converted to a verb – borked – that describes the blocking of a Supreme Court nominee by his political and ideological foes.
Schumer and his Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have promised a difficult hearing for Alito.
But participants in the mock hearings told the Times they are convinced Alito can handle any topic. They say he understands the Constitution as well as Chief Justice Roberts and is capable of speaking at-length extemporaneously on constitutional jurisprudence.
They also said Alito would likely downplay memos he wrote while in the Reagan Justice Department, but would stop short of repudiation.
He will likely argue that his role in the Justice Department was as an advocate for the Reagan administration, and that the views expressed in the memos do not necessarily reflect his own personal beliefs.
It is the same argument that was made by Clinton-appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Alito hearings are scheduled to begin Jan. 9 with a committee vote planned for January 17. The full Senate is expected to vote Jan. 20 on the nomination.
I would love to know if the New York Slimes wrote stuff like this when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated. This is a Supreme Court nomination hearing, not a damn fashion show.
Yes, they can snidely criticize Katherine Harris's lipstick, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg's makeup is off limits.
If you're going to talk about Katherine Harris you MUST provide a picture of her. LOL
"Rmember you are under oath!"
"Overall," the Post writes, "the opinions Alito wrote are largely devoid of impassioned rhetoric or broad philosophic assertions. He grounds his views in close readings of legal precedents, statutes and government regulations." Just doing what any good judge should do. And no more!
That'll be Biden's first question.
These (Senators) are self made men. Roberts merely let them demonstrate publicly that they are fools.
Yep...I respond every time...
Cannot imagine why......excuse me is it warm in here.......
"He will have a couple of hairs out of place," the unnamed participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like his is from New Jersey, because he is."
Such scholarly opinions/discourse at the NYTimes! I would recommend that they all take a look at what Harry Reid's objection to Roberts' nomination was, that having Roberts on the bench would make it look "less like America", more elitist. I'm not sure that most of us want the Supreme Court to look like some of the streets I drive through - the "Hey baby" segment of America.
Compare and Contrast.
OMG Its Fraziers ex-wife Merris ........
I'm responding.
I didn't see it. So what'd Roberts do?
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.