Posted on 01/09/2006 7:35:09 PM PST by SJackson
When the Senate Judiciary Committee begins questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, Americans will again be reminded of the limitations of the confirmation process for presidential picks to serve on the federal bench. Alito will lie to the committee, intentionally and repeatedly.
In keeping with the standard set by all recent high court nominees, he will treat the process and, by extension, the American people who this process is intended to serve with utter and complete disrespect.
Alito will be asked direct questions and he will claim that he cannot answer them for two reasons.
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta Samuel Alito First, in order to avoid broad questions about his legal philosophy, he will claim that he is not able to comment on cases that might come before the court. This is a deliberate dodge, designed not to protect Alito's ability to judge impartially but to avoid revealing whether his ideas are within the mainstream of constitutional interpretation and judicial responsibility.
Second, despite the fact that his proponents would have the Senate and the American people believe that he is a brilliant man with broad executive branch and judicial experience, Alito will claim that he has not seriously considered fundamental questions of law, politics and public policy. This, too, is a deliberate dodge, designed to prevent an examination of how he approaches issues.
Alito's refusal to cooperate with the committee will likely be extensive. When Chief Justice John Roberts faced the committee during his confirmation hearings last fall, he refused to answer more than 60 questions in a single day.
As they approach what should be their most solemn duty as they are being called upon to approve or reject a nominee who could serve on the high court long after they have left politics members of the Judiciary Committee should be looking for a way to crack the facade of deceit and disrespect that Alito will seek to erect.
Here's one suggestion for how to do that:
Ask the nominee how he would have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore. Does he agree that the court was right to intervene, for the first time in history, to stop the counting of the ballots that could have determined the result of a presidential contest? Or does he believe, as University of Virginia professor and Supreme Court scholar A.E. Howard has suggested, "Prudence would call for letting the political process run its course"?
Does he believe it is possible to reconcile this intervention with a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution that says Congress, not the court, is charged with settling disputed federal elections?
Does he believe that Justices Antonin Scalia, whose sons were associated with firms that represented George W. Bush's campaign, and Clarence Thomas, whose wife was working with Bush's transition team, should have recused themselves from the deliberations? Does he worry that the decision to intervene in the case might have damaged the court's reputation as an independent body that stands apart from the partisan politics associated with the executive branch?
Of course, Alito will try to avoid such questions, just as Roberts did when Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., made a tepid attempt to raise the issue last year. But Alito has no excuse for refusing to answer.
The case of Bush v. Gore will never come before the court again. And the court itself has ruled that the decision should not be interpreted as setting a precedent. Thus, it is one of the few court decisions that is entirely, and appropriately, open to discussion by a nominee.
And what if Alito claims he hasn't taken the time to consider the case or its issues?
Considering the fact that the case involved the question of who would be the most powerful person on the planet, if Alito claims he wasn't paying attention, there really would not be any question that he is too disengaged to be confirmed to so substantial a position.
For your list? Chronic wasting disease all around, they're still fighting Bush v. Gore.
I'm sure he would have ruled with the 7-2 majority in the Bush v. Gore case. I don't see how that helps figure anything out as anyone but a rabid liberal would have seen that the Florida Supreme Court was trampling over voter's rights by allowing selective recounts.
Why not just ask him if he's stopped beating his wife? It would me more intelligent than this rant.
Yep, no bias here. And what if they did ask him about Bush v. Gore, and he looked them right in the eye and said "I'd vote for Bush and Gore should be in prison."?
How would they respond to that, I wonder.
As opposed to Ruth Ginsburg, who not only declined to comment on cases, but was instructed to--in the hearing room--by Joe Biden.
Of course this guy wants to know how he stands on Bush v. Gore, thus completing the transformation of this process into a completely political irrelevency.
Aw come on scoop, Isn't that the standard judge Buzzi set?
I would suggest to the idiot that wrote this drivel that a judge who has served for 15 years on a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already demonstrated whether or not his ideas are within the mainstream, blah blah blah. Of course we all know that "mainstream of constitutional interpretation" is simply code for "advancing the leftist agenda that cannot be attained via the legislative process." "Judicial responsibility" means disregarding the Constitution to advance that agenda. And so it goes in this great land of ours.
The "legal" vote was over after the original recount. What followed was illegal crapola intended to allow Gore to steal the election. The Supreme Court put a stop to that illegal and outrageous attempted coup d'etat.
What else but bias and illogic would one expect in an editorial in a publication which bills itself as "Madison's Progressive Newspaper"?
Obviously, the word "Progressive" has been mangled by the Left to mean anything but "progress." "Progressive" as used in their sense of the term is nothing but left totalitarian. That's actually retrogressive, because it implies going back ("retro") to a society modeled after the defunct Soviet Union.
Gee. Should a state, in this case Forida, be required to follow the election laws that the legislature passed? If they want more time for recounts then change the law.
Another answer. "I agree with Sandra Day O'Connor and would vote in accordance with her swing vote".
Exactly...
It was nice of Kennedy to call or infer that Alito is a racist right in front of his family, i.e. his children, his wife, etc. although I knew that wouldn't (and shouldn't I suppose, since it's a high office and all, but....) I was wondering how nasty they would get, and it was just opening statements. They, the dems, were all sickening as usual.
And morally back to a society modeled after the Roman Empire at the time of Nero and Caligula.
To be sure, an argument could be made that forcing things to go down that road would have been worse for the country than having the Supreme Court simply say "enough is enough". And given the sequence of events that could likely have unfolded, such an argument would probably be correct. On the other hand, unlike politicians whose duty is (supposed to be) to promote the good of the country, a judge's job is to uphold the law even when doing so would seem to go against the country's interests.
Hardly a trivial case, really. As a practical matter, I think that liberal judicial activism sometimes necessitates conservative judicial activism. Much as I dislike judicial activism by either side, bending the rules to quash liberal judicial activism may do less damage to the rule of law than allowing liberal lawlessness to go unchecked.
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.