Posted on 01/16/2006 9:48:14 PM PST by RWR8189
The Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito told us more about the Senators than it did about Judge Alito. First, there were those long-winded preambles to "questions" for the judge. Then there were the Mickey Mouse maneuvers and insinuations, spiced here and there with outright lies. The ridiculousness of the charges was classically illustrated by Senator Joseph Biden's claim that Alito had been part of a group that was trying to keep minorities and women out of Princeton. Apparently wanting everyone to meet the same admissions standards is considered to be the same as being against minorities and women. To dramatize his position, Senator Biden said, "I don't even like Princeton." Unfortunately for him, a radio talk show host played that back on the air -- along with a speech that Biden gave at Princeton, praising it to the skies. At the same level of farce was a loud and insistent demand by Senator Ted Kennedy that the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to issue a subpoena for certain records -- even though those records were readily available without a subpoena. In fact, the records in question had already been received by the committee. The biggest hypocrisy was asking Judge Alito questions that everyone knew in advance no judicial nominee could -- or should -- answer, and then complaining afterwards on nationwide television that he was not "forthcoming" or "responsive." None of these ploys had anything to do with determining Judge Alito's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. At most there were attempts to provoke him to anger with insulting questions, in hopes of providing an excuse for Democrats to vote against him and for the weaker Republicans to be afraid to support him. But Judge Alito remained unruffled and dignified. The real purpose of all this grandstanding was to play to the gallery of the most rabid element of Democratic Party activists, people like the Hollywood leftists who contribute big bucks and who hate everything the administration stands for, as well as most of what most Americans stand for. Despite the phony issues and overheated rhetoric by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the only real objection to Judge Alito is that he could become the deciding "swing vote" on a closely divided Supreme Court by replacing Sandra Day O'Connor -- and that Judge Alito is not likely to be as sympathetic to liberal positions as Justice O'Connor has become over the years. That "swing vote" has long been the real issue in Senate confirmation hearings, whether the name of the nominee has been Bork or Alito. Before the massive smear campaign that defeated the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court back in 1987, Antonin Scalia was confirmed unanimously -- even though he and Bork had voted almost identically in cases on the Circuit Court of Appeals. On a couple of cases where they voted differently, Scalia took a more conservative position than Bork. Why then was Scalia considered to be enough in the "mainstream" for his nomination to sail through, while Bork was branded a right-wing "extremist"? It had nothing to do with Scalia or Bork. If Bork had been nominated first, he would have sailed through and then Scalia would have been branded a right-wing extremist, because then Scalia would have been the prospective "swing vote" on the Supreme Court. Similarly, Judge John Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice sailed through because he was just replacing another conservative, while Judge Alito would be replacing Justice O'Connor, who was more acceptable to the liberals. Those Senators who smear and denounce judicial nominees on nationwide television, and then afterwards hypocritically assure them privately that there was "nothing personal" are, in a certain twisted sense, correct. They would have lied and smeared anyone else in the same situation. This is also not about Samuel Alito personally in a different sense. The larger question is how we are going to get the good people that we need on our courts, if they have to go through smears and petty harassment during confirmation hearings. Highly qualified people usually have other options and many of them may go elsewhere rather than become the butt of cheap political games on nationwide television.
Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate
How much money did the abortionists and other leftist groups pay for this spectacle? I hope it was a lot.
Didn't Lindsey Graham say Republicans would have done the same thing? Is there any historical evidence to support that?
No, there is not. Breyer and Ginsburg were not treated this way.
Is there any historical evidence that doesn't. Vicious partisanship dates back to the founding of the Republic.
That's one of the silliest comments I've read in a long time. Are you saying that you don't see any difference in the level of "viciousness" between Republicans and Democrats? If not, you're not paying attention.
How quickly you forget.
The viciousness leveled against Clinton reached a level I had not seen before. Of course, Republicans see it as justified...just as the Democrats justify their current attacks on Republicans.
Going back in memory, Reagan was treated horribly by his opponents, so was Nixon (perhaps he deserved it). LBJ took heat from everyone (he too may have deserved it). Truman was the recipient of gratuitous and undeserved smears and accusations...and we all know that FDR's opponents lived in mud and slime.
I have no personal knowledge of previous events but my recent examination of Jefferson, Polk, and his Fraudulency assure me that such behavior is normal.
It's a sure bet that a fair number of those rejected were the receipients of terrible partisan slurs.
bttt
If you looked it up, give us some examples.
Hey, I can't be expected to do all the work.
Based on personal experience, general principles, and research into the politics and political campaigns in 19th century America I'm willing to gamble that a fair number of the rejected nomineees were subjected to outrageous vilification.
You want more, you do the work.
Spoken like a true liberal. You make claims and then want someone else to prove your own point. What a laugh!
But nomination battles are not the only measure of partisanship concerning the judiciary. The contention is that only liberals exhibit such partisanship. In rebuttal I refer you to the treatment of Earl Warren following Brown vs. Board of Education.
We're not talking about vicious partisanship in general. We're talking about the treatment of Republican court nominees by Democrats. Southern Democrat racists, as I understand it, did indeed question nominees about Brown vs. Board. But Ted Kennedy calling nominees racists, smearing their character, and seeking to destroy their reputation because they might be pro-life, I would argue is unique to Democrats at this point in history.
Clinton's nominees may have been held up occasionally, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated at the suggestion of Orrin Hatch and passed without a single "No" vote. Ginsburg may be the most leftist judge int he history of the Republic, so to argue that the modern Republican Party politicizes judge selection to the extent of the modern Democrat Party, is, I believe, without foundation.
Now in a sense I don't expect Democrats to put people on the court who are diametrically opposed to them, but that is another matter.
The Democrats are in the gutter and have been for quite a while (ever since political correctness won the day). I don't deny it. But claiming their behavior is unique or over the top historically is just plain wrong.
to argue that the modern Republican Party politicizes judge selection to the extent of the modern Democrat Party, is, I believe, without foundation.
This is true as long as modern means very recent. But give them a little time. Once a trend like this starts everyone jumps on board. Pretty cynical I know but that's how it is.
Good historical footnote. I don't argue that politics has never entered the confirmation process; I argue that the Democrats are far, far more bold in making political application to the confirmation process. I further argue that this was inevitable given the capture of the Democrat Party by the New Left, which a hyperpolitical movement that politicizes absolutely everything.
I agree.
The progressive coarsening of politics is very worrisome. It began in the mid '60s with the escalation of the Viet-Nam war and the explosion of drug use.
I don't know where it will end.
It may end when the American people start voting out of office those leaders who get headlines because of insults and demagoguery, regardless of party affiliation.
Re: your #7,8,9---All I can say is that your screen name is appropriate. You refer to the "viciousness leveled at Clinton"? NONE of what what said or done to CLinton by any of his political enemies amounted to 1% of what he did to those who opposed him or threatened to make public any of his MANY crimes. If you ask me, the republicans and the media were GENEROUS to him.
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.