Posted on 01/22/2006 2:15:49 PM PST by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. appears certain to be approved Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a straight, 10-8 party-line vote, setting the stage for a vigorous floor debate that will culminate in Alito's confirmation.
The Republicans have won the latest judicial battle - but the war over the divisive issues that dominated his hearings has only intensified, according to legal experts.
In fact, the 12-week process since his Oct. 31 nomination spotlighted the polarization of politics between Democrats and Republicans, particularly on abortion, executive power, individual rights, and other contentious matters destined for the docket of the Supreme Court.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), still smarting over the Democrats' insistence on delaying the Alito vote for a week, said the expected party-line vote in his panel "says more about the Senate than the nominee."
"Positions have really hardened," he said in an interview. "People who have voted for [Chief Justice John G.] Roberts don't want to cross party lines twice."
Three Democrats on the committee joined the 10 Republicans voting for Roberts' nomination last fall. One of them, ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has already said he will not vote for Alito.
The party-line split is a "healthy reminder" that not all Supreme Court nominations are alike, said legal scholar Sarah Binder of George Washington University.
"When the question was whether to replace William H. Rehnquist with another conservative, some Democrats were willing to vote for Roberts," Binder said.
"But when the nomination is to fill a swing or critical seat - a nominee who could swing the ideological direction of the court - the opposition party is more likely to object if it feels the nomination will swing the court against its interests," she said. Alito would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a frequent swing vote on social issues.
Alito, a 15-year member of the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit federal appeals court, met with more senators last week, mainly Democrats, hoping to increase his vote margin.
The White House predicted that Alito would garner 60 to 70 Senate votes - Roberts drew 78 - but that seems overly optimistic. For one thing, Democrats want to withhold votes and reduce his winning margin so that Alito can be used as a campaign issue in future elections.
"A 'no' vote is an easy vote," Specter said. "When you vote 'aye,' you're somewhat on the line for what the guy is going to do."
Legal experts say the intense politicizing of the confirmation process means that any hint of a judge's ideology can kill a nomination.
"In the present climate, really superb professional qualifications are essential to insulate a nominee from the inescapable ideological sticks and stones," said legal historian David J. Garrow of Cambridge University.
Alito will prevail, Garrow said, because there "really was no question about his personal and professional qualifications," while White House counsel Harriet Miers - President Bush's initial choice for O'Connor's seat - "went down the tubes" because "everyone realized she was a judicial turkey."
Five years of the Bush administration and a pair of new Supreme Court justices have changed the face of the federal judiciary.
"Certainly the impact of unified Republican control has been registered on the federal courts, as the proportion of Republican-appointed judges has increased markedly," Binder said. More than 200 federal judicial nominees of Bush's have been confirmed.
"The confirmation process itself shows the strains of strongly polarized political parties, at odds over the range of divisive issues that routinely come before the Supreme Court," Binder said.
Said Specter: "It's not just the confirmation process, it's the whole Senate - it's everything we do."
Specter cited the increasing acrimony over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as an example and said that partisanship over the issue had caused deep strains on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
He said he was determined not to let such "bickering" destroy what he called the "equilibrium" on the Judiciary Committee.
In that vein, Specter spoke disparagingly of what he called "a clumsy ambush" by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.) over Alito's alleged past membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative group.
Specter said Kennedy waited until Alito's hearing was in progress to request documents on the group, though the Democrat had many prior opportunities to raise the issue with Specter.
As President Bush has proceeded to put a Republican imprint on all levels of the federal bench, Democrats have increased their scrutiny of his nominees.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) contends that only vigorous opposition has led Bush to refrain from selecting even more conservative judicial nominees.
Alito is an example, Schumer said. Legal observers think Alito is not as conservative as some candidates Bush was considering.
Asked whether he agreed with Schumer's assertion, Specter said, "If Sen. Schumer wants to take some credit for that, I won't stand in his way."
But how conservative will Alito be?
"I expect Alito will certainly be closer to [Justice Antonin] Scalia than to O'Connor," Garrow said, "and very likely will be closer to Scalia than [to] Roberts."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact staff writer Steve Goldstein at 202-383-6048 or slgoldstein@krwashington.com.
I don't know anything. Just hoping for retirement soon.
I can't either.
we need 50.
remember the people whose votes we need to count on to hold 50 for a rules change:
Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, McCain, DeWine, Warner, Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, etc.
voting for Alito himself, is a totally different vote for these senators - then voting to change the rules.
And Alito would end up getting on the court anyway and they could no longer filibuster any of Bush's court nominees. Sounds good to me too.
If on the other hand there are 41 votes against Alito and they are smart enough to not filibuster, then their base goes crazy.
Told ya, told ya and told ya Dems. Stupid is as stupid does. Challenging Specter's decades of coveted authority was damn stupid. I believe Specter was going to vote for Alito minus this incident. But if you can't muster support for a filibuster, it's for a few reasons. One, we'll rebel and they may be scared of being Daschle'd. Two, Alito did extrodinarily well.
And, the two factors you did have control over that have power to mve Specter and RINO's? Challenging Specter and making Alito's wife cry. You overplayed your hand and no one but yourselves to blame.
What is the price to rid the nation of irresponsible "representatives"?
Related question: Where does Schumer stand on abortion?
I wonder whether he and his wife would offer their own fetus to prove the point, or their daughter's?
bttt
bttt
"Wait til they have to vote on Ginsburg's replacement...which i'd like to see it be harriet meirs again"
surely you jest.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"Wait 'till Bush replaces Ginsberg or Stevens with Janice Rogers Brown. Their heads will explode."
One can only hope :)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Schmukie Schumer the SENIOR Senator from New York?
the infowarrior
I just want to see the Rats tap-dance.
Man, that's too bad about losing on the Panthers . . . my condolences.
I should have used the sarcasm tag....I call him the JUNIOR senator because with the witch around I'm SURE he IS INDEED the JUNIOR senator and SHE the Senior senator. She rules all of those nitwits remember?
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.