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.
This is all about the Senate Democrats being completely under the thumb of Ralph Neas, NOW, NARAL, and likeminded left-wing pressure groups. Alito is one of the best-qualified nominees ever put forward by any President, and most of the 'Rats will vote "no."
How about Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown? I don't think Harriet Miers would even get enough Republican votes because she hasn't had enough experience.
The whole bank of judges came up to testify in his behalf, including many Dims. What the heck?
He's saving what face he has left after getting it driven into the pavement during the hearings.
the words of a pethetic loser trying to save face. the JUNIOR senator is a jerk. A real, unadulterated JERK!
Trying to appease the Lunatic Fringe of the Left (also known as the Democrat Party) is like trying to appease the lunatic Islamofascists, and for essentially the same reason.
The Dem'crats can end this "polarization" any time they want.
There is, and always has been, room for legitimate disagreement in the course of establishing the governing principles of this nation. What the Dem'crats have done, consciously or otherwise, is to seek areas of dispute that have nothing to do with the virtues of the philosophies involved, but resolve into invective and attacks on personal attributes. George Bush gets called a "Nazi", by people who have little or no idea of what life under REAL National Socialism was like.
Steer the dialogue back to the matters at hand, and come up with some WORKABLE alternatives, then maybe there will be a possibility of re-establishing some sort of compromise in the generation of legislation and the application of the power of the nation to solving the problems which confront us all.
And just maybe, establish a second political party in Washington which may be called "pro-American".
Don't get over confident--the Dems may be able to pull together enough votes for a filibuster and am not sure Frist has the spine to invoke the nuclear option..Be prepared and write his office now!
"I like how President Bush will have had two conservative white men confirmed to the Supreme Court leaving the Democrats to filibuster a conservative Hispanic or Black appointee to fill a potential third opening"
Or how about Janice Rogers Brown, Black and a women.
It just couldn't get any better than that.
So we have that going for us.....which is nice!
Pray for W and Our SC Justice Alito
"President Bush has proceeded to put a Republican imprint on all levels of the federal bench" God I hope so!
Hey, if this is what vigorous opposition gets us... BRING IT ON.
Good call, I hope so too.
I still think that was amazing. It was a real "in your face" move by the bench against the dem blowhards on the Committee: "Question THIS!"
Wait 'till Bush replaces Ginsberg or Stevens with Janice Rogers Brown. Their heads will explode.
If the Dems filibuster, Frist should set up a vote to use the nuclear option, and have it sunset in 30 days. Best of both worlds. Frist could say, "We will only use the nuclear option in extreme circumstances, and only temporarily."
Without a doubt! The position Brown would put them in is too good for words.
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.