Posted on 01/23/2006 2:42:31 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Perhaps the most revealing and underreported exchange during Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings began when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tried to pin Alito down on whether Roe v. Wade is so powerful as to be a permanent fixture in our constitutional jurisprudence.
Alito noted that the precedent in Roe, while important, “is not an inexorable command.” Feinstein’s sophisticated Roe radar went off. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, you see, once used this exact phrase in arguing for Roe’s reversal. Feinstein concluded that Alito had sent a subtle signal that he would vote to overturn the constitutional underpinning to abortion.
Feinstein later summarized the political arguments on behalf of Roe. Roe, she insisted, has withstood 38 challenges over 33 years, enjoys the support of a majority of Americans, and is now “settled” law. Or, she asked Alito, is it?
While acknowledging a “general presumption” that precedents will be jettisoned only when a “special justification” exists for doing so, Alito reiterated his view that precedents aren’t “inexorable commands.” If they were, he explained, we would be stuck with constitutional abominations such as Plessy v. Ferguson (where the court first espoused the “separate but equal” doctrine).
“When an issue is one that could realistically come up, the people who would be making the arguments on both sides of the issue have a right to a judiciary of people with open minds.”
In one sentence, Alito deftly shifted the discussion from a political one probing his adherence to abortion rights to terrain where he controlled the moral high ground. The real issue he continued, is whether judges should carry out their duties with “open minds” and consider all the arguments in cases properly brought before the court—or be, well, intolerant and unwilling to consider alternative perspectives.
“If I am confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court,” Alito explained, “it would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, ... ‘I’m not even going to listen to your argument. I’m not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away. I’ve made up my mind.’” That, he concluded, “is the antithesis of what courts are supposed to do.”
And pressuring judicial nominees to be close-minded on important issues that could come before the high court, Alito might have added, is the antithesis of how senators are supposed to carry out their “advise and consent” responsibilities.
Decision: Alito, by a knockout.
No, it IS taking forever. As long as the Dems can drag it out. But oh, the sweet victory when Justice Alito takes his seat on the court! I understand it will be nearly impossible to delay past anuary 31st, so the wait's almost over.
When is the vote?
Isn't it supposed to be tomorrow?
The Judiciary Committee votes tomorrow. There is no doubt of the outcome. The 10 Republicans will vote for him, the 8 Dems against. Then it will go to the full Senate for debate and their vote.
The Judiciary committee will vote along party lines. Alito's nomination will be sent to the full senate.
There the Democrats will filibuster and then we will see if Frist has enough votes to do the nuclear option.
There. Fixed it.
All the Democrats are still moving to Oregon in preparation for the vote.
The nuclear option won't be necessary, but isn't it a disgrace to our nation and to Judge Alito that, notwithstanding his extraordinary qualifications, the RATS are so bereft of ideas and so beholden to the abortion lobby that he won't likely even get 60 votes for confirmation.
Isn't that the blight, the scandal over which we should raise Hell with every Democratic senator? In every state, wherever possible, we need to make them PAY for a NO vote on Alito.
Breyer and Ginsburg both received near-unanimous confirmation votes. This political stunt from the RATS makes me want to vomit.
Only needs one. ;)
Brilliant -- and unsettling at the same time.
It is one thing to proclaim the ideal of having an open mind, another to actually do it, and still another to not have so open a mind as to lose much sense as well. Anthony Kennedy comes to, er, mind.
Here's a prayer to the proposition that a confirmed Alito becomes predominantly a major success for Constitutional restrengthening through judicial restraint after all that the Right has gone through to get him.
10-8 in Judiciary is a disgrace to every Democrat is this nation. They have absolutely no shame whatsoever; they've been totally Clintonized.
You think they are going to filibuster?
Actually, I don't have a problem with that. I'd have expected Republican Senators to do the same with Breyer and Ginsburg. This nonsense about qualification being the end all and be all determinant of whether you vote to confirm is simply stupid. If you disagree with the way a judge interprets the Constitution and the law, then a Senator is perfectly justified in voting against him, regardless of his "qualifications". That's why elections matter.
Yes it is. They truly have no decency. The showing in the full senate will be no better.
I do have a problem with it. If we continue down this path, our courts will become more and more politicized, which is contrary to civil society and Constitutional principles.
Elections settle these matters, and great deference should be conferred upon the president's selections... to the victor go the spoils.
Instead, the RATS are acting like spoiled children. It's not good for the country, and it's not good for our troops overseas, either.
You think they are going to filibuster?
I want the RNC to send a letter to every Italian household in the nation which admonishes any Democrat who votes NO, either in committee or on the floor. RATS must pay a political price for this shameful act.
I disagree totally. Senators advise and consent to make sure that the nominees are qualified and part of that entails that they know that they interpret the Constitution in an originalist manner. So, I don't care if they've been President of 3 law schools, have written 700 law review articles and 67 books on Constitutional interpretation. If they don't subscribe to an originalist interpretation, I expect my Senator to vote him down, even if he had been proposed by Ronald Reagan.
What have they got to lose... respect?
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.