Posted on 01/27/2006 6:33:45 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Not to be lost in the reporting on Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee vote to endorse the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to serve on the Supreme Court is the fact that U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has voted for the first time in his Senate career against a Supreme Court nominee.
More than any other vote by a member of the committee which split 10-8 along party lines, with all Republicans backing Alito and all Democrats opposing his nomination Feingold's vote stands out.
While the seven other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had all voted against one or more Republican nominees for the high court, Feingold had, until Tuesday, voted to confirm every Supreme Court nominee, Republican or Democrat, to come before the panel.
This break in pattern by the man who is arguably the Senate's most adventurous thinker and independent player ought to serve as a basis for rethinking strategies with regard to blocking the nomination as it now moves to the full Senate up to and including the prospect of a filibuster.
Simply put, if Alito is unacceptable to Feingold, then he should be unacceptable to a good many other senators including moderate Republicans with whom Feingold has worked closely on campaign finance reform and a host of other issues over the years, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
Why give this special status to Feingold? Because, since his arrival in the Senate in 1993, he has distinguished himself by his consistent if often controversial approach to presidential nominations.
Feingold has a record of supporting disputed Republican picks for top posts including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts because of his belief that presidents should be afforded broad leeway when it comes to making appointments. A progressive who cast the sole Senate vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, Feingold has long argued that Democrats must support the qualified conservative nominees of Republican presidents if they expect Republicans to support the qualified liberal nominees of Democratic presidents.
Feingold's standard has often infuriated liberal interest groups, along with many of his fellow Democrats, who have argued that he has given too much slack to right-wing Republicans who will never repay the favor. Why, the common question goes, does a progressive Democrat give conservative Republicans a blank check?
But Feingold has always rejected the "blank check" analogy. The senator has voted against a number of federal appeals court nominees in recent years, and he has consistently made it clear that would oppose a Supreme Court nominee in an instance where a president selected someone who was too extreme, too biased or too ethically challenged.
The fact that Alito is the first high court nominee to fail to meet the Feingold standard is significant. And, as the senator explained to the committee Tuesday, it was not a close call. In an unusually blunt statement, Feingold went out of his way to distinguish the current nominee from the Republican he backed just a few months ago to serve as the court's chief justice.
"Judge Alito's record and testimony do not give me the same comfort I had with Chief Justice Roberts," said Feingold. "Judge Alito's record and his testimony have led me to conclude that his impulse to defer to the executive branch would make him a dangerous addition to the Supreme Court at a time when cases involving executive overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism are likely to be such an important part of the court's work."
The three-term senator from Wisconsin who is being boosted as a potential progressive candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination pointed out that, on this most vital of issues, Alito's record ought to be troubling to anyone no matter what their partisan label who respects the system of checks and balances that is outlined in the Constitution and that has served as a bulwark of American liberty over the past 218 years.
"Judge Alito has an impressive background and a very capable legal mind, but I have grave concerns about how he would rule on cases involving the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. Some of the most important cases that the Supreme Court will consider in the coming years will involve the government's conduct of the fight against terrorism. It is critical that we have a strong and independent Supreme Court to evaluate these issues and to safeguard the rights and freedoms of Americans in the face of enormous pressures," Feingold said.
"Confronted with an executive branch that has jealously claimed every possible authority that it can, and then some, the Supreme Court must continue to assert its constitutional role as a critical check on executive power. Just how critical that check is has been made clear over the past few weeks, as Americans have learned that the president thinks his executive power permits him to violate explicit criminal statutes by spying on Americans without a court order," Feingold continued.
'With the executive and the legislature at loggerheads, we may well need the Supreme Court to have the final word in this matter. In times of constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court can tell the executive it has gone too far, and require it to obey the law. Yet Judge Alito's record and testimony strongly suggest that he would do what he has done for much of his 15 years on the bench: defer to the executive branch in case after case at the expense of individual rights."
"Friday Feingold" Ping! :)
Wow! John Nichols has that boot licking thing (with the happy ending I might add) down pat. Someone get Feingold a smoke!
Senator Feingold has voted for all of TWO nominees who were put up by a republican president, those being Roberts and Alito. He is a disgrace to my state and one of the most liberal senators in the senate. This article is a typical product of a pot smoking madison liberal, viewing the world through his smoke filled bong.
"is the fact that U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has voted for the first time in his Senate career against a Supreme Court nominee."
Demonstrating that he wants to be on the ticket in '08.
Three words: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Feingold's a d*ck. Why should we care??
Feingold himself is insignificant. Therefore, any action he takes is also insignificant.
The ones we won't have if we are D-E-A-D from TERRORISTS ATTACKS! What a foolish politician who cares nothing about anyone's "rights and freedoms" only his next campaign.
Is this the same oaf that co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold bill? You know, the one that directly suppresses free speech!
LOL - you're right. Feingold was first elected to the Senate in 1992. Roberts is the only Republican Supreme Court nominee he's ever voted to confirm.
Bah..this article is nonsense.
Fiengolds vote is meaningless.
We already have the votes to confirm the only question is whether they can filibuster and the three conservatives who MIGHT be inclined to vote no would almost certainly still vote for cloture.
Add the four confirmed dem yea's on Alito and all we are missing is one vote. Diane Fienstein has stated on the record that she would not support a filibuster even though she will vote no. That is all the votes we need assuming Fienstein doesnt change her mind.
That would be the one. Hypocrites are amazingly stupid.
If Fiengold was elected in 92 then he voted for Ginsberg who was confirmed in 93
The point is still taken though
Just correcting what must have been a typo.
How about a simple translation: "Wackier than a 7-dollar bill!" ;-P
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.