OPINION & EDITORIAL
Senators’ grandstanding plagues Alito confirmation
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mac VerStandig:
- How the Pentagon won the war over Baghdad and the war over public opinion (April 25, 2003)
- Hypocrisy floats riverboats casinos (September 9, 2005)
- Hate crime debate needed on campus (January 20, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Supreme court faces vital test (October 10, 2006)
- Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)
- From the desk of the opinion editors (January 15, 2006)
- Democratic filibusters hurting Senate progress (November 17, 2003)
- Alito (January 20, 2006)
by Mac VerStandig
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Among the many highlights of my winter break were being accepted to law school and watching portions of Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And, having now studied the latter political process and come to fully realize the long-shot potential of my forthcoming legal education, I have a plan. It is simple. It is politically savvy. And, should the stars align in the right way to give me such an opportunity, it can't fail.
The night before my Supreme Court confirmation hearings begin, I will send a case of scotch to Ted Kennedy's house.
Because, let's be honest — without Mr. Chappaquiddick himself there to lecture on morality and legal obedience, these hearings would run a lot smoother.
Then again, Mr. Kennedy may be the leader of the absurd pack, but he sure does have a lot of followers, and some of them claim allegiance to the Grand Old Party. Indeed, a few of the statements to come forth from the lips of Senate Republicans have been almost as troubling as the senior delegate from Massachusetts' heavy-handed attempts at character assassination in the grand tradition of the trick he pulled on Robert Bork in the '80s.
Perhaps most distressing of the comments made as of the time of this column's writing was one by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Neb.: "How is it that we have sodomy protected under that due process, but prostitution unprotected? It's schizophrenic. And the reason it's schizophrenic is there's no foundation for it whatsoever other than a falsely created foundation that is in error."
Suffice it to say, "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart had a field day. And the liberal comedian didn't hesitate to go after Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., either, commenting on the Comedy Central show, "Oh, that's classy. Democrat Dick Durbin implying that Alito is somehow to blame for the recent tragedy that killed a dozen miners. Way to class up the joint."
Does anyone really believe that Mr. Alito hates coal miners, has a crush on corporations or is giddy to draw the line between sodomy and $10 tricks?
Of course not. But having now seen the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and endured more than enough of the proceedings for Mr. Alito, one thing has become frightfully clear: these televised blab fests have very little to do with gathering information and all too much to do with senators duking it out for evening news sound bytes.
If Mr. Alito gets to answer one question every 10 minutes, that means the senator interrogating him actually has a relatively small ego. That many of the questions posed begin with some variation of, " … and I know you can't answer this," is simply stunning.
So let's consider the true question at hand. Is Mr. Alito fit to hold a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? He's a smart guy, has more judicial experience than any nominee from the past 70 years and, perhaps most impressively, has yet to break into tears despite being subjected to the hyper-inflated egos of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Does he have a down side? Sure, he is conservative, and that peeves people like Mr. Kennedy. But, as John McCain has noted time and again, "Elections have consequences." The country picked a Republican president — not once, but twice — and that means we have a conservative doing the picking.
Of course, some on the far left would have you believe that the Supreme Court ought to be a static body. The California Democrats — Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer — keep going off about how this is "the Sandra Day O'Connor" seat on the Supreme Court.
Under that philosophy, we would be debating the qualifications of someone like David Duke, since the country would still be obligated to fill the "Roger Taney" seat on the high court.
Then again, Messrs. Kennedy and Duke having it out in front of the entire Judiciary Committee might make for good television.
Mac VerStandig (mac@badgerherald.com) is editor in chief of The Badger Herald and a senior majoring in rhetoric.
Anonymous (January 16, 2006 @ 1:41am):
"Under that philosophy, we would be debating the qualifications of someone like David Duke, since the country would still be obligated to fill the "Roger Taney" seat on the high court."
Actually, we wouldn't. As Alito so astutely noted, stare decisis isn't an inexorable command. But in any case, does it really strike you as a good idea to let eight men and only one woman -- and that woman reviled by conservatives -- be the final arbiters of the laws of a nation that is over 50% female? Elections may have consequences, but lack of diversity can be disastrous.
Anonymous (January 16, 2006 @ 1:29pm):
"woman reviled by conservatives"
Well, the woman that coservatives wanted wouldn't have had chance. If you think it was moronic to see an an old KKK Kleagal roast Condi at the SecState hearings, it would have been a real cross burning at the Janice Rodgers Brown confirmation hearings.
Anonymous (January 16, 2006 @ 3:44pm):
So becuase there arent over 50% women on the court, it automatically misrepresents America? Since when should someone's gender supercede someone's qualifications? It's still funny listening to liberals whine about something new everyday.
Anonymous (January 17, 2006 @ 8:57am):
"So becuase there arent over 50% women on the court, it automatically misrepresents America? Since when should someone's gender supercede someone's qualifications? It's still funny listening to liberals whine about something new everyday."
Oh, like you wouldn't complain if there were 8 women on the Supreme Court? You couldn't even handle it when there were two!
Anonymous (January 17, 2006 @ 11:37am):
"woman reviled by conservatives"
I don't know what that poster was thinking, but as a conservative woman, I'm disgusted that President Bush thought Harriet Miers was the most qualified person to be nominated for the Supreme Court, let alone the most qualified woman. If that's the view the he takes of women, he's every bit the idiot Democrats claim he is, and maybe the poster has a good point.
Anonymous (January 17, 2006 @ 10:10pm):
"I'm disgusted that President Bush thought Harriet Miers was the most qualified person to be nominated for the Supreme Court, let alone the most qualified woman."
Me too, but all the most qualified conservative women would have been savaged by the Senate - and a number of them probably turned the job down rather than run the gauntlet.
