[media-credit name=’NATALIE WEINBERGER/Herald Photo’ align=’alignright’ width=’336′][/media-credit]The American Constitution Society and Federal Society formed a panel of six University of Wisconsin professors Tuesday to debate the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

In response to Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw from consideration for a Supreme Court post, President George W. Bush selected Alito for the high court Oct. 31.

Second-year law student and Federal Society member, Joe Wolfe, stressed the Federal Society refrains from taking official stances on policy positions and said its goal for the panel debate was to get varying opinions to discuss the judicial nomination.

"The Federal Society doesn't actually take any policy positions. We're about showing both sides of the debate," he said. "Our goal was to get people from both sides to talk about this judicial appointment."

Andrew Kramer, a third-year law student and American Constitution Society member, said although his organization's views differ from those of the Federal Society, they decided to work together to promote debate within the university community.

"What we decided we wanted to do was get together and have a debate, sort of bring together a number of different viewpoints," he said. "In doing that, we hope to foster debate within the law school community and in the university in general."

University of Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs was one of six panel members and said he thinks Alito was an appropriate choice for Supreme Court.

"[Judge Alito was a] smart pick — not as smart as [Judge John] Roberts, but very much in the Roberts mold," he said.

Downs said if Democrats want candidates nominated to the Supreme Court whom they support, they should put a Democrat in presidential office.

"If Democrats want people more to their liking, they have to start winning elections," he said.

During the debate, the professors chose to discuss more heavily the Supreme Court justices' nomination process rather than the specific case of Judge Alito's nomination.

Kramer said a fair number of issues pertaining to Judge Alito's nomination were not addressed, but asserted the academic look at the Supreme Court nomination process was very well discussed.

"I have a number of very serious concerns with Alito's nomination and we didn't really address any of those. We addressed the structural, political and philosophical ways candidates are appointed and confirmed," he said. "We were shooting for an academic look at the nomination process, and I think that's what we got here."

Though the panel of professors talked about issues surrounding Alito's nomination rather than the nomination itself, Wolfe said the debate was a success, since it still managed to address the issues on the minds of many law students.

"They talked about the nomination process, they talked about the candidates and they talked about the Miers effect on the Alito decision," he said. "I think that's something we, as law students, have been wondering about."

The professors, according to Wolfe, brought a variety of viewpoints to the panel and kept the debate entertaining.

"[The professors] kept it entertaining. Professors love to talk about how they feel about things," he said. "We saw a little more of conservative opinions from a few of the members, and that was good as well."