I was watching Fox News today (well, my dad was, and I was doing the dishes) and the big news story was how evil, malevolent, and brutal those Dems are who are questioning Alito. Now, I think nearly all Dem Senators on that committee have made total asses of themselves (and for the record, I find absolutely no reason why Alito does not deserve confirmation), but I find it a bit rich that conservatives are calling out liberals for attempted character assassination.
I mean, the Republican Party was the one that did that swift-boating thing, right? And the one that waged total war on Richard Clarke, yeah? And the one who launched an abortive attack on Jack Murtha? And the one that annihilated one of their own—Harriet Miers—rightly, yes, but nevertheless relentlessly, mercilessly, and even gleefully. I mean, Harriet Miers was supposedly a nice lady. And conservatives didn't feel too bad about raking her over the coals.
I really think the Dem Senators in that room suck balls. Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer should be put out to pasture someplace or given a teaching job at Cornell. And I think they're flogging a bunch of dead horses—none of their objections amount to something that should sink a judicial appointment. But Brit Hume whining about those mean, mean Dems asking mean, mean questions of Judge Alito? Please, the man's from New Jersey. I seriously doubt today was the worst day in his life.
Edit: For the record, this was really fucking dumb of me.
I was not ignorant of his record, but I read the document from the American Way. I am not convinced that the cases presented make Alito a racist or sexist or evil or whatever. Were Alito replacing Scalia instead of O'Connor, would these cases seem to matter as much? I don't think so. I realize that it is significant that Alito is replacing O'Connor, but we're simply not going to get a moderate up there. Alito is an intelligent man, many who disagree with him ideologically have attested to his impartiality, and I have read significant and convincing rebuttals to many of the main objections--Casey, the strip-search, Vanguard, etc. I'm simply unconvinced that he's a bigot.
ReplyDeleteI'll have more, but in a separate post.
Katie:
ReplyDeleteIf Alito should have recused himself, then why did the ABA give him their highest ranking by a unanimous vote? Remember, ABA rankings also take into account integrity. And don't forget that Leahy called the whole thing mularky.
As for your comment about being a lone dissenter - that cuts both ways. Justice Holmes was frequently a lone dissenter, and Justice Harlan I made a living by being the lone dissenter. But both justices were on the left side of things, so it's probably okay, right? But a little consistency would be nice... which brings me back to the recusal issue. Breyer refused to recuse himself in a case in which he had a direct financial interest (he invested in a company that was party to the case) and Ginsburg did not recuse herself when her husband had a direct financial interest. Should we never have confirmed them?
And as for precedent - this bugs the hell out of me. The only precedents that seem to be held up in the highest regard are those that fit well to the political ideologies of the questioner. Should Plessy v. Ferguson have been overturned? How about Bowers v. Hardwick? Or the case that dealt with the execution of the mentally ill, which was overturned 14 years after the original decision? How much weight do we give precedent when those cases can bind us to undesirable and unjust outcomes?
Finally, I'll defer to his colleagues on the 3rd circuit who stood up there under oath and testified on Alito's behalf. They were from both sides of the ideological spectrum, and they all agreed that Alito should be confirmed. I'll trust a bunch of Circuit Appeal judges before the People for the American Way any day.