On Tuesday, after more than 18 hours of testimony and 500 questions, Samuel Alito became the 110th Supreme Court Justice. After a failed filibuster attempt by the Democrats, he was confirmed by the Senate with a 58-42 vote.
The Democrats’ handling of Alito’s confirmation was disgusting to watch. Even though Republicans act partisan as well, they didn’t stoop to these levels when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer were nominated. They looked at their qualifications and actually understood that the nominees would be liberal like the president who nominated them. And they certainly didn’t try to filibuster in hopes that President Clinton would somehow see the light and withdraw the nominees.
Why is it that the Democrats can’t look at a nominee’s qualifications, instead of focusing on his or her political leanings? Of course a nominee’s ideology is an important part of the confirmation process, but the Democrats should know that whomever President Bush nominated would almost certainly be a conservative. Do the Democrats actually expect him to put up a liberal to make them happy?
The far left wing of the Democratic party was especially vicious to Alito. Senator Edward Kennedy, perhaps the worst offender, accused Alito of making “new attacks on the progress we have made in civil rights,” particularly women’s rights. The Massachusetts senator’s attack was ironic because when he said this during his speech to the Center for American Progress, he was still a card-carrying member of the Owl Club at Harvard, which excludes women from joining. Kennedy also grilled Alito on being a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton during college, which is a group that at one time opposed affirmative action; however, Kennedy offered little explanation for his own Owl Club involvement.
Forgotten memberships aside, Kennedy accused Alito of supporting a “power-hungry president” and acting as his surrogate on the court. Alito is apparently “itching to overturn Roe v. Wade,” even though in the confirmation hearings Alito said that he must respect precedent, referring to Roe v. Wade. That’s hardly the sort of talk I would expect from someone bent on outlawing abortion. Kennedy further attacked Alito by saying that he is racist because he sided with companies accused of racial discrimination. Never mind the details of the case; the fact that Alito ruled against minorities apparently speaks for itself.
This habit of vilifying the nominee started in 1987 with Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats were outraged by the president’s selection. Within hours of Bork’s nomination, Kennedy said, “No nominee, especially a nominee who is well-known to have argued ideological positions on issues important to the American people, should be confirmed without full and candid disclosure and discussion of those positions and their importance to him.”
Before the Bork confirmation hearings, candidates were judged by both parties more on their qualifications as jurists rather than their ideology. When Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated during Clinton’s administration, the Republicans naturally asked about their stances on abortion and gay rights.
But the vote came down to the nominees’ fitness to be Supreme Court judges, rather than their agendas. We knew Ginsburg would rule in favor of abortion and even wanted to legalize prostitution. But the Republicans never for a second considered filibustering her nomination, regardless of whether or not the Democrats had the votes to invoke cloture. And the result? Hardly a split vote like Alito’s. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed by the Senate nearly unanimously.
I understand that the Democrats have to put up some sort of fight to save face, but when listening to the confirmation hearings, I could have easily mistaken Alito, a fair minded judge, for a neo-Nazi. After all, he apparently favors killing innocents and oppressing women. And then there’s his hatred for African Americans.
Without the spin, Alito is an experienced judge with conservative leanings. He supports the death penalty for people who have been proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. He’s never ruled on abortion and says that he must respect precedent. He isn’t racist; his only crime seems to be that he didn’t side with minorities regardless of the companies’ case. I don’t mind spin so much when it gets a party somewhere, but what did the Democrats hope to accomplish by dragging Alito’s name through the mud?
Their treatment of judicial nominees is not only pointless, but it scares off well-qualified candidates who don’t want to put themselves or their families through the media circus Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito endured. Being the eternal optimist I am, I’d like to see a return to sensible and civil confirmation hearings.
[email protected]