Watching the alito confirmation hearings is much like watching an old Matlock rerun, except with Barney Fife doing the questioning… If it weren't so infuriating, it would be about as interesting as watching paint dry.
apparently, I need to point out a few things to my friends across the aisle, not the least of which is the fact that a seat on the Supreme Court is NOT an elected position, but rather a presidential appointed position based upon the judicial qualifications of the candidate, not their personal ideologies. To the degree that legal ideologies, interpretations of written laws and constitutional rights are important, they are to align with the president who is appointing the nominee, just as Ginsberg's aligned with Clinton's.
Just as the election of a president represents the will of the people by majority, his appointments represent the same to the degree that his appointments align with the ideas that got him elected and in this instance, they appear to align perfectly with those who elected Bush.
My friends on the left were well aware of this back when Ginsberg was being confirmed, but seem to have forgotten that since. Ginsberg was confirmed 97-3 even though far more than three senators were ideologically at odds with her very well known liberal leanings, evidenced by her aCLU connections. Republicans respected the right of the elected president to appoint his own, but democrats clearly respect nothing outside of their own political agenda, including the rule of law or the constitution itself.
When it comes to judicial qualifications, few in america are more supremely qualified than Judge alito, who the Senate has twice before unanimously confirmed to the bench. The only people in this confirmation process who doubt that at all are the 22 left-wing senators who have no doubts about his stellar judicial qualifications, but only his personal ideologies concerning issues of supreme political interest to them. Their questions revolve largely around two such issues and their advice and consent is limited to their ideological bias, not the nominee's judicial qualifications.
Let's talk about those two all important issues driving the glaringly obvious political bias very visible in the alito hearings.
Presidential Power: Democrats are desperate to create a public perception of a culture of corruption and a runaway imperialistic presidential tyrant. Not because it's true, but because without doing so, they have literally NO chance of regaining any political power in the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections. Without regaining at least some power in November, their party draws ever closer to the brink of extinction. None of this is any secret…even to liberals.
So they pound away Barney Fife style, asking over and over and over again, in an effort to trip alito up, hoping he will imply that the president has some nonsensical supreme dictatorial power that we all know he doesn't have. If they can glean some fraction of a statement that can be twisted into such a notion, they can potentially derail alito's appointment by painting him a founding member of the imaginary culture of corruption.
In the meanwhile, they can use the hearings to pound their Imperial President notion into the american psyche by repeating it over and over as if there is some evidence of such somewhere. Remember; if you tell the lie often enough, people eventually forget that it was never true. What better place to do it than before a national audience… That explains why the talk-time favors democrat senators 20-1 over alito. We are learning more about the senators than the candidate.
Roe vs. Wade: If you have been watching the hearings and listening to the preamble in the weeks leading up to the hearings, you know that 22 democrats are NOT going to support the confirmation of aNY nominee who refuses to state unequivocally that they strongly support the Roe vs. Wade decision.
For these 22 democrats, the qualifications for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court boils down to one qualification; support of Roe vs. Wade and the right to continue terminating the life of over a million innocent unborn children a year--the use of abortion as an unrestrained form of after-the-act, birth control.
Contrary to popular rhetoric, the majority of americans do not support such a notion and anyone able to read at or above a second grade level, knows that our constitution has no such language. So liberals frame the discussion not around the missing language concerning abortion, but rather around a right to privacy.
Of course nearly every american, certainly every conservative, believes in a true right of privacy, self-determination, absolute personal liberty and self-governance, including alito. But no honest thinking american believes that any of these rights include the right to take the innocent life of another, even if it is your own child. Those are the cross-hairs Judge alito finds himself in today…
If alito in any way indicates that he does not fully support the Roe vs. Wade precedent, they will accuse him of instead, not supporting a right of privacy. On this basis, they will once again seek to paint him a card carrying member of the alleged Bush Imperial Dictatorship and thereby, attempt to derail his confirmation.
But does our very real "right of privacy" really include a very deadly right to take the innocent unborn life of another, for mere convenience sake? We know of at least 22 Democrat senators who believe that it does. We also know that there is nothing alito can say that will gain the support of even 1 of these 22 senators. So who is driven by political ideology here; alito or the 22 senators? alito has stated that he will approach every case with an open mind, which is obviously more than we can say for the 22 senators.
Can 22 senators block the otherwise all but certain confirmation of a very qualified candidate? Even if they could, should they? Would they be representing the will of the people if they did? all interesting questions and I bet the answers are as ideologically biased as the 22 senators themselves.
But here's the BIG question… Is our system of justice based upon political ideologies? Should cases be decided on the basis of political interests? If you believe they should, then you had better imagine finding yourself in court someday, facing a judge of different political persuasion, who has the power to decide your fate solely on the basis of your political affiliations.
Otherwise, you might reconsider that notion and realize that justice is supposed to be blind to political ideology, race, creed, color and anything else outside of the proper equal application of written laws and constitutional rights.
When these circus-stunt hearings are over, I suspect that alito will be confirmed by more than a partisan majority, if allowed an up or down vote. He will have earned the position by just avoiding the overwhelming urge to throw his chair at the Barney Fife's grandstanding for their constituents. That alone will show great personal restraint…
However, the confirmation process itself may be forever changed from that focused on actual judicial qualifications alone to that more interested in political ideologies.
Elected offices and those who seek them are supposed to be partisan and they sure meet that requirement today. But the courts are supposed to be blind to such. If it isn't blind to political partisanship, then it can not truly uphold or defend the written Constitution and laws of this nation and it will not protect the equal rights of individuals regardless of their individual belief systems.
Them's the facts…. Read them and weep!
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement