Having had some time to sleep on it, folks are now weighing in on the Judiciary Committee's recommendation that Samuel Alito be confirmed as Associate Supreme Court Justice. The roundup that follows is not intended to be balanced. In fact you might think it's unbalanced. But you can decide.
The contentious issues are Roe v. Wade and presidential power. On one hand there are those like myself who believe that there's no presidential power grab going on and that abortion will remain legal. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue will simply be sent back to state legislatures to be decided there.
"It would focus attention back to legislatures in a way it hasn't been in awhile," said Richard Levy, who teaches and writes about constitutional law at the University of Kansas…
Overturning Roe wouldn't require states to make abortion illegal. "It would mean states are free to regulate abortions however they might choose," Levy said
On the other hand you have hysteria.
Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court would add a presidential-power advocate to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and probably Chief Justice John Roberts. That quartet would need only Justice Anthony Kennedy for a dependable majority.Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court would add a presidential-power advocate to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and probably Chief Justice John Roberts. That quartet would need only Justice Anthony Kennedy for a dependable majority.
It is not abortion or affirmative action that will be repealed by the reconstituted court — both will be nibbled to death, not repealed — it is the balance of powers between Congress and the White House that is endangered as the court shifts direction.
In the perpetual state of war and fear driven by the White House, we move closer to authoritarian rule.
And where there's hysteria there's hypocrisy. Reason Magazine took a look back to 1993 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed to find that Democrats had a much different attitude towards Supreme Court nominations. When the court was turning hard left, maintaining the balance of the court was not an issue with the Democrats. But it's swinging back now.
No one thought that some momentary balance on the Court had to be preserved when a justice retired or that it was inappropriate to shift the ideological makeup of the Court. And certainly no one had made that point during 60 years of mostly liberal appointees from Democratic presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson—even as they replaced more conservative justices who had died or retired. [B]ut suddenly, we are told by senators, activists, and pundits that a nominee should not change the makeup of the Court.
Senator Feinstein seems to be of the opinion that the Supreme Court should be reduced in authority. For one thing Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. For another the Court should never overturn laws enacted by Congress.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein today named issues such as a woman’s right to an abortion and Congress’ ability to pass laws that won’t be overturned by the Supreme Court as reasons she joined her Democratic colleagues in opposing the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the high court.
Well, if they would just take a look at the Constitution from time to time they could probably figure out how to pass laws that won't be overturned.
In a remarkable statement Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy criticized Judge Alito for thinking there are three co-equal branches to the federal government. Says Kennedy,
Judge Alito also failed to satisfactorily explain his controversial advice, as a Justice Department official, that "the President's understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of Congress,"
Really now, how is it the people of Massachusetts keep sending this guy back to Washington? I suppose it keeps him out of the state.
Meanwhile the intrepid New Jersey Senators Lautenberg and Menendez are struggling with the decision whether to support fellow New Jersey native Alito or not. It must really suck to be them.
"This is a man who is very capable. It's a question of how he uses those capabilities. That's the question for me. I want to wait until we uncover everything we can about his views," Sen. Frank Lautenberg said.
Newly appointed Sen. Robert Menendez, who succeeded Governor Corzine in the U.S. Senate, said he is still reviewing the notes of a 45-minute conversation he had with Alito last week and hopes to have a decision by the end of the week.
Menendez said he remained concerned about whether Alito would be independent of the president and the executive branch.
Regardless of all the hyperventilation, the votes are there.
As of late Tuesday, the federal appeals court judge had enough vote commitments for confirmation a simple majority in the 100-member Senate with 50 Senate Republicans plus Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska publicly saying through their representatives, in interviews with The Associated Press or in news releases that they would vote for him.
Let's just get it over with.
People really just need to remember than Kennedy
is generally drunker than Otis Campbell, which may help explain some of his idiotic questions and stumbling and stammering.
Posted by: Ol' BC | January 25, 2006 at 01:36 PM
I don't know what Kennedy's excuse might be, but the good folks of Massachusetts puzzle me more and more.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | January 26, 2006 at 06:52 AM