![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Judging the Candidate
Nov. 2nd, 2005 11:59 pmIn the last couple of days I've been looking at the president's latest toss up for Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito, the person who CBS' john Roberts called Bush's "Sloppy Seconds" after the failure to convince anyone that Harriet Meiers was a competent candidate. As suspected, Bush selected someone who would, on the surface, please the far right and evangelical base of his support.
Before we leave Ms. Meiers to the dust of history, I have to mention that I wish that they would have actually pushed forward with the hearings for her, because I would have liked to have seen what the Senators, and Ms. Meiers herself would have done. It had all the possibilities of being a real embarrassment for all. Still, did you notice that there were few senators that were actively working against her nomination? In fact, there were several Democrats that seemed to be encouraging it, at least to get her into their cross-hairs. Perhaps they would have eventually shot her down saying that she was unqualified, but the group that seemed most concerned about how she might actually judge were several pundits, televangelists and radio shouters on the right. The president's own base brought her down.
So now we look at the next guy. I have to say that starting with the president's seemingly unfulfilled promise to nominate a judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia is a great place to see how Alito stacks up against the most conservative of the supremes. Of course the media looked for a quick way to notate that Alito should fall in step with them and dubbed him "Scalito" not only a combination of names, but also using the italian postfix for small, similar to saying "junior". It was interesting to see the sudden finger pointing of the right as they tried to claim that the media was being racially insensitive of Alito's Italian heritage. It was easy to see that it was just people trying to paint the media and the left into a corner, and trying to keep the conversation off the substance of the comparison and drag a unnecessary, and almost laughable race card into the debate.
The truth is, unlike Justice rovers and Meiers, there's not a reason to wonder what his experience has been. He's had a very visible record for the last twenty years. If there is one thing you can't argue about, it's the fact that he has experience. It's a change of strategy from the Bush Administration where most times everything is about cover up and distraction. The idea of having a man with a visible paper-trail will make for a very lively hearing...if the senators actually come to do their job.
As for what we see in Alito's record, several of his decisions seem to be decidedly out of the mainstream, especially since his most controversial circuit court decisions have been either the minority decisions or overturned often by the Supreme Court. What does seem to hold true is that he tends to prefer so called "traditional values" about family life, that he seems to support big government intrusiveness and has often ruled for big business. These are troubling opinions indeed.
There are some signs that there might be a few bright points, such as hiring law clerks of many different opinions, and debating with them. This may indicate a willingness to to at least be open minded, if it doesn't always present itself in his decisions. There's also evidence from some 30 years ago that he supported the removal of sodomy laws, but this might have changed over the years. What does seem to be a problem is that his rulings seem to often go against the individual. I hope we'll hear from him his thoughts on privacy and equal protection under the law, two ideals that are driving the current gay rights movement, and also fuel the abortion debate.
Alito isn't a moderate, nor would he have been one who the Democrats would fight for, but is he the worst Bush could do? Probably not, because Bush needs to get this one through. Lip service is more important right now than actual results...except for the result that might make you look weaker than you already do. He needs a win, and needs it fast. Sn even more controversial, or less-qualified candidate would be disastrous.
Bush also needs people on the court who will side with him should more torture and unfair incarceration charges come up against the executive branch. This was why Meiers was picked.
Will Alito get the post. Right now it seems likely. The Democrats are stuck between looking obstructionist again, and putting up a good fight. What will make their case is if they can truly question and drive home the spots in his record that are out of step with the majority of Americans. Right now, that will take a selling job, since conservative values have been getting more mainstream play right now. It's going to take more than finger pointing. It's going to take strong arguments.
We'll see who, if anyone is really ready to ask the hard questions. Hopefully people will be able to move away from the photo-op mentality of these televised conferences and hearings and really come in with probing questions. Still, they are politicians.
Before we leave Ms. Meiers to the dust of history, I have to mention that I wish that they would have actually pushed forward with the hearings for her, because I would have liked to have seen what the Senators, and Ms. Meiers herself would have done. It had all the possibilities of being a real embarrassment for all. Still, did you notice that there were few senators that were actively working against her nomination? In fact, there were several Democrats that seemed to be encouraging it, at least to get her into their cross-hairs. Perhaps they would have eventually shot her down saying that she was unqualified, but the group that seemed most concerned about how she might actually judge were several pundits, televangelists and radio shouters on the right. The president's own base brought her down.
So now we look at the next guy. I have to say that starting with the president's seemingly unfulfilled promise to nominate a judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia is a great place to see how Alito stacks up against the most conservative of the supremes. Of course the media looked for a quick way to notate that Alito should fall in step with them and dubbed him "Scalito" not only a combination of names, but also using the italian postfix for small, similar to saying "junior". It was interesting to see the sudden finger pointing of the right as they tried to claim that the media was being racially insensitive of Alito's Italian heritage. It was easy to see that it was just people trying to paint the media and the left into a corner, and trying to keep the conversation off the substance of the comparison and drag a unnecessary, and almost laughable race card into the debate.
The truth is, unlike Justice rovers and Meiers, there's not a reason to wonder what his experience has been. He's had a very visible record for the last twenty years. If there is one thing you can't argue about, it's the fact that he has experience. It's a change of strategy from the Bush Administration where most times everything is about cover up and distraction. The idea of having a man with a visible paper-trail will make for a very lively hearing...if the senators actually come to do their job.
As for what we see in Alito's record, several of his decisions seem to be decidedly out of the mainstream, especially since his most controversial circuit court decisions have been either the minority decisions or overturned often by the Supreme Court. What does seem to hold true is that he tends to prefer so called "traditional values" about family life, that he seems to support big government intrusiveness and has often ruled for big business. These are troubling opinions indeed.
There are some signs that there might be a few bright points, such as hiring law clerks of many different opinions, and debating with them. This may indicate a willingness to to at least be open minded, if it doesn't always present itself in his decisions. There's also evidence from some 30 years ago that he supported the removal of sodomy laws, but this might have changed over the years. What does seem to be a problem is that his rulings seem to often go against the individual. I hope we'll hear from him his thoughts on privacy and equal protection under the law, two ideals that are driving the current gay rights movement, and also fuel the abortion debate.
Alito isn't a moderate, nor would he have been one who the Democrats would fight for, but is he the worst Bush could do? Probably not, because Bush needs to get this one through. Lip service is more important right now than actual results...except for the result that might make you look weaker than you already do. He needs a win, and needs it fast. Sn even more controversial, or less-qualified candidate would be disastrous.
Bush also needs people on the court who will side with him should more torture and unfair incarceration charges come up against the executive branch. This was why Meiers was picked.
Will Alito get the post. Right now it seems likely. The Democrats are stuck between looking obstructionist again, and putting up a good fight. What will make their case is if they can truly question and drive home the spots in his record that are out of step with the majority of Americans. Right now, that will take a selling job, since conservative values have been getting more mainstream play right now. It's going to take more than finger pointing. It's going to take strong arguments.
We'll see who, if anyone is really ready to ask the hard questions. Hopefully people will be able to move away from the photo-op mentality of these televised conferences and hearings and really come in with probing questions. Still, they are politicians.
