Said a Democratic senator
to E.J. Dionne during the afternoon break of the first day of questioning at the Alito hearings:
The senator was expressing frustration over a process that doesn't work.
Define "work." You mean, doesn't permit you to defeat the President's nominee as long as he is very well qualified and can give reasonably substantial answers to all the many lines of searching inquiry the opposition party has been able to develop?
It turns out that, especially when their party controls the process, Supreme Court nominees can avoid answering any question they don't want to answer. Senators make the process worse with meandering soliloquies. But when the questioning gets pointed, the opposition is immediately accused of scurrilous smears. The result: an exchange of tens of thousands of words signifying, in so many cases, nothing -- as long as the nominee has the discipline to say nothing, over and over and over.
Define "nothing." You mean everything that isn't a pledge to decide cases the way you'd like or to confess to bias and bigotry?
Democrats seem to be wary of mounting a filibuster. What they should insist upon, to use a euphemism Alito might appreciate, is an extended debate in which his evasions will be made perfectly clear to the public. If moderate senators want to vote for a justice highly likely to move the Supreme Court to the right, they can. But their electorates should know that's exactly what they're doing.
Oh yes,
extended debate, for the
benefit of the public. Because we haven't heard enough verbiage from the Democratic Senators yet.
पोस्ट्स
११ टिप्पण्या:
Unfortunately, the judicial nomination process has become just another feature of what Vince Foster is reported to have lamented as the Washington habit of destroying people's lives for sport.
Indeed, it is patently clear that this anonymous senator was referrinig to hitting Alito "harder" below the belt; not to challenging his judicial philosophy more aggressively.
And so they did....
In fact, so much so that his wife cried with relief when Sen Graham showed common decency by rescuing this man's name and reputation from aother high-tech lynching by the now thoroughly discredited senate judiciary committee.
Carefull, Ann - when you're reasonable about these things, Daily Kos assumes you're selling out to the GOP. On the other hand, perhaps its nice that they associate reasonable discourse with the Republican party.
All these embarrassing performances would end if the hearings were not televised. Without TV, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Leahy and Boxer would not show up for the confirmation hearings. Without them, maybe some fruitful discussions about law would take place.
The process isn't working because the activists are relying on the interrogating skills of old farts whose abilities have clearly atrophied. Ask questions and when you don't like the answer, ask more questions. Follow-up. Don't grandstand. Make the nominee talk.
Perhaps my perspective is unique, but I support Alito -- even as a liberal -- because the President should have broad authority to pick whom he wants and Alito is in the mainstream, albeit the conservative mainstream. I support his nomination even while I know that I will be patently opposed to his decisions and on the issues of the day. But that in no way means that his hearing before the Senate was worthwhile, or served any purpose, and I think that is part of Dionne's overall point. Alito purposefully refused to disclose anything about his views, falling back on tautological platitudes (e.g. "No man is above the law" Gee, I wonder if he learned that bit of legal wisdom at Yale or Princeton). If we won't opine on what the law is, why are persisting in conducting a charade? Why not send a wind-up doll up there and press the right button at the right time "No man is above the law." "Supreme Court decisions are entitled to respect"
Kennedy, Schumer, and Durbin in particular don't share the intellectual ability of my big, fat white cat.
As opposed to whom? Coburn, Sessions and Hatch? Come on.
While the Democratics can be accused of grandstanding, their colleagues across the aisle have been throwing this guy a tea party.
I'm not sure which is worse.
No, there is no grounds for recusing a Alito because some of his colleagues said some nice things about him. Conflicts arise from a judge's relationship to the parties in a case, not the judge's relationship to the judge(s) being reviewed. We don't usually see the judge being reviewed as having an interest in the case. If we did, there would be a lot of recusals since appellate judges are often pulled from the ranks of the lower courts. Plus, appellate judges sit in panels of three or more judges, which reduces the risk of one judges biases.
The problem, if there is one, is with the testifying judges. Judges are generally not supposed to endorse people for political office (other than themselves) or testify as character witnesses. They are supposed to be above the fray. I am not saying its an ethical violation, but that's the more problematic issue I believe.
All these embarrassing performances would end if the hearings were not televised.
I've got to agree ... I don't see any way to stop it, but I don't think televising Congress has turned out to be all that great an idea.
I *think* this is a compliment
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/087186.asp
All Things Beautiful TrackBack Alito's Justice Will Prevail
"We have to hit him harder!" said a Democratic Senator E.J.Dionne expressing frustartion over a system that doesn't work. Ann Althouse quite rightly says:
Define "work." You mean, doesn't permit you to defeat the President's nominee as long as he is very well qualified and can give reasonably substantial answers...."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा