Initial Thoughts on Alito Confirmation Hearing
I had a chance to listen to some of the hearing today. Geez, apparently the lefty Democrats just love Sandra Day O’Connor. According to them, she is a primordial example of what a Surpreme Court Justice (”SCJ”) is and should be, excluding of course that 2000 case between two presidential nominees (Bush v. Gore). As long as you vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, other nebulous privacy rights, and uphold racist admission guidelines for law schools (just for another 25 years though according to Justice O’Connor), you are a SCJ worthly of high praise and distinction. Molding the departing Justice O’Connor as a protector of the Left is one thing, but, it appears that the Dems are going to emphasize Sandra a little more than I thought they would.
Senator Leahy made a comment during his opening remarks that a SCJ should render decisions on behalf of “all the people.” Leahy implies that a SCJ who, for example, would rule in favor of the President spying on Americans who communicate with Al Qaeda or against upholding a law banning partial-birth abortion would not be ruling for “all the people.” Yet, it is not a judge’s nor a legislator’s obligation to make a decision based upon the will of all the people. Putting aside the virtual impossibility of every American agreeing, their constitutional obligation does not require it. Moreover, while a legislator should listen to the voice of his or her constituency, a judge’s consituency is the Constitution. That document is what binds citizens of 50 States together as one and is the foundational law of our democratic republic. Leahy’s grandiose utterance suggests that minorities not majorities are the “all” and that their voice–not the people’s voice–that should be heard. However, Leahy forgets himself. “We the People” was not all the people, it was a majority of people. Some Americans who fought for liberty in the Revolutionary War voted against ratifying the Constitution. In his haste to secure the rights of radical minorities, Leahy forgets himself.
Senator Durbin remarked that he intended to question Alito and scrutinize the judge’s comments from a women’s rights perspective because Alito is replacing O’Connor–a woman. Would Durbin exercise the same type of senatorial scrutiny for a Republican woman nominee who was replacing a man on the Court? I think not.
Senator Coburn, in his remarks, pointed out the selective hypocrisy of the Democrats. Pointedly, he remarked how the Democratic Senators emphasized the “weak” or “underprivileged”, yet, when the person that is weak is a 3 month old fetus, their desire to protect someone who is indefensible is replaced by a desire to protect a women’s “right” to choose.
Alito’s remarks started slowly, but, as his testimony progressed I feel he presented himself in a calm, effective manner. Alito might be more capable of a Robertsesque performance than his critics think.