BPloG

just a little somethin' to break the monotony of all that hardcore dance that has gotten to be Alito bit out of control . . .

I'm as liberal as they come (well, no I'm not), or at least lean left on a number of issues, but the Democratic-led attack on the efforts to confirm Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, half-hearted though they may be, are laughable. Two notes on this, followed by my thoughts:

1. Chuck Schumer once called the American Bar Association the "gold standard" for the evaluation of Supreme Court nominees. Subsequently, on Meet the Press, when Russert pointed out that the ABA had ranked Alito as "highly-qualified" to be on the Supreme Court, or something to that effect, Schumer waffled with some bullshit about, well, yes, the ABA is the gold-standard for two of the three qualifications, but there is this third qualification, and they weren't talking about that when they called him "highly-qualified." Come on.

2. Dick Durbin, in a shameful attempt to tie the wholly unrelated Sago Mine tragedy to the confirmation hearing, has raised questions about Alito's preference for bis business vis-a-vis safety standards. "Even in the area of mine safety, he has ruled in cases in favor of companies and against the workers when it comes to safety and similar issues that were brought before his court. I want to make certain that he comes to the Supreme Court with an open mind," Durbin said.

There is more nonsense, but the bottom line is that the Democrats would question the ability of Thomas Jefferson to interpret the Constitution if Bush had nominated him. I assume no one disagrees with that, so the question becomes whether or not this is appropriate. What is the Senate's "advice and consent" role with respect to Supreme Court nominees? In my mind, it is to make sure the President appoints a competent individual who will faithfully uphold the law. The job is to keep out the Harriet Miers of the world, who were plainly unqualified, and let in the Thurgood Marshalls and the Antonin Scalias. Both are/were mad smart, albeit at polar opposites of the political spectrum. Reasonable people can and do differ over abortion, executive authority, etc. You can't filibuster a nominee just because the conservative president selected a guy with a conservative track record. As John McCain said, elections have consequences.

It is impossible to challenge Alito's qualification, so the Democrats have taken to outcome-determinative questions, and when he (rightly, to avoid a forced recusal) declines to answer as fully as the would like, they call foul. It's ridiculous, and it just sets the stage for the Republicans to do it to our guy at some point down the road.

As far as I am concerned, the advice and consent function should be limited to keeping out people who are intellectually unqualified, and who are radically extreme (don't give me that about Scalia, he isn't radically extreme any more than Stevens or Marshall, you just disagree w/him). The Senate's gate-keeping role at the Supreme Court should be limited to keeping out David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and that guy who got trapped in the Sago Mine. Other selections of the President, provided they are not extremists in the true sense of the word, or intellectually unqualified, ought to be confirmed.

posted by Brian G. @ 11:57 AM