Now that the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are over, what did we learn? That a nominee for the high court won’t answer questions he’s not supposed to answer? Or that liberals will then use those non-answers as a public rationale for opposition?
We did learn (again) that televised Senate Judiciary Committee hearings featuring the questioning of a nominee have outlived their usefulness, if such usefulness ever truly existed.
We also learned (again) what the left values and opposes in a judicial nominee. We learned that they hold results to be more important than old fashioned notions of justice and an impartial application of the law.
In the case of these hearings, opposition to Alito centered around the issue of abortion, and the fact that he will be replacing Sandra Day O’Connor on the Court – and the fact that Alito is less likely to see abortion as a constitutional right.
It is true that O’Connor has been a swing vote on the court on a great many issues, and it is also true that Alito is likely to be more conservative than O’Connor. But this doesn’t have the dire and immediate impact on Roe vs. Wade that the left suggests. If you subtract O’Connor, five of the currently sitting Justices have upheld Roe in previous opinions. In other words, the court would still have a pro-Roe majority.
Such facts don’t deter those on the far-left however, as they continue to use abortion and the fate of Roe vs. Wade as a billy-club to attack conservative nominees and whip their donors and activists into an apocalyptic frenzy.
At its more basic level, liberal opposition to Alito (and all other conservative judicial nominees) is about fundamental values, and their quest to use the judicial system to achieve ideologically driven results as opposed to impartial justice.
Democrat Senator Herb Kohl admitted as much in the hearings when he stated, “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress…”.
Well isn’t that just dandy. If we were to follow that logic, then why attempt to choose judges who have knowledge and experience with the law? Why not do away with all pretenses and make the judiciary a completely popularly elected branch of government, stocked with politicians with political agendas endorsed by a majority of the voting public?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Bravo. That is very nicely done.
2 - gonzo marx
in the original Post, paragraph 2 sez...
*We did learn (again) that televised Senate Judiciary Committee hearings featuring the questioning of a nominee have outlived their usefulness, if such usefulness ever truly existed.*
and here we have a sticking point...one i've made before, but bears repeating...
you have someone coming up for a Lifetime appointment to the Highest Court in our Nation..and equal Third branch of our Government
the ONLY time they are up for review, and can be Questioned by ANYONE, is during these committee hearings...it is also the ONLY time the American public gets to see and hear directly FROM the nominees before they are appointed and can effect our lives for the rest of theirs
still with me?
so why then should anyone object to spending however long is needed in these interviews, why would any sane person object to letting the public view the proceedings?
the original Poster goes on to give some hint to it all when he repeatedly hurls invective against the "left" and the "democrats" because they want to do their jobs when it comes to an appointee
i will readily admit most of those dems are just playing politics with it...same as with most of the GOP members...that's the "game" and until the one party totalitarian rule is broken and checks and balances are restored (pray for gridlock in November kiddies)...it's the Way of things
partisan bullshit, from EITHER "gang" ain't helping
here's a novel thought...how about we all just scream at the fuckers to do their jobs, you know..what they were elected for in the first place?
we can start by pointing out the partisan bullshit whenever we see it, not allowing the spin meisters to get away with broad brush propagandist crap, not standing for the false dichotomy of "either for or against" when there are so many more Options in reality...
just a Thought
Excelsior!
3 - Silas Kain
Learn? All the hearings did was confirm what I've suspected for a while -- Republicans are Bush lemmings and cowardly. Democrats are whiny bitches and cowardly. Land of the free and home of the brave? Only member of Congress that comes close to being brave is John McCain -- the rest are worthless piles of donkey or elephant dung.
I say we put members of Congress up in dormitories created by the annexation of lobbyist buildings on K Street. Send the members into the Capitol like Cardinals at a Popery Election. Lock the sons of bitches up until they discharge their duties in a manner respectful of their constituencies.
4 - Baronius
Silas, I assume that you're referring to McCain's military record. As a senator, he's proven to be more opportunistic and cowardly than most.
5 - larry
the good senator did not have stellar naval career. gary garwood exposed some of the senators conduct in the pow camps! he was not exactly top of his class at annapolis. he got in because of his father.when he returned to the U.S. he dumped the wife that waited for him . then he got himself a trophy wife. his wife cindy, she was caught taking narcotics from doctors without borders for her own use. he also adopted a south american chil under unusual circumstances. he does not have cleands
6 - gonzo marx
larry...put the crack pipe down and back away slowly
you could hurt yourself with the keyboard if you're not careful
try some familiarity with Fact checking rather than the crap you have been so obviously fed...
Bog and JuJu know i have had my problems with McCain in some areas, and applauded him in others
but no one this side of a hydroencephalitic mongoloid could possibly think that the picture you are trying to paint has any semblance or basis in the Reality the rest of us live in
Excelsior!
7 - Bing
We certainly didn't learn what a hypocritical, petty, piece of shit Ted Kennedy is. We already knew that.
8 - Scott
What is it with you and Kennedy, Bing?
9 - Bing
What are you talking about?
10 - Scott
You love talking about him. I'm starting to think you've got a bit of a crush on the guy.
11 - Bing
Scott did you watch the hearings?
I did.
I saw Ted Kennedy attack Alito's character with a bunsh of bullshit accusations.
So if the topic of the post is the Alito hearings then discussing Kennedy's performance during them is appropriate.
12 - Nancy
Even a lot of us suspect Massachusettsian crazed Leftist/Anarchists have little use for T. Kennedy; it isn't just Bing. I wouldn't save him if he fell in the water, either.
13 - Scott
No, I didn't watch them. I listened to them.
And you bring up Ted Kennedy as a deflection shield. You say we didn't learn something about Kennedy (that he's a hypocritical piece of shit as you put it) because we already knew it. So, it neither adds to the discourse or helps "discussing Kennedy's performance" as you later state. You say he attacked Alito's character, well, describe some specific instances you feel Kennedy stepped over the line. You speak in generalities.
I mean, we get it Bing, you don't like Kennedy...it's no secret. Your life is so bereft of joy and meaning that the only pleasure you derive is by attacking others. Whatever floats your boat. Do you come here solely to bash people or what?
14 - zingzing
bing and kennedy go way back. i think bing has an unnatural fascination with the man. i bet he has posters of the man up on his cell walls. it's hard to tell if bing is just a jilted lover, or if he is a homicidal maniac. there is something personal going on here. it's all he talks about anymore.
15 - larry
personal attacks are forbidden!!
16 - Nancy
Lol, well, ya gotta admit there's something fascinating about a little fat rich kid that grew up to become a big fat rich kid accused of plagarism, manslaughter, rape (or was that his nephew? Wasn't Ted supposed to be in on it, too, except he was too drunk to get his pants off?) and Gawd knows what else. If nothing else, it makes for good gossip or ranting.
17 - zingzing
i am a bad man. i have the same fascination with bush. it's okay.
18 - Mark Saleski
Such facts don't deter those on the far-left however, as they continue to use abortion and the fate of Roe vs. Wade as a billy-club to attack conservative nominees and whip their donors and activists into an apocalyptic frenzy.
i just love how folks are cleaving to this notion that the conservatives only value a judge's 'qualifictations'.
sure, keep saying that to yourself. also, click your heels together three times while saying "There's no justice like Harriet Miers....There's no justic like Harriet Miers...."
oh, the irony.
19 - Nancy
Wouldn't it be fun to lock 'em all up together in some room & only let out the survivor?
20 - zingzing
change the topic from judicial nominees to the presidential election and you get this:
Such facts don't deter those on the far-right however, as they continue to use abortion and the fate of Roe vs. Wade as a billy-club to attack democratic candidates and whip their donors and activists into an apocalyptic frenzy.
21 - larry
which statements do you dispute about yiur hero!
22 - Scott
Nancy, are you referring to politicians or conservatives??
Cause it would probably be fun in either case...
23 - Bing
I think to say I don't like Kennedy is an understatement.
It would be more appropriate to say I don't think they should have stopped with Bobby. I mean talk about your friggin hat tricks!
24 - larry
excelsior. i enjoy your blogs.this one ticked you off. perhaps some of these statements can be verified with some research on your part. larry
25 - Nancy
Oh - politicians. Lock Teddy & Dubya etc. in a room and only let out the one that remains uneaten. Nothing wrong w/conservatives per se - about half the time I'm one myself, depending on the issue.