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.
- E.J. Dionne
Jesus, we (the Democratic party) certainly are a collection of spineless weenies, aren’t we? If Samuel Alito is confirmed to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, as he undoubtedly will be, we will have only Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Teddy Kennedy, and Mike DeWine to blame. Why? ‘Cuz these maroons couldn’t ask a pointed question if an intern armed with a smile and a fresh pair of knee pads showed up at their office door.
Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” did a piece on these four maroons that would have been funny if it weren’t true. Stewart’s piece was a mock contest to see which of these four maroons (3 Democrats, 1 Republican) could engage in the longest pointless monologue without actually asking a question. Mike DeWine (the lone Republican) “won” by going something like nine-and-a-half minutes before he actually asked a question of Alito. The other three weren’t far behind. How in the hell are Democrats supposed to put up anything resembling a fight when they’re more concerned with face time than pressing a nominee on his opinions and judicial philosophy? And just what the hell was Mike DeWine thinking??
Nine-and-a-half minutes? That’s not a question; that’s a soliloquy….
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.
Alito, an ardent baseball fan, established himself as the Babe Ruth of evasion.
Clearly, the confirmation process for vetting Supreme Court nominees no longer works. The Alito hearings (and the Roberts hearings, as well) were less an investigative and information-gathering process than bad kabuki, with eveyone involved remaining in character for far too long.
And Mrs. Alito dissolving into tears? Let’s not forget that this happened when her husband’s ego was being massaged by Lindsey Graham, who did everything short of offering to fellate Alito. Mrs. Alito’s emotional moment seemed just a bit too scripted (not to mention poorly timed) to be believable. The good news for Republicans is that now they could berate Democrats for their cruel and heartless line of questioning. Huh? Did the Democrats on the committe actually ASK questions of Alito?
Alito was pressed about his statement in a 1985 job application letter to the Reagan administration that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” It is a reasonable view shared by millions of Americans. Republican Sens. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) were refreshingly open in their denunciations of Roe v. Wade .
But Alito would neither embrace nor back away from what he had said. He did allow that “there is a general presumption that decisions of the court will not be overruled.” Well, yeah.
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Alito if the issue was “well-settled in court,” he offered the celebrated formulation: “I think that depends on what one means by the term ‘well-settled.’ ” The standard dodge is that nominees can’t answer questions bearing on cases they might later have to decide. But Democrats Feinstein, Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) all noted that Alito was perfectly happy to speak expansively on some questions he would face, notably reapportionment.
Democrats have allowed Republicans to turn the confirmation process into nothing short of a coronation process for Republicans. Nominees are allowed to speak and respond as they are coached, giving just enough information to sound as if they are taking the proceedings seriously, but not enough to be cornered on an issue. Should a Democrat begin asking pointed questions, he is pilloried for haranguing the nominee and for failing to show the proper respect to an accomplished jurist. Or the nominee’s wife begins crying in the background….
All of this makes for good political theater, I suppose, but more than anything else I feel as if my intelligence is being insulted- by Republicans who have created a process that is nothing but a coronation, and by Democrats too weak and spineless to actually ask pointed questions and to demands answers to those questions. The only people who seem to view the Alito hearings as anything resembling serious are those political pundits who credibility rests on their ability to read the tea leaves and decipher the kabuki-like proceedings. For those of us who were hoping for something substantive, the Alito hearings can be summed up in one short phrase:
“TASTES GREAT!! LESS FILLING!!”
