Let the Games Begin!

The Senate confirmation hearings on Judge Samuel Alito have begun. Here are a few choice opening statements (plus commentary) from the committee members as reported by the Associated Press.

"As chairman, I am committed to conducting a full, fair and dignified hearing. Hearings for a Supreme Court nominee should not have a political tilt for either Republicans or Democrats. They should, in substantive fact and in perception, be for all Americans.” – Arlen Specter (R-Penn)

Not a bad guy for a Republican, however I'm sure he knows that the tilt is going to be so political he’ll be lucky if he can keep the committee from falling over.

"The challenge for Judge Alito in the course of these hearings is to demonstrate that he will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans and serve as an effective check on government overreaching.” – Patrick Leahy (D-Vt)

The whole idea of an independent court is to insure the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I commend Senator Leahy for reminding everyone of that. If Alito is not committed to this quest, then he has no business on the Supreme Court just as Scalia and Thomas have no business on the court.

"Groups are trying to defeat your nomination because you will not support their liberal agenda. And the reason they oppose you is precisely why I support you. I want judges on the Supreme Court who will not use their position to impose a political agenda on the American people.” – John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Basically Cornyn, that’s a load of horseshit. What you, Dubyah and your Religious Right supporters are looking for is precisely someone who will “use their position to impose a political agenda on the American people,” you just want it to be your agenda.

“Judge Alito, millions of Americans are very concerned about your nomination. They are worried that you would be a judicial activist who would restrict our rights and freedoms." – Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

I’d be surprised if there were millions of Americans who could even identify Alito never mind be concerned about something as abstract as his being a “judicial activist who would restrict our rights and freedoms.” Well, maybe a couple of million.

"Judge Alito has an impressive and extensive legal and judicial record, certainly one worthy of a Supreme Court justice ... .equal to any Supreme Court nominee I've considered over the 25 years I've been on this committee. ... Yet, some liberal interest groups have come out in full force, and have attempted to paint Judge Alito to be an extremist and an activist. ... I don't like to see facts twisted or untruths fabricated to give the nominee a black eye, even before he sets foot in front of the judiciary committee. So, Judge Alito, now you have an opportunity to set everyone straight on your record and your approach to deciding cases." – Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

Wordy SOB isn't he? So, Charlie, you’re saying that you have seen undisputable evidence that Sammy baby isn’t an activist? Durbin seems to be really worried about that. Perhaps you should share what you have with him?

"In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture, and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling.” – Edward Kennedy (D-Mass)

Oh well, so much for keeping the political tilt out of the hearings. Ted Kennedy also wrote, in a Washington Post article, about his concerns related to Alito’s credibility. Kennedy was questioning why Alito didn’t inform the Senate during his 3rd Circuit confirmation that he was a member of the right wing group Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) which had some racist overtones. Alito joined in 1972 but now claims little or no memory of the group. Kennedy also questioned why Alito didn’t recuse himself from a case involving the Vanguard Group with which Alito has accounts.

I joined Pi Mu Epsilon in 1968 and I have to admit that I have NO memory of the group nor do I know what they've been up to. For all I know they could be bankrolling Al-Queda. You going to hold that against me Teddy?

The question about Vanguard is another matter all together. Why didn't you recuse yourself Sammy?

"Your decisions are usually brief and to the point. You write with clarity and common sense. And, in most cases, you defer to the decision-making of those closest to the problem at hand. I don't expect to agree with every case you decide. But, your modest approach to judging seems to bode well for our democracy." – Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)

In other words thanks for not making me read through long complex stuff. I don’t care if it was right as long as it was short and didn’t strain my attention span. Yeah, that’s a great reason for selecting a Supreme Court judge.

"Before we give you the keys to the car, we would like to know where you plan to take us.” – Herb Kohl (D-Wis)

LOL! Talk about going right to the heart of the matter! Yeah, I’d like to know where he plans to take us too.

"It appears to me that you easily fit into the mold of what this nation has come to expect from its Supreme Court justices. " – John Kyl – (R-Ariz)

So you’ve already made up your mind? Then why use up the oxygen in the committee room? I’m sure you could be off worrying about questions you don’t already know the answer to.

“We need judges who see themselves as custodians of the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees…” – Russ Feingold (D-Wis)

Huzzah Sir Russell of Feingold! Atta boy Russ. You nailed that one right on the head. At least you and Leahy appear to understand the real question on the table.

"I think it's fair for us to try to determine whether your legal reasoning is within the mainstream of American legal thought and whether you're going to follow the law regardless of your personal views about the law.” – Diane Feinstein (D-Calif)

Even if the law is wrong? Diane, Diane, did you sleep through the class where some poor history teacher tried to pound into your head the implications of Marbury vs Madison? I understand what you mean, but it sounds like you want a Supreme Court that will simply abide by and enforce every law passed by a right wing Republican congress.

"You have a record as a brilliant but modest jurist, one who follows the law, who exercises restraint and does not use the bench as an opportunity to promote any personal or political agenda.” – Jeff Sessions (R-Ala)

Here we go again with “follows the law” and another guy that appears to have undisputed proof that Sammy has no personal or political agenda. Of course someone who “follows the law” is only ok when that law isn’t restricting YOUR rights correct? I like Russ and Leahy’s understanding that the court is there to be the guardian of the rights of ALL the American people, including the ones you or I may not agree with. Does it scare you that most of the committee isn't clued in to this point? It sure scares the hell out of me.