A 'Borking' that's not even a Borking....
to bork (v.)- to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy.
It is quite clear from this article that the right still hasn't gotten over the denial of Judge Robert Bork- Reagan's radical Supreme Court nominee- in 1987. In fact, not only are they still crying over it, they are using Judge Bork as a model for every judicial nominee they offer to fill a vacany in the federal judiciary. Samuel Alito is the latest example.
Dave attempts to make a case that the Democrats- he uses 'first-term' although the only first-termer on the Judiciary Committee is Republican Tom Coburn- are 'making a name for themsleves' as 'master Borkers' during the current confirmation hearings for Sam Alito. How can the Democrats be "Borking" Alito when they are simply doing their expected job of finding out how the candidate feels on various isues. In 1988, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese released a report stating few factors are more critical to the future of the nation than the values and philosophies of those who populate the federal judiciary. Yet, when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee try to discern what Alito's values and philosophies are, Dave dismissively refers to them as 'Borkers.' As anyone who has followed the proceedings can attest, Alito has given no clue what his opinions are in any of the issues being asked of him.
It is quite apparent, through the hearings, that Alito is an intelligent man. This comes across not only in what he says in his replies to the Committee, but also in what he doesn't say- which speaks volumes. As Judge Alito bobs and weaves and practices his White House-trained art of deception in avoiding answering any questions that may shed insight on the judge's values and philosophies, it becomes more difficult for the Democrats to 'Bork' Alito even if they wanted to.
Even if they did, it shouldn't be that hard. They can make a good case against Alito using the judge's own words. As an unsigned editorial in the New York Times points out, Alito himself has called Judge Bork "one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century, with Judge Bork's views to strike down all of the Supreme Court's privacy cases- even the striking down of a state law banning contraceptives- notwithstanding.
Still, Dave attempts to admonish the Democrats for their "half-substantial" attempt to 'Bork' Alito. He decries their lack of questioning and analyzing technical legal issues behind Alito's decisions. (Though Alito did state, when confronted by Senators who disagreed with his results in certain cases, 'that was a hard case' or 'I really struggled on that one.') Dave cites Senator Leahy's questioning of Alito allowing the warrantless strip-search of a ten-year old girl. Now, there are legal rulings I may not agree with, such as free speech being allowed to neo-nazis, that I can understand, but not so in this case. Dave has expressed his infatuation with naked ten-year old girls before, citing stare decisis- a fancy legal way of saying "precedent." However, during Wedensday's hearings, Oklahoma Senator Sam Brownback challenged Alito on the subject of stare decisis- in the context of abortion- noting that the Supreme Court has overruled precedent 177 times. So, not only is the "technical legal issues" allowing warrantless strip-searches of ten-year old girls morally repugnant, but they also appear to be on shaky legal ground- according to the rationale of Republicans, at least.
Dave cites 'ignoring results that don't agree with your caricature' as another step in the Democrats' attempt at 'Borking.' Dave speaks in vague generalities to strengthen his argument and doesn't cite specifics to discount the Democrats claim that Alito is against abortion rights or would oppose corporations. The New York Times points out that Alito has "consistently sided with big corporations, employers, and rejected claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled" and specifically cites a ruling by Alito that stated coal-processors were not covered by Mine Safety and Health Act provisions. Also, if Alito shows such support for abortion rights, why does he insist on stepping around whether or not Roe v. Wade is settled law?
To continue with his quasi-Bork case, Dave says that Democrats cite studies that discuss only part of the nominee's record. Well, if that part of his record is especially troubling, shouldn't that be examined? The study cited showd that Alito ruled against the individual in 84% of his dissents. Granted those were just dissents- when Alito wrote for the losing argument- but it does exhibit quite a trend. And what if the other judges' decisions agree with Alito, and his trend of deciding against the individual was the majority opinion? I would wager that trend would continue. Dave admonishes this study, authored by Cass Sunstein, the legal professor who Dave had earlier cited as a liberal in support of George W. Bush's wireless wire-tapping. Weird.
"Making things up" is the next part of the Democrats' so-called 'Borking' attempt. Ted Kennedy was foolish to state that Alito had "never" ruled in favor of a person of color alleging racial discrimination on the job. Alito has had thousands of rulings- way too many to use such qualifiers as "never." "Hardly ever" would've been more appropriate. Still, it's odd for Dave to make this argument after hearing "I do not recall being a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton" or "I did not think my recusal on the Vanguard case was a big deal." As if those are any easier to swallow. On these subjects, it appears that Alito is being disingenuous at best, and a liar at worst.
And the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Alito's decisions? Again, the man has made thousands of decisions. It is of little to no surprise that some have matched those of the Supreme Court and of Justice O'Connor. What is more alarming are the number of dissenting opinions in his Circuit Court- that aren't backed by the Supreme Court and that portray a very definite ideological bent much radical than the current make-up of the Supreme Court.
Dave ends by touching on Kennedy, McCarthyism, and "guilt by association," an obvious refernce to the CAP issue. Perhaps someone should point out to Dave that none of the accused Communists during McCarthy's hearings had put down "proud member of the Communist Party" in a job application for a position with the administration of an American president. Alito's membership in CAP is hardly by association, but one of admittance.
Perhaps Dave should begin for a call to end the Senate judiciary hearing process. Rather, just have a debate on the floor of the Senate, as these 'hearings' are nothing more than a game, in which Alito says as little as possible and still gets confirmed.
Better yet, let's just bypass the Senate all together, and have Bush appoint his judges to the Supreme Court by recess appointment. That way Dave and other conservatives can quit their whining over 'Borkings' that aren't even Borkings...
It is quite clear from this article that the right still hasn't gotten over the denial of Judge Robert Bork- Reagan's radical Supreme Court nominee- in 1987. In fact, not only are they still crying over it, they are using Judge Bork as a model for every judicial nominee they offer to fill a vacany in the federal judiciary. Samuel Alito is the latest example.
Dave attempts to make a case that the Democrats- he uses 'first-term' although the only first-termer on the Judiciary Committee is Republican Tom Coburn- are 'making a name for themsleves' as 'master Borkers' during the current confirmation hearings for Sam Alito. How can the Democrats be "Borking" Alito when they are simply doing their expected job of finding out how the candidate feels on various isues. In 1988, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese released a report stating few factors are more critical to the future of the nation than the values and philosophies of those who populate the federal judiciary. Yet, when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee try to discern what Alito's values and philosophies are, Dave dismissively refers to them as 'Borkers.' As anyone who has followed the proceedings can attest, Alito has given no clue what his opinions are in any of the issues being asked of him.
It is quite apparent, through the hearings, that Alito is an intelligent man. This comes across not only in what he says in his replies to the Committee, but also in what he doesn't say- which speaks volumes. As Judge Alito bobs and weaves and practices his White House-trained art of deception in avoiding answering any questions that may shed insight on the judge's values and philosophies, it becomes more difficult for the Democrats to 'Bork' Alito even if they wanted to.
Even if they did, it shouldn't be that hard. They can make a good case against Alito using the judge's own words. As an unsigned editorial in the New York Times points out, Alito himself has called Judge Bork "one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century, with Judge Bork's views to strike down all of the Supreme Court's privacy cases- even the striking down of a state law banning contraceptives- notwithstanding.
Still, Dave attempts to admonish the Democrats for their "half-substantial" attempt to 'Bork' Alito. He decries their lack of questioning and analyzing technical legal issues behind Alito's decisions. (Though Alito did state, when confronted by Senators who disagreed with his results in certain cases, 'that was a hard case' or 'I really struggled on that one.') Dave cites Senator Leahy's questioning of Alito allowing the warrantless strip-search of a ten-year old girl. Now, there are legal rulings I may not agree with, such as free speech being allowed to neo-nazis, that I can understand, but not so in this case. Dave has expressed his infatuation with naked ten-year old girls before, citing stare decisis- a fancy legal way of saying "precedent." However, during Wedensday's hearings, Oklahoma Senator Sam Brownback challenged Alito on the subject of stare decisis- in the context of abortion- noting that the Supreme Court has overruled precedent 177 times. So, not only is the "technical legal issues" allowing warrantless strip-searches of ten-year old girls morally repugnant, but they also appear to be on shaky legal ground- according to the rationale of Republicans, at least.
Dave cites 'ignoring results that don't agree with your caricature' as another step in the Democrats' attempt at 'Borking.' Dave speaks in vague generalities to strengthen his argument and doesn't cite specifics to discount the Democrats claim that Alito is against abortion rights or would oppose corporations. The New York Times points out that Alito has "consistently sided with big corporations, employers, and rejected claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled" and specifically cites a ruling by Alito that stated coal-processors were not covered by Mine Safety and Health Act provisions. Also, if Alito shows such support for abortion rights, why does he insist on stepping around whether or not Roe v. Wade is settled law?
To continue with his quasi-Bork case, Dave says that Democrats cite studies that discuss only part of the nominee's record. Well, if that part of his record is especially troubling, shouldn't that be examined? The study cited showd that Alito ruled against the individual in 84% of his dissents. Granted those were just dissents- when Alito wrote for the losing argument- but it does exhibit quite a trend. And what if the other judges' decisions agree with Alito, and his trend of deciding against the individual was the majority opinion? I would wager that trend would continue. Dave admonishes this study, authored by Cass Sunstein, the legal professor who Dave had earlier cited as a liberal in support of George W. Bush's wireless wire-tapping. Weird.
"Making things up" is the next part of the Democrats' so-called 'Borking' attempt. Ted Kennedy was foolish to state that Alito had "never" ruled in favor of a person of color alleging racial discrimination on the job. Alito has had thousands of rulings- way too many to use such qualifiers as "never." "Hardly ever" would've been more appropriate. Still, it's odd for Dave to make this argument after hearing "I do not recall being a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton" or "I did not think my recusal on the Vanguard case was a big deal." As if those are any easier to swallow. On these subjects, it appears that Alito is being disingenuous at best, and a liar at worst.
And the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Alito's decisions? Again, the man has made thousands of decisions. It is of little to no surprise that some have matched those of the Supreme Court and of Justice O'Connor. What is more alarming are the number of dissenting opinions in his Circuit Court- that aren't backed by the Supreme Court and that portray a very definite ideological bent much radical than the current make-up of the Supreme Court.
Dave ends by touching on Kennedy, McCarthyism, and "guilt by association," an obvious refernce to the CAP issue. Perhaps someone should point out to Dave that none of the accused Communists during McCarthy's hearings had put down "proud member of the Communist Party" in a job application for a position with the administration of an American president. Alito's membership in CAP is hardly by association, but one of admittance.
Perhaps Dave should begin for a call to end the Senate judiciary hearing process. Rather, just have a debate on the floor of the Senate, as these 'hearings' are nothing more than a game, in which Alito says as little as possible and still gets confirmed.
Better yet, let's just bypass the Senate all together, and have Bush appoint his judges to the Supreme Court by recess appointment. That way Dave and other conservatives can quit their whining over 'Borkings' that aren't even Borkings...
posted by true_slicky at 8:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home