Alito Confirmed...

[pcs]

NY Times' take.

 

I love winning.

[Pangloss]

Some of Kennedy's rantings yesterday were pathetic. He wasn't upset that Alito didn't "state his positions" -- he's upset that Alito isn't progressive. Senate Democrats have behaved atrociously in this affair -- even Lieberman voted no! Bush did exactly what the center of American politics asked him to do -- nominate conservatives who were capable of objective reasoning -- and he even risked the loss of his base of support in doing so. The nominees were (with one exception) gutsy and appropriate.

 

Even worse, it suggests to me that the kind of nominess we could expect to see under a President Clinton II would be ideological in nature, because of a perceived need to "balance those awful Bush nominees".

 

This has been the strongest argument yet for this moderate to vote Republican in 2008.

[Sisyphus]

I think Democrats really are afraid that the nominees may have misrepresented themselves. It's hardly as if it's unprecedented, and they're so heavily coached to appear acceptable that practically any clue (memos, quotes, etc.) from the nominee's past is likely to offer a clearer picture of the nominee than his actual answers. It's not just the far left that suspects of Alito of being an idealogue - much of the far right thinks so too, and that's why they like him. Further, the Bush Administration has nominated some fairly ridiculous judges to lower courts, which leads Democrats to plausibly believe that he'll do as much as he can get away with. And finally, why wouldn't the balance to an objectively-thinking conservative be an objectively-thinking liberal?

[Jim]

I think Democrats really are afraid that the nominees may have misrepresented themselves. It's hardly as if it's unprecedented, and they're so heavily coached to appear acceptable that practically any clue (memos, quotes, etc.) from the nominee's past is likely to offer a clearer picture of the nominee than his actual answers. It's not just the far left that suspects of Alito of being an idealogue - much of the far right thinks so too, and that's why they like him. Further, the Bush Administration has nominated some fairly ridiculous judges to lower courts, which leads Democrats to plausibly believe that he'll do as much as he can get away with. And finally, why wouldn't the balance to an objectively-thinking conservative be an objectively-thinking liberal?

 

The democrats bogged themselves down in irrelevancies like the CAP non-issue. They knew Alito could not ethically answer many of the questions they asked. They were playing a game just so they could argue that Alito was not forthcoming. This isn't just me. I've heard several liberal commentators say they thought the Senate Democrats did a terrible job.

[Sisyphus]

They obviously did a bad job, and like everything else, motivations were somewhat political. But that doesn't change anything I said, and it doesn't mean their concerns are unreasonable.

[Pangloss]

I think Democrats really are afraid that the nominees may have misrepresented themselves. It's hardly as if it's unprecedented, and they're so heavily coached to appear acceptable that practically any clue (memos, quotes, etc.) from the nominee's past is likely to offer a clearer picture of the nominee than his actual answers.

 

I see no evidence of fear that Clinton's appointees might have misrepresented themselves, but they were every bit as well coached and prepared.

 

No, this is clearly an ideological matter for Senate Democrats. I don't see how it could be viewed any other way.

[Sisyphus]

I didn't mean to imply that Bush's appointees are more coached or less honest than Clinton's. Supreme Court nominees are always coached to disguise their true idealogies, more and more in recent years. Thus it is an entirely reasonable fear to suspect that what the nominee says during confirmation hearings is not an accurate picture of what he will be like on the bench. Obviously this is a major concern for Democrats in the case of Republican nominees, and for Republicans in the case of Democratic nominees. It's quite unfair to say they don't like Alito just because he's "not progressive." Of course he's going to be a conservative, and if the way they behaved in the hearings was actually an accurate picture, I think most Democrats would be relieved. Their problem is that they're afraid he is not an "objectively-minded conservative," but rather a conservative activist idealogue, and they have fair reason to suspect that that could be the case.

[Pangloss]

They obviously did a bad job, and like everything else, motivations were somewhat political. But that doesn't change anything I said, and it doesn't mean their concerns are unreasonable.

 

 

I think they are. As you say, Kennedy essentially accuses Alito of having secret ideological bias. But since he has no evidence to that effect, or evidence that is equally offset by counter-evidence, he's left with only the conclusion that Alito MUST be those things BECAUSE he was nominated by a Republican president.

 

The American Bar Association certainly didn't think so, and they have no ideological axe to grind. But these Senators, who DO have an ideological axe to grind, if they raise an objection, it's somehow more valid and not ideological? Riiiight.

[Pangloss]

I didn't mean to imply that Bush's appointees are more coached or less honest than Clinton's. Supreme Court nominees are always coached to disguise their true idealogies, more and more in recent years. Thus it is an entirely reasonable fear to suspect that what the nominee says during confirmation hearings is not an accurate picture of what he will be like on the bench. Obviously this is a major concern for Democrats in the case of Republican nominees, and for Republicans in the case of Democratic nominees.

 

I certainly agree with this, but I would just point out that Clinton's nominees were not dealt with in the fashion that Bush's nominees have been.

 

Even Illinois Democratic Senator Barrack Obama thinks Senate Democrats have done poorly in this area, relying too much on "parliamentary measures" that are not supported by the American people.

 

Obviously he's not the only one who thinks so, because TWENTY SENATE DEMOCRATS voted to stop the Alito filibuster! That is a leadership defeat of the highest order. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the real reason why Kennedy is so outraged.

 

Poor John Kerry, flying all the way back from his vacation in the Alps for nothing.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, yes, Ted Kennedy is ridiculous, and the filibuster was a stupid idea that could only delay the inevitable. But I still don't see how doing it against public opinion could be considered a political move. Their methods may be political, and their explanations of them perhaps intentionally misleading, but they obviously have genuine concerns that Alito is not what he says he is, since they've certainly not gained anything politically by all of this.

 

Would they be happy if a liberal idealogue got in under the radar? Probably. Does this make them hypocrites? Probably. Does it mean Alito is not a conservative idealogue? No.

[Pangloss]

Well as long as we're throwing double-negatives around, how about some unequivocal evidence that he IS a conservative ideologue? How about some objection OTHER than the fact that he was nominated by George W. Bush?

 

Every single objection I've seen was obviated by the facts. All of the legal opinion issues were addressed by the American Bar Association in a bipartisan manner, and their recommendation speaks volumes.

 

On any reasonable, non-partisan playing field, there can be no objection to this nominee.

[budullewraagh]

there has been speculation of alito possibly yielding power to the executive branch. this, of course, would be seriously changing the power distribution amongst the governmental branches. what say you to such allegations?

[Pangloss]

That they're idle speculation.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the chief litigator for the ACLU, for crying out loud. Steven Bryer was the assistant special prosecutor for Watergate! Where was the Republican filibuster for these nominees? Where was the pounding-the-podium outrage and fear-mongering couched as "lingering doubt" and "troubling concern"?

 

(Mind you, I happen to think both of those appointments were fine, for exactly the same reason that Alito was fine.)

 

I'm not saying that Democrats are aggregately more partisan than Republicans. What I'm saying is that this represents a dangerous (and all too typical) escalation in the political landscape. Republicans will probably pull the same nonsense with Hillary Clinton's first nominee, and I'll be just as ready to call them on it when they do.

[Skye]

I don't think this has changed the landscape of US politics, but rather it reflects the damaging changes over the past five or ten years. The leadership of both sides need to stop arsing about with filibusters and impeachments and what have you.

[pcs]

That they're idle speculation.

 

And ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. It seems a minimum requirement to sustain the charge is to actually detail the appropriate balance of power between the branches.