Originally Posted - January 27, 2006

return home

If you have followed the Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Sam Alito, you may have learned a valuable lesson in government---how to sideline the judicial process via legislative maneuvering.

Tom DeLay was criticized from many on the right and left for saying too many judges in this country were judicial activists. He is not a lone voice in the wilderness. You hear more Conservatives speak out about it than Liberals. Maybe judicial activism is supposed to be a secret, and we are not meant to know it exists. Depending on what side of the aisle our Senators sit is how they perceive and tell us what constitutes judicial activism.

The questionnaire sent to Alito by the Senate Judiciary Committee contained a judicial activism component. The role of the Federal Judiciary within the Federal Government, and within society, was discussed. The major question was an allegation that the judicial branch would not usurp other branches of government. Most glaringly, is when the judicial branch problem solves rather than grievance resolves, such as we saw in the Terri Schiavo case. It is unknown who put the judicial concerns in the questionnaire.
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/Alito_Questionnaire111105.pdf

In spite of all the grumbling from the Democrats, this country has a process for nominations that was put in place by the Framers long ago. Here is how the American process works. Since a Republican is in the Oval Office, a Republican appoints Supreme Court vacancies. The sequences of events have been with us for generations.

Democratic Senators should know this. Americans should know this. Those appointments are chosen of people with the same party affiliation as the POTUS. If anybody knows of an instance where a sitting president chose someone of the opposition party, please enlighten us, as this is not generally the standard.

After the advive and consent is offered by the Senate ...oh wait, there was no advice and consent. That was replaced with attacking the nominee in committee, then a full character assassination, by the opposition, on the floor of the Senate. These unconscionable attacks against any nominee are unwarranted. How disgraceful. Americans should not condone it. Americans should not condone asinine filibusters as a manipulative tool either.

The Supreme Court confirmation process does not work this way. We do not allow our children to behave in this way, so why are grown adults who hold a public office behaving this way? How disgusting.

Alito served as law clerk to Judge Leonard Garth from the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals from 1976-1977. He served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the appellate division from 1977-1980. Assistant to the Solicitor General from 1981-1985. He served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General from 1985-1987. Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987-1989. He was nominated by President George H. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from February 20, 1990. Alito was unanimously confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Alito achieved an impressive record, to be sure.

Moreover, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary unanimously approved Alito with one recusal.
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/ABA_Alito010406.pdf

However, the mainstream media has reported for the past two weeks that Alito would move the court to the right. Most Democrats are complaining about the same shift. For over 30 years, the court has moved towards and been on the left. So it may shift to the right. Is this so awful? No.

What is the media really saying? They are conveying that a move to the right would be bad. They are not objectively alerting viewers that this shift is a normal occurrence in our democratic society. They are alerting their viewers that this shift will change all social issues and this shift is bad for all Americans. Chances of that happening are slim to none, as we all know. But that is not their point. They want viewers to agree with their philosophy. Just because the media reports something does not mean they are always correct. They do not always give us all the facts and give a complete picture.

The media wrongly assumes all social issues that may be near and dear to their hearts or political ideology are in jeopardy with Alito confirmed, such as the death penalty, affirmative action, gay rights, privacy rights, and even abortion. Whether you believe the views of the journalists or not, this shift is not horrible. It is the way our system operates. The media does not have to agree. They do not have to like it. But they do have to accept it. And they have no right to prey on people's ignorance of the judicial process by reporting falsely or reporting their opinions and biases to influence others who do not understand.

On the other hand, with a court shifted to the left, we worry about public displays of Christianity, judicial tyranny, assisted suicide, and even Christmas. The media fails to report that side of the issue. The media cannot concern themselves with just their party philosophy, and forget that of which they disagree, but that is exactly the way they report. They made the Alito hearings a disgusting political display by reporting their one-sided biases, and our Senators stood up to falsely accuse and embellish accusations of racism at Alito.

The Supreme Court Nomination Debate is not about the media's political ideology, nor the Democratic ideology or their special interest groups' ideology, and certainly not about the nominee's ideology. Politics have no place in this process. The nominee did not place politics into the process. No, that was achieved by our Democratic Senators.

Robert Novak recently wrote, "Pressure from liberal activists to oppose confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court has been so intense that Democratic senators may be trapped into a filibuster that they do not want to wage. Despite the consensus that Alito performed well in his confirmation hearings, leaders of liberal organizations opposing him... demand that Democrats vote against him."

One thing is perfectly clear; our elected representatives do not care about their constituents, which are us, and who we elect to represent us. Their major concerns are special interest groups who donate big bucks for their reelection campaigns. That is the way they vote.

Senator Byrd was one of the few Democrats who spoke out against the tone, media insensitivity, and direction this confirmation hearing has taken. He took them all to task for denigrating a once dignified and solemn process. Byrd has some thoughtful comments and profound insight into the judicial process. http://byrd.senate.gov/newsroom/news_jan/alito.html

The procedural delays by the Democrats, along with the special interest groups in opposition to Alito launched by PFAW and other organizations added to the politicization. If you are not disgusted, you should be.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), George Soros' MoveOn.org, and People for the American Way (PFAW) amassed untold numbers of calls, emails and faxes to key liberal Senators urging a filibuster. The filibustering has gotten out of hand. The Democratic Party started it by abusing the filibuster rule. Kerry and Kennedy are begging their members to filibuster as we speak.

MoveOn.org has an Alito link on their web site claiming he is no moderate. Who said Alito was a moderate? Who said O'Connor's replacement had to be a moderate? The Republicans certainly did not obligate themselves. MoveOn.org has an attack ad, asks for donations, asks members to write a letter to the editor, and encourages their members to contact Democrats to filibuster.
http://www.moveon.org/

NARAL has several links on their web site in opposition to Alito. They also have activist links to "fight" Alito's confirmation. This organization does not just fight to uphold Roe v Wade. They call Conservatives and two well known religious activists the radical right. They have a disgusting parody on their web site that mocks not only the "radical right" as they are portrayed, but "moderates in my soup" as well. This is hardly a mainstream view.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/moderate_soup/

We vote for our representatives in good faith, expecting them to uphold the concerns and views of their constituents. Instead, we see them vote party line, time after time, and not representing their constituents, or listening to their concerns at all.

Too many bills die and languish because of the delay tactics constantly used. There is too much fault finding, finger pointing, and blame games played. These actions are construed by some Senators as part of their business. But, this is not how you conduct business. They are paid big bucks, along with their staff members, and receive many perks, at our expense.

NARAL, MoveOn.org, and other special interest groups are not representative of mainstream American views. They are radical groups as evidenced by the content and words on their web sites. Their group did not vote my Senator into office. They only donated money so he would support their ideas. And he listens to them before he listens to his constituents.

We need more Robert Byrd's who pay attention to the letters his constituents write and who worries about our Constitutional processes.

Condemning the judicial nominee to his face simply because he is of a different political ideology is an aversion to our ethical principles and what this country stands for. Americans should not condone these actions by our Senators.

Maybe it is time We, the people, discuss term limits for our representatives we vote into office. 1-27-06