I do not expect next week’s Senate debate about Samuel Alito’s nomination to the US Supreme Court to be very interesting. Republicans will praise his experience and tout the endorsements from several federal judges (including many who are considered left-of-center) and the American Bar Association. Democrats will criticize him for being conservative, criticize Bush for caving to pressure from the religious right, and note that replacing a relative centrist with someone so far to the right will tip the balance of the court. Republicans will whine that some of them voted for then-nominees Ginsburg and Breyer. Democrats will counter that those nominees were pre-approved by judiciary committee chair Hatch in conversations with Clinton, and Bush certainly didn’t look for a similar level of input from Democrats in the Alito nomination. I doubt any Senators will make this case, but some Republicans somewhere will point out that Bush doesn’t need to seek approval from Democrats, because the Republicans control the Senate.
As far as can see, all of this stuff is simple fact, especially by the standards of public debate. In short: everyone is right about Alito.
Both sides of the abortion debate are right that Roe is much more likely to be overturned under Alito. My personal opinion is that this is not a good thing. That’s one part (only one part) of why I never voted for Bush. The candidates I voted for lost. The Republicans won. Even with the large question marks of the 2000 elections, it’s clear that Republicans held onto control of the Senate in 2002, and even those who question the vote of 2004 have to admit that a majority of voters voted for Bush and the Republicans who won Senate seats. The GOP controls the White House and the Senate. So, why wouldn’t they nominate a conservative?
Somewhere shortly after the 2000 election, Bush stopped calling himself a “uniter, not a divider”. Shortly after the 2004 election, the left stopped joking that Bush was a “uniter” of bring people together against him. The nation is not united, it is divided. In over-simplifed terms, I am on the side of the fence that is not in power right now. But I do not want to be a sore loser. And I hope that Senate Democrats won’t want to be either.
Yes, Senate Dems, make sure that people understand that this is a conservative nominee. Yes, make predictions about how he will vote and describe why you think that it will be bad for our nation. And then, wrap up your presentation, and if you want to, go ahead and vote against him. But don’t act like this is a travesty. This is how the system works. This is democracy in action. We don’t have to like it, and you Senators don’t have to vote for it if you don’t want to. But I don’t see any reason that Alito shouldn’t be confirmed, given his credentials and the support he has in the Senate. And, if he was defeated, the next nominee would be someone similar. If you think this all is against the will of the American people, remind the American people of that next time they are getting ready to visit the polls. And then, maybe, if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy in 2007, Bush will have to get serious input from a Democratic committee chair before he presents a nominee. Or maybe, in 2009, I’ll be referring back to this article when I write about how the Republican minority should limit their complaining about the social liberal nominee before them.
In the mean time, deal.
