In two days of questions and answers, the detractors of Judge Alito have failed, in my humble opinion, to cast any shadow on the nominee's ability to act in any other way than with independence and impartiality.
In light of their inability to disqualify this judge based on some practical and objective standard, they have resorted to their time tested practice of attacking character and ethics. Apparently the lessons from the Thomas confirmation went unlearned as some members of the committee almost went so far as to call Judge Alito a Racist and a Bigot. Yet a couple of others have all but accused him of being hostile to racial inequity, gender and disability discrimination.
At issue is the Judges membership in the Concerned Alumnus of Princeton or C.A.P. It seems to me to be an attempt to cast doubt on his ability to be fair and impartial in cases in which racial and gender minority's are before him as a judge. Such a great deal has been made of this C.A.P. issue that one can't help but wonder where it is the Democrats on congress are trying to go with this. Every individual involved with this group have held that Judge Alito was not involved in any substantive manner be it fund raising, donations, and/or authorship of documents.
So why is this important? It goes to the continuing processes taken by democratic operatives and their counterparts in the special interest groups to attack a nominee's character. We saw a great deal of it during the last two presidential elections and we continue to see it within the confines of the Senates confirmation hearings. Now some of you reading this may attempt to claim that the right has engaged in the same behavior. However, I would challenge anyone to proved evidence where unsupported and unfounded allegations have been made about the ethics or character of a nominee from a democratic president. Two justices were nominated by former President Clinton. Both were overwhelmingly confirmed by over 90% of the US Senate. No one that I can remember attempted to attack the integrity or character of Clinton's nominee's.
Associate Justice Ruth Ginsberg was a known liberal activist. A former head of the ACLU and the other of contentious documents advocating the federal funding of Abortions in some cases. This view was obviously antithetical to the beliefs of the republicans not only on the committee but to those in the Senate as well. Although the Republican members of the committee questioned Justice Ginsberg extensively and perhaps somewhat hostilely with regard to her stance on abortion and judicial activism, they did not attempt to sully her character or intimate in any way that she had acted in unethical manner. In fact, the Republican senators took her at her word and finally voted 96 to 4 to confirm her to the nations highest court.
Taking a look at the last 4 (or is it 5 lol) Republican nominations, it is obvious that Democrat senators do not ascribe to the same process. For example, Judge Robert Bork, who by many legal minds is arguably one of the sharpest legal minds ever to be nominated. Yet he was attacked as if by a bunch of rabid Pit Bulls. Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas hearings were even more contentious. I don't think, in my limited experience, that I have ever seen a more vicious attempt at character assassination. Justice Thomas's record as a jurist and as the head of the EEOC was of such sterling quality that the liberal special interest groups knew they would be unable to disqualify him on the merits of his record.
Accordingly, these same groups were able to initiate a malicious attack on the Thomas's character and integrity. Using a former EEOC colleague, Justice Thomas was blatantly accused of sexual harassment. Those who knew the judge best were so stunned by the accusation that there was a considerable lag in their ability to organize in his defense. History and the passage of time have more than born out the Justices claims of innocence and he was eventually confirmed to the court.
The practices used then have never been more evident in the modern era than the Democrats and their special interest group cronies to attack Judge Alito's character and integrity. Unable to find fault with an unassailable record as a jurist, several Democrat Senators on the committee have latched on to this conservative group in a last ditch effort to give the appearance that Judge Alito has ideas which would be unpalatable to the American public. This tactic is likely to fail with Judge Alito. And although they won't recognize it, those pressing these accusations are likely to end up with egg on their faces.
Technorati Tags : Samuel, Alito, Ruth, Ginsberg, Clarence, Thomas, Robert, Bork, Anita, Hill
Powered By Qumana
No comments:
Post a Comment