Alito – Analyzing the Prime Issues
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, Supreme CourtAlito’s nomination hearings promise to be just as thorough as the nominee himself. I’ve been asking myself and others, why wasn’t this level of fervor shown over Robert’s recent nomination? Well, I believe I’ve finally gotten an answer …
When Judge John G. Roberts Jr. appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September for hearings on his nomination to the Supreme Court, all of the participants were largely improvising. It had been 11 years since the last nomination, and the legal landscape, political climate and very state of the world had changed so radically that the old templates were of little use.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., on the other hand, will have a fresh road map from the Roberts hearings when he sits to face the committee Monday for his own confirmation hearings. The topics to be covered, the nature and tenor of the senators’ questions, and the limits on what Judge Alito will be willing to answer will almost certainly follow the path cut in September.
But there will be distinct differences, too. Judge Roberts replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, meaning that his nomination was a one-for-one, conservative-for-conservative swap. If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whose vote was often the fulcrum on which the Rehnquist court’s decisions turned.
O’Connor fulfilled the role of “maverick,” of sorts on the court, as her votes defied falling into a distinct liberal or conservative category, keeping everyone guessing as to her eventual decision.
To Alito’s credit, although for all the advance hoopla it could be looked upon as a detriment, his record is extensive and consistent.
Read the whole article for a good discussion of these areas of what promises to be extensive Congressional concentration.
As a summary though, the hot issues Alito will be facing an examination on – that will probably rival that of a visit to an overzealous proctologist …
-Abortion rights (I know, you already knew that one!)
-Presidential power
-Congressional authority
So, get your munchie stash stocked and your respective viewing areas of the proceedings filled with all the comforts because it promises to a long and drawn out hearing process.
Hmmm … might be a good chance to try out that “Filibuster Fillet” recipe!
This entry was posted on Monday, January 9th, 2006 and is filed under In The News, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Google “Alito Memo’s pdf” and you’ll get the the big old fat 17-page abortion memo that Alito wrote in 1985 while at the Solicitor General Office. It is obvious that Alito is hostile to abortion and to the notion of a constitutional right to an abortion. If the litmus test for Senate Democrats to filibuster this nomination is a positive showing of anti-Roe sentiment and legal scholarship, then honesty would dictate a filibuster. Luckily for some, honesty dictates nothing in D.C..
What is interesting about the memo (to me anyway) is how it brings the grisly abortion world into sharp relief. Abortion is more that just a constitutional right (for the time being) in the U.S. — it is business. The galvanized, polarized, explosive issue of abortion is…regulatory in nature.
Regulation effects the market — for the true abortion lover, any regulation that decreases demand for abortion is bad or any regulation that curtails the abortion supply is bad. The term “abortion on demand” refers to a completely unregulated abortion market, because a woman would presumably be able to get an abortion instantly given the resources and information. In such a world, the price for abortions would go down dramatically because of an increased supply of abortionist — barrier to entry in the abortion market would be nothing.
This is the world that pro-choice zealots wish to inhabit — one where the slightest regulation which effects the demand of abortions is stopped, in favor of abortion.
I have no respect for the Roe decision and watching its constitutional “erosion” will be a lesson in the genius of the self-correcting democracy. In every sense, the further erosion of Roe will increase the humanity of this country. I say this firmly believing the overturning of Roe will only effect the abortion world at its margins.
And the abortion market should have no margins — no “barely didn’ts”, no “twenty more bucks.” The most vulnerable people are in the margins and the state should have a right to protect their most vulnerable citizens from the abortion business to some extent.
If you read the ‘85 memo, you’ll see Alito poses the question: If it is truly a “choice” as the Supreme Court has said, then how could it be unconstitutional to provide non-inflammatory, factual information for INFORMED consent. Doesn’t a “choice” necessitate having the information upon which to “chose”.
It should be interesting to see how it plays out.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:51 am
I’m thinking that the Gang of 14 secret herbs and spices will spoil that fillet.
This could be quite a catfight, but only if the senators on the Judiciary Committee prove to be more coherent than they were with Roberts. I’m not holding my breath.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:26 am
DosPeros,
Very interesting point about the business elements of abortion – that’s an aspect which hasn’t received the attention it deserves, yet it is quite relevant to the debates being engaged.
Informed consent should be a part of the equation and right now that equation does appear to be out of balance.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:37 am
BrianofAtlanta,
True … although, I don’t know if even the Gang of 14’s magical spell can dispel the entrenchment that was strongly implied during the opening session.
It would appear as if the committee is more determined to making a stand with this nominee.