So how do I dislike the Alito hearings? Let me count the ways.
1. Ted Kennedy Any claim that I need to take Ted Kennedy seriously is an offense. The fact that Massachusetts returns the broken down old drunk to the senate every six years is the best indication that the power of incubency is too strong in American politics. Ted, the man's name is A-li-to, not Al-i-o-to. And for the record , it was Arlen Spector demonstrated who the real the 'lion in winter' is.
2. The Hypocrisy I'll just pick one big example so as not to bore you. The Senate Democrats tell me I need to worry that an organization Judge Alito was a member of 40 years ago, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, was racist and sexist. OK, but how about Robert Byrd? He was not only a member of the Klu Klux Klan, which pretty much set the standard for racist organizations, he was a leader in it. And he still calls people "nigger". And none of those Democratic senators has the slightest problem with Senator Byrd.
3. The Confirmation Process Confirmation hearings mix grotesque grandstanding with mud throwing by one set of partisans and mud removal by the other set of partisans in equal proportions, which leaves no time for an actual exchange of information with the confirmee. But when senators, who control the confirmation process, complain about the process like it's something they have no control over, excuse me if I wretch and wretch again.
4. The Intellectual Dishonesty A significant segment of the left is always going on about how the Constitution is a living document that adapts to the needs of the present. How does it adapt? Well, nine people in Washington, AKA the Supreme Court, get to decide. And by golly if they say that the constitution has spoken to them in a new way, or that the American people have changed, well then, the Constitutionality of an issue has changed. So what's up with this sudden devotion to stare decisis? How can a living document breath if it is put in the straitjacket of stare decisis? But what's worse, it's clear that approval/disapproval for someone holding such a position has nothing to do with traditional measures like judicial temperament, philosophy, or ability, but has everything to do with the person's politics. Because what's clear is you expect, even demand, that Supreme Court justices follow their own feelings and preferences, because that's what this whole living document hooha is about. So the whole point of a confirmation hearing isn't about finding out if a nominee is fit, but flinging so much dirt at a nominee of the other party that enough sticks to derail the confirmation. That and time on TV.
