I keep hearing about the confirmation hearings for Judge Alito. I'm not paying much attention because I figure (1) he's going to be confirmed, and (2) he can't be any worse than Ruth Ginsberg. I know, I have such high standards for Supreme Court Justices.
My problem with the process is that whoever is nominated is going to say what they think will cause them the least immediate hassle during the confirmation hearings and once on the bench they can and will do whatever they want. And having seen how the august responsibility of having no accountability has turned many a Supreme Court judge into a not so petty tyrant has soured me on the whole process. I'm beginning to think that the best qualification is age - the older the better. Not because of any notion about wisdom coming with age, but just because there is less time for the power to corrupt.
So go ahead, if you have a strong stomach, and read the transcripts and make fun of your least favorite Senator. I've seen less posing for the cameras at a fashion show. To me, it's an acquired taste, like oh, the one for Limberger cheese and through studious indifference I have the good fortune to have not acquired it (or for Limberger either).
I'll stick to my pre-digested info on this matter, like this hilarious yet sad article from Bloomberg about Democrats who simply can't believe that Alito won't endorse the notion that the Constitution confers a right to abortion. I cackle at Dick Durban going "can't you see the emanations, the penumbras, the auras, the effervesences of the Constitution that quite clearly state, well, not state exactly, but slip into the brain of sensitive people and help them understand that personhood is confered by a decision of one's mother right up until, let's be honest, the placenta comes out? Good God man, haven't you drunk the cool aid yet?" The sad part is that an otherwise sane person could read the constitution and conclude that it does indeed confer a right to abortion on demand by mom until birth and includes an exception for her health (whether abortion should be legal is a separate issue).
And let's be clear - Alito is against abortion. While it would be nice for him to ask the good senator if he's ever, you know, actually read the constitution all the way through in one sitting, and then state that of course he's against abortion and thinks Roe was a terrible case of legislating from the bench, it might cause enough senators to confuse insulting a senator with insulting the senate that he wouldn't be confirmed. The only real question is does Alito think that overturning what he thinks is a bad judicial ruling that lies somewhere between a super and a super-duper precedent is inline with his judicial philosophy. In other words, does Judge Alito think that correcting the mistakes of one's predecessors on the bench cause more harm or good? Now if somebody asked that, I'd pay attention.
