Politics are Key in Alito Nod
Dan AnixtDan Anixt
Issue date: 11/29/05 Section: Opinions
Adrienne Gaffney's op-ed "No Real Case Against Alito" presents the rather idealistic view that politics does not or should not play into the Senate confirmation process for the Supreme Court. Specifically, that Alito's views, including his unequivocal stance that abortion is not protected by the Constitution, should not bar him from confirmation. However, such sentiments belie the fact that the Senate does, and should, in my opinion, take the viewpoints of nominees into consideration in the confirmation process. Particularly when a nominee maintains extreme positions on the rights of criminal defendants, civil rights, voting rights, the extent of the Commerce Clause and, yes, abortion.
Contrary to what was stated in Gaffney's piece, the Senate has, relatively recently, rejected a nominee to the Court precisely because of his viewpoint which was extremely conservative. In 1987, President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bork arguably was an even more qualified jurist and respected constitutional scholar than Alito. For example, his book The Antitrust Paradox is still widely considered to be one of the leading works written on antitrust law. Bork also believed and wrote that the First Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights should be narrowly construed.
Needless to say, Bork was and remains an enthusiastic supporter of overturning Roe v. Wade. Like Alito, Bork was being nominated to fill the seat of a retiring moderate justice and, also like Alito, his nomination had the potential to shift the balance of the Court. Bork, unlike Alito, who is now trying to hide his beliefs in hopes of getting confirmed, made no bones about his views (which I kind of respect, even though I thought he would be a disaster if confirmed). His confirmation hearings were among the most contentious seen in Washington. When Bork came up for a vote, the Senate, largely on a party line vote, rejected him. After this defeat, Reagan went back to the drawing board and appointed moderate Anthony Kennedy who, a few years later, would be the deciding vote in upholding the right to abortion.
Contrary to what was stated in Gaffney's piece, the Senate has, relatively recently, rejected a nominee to the Court precisely because of his viewpoint which was extremely conservative. In 1987, President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bork arguably was an even more qualified jurist and respected constitutional scholar than Alito. For example, his book The Antitrust Paradox is still widely considered to be one of the leading works written on antitrust law. Bork also believed and wrote that the First Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights should be narrowly construed.
Needless to say, Bork was and remains an enthusiastic supporter of overturning Roe v. Wade. Like Alito, Bork was being nominated to fill the seat of a retiring moderate justice and, also like Alito, his nomination had the potential to shift the balance of the Court. Bork, unlike Alito, who is now trying to hide his beliefs in hopes of getting confirmed, made no bones about his views (which I kind of respect, even though I thought he would be a disaster if confirmed). His confirmation hearings were among the most contentious seen in Washington. When Bork came up for a vote, the Senate, largely on a party line vote, rejected him. After this defeat, Reagan went back to the drawing board and appointed moderate Anthony Kennedy who, a few years later, would be the deciding vote in upholding the right to abortion.