2008 Woodie Awards
Politics are Key in Alito Nod
Dan AnixtDan Anixt
Issue date: 11/29/05 Section: Opinions
The difference between now and then is that the Republicans control the Senate, though thankfully not by a filibuster-proof majority. Also, Alito is doing a masterful job of hiding his true colors so as to avoid the Democrats closing ranks to filibuster his nomination. In conversations with Democrats, he stated that he "respects" the precedent of Roe v. Wade, which is fine and dandy, except for the fact that his respecting that particular decision does not mean he would not vote to overturn it once on the Court. I sincerely hope that the Democrats, including those wavering members from so-called "red states" develop some backbone, stop this nomination, and send Bush a message that he should nominate a mainstream conservative onto the Court in the mold of O'Connor.
As for Bush's re-election as a popular mandate for him to nominate Alito, I think his re-election was more a product of people's fears about terrorism and the relative weakness of John Kerry as a candidate than anything else. Most moderate Republicans and independents I know told me that they voted for him for that reason while largely abhorring his social views. Indeed, the electoral mandate for Bush was less than overwhelming and his poll numbers currently do not reflect much popular support. When a majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal, that is the guide Bush should follow in selecting a nominee. Of course, as with all other social issues, Bush feels compelled to kowtow to his most extreme supporters.
It is not wrong to take a nominee's views into consideration when deciding whether to confirm him, regardless of his credentials. After all, President Clinton chose two moderate jurists that would not generate the ire of conservatives even though he had a Democrat majority in the Senate at the time. He could have nominated an eminently qualified liberal such as Laurence Tribe, but concluded (sensibly) that the American people prefer moderates on the bench and thus chose two consensus nominees who were overwhelmingly confirmed.
As for Bush's re-election as a popular mandate for him to nominate Alito, I think his re-election was more a product of people's fears about terrorism and the relative weakness of John Kerry as a candidate than anything else. Most moderate Republicans and independents I know told me that they voted for him for that reason while largely abhorring his social views. Indeed, the electoral mandate for Bush was less than overwhelming and his poll numbers currently do not reflect much popular support. When a majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal, that is the guide Bush should follow in selecting a nominee. Of course, as with all other social issues, Bush feels compelled to kowtow to his most extreme supporters.
It is not wrong to take a nominee's views into consideration when deciding whether to confirm him, regardless of his credentials. After all, President Clinton chose two moderate jurists that would not generate the ire of conservatives even though he had a Democrat majority in the Senate at the time. He could have nominated an eminently qualified liberal such as Laurence Tribe, but concluded (sensibly) that the American people prefer moderates on the bench and thus chose two consensus nominees who were overwhelmingly confirmed.
