Sen. Edward Kennedy has an op-ed piece in today's WaPo, lamenting the hidden agenda of Roberts and Alito.
But the careful, bipartisan process of years past -- like so many checks and balances rooted in our Constitution -- has been badly broken by the current Bush administration. The result has been the confirmation of two justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., whose voting record on the court reflects not the neutral, modest judicial philosophy they promised the Judiciary Committee, but an activist's embrace of the administration's political and ideological agenda.
Now that the votes are in from their first term, we can see plainly the agenda that Roberts and Alito sought to conceal from the committee. Our new justices consistently voted to erode civil liberties, decrease the rights of minorities and limit environmental protections. At the same time, they voted to expand the power of the president, reduce restrictions on abusive police tactics and approve federal intrusion into issues traditionally governed by state law.
Problem is, the people told their senators these justices had an agenda, that wasn't so hidden, based on their judicial records and WH writings/support, and the WH's refusal to release specific documents.
After confirmation, we saw an entirely different Roberts and Alito -- both partisans ready and willing to tilt the court away from the mainstream. They voted together in 91 percent of all cases and 88 percent of non-unanimous cases -- more than any other two justices.
I can't help but wonder what the hell did you expect? The writing on the wall was clear, all you had to do was look. And to lament the sham is childish.
Perhaps the biggest winner is the president himself. During Alito's hearing, I asked him about a 1985 job application in which he stated that he believed "very strongly in the supremacy of the elected branches of government." He backpedaled, claiming: "I certainly didn't mean that literally at the time, and I wouldn't say that today."
But he is willing to say it now. In the very recent case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , Alito signed on to a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas that asserts a judicial "duty to accept the Executive's judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs" as grounds for allowing the administration to use military commissions of its own design to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Do something about it. You're (speaking to Kennedy) on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pressure the repugnuts into treating the confirmation process in the manner it should be treated. Hold up their rubber-stamping as an affront to the process. Pressure the committee to pressure the WH to uphold their responsibility in providing the papers requested. You can't depend on the Dems taking control of the Senate, even though it's likely to happen this November. There will come a day when you once again lose control.
While I understand that Kennedy is trying to make a point that the process has deteriorated by such propotions that a nominee doesn't feel the need to discuss their judicial philosophy, this being convoluted by the ruling elite (GOP), the op-ed piece comes off as a cry-fest, to me, and wingnuts are taking it that way.
So, here is the point that I believe Kennedy is trying to make, that should be heeded by ALL, and is being missed.
What is at stake is the process, and that process should be equal and just no matter which party is in control. The process of confirmation should not be convoluted to allow justices to pass into life-time positions without an unhindered investigation into the legal views (or legal philosophy, if you like) of the person nominated. That a nominee speaking honestly to the judiciary committee on their judicial philosophy is neccessary to make a fully informed decision.
Comments