The following editorial appeared in today's Denver Post. A response follows:
No reason to block Senate's Alito vote
We agree with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said, "This is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."
Judge Samuel Alito managed to navigate his way through last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings without upsetting supporters' high hopes or relieving opponents' high anxiety.
Though his testimony to the committee was never too revealing, Alito demonstrated his qualifications for the high court, and he's likely to be confirmed. We wish we could be enthusiastic, but Alito's record is troubling in such areas as reproductive rights, privacy and executive power. If he rises to the Supreme Court, we hope Alito will follow the letter of the law and not the call of ideology or the urging of special interests. Associates who have worked with Alito over the years offer welcome assurances that he can be an impartial figure and not a clone of Clarence Thomas on the far right side of the bench.
We tend to agree with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said on Sunday, "This is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." Like Feinstein, we don't believe the arguments against Alito merit a filibuster.
Alito needs a simple majority to win confirmation unless opponents try to extend debate indefinitely; then 60 senators must agree to a vote. Republicans have 55 senators, and many are willing to ban judiciary filibusters if that's what it takes.
In the end, Republicans will probably support Alito en masse and most Democratic senators will vote no, reflecting both parties' expectation of his future role. Much attention is being paid to the "Gang of 14," the coalition (including Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar) that vowed to avoid filibusters except under extraordinary circumstances. This isn't one of them; Alito has served capably on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years, and his confirmation should rise or fall on a majority vote.
We hope Alito will moderate his views if voted to the court of last resort. His statements about Roe vs. Wade suggest he opposes abortion-rights, which we favor, while his support for the "unitary executive" theory, which exaggerates the powers of the president, is chilling given the current debate on domestic surveillance and the balance of powers among the branches of government. Some of Alito's dissents on the 3rd Circuit inspire disbelief, such as his defense of a police officer who strip-searched a 10-year-old girl whose father was wanted on drug charges.
We urged President Bush to choose a centrist to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but once his first choice, Harriet Miers, was blocked, it was inevitable that he would seek out a nominee with proven conservative credentials. That's Alito, to be sure. Wherever he serves, we hope Alito exercises his approach to the law in a way that affords Americans all the protections due under law and the Constitution.
RESPONSE:
To the Editor:
Your January 17 editorial, “No reason to block Senate’s Alito vote,” lays out several good reasons to block the Alito vote. Among them:
Judge Alito’s record places him far to the right of Justice O’Connor and the American political mainstream.
He dismisses or forgets the right wing agendas he used to brag about, as if being honest about who you are and what you stand for doesn’t matter.
And while President Bush considers the “war on terror” an open-ended justification for flouting laws he finds inconvenient, we have Judge Alito on record saying “the president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power – the whole thing.” *
Senator Feinstein’s remark, that there is no reason Alito should not be on the court, though she “might disagree with him (might?),” would be admirable were the stakes not so high. But they are. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and their decisions significantly impact our lives.
Were conservatives as compromising as Senator Feinstein on issues that matter, they would never have gained control of Congress, the White House, much of the judiciary, the mainstream media, and – sadly – the political debate in this country.
It’s not too late to call Senator Salazar and just say: “block Alito!”
John F. Krotchko
820 Clarkson Street
Denver, CO 80218
541-968-2994
jkjfk@earthlink.net
* In his November 2000 speech to The Federalist Society as quoted in The Wall Street Journal, “Judge Alito’s View of the Presidency: Expansive Powers” by Jess Bravin. January 5, 2006, p 1 (italics mine).
Image of Three Flags by Jasper Johns (1958) found at ARTWALLPAPERS.
Hey John, I agree with all your objections to Alito as our next Supreme Court Justice, but I fear it's going to happen despite our best efforts to point out his shortcomings. And, although I think his far-right opinions on everything from a woman's right to choose whether to bear a child to the president's absolute authority bode trouble for our country, at least he sounds intelligent, well-grounded in the law, and experienced in many of the issues he's likely to face on the Supreme Court. We can only hope that he also possesses integrity and a personal desire to do the right thing that may modify his decisions in accordance with the constitution and legal history of this country once he's out from under the influence of having to please his political masters. On another topic, I'm really impressed with your website. Very cool. I was wondering how you came up with the name treelights.
Posted by: Kathleen H. Jones | January 19, 2006 at 12:16 PM