Article

2006-01-11 Home Front: Politix

Senate 'show trial' is product of a too-powerful court

There's a great scene in The Simpsons set in the not-too-distant future when Marge says to Homer, "You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice."

Something similar could be said of the spectacle of these Supreme Court confirmation hearings. We have become so accustomed to distortions and outright lies, you'd think it's patriotic to insinuate decent nominees are racists, sexists or liars. "Oh, that's just par for the course" is no longer an observation; it's a rationalization.

Here's just one of the dozens of deceitful low blows aimed at Samuel Alito. In his opening statement Monday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Alito "has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job" among the thousands of cases that came before him. Any reasonable person hearing that would assume Kennedy was calling Alito at minimum "insensitive" or, more likely, a racist. But Kennedy was lying â albeit in a very lawyerly way.

Alito has ruled for the plaintiff in many racial discrimination cases, but he wasn't always the guy on the multi-judge appellate panels who wrote the opinions. In fact, Alito has written many opinions siding with plaintiffs "of color." Even so â as appeals court judges are wont to do â he didn't always write to the "merits" of the plaintiff's claim so much as to the relevant legal issues. So by peeling off selective opinions, Kennedy is left with the slimy insinuation that Alito is biased against minorities. But instead of, "Have you no shame, senator?" we get, "It's par for the course."

Amid all the country club decorum, there's a whiff of a show trial to these proceedings. The aim isn't to illuminate; it's to catch Alito saying something that will sound damning in an endlessly replayed sound bite. Hence the relentless campaign to get nominees to spill their guts on hot-button issues. When Justice John Roberts was in the hot seat, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., declared into every camera in the USA â including the security cams above ATMs â that Roberts' lack of a paper trail required he divulge his views more. Now, Schumer argues that Alito's enormous paper trail obliges him to be even more responsive than Roberts was.

The reason behind all this lies in a greater deceit: the idea that the court is primarily a legal institution at all. That notion is as outrÃ© as leather piano-key neckties. Sure, it still does the wonky stuff, but the court's primary mission has been transformed. Americans have grown comfortable with the idea of judges deciding not merely tough legal questions but the tough moral and political issues as well. Why so many people think a bunch of lawyers are the best qualified professionals to answer profound moral questions is beyond me. Is it really the case that lawyers are better qualified to decide when human life begins or when it should end than are legislators or, for that matter, bus drivers?

In a sense, the no-holds-barred approach is entirely justified because we've invested judges with so much power. And with the stakes so high, politics alone determines who sits on the bench. Having lost at the polls, liberals are desperate to keep the courts on their side. This is why they are touting Sandra Day O'Connor as Babylonian King Hammurabi reincarnated, though her rulings were widely recognized as intellectually incoherent and inconsistent. Who cares about that, so long as you come out "right" on abortion and affirmative action?

Indeed, liberal jurisprudence is driven by results. The judges on the left side of the Supreme Court regularly scan around the globe to find precedents where they can't find them at home. The "living constitution" is just a fancy phrase for "making it up as you go along."

In one area, however, liberals are right (though they will change their position when a liberal is nominated). Alito, like all nominees, should be more forthcoming about his views. If we're going to have judges rule like unelected monarchs, we should at least know what they think before they get on the throne. But in a better system, the bench wouldn't be a throne in the first place.

Posted by .com 2006-01-11 03:07|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Why so many people think a bunch of lawyers are the best qualified professionals to answer profound moral questions is beyond me.

Or me.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-11 09:03|| 2006-01-11 09:03|| Front Page Top

#2 When you understand that an underlying reason that the Dems don't support democracy in Iraq is because they don't support democracy in America, it starts to make sense. During the heady days of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the pushers and makers of the party knew they couldn't get their agendas through the house of the people, so they empowered the judiciary to do their dirty work. That is why they are so disparate to hang on to their last vestage of power in the courts which they have manifested in to the modern aristocracy of America. Above the people, unaccountable, and slavishly obeyed. For all the anger and outrage for many decrees, has one, one judge ever been removed from office for his expansion of power and authority over our lives, our communities, our states? Congress is a coward. You don't need Constitutional admendments, you just toss the cretin and put someone else in who is capable of actually reading the Constitution. There is no balance of powers. This is why the great show plays before us. It demonstates that Congress has failed to do its business, but don't worry, they'll pass regulations on water flow through your bath. They'll declare March 13th "Wear a Green Shirt to Work Day" for the green dye lobby. If Congress isn't going to do its work, maybe we should. Time for these Princes, Barons, and Dukes to be subject to the direct consent of the governed. Move the circus out of the Senate and back to the population where it belongs. Let us vote!

Posted by Speretle Thitle4440 2006-01-11 09:44|| 2006-01-11 09:44|| Front Page Top

#3 My man Ted was actually talking about Judge "Alioto". So he must've meant someone else. Or he was drunk.

Posted by tu3031 2006-01-11 13:45|| 2006-01-11 13:45|| Front Page Top

18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS
14:15 NoMoreBS
14:04 swksvolFF
13:47 Regular joe