Alito

Well thus far I have refrained from any type of comment about the presidents recent nomination of Sam Alito to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court. With Senate hearings kicking off today, it seems a good time to finally weigh in.

First and foremost, the ABA awarded Alito its highest ranking. While the ABA's opinion really isn't all that important, it will be interesting to remember this as the story unfolds (specifically if a strong partisan split develops.)

Ok, on to his record. Republicans will shame me for thinking this, but I am pretty indifferent towards abortion. I know, I know, its a big deal issue, but I just don't feel like I have a strong opinion one way or the other.

On one hand, I do believe it is life, which would make terminating it murder. On the other hand, I understand that legitimate reasons for termination exist. Would I want somebody close to me to have an abortion: No. Do I think they should have the right to: I don't know. With all of the other (important) things issues on the table (like the other implications of the "right to privacy") I feel like anybody who is making their judgment based only on abortion is a fool. Look at the big picture. There are other issues like security and privacy that will require a far more difficult balancing act and have the possibility to affect our lives far more.

Essentially, I think Alito has the possibility to be a good justice in the sense that he has the respect of the legal community as a scholar\jurist. If not electing the knock against him will be his view, and I am not yet certain I am comfortable letting the US Senate decide what views should and should not be represented on the Supreme Court.

I am happy with Alito as a candidate, what worries\interests me is the process. I sincerely hope that the senate does not fall back into the trap of taking "advise and consent" to mean "we get to decide if we like the way the man thinks or not." The senates job is to determine qualifications, Alito clearly has them. If they have issues with his views, they need to find a better outlet to voice them than a "No" vote in the Senate.

I am not going to lie, I think the Senate is the least responsible of the national governing bodies (I couldn't think of a better term that ment three branches and two legislatures). The court doesn't strike down laws on the grounds of being "bad public policy." They have never even struck down a law for being "an example of pure pork-barrel legislation," even when the law\act of congress boarders on bribery of certain areas to support policy. Why? Because they can't and they know they can't and they respect the institutions of government too much to do so, yet the Senate constantly feels as if it can strike down a judge for no reason other than not liking his judicial philosophy. Essentially we let the group with the least respect for the purpose of our institutions (and in turn the largest feeling that their power is what is important) decide who gets a spot on the institution that has done the best job of showing restraint and not overextending its power.

I have lots of faith in the judicial branch. I have some faith in the executive branch. I have minimal faith in the legislative branch, especially the Senate.

So to get back to the original question, I am pretty neutral about Alito in terms of liking or disliking his judicial philosophy. I certainly feel that he needs to be confirmed. I am generally disgusted with the process of confirming justices.