|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
 The
Myth of the “Open Mind”
. . . And the Sad State of Supreme Court Hearings
[Carol
Platt Liebau] 1/9/06
As
hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
begin,
is there anyone in America who really believes that every U.S.
senator is going to examine the nominee’s record with
an open mind?
Yesterday,
on “Fox News Sunday,” Dianne Feinstein opined that “everything
depends” on the upcoming Judiciary Committee hearings.
Given that Feinstein voted against John Roberts even after
his spectacular performance before the Committee, it seems
unlikely indeed that there’s anything Judge Alito could
say or do in order to obtain a different result. Conveniently,
Senator Feinstein declined to indicate how Judge Alito could,
in fact, secure her support – it’s much easier
to hold him to a shifting standard, it seems.
Contributor
Carol Platt Liebau - Senior
Columnist
Carol
Platt Liebau is editorial director and a senior
member of tOR and CRO editorial
boards. She is an attorney, political analyst
and commentator based in San Marino, CA, and
has appeared on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC,
CNN, Orange County News Channel, Cox Cable and
a variety of radio programs throughout the United
States. A graduate of Princeton University and
Harvard Law School, Carol Platt Liebau also served
as the first female managing editor of the Harvard
Law Review. Her web log can be found at CarolLiebau.blogspot.com [go
to Liebau index]
|
Charles Schumer
signaled even more clearly that his decision is made – before even a word has issued from Judge Alito’s
mouth. Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” he conceded
that Alito has been rated “well-qualified” by the
American Bar Association (“the gold standard” for
evaluating judges, as Schumer once characterized it). And he
admitted that Alito possesses “judicial temperament” (although
he seemed to confuse the term with academic prowess) and competence.
But, as far as Schumer is concerned, “judicial philosophy” is “the
most important qualification for a judge,” and Alito “has
said some very, very, very extreme things throughout his career,
both when he worked for Ronald Reagan and as a judge.” Doesn’t
sound like the comments of a senator who wants to hear from the
nominee before making up his mind, does it?
But Feinstein and
Schumer are paragons of restraint compared with Teddy Kennedy,
who on Saturday published a piece in The
Washington Post that, in effect, called the nominee a liar ("’Credibility’ has
rarely been an issue for Supreme Court nominees, but it is clearly
a major issue for Alito,” Kennedy wrote.) Kennedy (for
whom “credibility” has likewise been a “major
issue” during his long and colorful life) has questions
for Judge Alito, but chooses to pose them in the most unflattering
light in a major newspaper, rather than waiting to ask them until
Alito has a fair opportunity to answer. Yes, that’s open-minded
fairness at its very best.
Certainly, no one
is being fooled here. It’s clear that
most Democrats, in thrall to the left-wing special interest groups
that fund and promote them, simply cannot afford to alienate
the groups by giving Judge Alito a full and fair hearing and
then, perhaps, even voting for him. So instead, we’re treated
not to a hearing, where issues and concerns will be thoroughly
but impartially aired, but instead to a stylized kabuki ritual,
where Judge Alito’s adversaries will attempt to draw blood – but,
in any case, are resolved to put up enough of a fight to satisfy
their special interest masters.
They’ll be able to succeed at that last modest aim, at
least – it’s easy to smear, distort and accuse. Barring
some as-yet-unforeseen problem, Alito, too, is likely to succeed,
winning confirmation to the Supreme Court. The only real losers,
in the end, are the American people – who get a circus
rather substance – and the dignity and fairness of the
Supreme Court judicial confirmation process itself. One is tempted
to wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of “open-minded” senators
like Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy. -one-
Columnist
Carol Platt Liebau is a political analyst, commentator and tOR / CRO editorial
director based in San Marino, CA. Ms. Liebau also served
as the first female managing editor of the Harvard Law
Review. Her web log can be found at CarolLiebau.blogspot.com
copyright
2006 Carol Platt Liebau
§
|
|
|
