Roe vs. Wade vs. Alito
Written by JB Williams
Watching the Alito
confirmation hearings is much like watching an old Matlock rerun, except with
Barney Fife doing the questioning… If it weren’t so infuriating, it
would be about as interesting as watching paint dry.
Apparently, I need to
point out a few things to my friends across the aisle, not the least of which
is the fact that a seat on the Supreme Court is NOT an elected position, but rather a presidential appointed
position based upon the judicial qualifications of the candidate, not their
personal ideologies. To the degree that legal
ideologies, interpretations of written
laws and constitutional rights are important, they are to align with the president
who is appointing the nominee, just as Ginsberg’s aligned with Clinton’s.
Just as the election of a
president represents the will of the people
by majority, his appointments represent the same to the degree that his
appointments align with the ideas that got him elected and in this instance,
they appear to align perfectly with those who elected Bush.
My friends on the left
were well aware of this back when Ginsberg was being confirmed, but seem to
have forgotten that since. Ginsberg was confirmed 97-3 even though far more
than three senators were ideologically at odds with her very well known liberal
leanings, evidenced by her ACLU connections. Republicans respected the right of
the elected president to appoint his own, but democrats clearly respect nothing
outside of their own political agenda, including the rule of law or the
When it comes to judicial
qualifications, few in America
are more supremely qualified than Judge Alito, who the Senate has twice before
unanimously confirmed to the bench. The only people in this confirmation
process who doubt that at all are the 22 left-wing senators who have no doubts
about his stellar judicial qualifications, but only his personal ideologies
concerning issues of supreme political interest to them. Their questions
revolve largely around two such issues and their advice and consent is limited to their ideological bias, not
the nominee’s judicial qualifications.
Let’s talk about
those two all important issues driving the glaringly obvious political bias
very visible in the Alito hearings.
Power: Democrats are desperate to create a public perception
of a culture of corruption and a
runaway imperialistic presidential tyrant. Not because it’s true, but
because without doing so, they have literally NO chance of regaining any
political power in the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections. Without regaining at
least some power in November, their party draws ever closer to the brink of
extinction. None of this is any secret…even to liberals.
So they pound away Barney
Fife style, asking over and over and over again, in an effort to trip Alito up,
hoping he will imply that the president has some nonsensical supreme
dictatorial power that we all know he doesn’t have. If they can gleam
some fraction of a statement that can be twisted into such a notion, they can
potentially derail Alito’s appointment by painting him a founding member
of the imaginary culture of corruption.
In the meanwhile, they
can use the hearings to pound their Imperial
President notion into the American psyche by repeating it over and
over as if there is some evidence of such somewhere. Remember; if you tell the
lie often enough, people eventually forget that it was never true. What better
place to do it than before a national audience… That explains why the
talk-time favors democrat senators 20-1 over Alito. We are learning more about
the senators than the candidate.
Wade: If you have been watching the hearings and listening to
the preamble in the weeks leading up to the hearings, you know that 22
democrats are NOT going to support the confirmation of ANY nominee who refuses
to state unequivocally that they strongly support the Roe vs. Wade decision.
For these 22 democrats,
the qualifications for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court boils down to one
qualification; support of Roe vs. Wade and the right to continue terminating
the life of over a million innocent unborn children a year - the use of abortion
as an unrestrained form of after-the-act, birth control.
Contrary to popular
rhetoric, the majority of Americans do not support such a notion and anyone
able to read at or above a second grade level, knows that our constitution has
no such language. So liberals frame the discussion not around the missing
language concerning abortion, but rather around a right to privacy.
Of course nearly every
American, certainly every conservative, believes in a true right of privacy,
self-determination, absolute personal liberty and self-governance, including
Alito. But no honest thinking American believes that any of these rights
include the right to take the innocent life of another, even if it is your own
child. Those are the cross-hairs Judge Alito finds himself in today…
If Alito in any way
indicates that he does not fully support the Roe vs. Wade precedent, they will
accuse him of instead, not supporting a right
of privacy. On this basis, they will once again seek to paint him a
card carrying member of the alleged Bush Imperial Dictatorship and thereby, attempt
to derail his confirmation.
But does our very real
“right of privacy” really include a very deadly right to take the
innocent unborn life of another, for mere convenience sake? We know of at least
22 Democrat senators who believe that it does. We also know that there is
nothing Alito can say that will gain the support of even 1 of these 22
senators. So who is driven by political ideology here; Alito or the 22
senators? Alito has stated that he will approach ever case with an open mind,
which is obviously more than we can say for the 22 senators.
Can 22 senators block the
otherwise all but certain confirmation of a very qualified candidate? Even if
they could, should they? Would they be representing the will of the people if they did? All interesting
questions and I bet the answers are as ideologically biased as the 22 senators
But here’s the BIG
question… Is our system of justice based upon political ideologies?
Should cases be decided on the basis of political interests? If you believe
they should, then you had better imagine finding yourself in court someday,
facing a judge of different political persuasion, who has the power to decide
your fate solely on the basis of your political affiliations.
Otherwise, you might
reconsider that notion and realize that justice is supposed to be blind to
political ideology, race, creed, color and anything else outside of the proper
equal application of written laws and constitutional rights.
When these circus-stunt
hearings are over, I suspect that Alito will be confirmed by more than a
partisan majority, if allowed an up or down vote. He will have earned the
position by just avoiding the overwhelming urge to throw his chair at the
Barney Fife’s grandstanding for their constituents. That alone will show
great personal restraint…
However, the confirmation
process itself may be forever changed from that focused on actual judicial
qualifications alone to that more interested in political ideologies.
Elected offices and those
who seek them are supposed to be partisan and they sure meet that requirement
today. But the courts are supposed to be blind to such. If it isn’t blind
to political partisanship, then it can not truly uphold or defend the written Constitution
and laws of this nation and it will not protect the equal rights of individuals
regardless of their individual belief systems.
facts…. Read them and weep!