I’m a little surprised to see more than a couple of writers live-blogging the Samuel Alito hearings today, if only because they’re dreadfully dull. Senators who’ve already made up their minds give the speeches everyone expects them to give, while Alito pretends to listen intently as he everyone expects him to do. I love political theatre; this ain’t it.
I’ve been listening this afternoon and have came away with two quick observations. One, Lindsay Graham is trying too hard. He noted, for example, that unless the judicial confirmation process starts getting easier and Samuel Alito is treated nicely, ” we’re going to drive” good people away from the judiciary. Really? By this argument, there are qualified jurists out there who will turn down Supreme Court nominations, saying, “Thanks but no thanks, Mr. (or Madam) President; those senators are brutal. I’d rather not be on the high court if it means a few days of tough questioning.” Call me crazy, but I don’t see this happening.
Graham added that he’s glad Alito worked for Ronald Reagan because “we like Ronald Reagan.” Raise your hand if you still think Graham is a serious, credible person.
The other semi-random observation I wanted to share is the most common word I’ve heard from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee today. Was it “Roe”?” Privacy”? “Qualifications”? No, as near as I can tell, the word they repeated, almost uncontrollably, was “Ginsburg.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they said, was too liberal. She was also too evasive and too balance-shifting. And for goodness sakes, in keeping with the “Ginsburg tradition,” Alito shouldn’t have to answer questions about issues that might come before the court, they said.
I guess it’s time for an intermittent reminder for the Senate GOP about just what the Ginsburg nomination and confirmation process was really like.
First, there’s the context of the selection. Clinton had a Democratic Senate at the time and could have picked anyone he wanted. Clinton, however, asked Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, for some suggested nominees. (It would be like Bush asking Pat Leahy for a suggested nominee now. Try to control your laughter.)
Hatch said Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a solid, confirmable choice. Clinton agreed, Ginsburg was nominated, and she cruised through the process. If Republicans are so livid about Ginsburg’s ideology, they should take it up with Hatch.
As for answering questions about judicial issues, the truth is Ginsburg sidestepped questions about specific cases, but she didn’t hesitate to state her positions on key issues, including abortion. As Ginsburg told the Judiciary Committee at the time:
“[The right to an abortion] is something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It’s a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”
For that matter, it was Hatch himself who praised Ginsburg for being so cooperative in answering questions, telling Ginsburg she had been “very specific in talking about abortion, equal rights, and a number of other issues.”
If Alito is going to be held to a real “Ginsburg standard,” he’ll have quite a few questions to answer. I’m not optimistic, but the least the Republicans could do is stop re-writing history.