November 2, 2005
Politicizing Nomination Spells Future Trouble For Dems
By Maggie
Gallagher
The conventional
wisdom is that President Bush's falling poll numbers spell trouble
for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sam Alito. Fifty-five percent
of Americans now judge the Bush presidency a failure, according
to the latest Gallup poll. At such a time, analysts say, when
he needs to be reaching out to the middle, the president can hardly
afford a knock-down, drag-out over the Supreme Court.
So why are the early
signs on Alito so very promising?
Of course, conservatives
are ecstatic. Judge Alito's nomination represents a dramatic breakthrough
in terms of Supreme Court politics. No longer will some of the
nation's best and brightest legal minds be told that their contributions
as judge and scholar disqualify them from serving on the Supreme
Court.
In nominating Judge
Alito, President Bush took pains to note that with 15 years on
the federal bench (and some 200 written opinions), he has more
judicial experience than any other nominee to the Supreme Court
in recent memory.
But even
the prestige liberal press has been remarkably respectful. The
New York Times profile was filled with accolades: Charles
Cooper, who recruited Sam Alito to be a deputy assistant attorney
general, said: "The power of his intellect is the most striking
thing about him. I'd imagine there are about six lawyers in the
country who are John Roberts' equal, and Sam is one of them."
"Nobody
tagged Sam as a fire-breathing conservative," said Mark Levy,
a Clinton Democrat who worked with Alito in the justice department.
In a major op-ed,
Professor Ann Althouse of the University of Wisconsin called Judge
Alito a man "of stellar credentials" with a record of
respect for the rights of religious minorities. "To oppose
Judge Alito because his record is conservative is to condemn us
to a succession of bland nominees and to deprive future presidents
of the opportunity to choose from the men and women who have dedicated
long years to judicial work," she warned.
Of course, the usual
suspects (Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer) are up to their usual suspect
work. "(Conservatives) are shouting from the mountaintops
for this Alito," as Kennedy explained his opposition. Karen
Michelman, former head of NARAL, attacked Alito for failing in
1991 to strike down a Pennsylvania law that asked wives to notify
their husbands before they have an abortion. (The law contained
an escape clause for situations where the wife feared violence
as a result.) Abortion fanatics such as Michelman seem unaware
that close to three-quarters of Americans support the idea that
the husband has a right to know, even if many also believe the
wife has the right to choose.
The airwaves will
be filled for a while with threats and invectives as some extreme
Democrats seek to prove how "divisive" this nominee
is by mouthing angry, unattractive, and unreasonable accusations.
Meanwhile, more thoughtful
Democrats will take from President Bush's falling poll numbers
renewed support for the principle that Supreme Court nominations
should not be politicized.
Because if things
continue the way they are going now, the prospects that the Democrats
will control the White House, while Republicans hang onto a narrow
Senate majority, are looking pretty good. And when President Hillary
Clinton gets in the White House, she's going to want to be able
to appoint a well-qualified liberal to the Supreme Court.
Procedural rules of
fairness cannot be sustained indefinitely if only one side acknowledges
them. If Democrats succeed in knocking down Alito on purely political
grounds, they can reasonably expect Republican senators will do
the same when it comes to Supreme Court nominees made by the next
Democratic president.
That would be bad
for the court, bad for the country, and, oh yes, bad for the Democrats.
So all rise for the
honorable Justice Sam Alito, anyone?
Copyright
2005 Maggie Gallagher
