Dems Sinking to New Low
In the Alito confirmation hearings, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have forsaken facts and truth in the name of political victory.
by Tim Chapman
Townhall.com
Jan 12, 2006
This week in the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee demonstrated a blatant disregard for facts and a proclivity toward political hyperbole of the worst kind. Non-partisan observers could only come to one conclusion: Democrats live in their very own make-believe political la-la land in which reverence for facts and truth are nonexistent.
Leading up to this week’s hearings there was a very bad omen. When Democrats submitted their witness list to the Senate Judiciary Committee one of those listed was a man named Stephen Dujack. Dujack was famous for among other things, comparing the slaughter of animals for food to the Holocaust. Before week’s end bloggers had pointed out the insanity of calling such a witness and the Democrats quietly withdrew his name.
As the hearings began on Monday, Democrats decided to try other avenues. But as the proceedings wore on, it became clear that most of the Democratic lines of attack were illegitimate, empty fabrications.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly tried to bait Judge Alito into saying Roe vs. Wade was “settled law” (by which the New York Senator means legally unassailable). Alito would not say as much and Schumer immediately pounced, charging that Alito had been unforthcoming and pointing out that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been far more forthcoming in her hearings.
The problem with that statement, aside from the fact that Alito had already been candid about his judicial thought process on the issue, is that it is not true. In her confirmation hearings Justice Ginsburg, like Alito, refused to satisfy such lines of questioning. At her hearings, Ginsburg said, “It would not be appropriate for me to go beyond the court’s recent reaffirmation that abortion is a woman’s right.”
Additionally, according to the RNC research department, Judge Alito had answered 431 questions put to him by the committee as of midday Wednesday and there is still more to come. Justice Ginsburg in her entire hearing answered 307 questions.
Next, consider Democratic attacks against Judge Alito on the Vanguard mutual holdings issue.
According to Democrats, Judge Alito acted improperly by not recusing himself, in 2002, from a three-judge panel which ruled in favor of Vanguard. Democrats sought to portray Alito as a corrupt judge who thought himself above the law, but the American Bar Association thought differently. In a letter dated January 9, the ABA contradicted Democrat claims of corruption on the issue and concluded;
“on the basis of our interviews with Judge Alito and with
well over 300 judges, lawyers, and members of the legal
community nationwide, all of whom know Judge Alito
professionally, the Standing Committee concluded that
Judge Alito is an individual of excellent integrity.”
Perhaps the biggest issue (or non-issue) in the hearings has been Judge Alito’s involvement in an organization called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Because some CAP members have written controversial things about race and sex, Democrats, led by liberal icon Ted Kennedy (D-MA) were confident that they could paint Alito as a racist and a sexist.
The fact that Alito’s involvement with the group was minimal at best did not concern Kennedy and company. The fact that Alito became involved with CAP because Princeton kicked the ROTC (Alito was a member of the ROTC and his membership helped him get into Princeton, a privilege he may not have had if it were not for his service in ROTC) off campus in 1970 also was not of issue to the Democrats. No, the only issue for the Democrats was that in some bizarre way, they thought that Alito would and should be held responsible for every utterance from anyone ever associated with the group. These are McCarthyite tactics at their worst.
Fortunately, Alito was calm under fire and handled the vicious innuendo graciously. The fact that the attacks did not stick only further enraged Kennedy. Right before the committee was scheduled to take a break on Wednesday, Kennedy filed a motion to move the committee into executive session for the purpose of taking a vote to subpoena all records related to CAP’s history and Alito’s participation with the group. Kennedy’s gambit fell flat on its face when one of the CAP’s former members, William Rusher, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would gladly hand over any and all documents needed, no subpoena required. Not only would Rusher acquiesce to Kennedy’s demand, but the New York Times had seen the documents as well and had determined that there was zero damaging linkage to Alito.
It was learned later that Kennedy knew that the New York Times had seen the documents but he staged his theatrical request anyway. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA) thinks he knows why Kennedy would do such a thing. “Kennedy wants to get a news cycle out of this,” says Brownback. “He somehow needs to find a way to get this to stick.”
Every corner they turn, Democrats have been rebuffed by facts, logic and truth and yet they persist in attacking a man who is arguably one of the best qualified nominees ever to come before the United States Senate.
It’s enough to make even the truest believers pessimistic.
On Wednesday, two former Alito clerks (1990-1991) who are now married, Jim Goniea and Susan Sullivan were making the rounds in the Senate to tell anyone who would listen the truth about their former boss. Goniea and Sullivan describe themselves as "progressives" who vote Democratic. They both voted for Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in their most recent elections. But their political leanings have nothing to do with the way they view the judiciary.
For Goniea, Alito is
“a judge who does not bring a political ideology to his
decision making. He tries to apply the law.”
That is why the current attacks on Alito are so disturbing to him.
“The most striking thing to me about this process is that
it is no longer a search for the truth it is an effort to
discredit a man whose integrity is virtually unassailable.”
The former clerk continues, “The suggestion that Judge
Alito would in any way be involved with an association
with views like Kennedy has been describing is so offensive
to people who know him. It is a terrible attempt to
misstate the character of this man in front of millions
of people.” Sullivan adds, “The assertion that the judge
would in anyway discriminate against women or minorities
to me is personally offensive.”
When asked what he would assume about the Democrats on the Committee after observing tactics like those on display this week Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) said
“I would assume that some of them on the Committee have
their mind made up before they come into committee.
Neutral observers see a lot of partisanship in this
process and it probably does not surprise them that much.”
Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), perhaps the most avid observer of Senate Judiciary matters in the House of Representatives concurs,
“It has become a debate between those who have some
respect for the truth and those who are not constrained
by it at all.”
Franks says arriving at truth, rather than arriving at a political end should be the goal.
Sadly, given the antics displayed in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, that view is not shared by certain Democrats.
Tim Chapman is the National Political Writer and Senior Congressional Liaison for Townhall.com.
He also hosts Townhall's Capitol Report.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
townhall.com |
