 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||
Today (if you're into the whole after-midnight thing) is likely the last day of the hearings for Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court. This is an extremely important day to address because of it's historical significance. We have the two-headed monster, Republicans and Democrats, duking it out through the use of sophisticated language and high-class name-calling. It would be extremely interesting to note that in this case, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, has been a champion for folks on the right. This should be considered a stark contrast to the every day Specter, who regularly votes for union rights and has been an advocate for abortion rights. Specter has made public his concerns for Alito's stances on abortion, and this appears to be the cardinal issue concerning the nomination. More or less, Alito is being vetted for his job. Barring a freak incident tomorrow, he will be nominated... only wishful thinking (or decent druggage) suggests otherwise. There are several problems with this process. Alito is widely considered a devout conservative; this makes sense considering he is the nominee of George W. Bush. What needs to be emphasized, though, is his insistence upon the idea that serving as a Judge in some way eliminates an individuals political agenda. Even if you have to change gears from being a lawyer to a judge, the keyword here is "Justice." As in United States Supreme Court Justice. There, a lack of a political agenda is not even remotely possible. Chief Justice John Roberts said during his nomination that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark abortion case was "settled law." Ultimately, this means that Roberts would not in any foreseen manner vote to overturn an American woman's right to privacy. Why is this interesting? Well, because Roberts did not replace Sandra Day O'Connor, as originally intended. He replaced the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who voted with the minority opinion to outlaw abortion. If Roberts is telling the truth, which is iffy, then Alito's nomination does nothing to overturn abortion. Just to prolong the argument. The vote, if this can be true would again be a 5-4 majority to uphold a woman's right to privacy. Alito has not answered many questions, but has been lauded for answering more than John Roberts. I might inject that it wouldn't be very hard to pull that off, because Roberts did nothing more than confirm his own name. There should be more emphasis on the issue of executive power, because frankly that's a more hot-button issue than abortion is. I think Democrats need to come to terms with the notion that the abortion case is beyond their control. Had John Kerry won his bid for the Presidency, he would have nominated a candidate who better fit the liberal mode... likely George Mitchell, the former party leader in the Senate. That would have been in replace of Rehnquist, and O'Connor would not have likely retired under a Democrat. Executive power is much more likely to reach the high court before an abortion case. See, abortion cases have to climb through the web of appeals before they even reach the Supreme Court. The process of certiorari, the high court's grant to hear the case, is no easy task either. Of the several thousands of cases submitted to the court, maybe 70 or 80 are actually decided. It should be noted that while appeals to the court are historically at their highest, the number of cases decided are at their lowest. Under Rehnquist, the idea was that the Supreme Court is the court of last resort and nothing else. That precedents were to remain intact, unless a particularly politically motivated case presented itself. There are good and bad with this logic. Case in point: a disproportionate number of cases are not being decided, but one abortion case did make it through the process. This was the challenge to Roe v. Wade, where O'Connor sided with four Democrats and upheld the 1973 case. She did not cite any political motivation so much as to say that Roe was a precedent and she did not want to overturn a precedent. That's an honorable notion, albeit untrue. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman to serve on the Court... would she really want to overstep her historical value and reduce rights of women? At this point it would be extremely important to remember that many Republican-appointed nominees have turned coats once they reached the court, though a Democratic appointee has not historically done that. Generally accepted to be the most "liberal" of all present justices, John Paul Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford. The George H. W. Bush appointment, David Souter was anticipated as a conservative activist, but has held a very moderate to liberal voting record. Eisenhower nominees William Brennan and Earl Warren were both implicated to be conservatives, though neither one was. Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, who followed a similar pattern. It should further be noted that there is not really a "liberal" justice today, so to speak. Certainly the court has drifted between the extremely ideological conservatism of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and those who have voted to limit that ideology. Another interesting note is that we historically understand the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore to have been decided on strict party lines, 5-4 for a Republican majority. Conventional wisdom is wrong, as there were 7 Republican justices on the court. This means that two Republicans (yes, Republicans) voted in favor of a Gore recount in Florida. John Paul Stevens and David Souter are both Republicans, that is no mistake. Hypothetically, Sandra O'Connor will have been historically responsible for the outlaw of abortion if Roe is ultimately overturned. Had she sided with the minority opinion in Bush v. Gore, the recounts would have persisted and Al Gore would have likely become President, which would in turn have affected the next election as well, etc. etc. Anyway, the bottom line is that abortion rights are in jeopardy, but probably not to the tune of a full forfeiture. Samuel Alito Jr. will be confirmed to the high court, signaling a longtime power surge for Republicans. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito would all be considered young as far as these justices go. And John Paul Stevens isn't getting any younger, let's face it. God bless him. Post a comment in response: |
| © 2002-2008. Blurty Journal. All rights reserved. |