[Mb-civic] Senate's swirling winds - Joan Vennochi - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  Senate's swirling winds

By Joan Vennochi  |  January 12, 2006  |  The Boston Globe

IN THE BEGINNING, ineffective windiness whipped around Supreme Court 
nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.

On Wednesday, Democrats tried upgrading to Katrina-force gusts.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts led the charge, pressing 
Alito about his decision to list membership in a conservative college 
group on a 1985 job application. The group, Concerned Alumni of 
Princeton University, resisted the admission of women and minorities. 
Alito repeated his earlier explanation: that he cannot recall joining or 
why he did.

The exchange led to a shouting match between Kennedy and Republican 
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Alito looked uncertain. After a 
break, another Democrat, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, made him look 
disingenuous. Biden provided the explanation that makes the most sense 
-- Alito was trying to buff up conservative credentials for a job in the 
Reagan administration.

For the first time, Democrats ruffled the nominee. Until then, the 
senatorial huffing and puffing caused only collateral damage.

Attention wanders from the plethora of dark suits and white shirts 
convened like grim, barking penguins to other matters; the loyal wife 
forced to listen to her spouse dissect the Commerce Clause; the impact 
of a New Jersey accent; and most notably, the whipping taken by 
Princeton. Miscellaneous phrases and buzzwords also dominate: ''unitary 
executive," a theory prescribing increased strength to the White House; 
or ''Vanguard," referring to a case that Judge Alito heard about the 
mutual fund firm, despite a pledge that he would recuse himself from any 
case involving an institution in which he had financial dealings.

Alito entered the hearing process with the burden of following John 
Roberts. The previous nominee dazzled the Senate Judiciary Committee 
during his successful quest to become chief justice. Alito is not as 
crisp or intimidating. And for the most part, his average-guy demeanor 
helps him. Alito sounds conversational and knowledgeable as he discusses 
cases he ruled upon. He also appears human, from the occasional quaver 
in his Garden State-accented voice to the balding circle of scalp 
visible when the camera shoots from behind.

His interrogators often sound arrogant and sanctimonious. That doesn't 
mean questions from Democrats about abortion or the limits on executive 
power are meritless. But, particularly on Tuesday, they were posed so 
poorly and loquaciously that Alito won, or at least, never lost a round.

There are other, tangential losers, such as Princeton -- and not only on 
the matter involving the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University. Alito 
disparaged the university he attended in the late 1960s and early 1970s, 
telling senators: ''I saw some very smart people and very privileged 
people behaving irresponsibly, and I couldn't help making a contrast 
between some of the worst of what I saw on campus and the good sense and 
the decency of the people back in my own community."

And what about the requisite adoring wife, peeking over her husband's 
shoulder as he stands at the brink of the biggest job of his life? Why 
is that old-fashioned picture of spousal devotion considered such an 
important element of the nominee's presentation? The risk of 
wife-as-prop was demonstrated yesterday. Mrs. Alito broke down in tears 
and left the hearing when the going got rough. It tells nothing about 
Alito's judicial philosophy.

As for senators, predictable partisan politicking dominates. Must it be 
so lacking in creativity and humor? This should be the Republicans' 
shining moment, but they let sickening sycophancy tarnish it. The 
Democrats, with their packaged outrage and long-winded questioning of 
Alito, look like sore losers before they lose.

Pageantry has its value, but pomposity is a turn-off. Why not eliminate 
the first day of opening statements from senators and begin by 
introducing the nominee? Let the candidate have a brief, unmolested 
moment in the sun; then go directly to questioning. The senators should 
be disciplined enough to keep it short and specific. The goal should be 
to elicit longer, more revealing responses from the nominee.

''The courts stand, against any winds that blow, as havens of refuge for 
those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, 
outnumbered or because they are nonconforming victims of prejudice and 
public excitement," proclaimed Senator Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin, 
quoting Justice Hugo Black to Alito at the start of the hearing.

The wind from senators is meaningless if, at the end, we have no better 
idea which winds Alito will stand against as a Supreme Court justice.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/12/senates_swirling_winds/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060112/6297b07b/attachment.htm