The Alito confirmation hearings have come to a close and Congress' relationship with the White House could now be best characterized as a love-hate one. Capitol Hill is now torn between confirming a justice simply because their "boo" likes him, and stalling the process with a lengthy floor fight because he may not be the best man for the job. (The chances of the process ending with all parties appeased is smaller than the chances of "Brokeback Mountain" being selected as the White House movie of the week). Yet the thought of Americans being displeased with their Congress' choice of nominees is a frightening one. After all, Alito's position as the swing vote on the Supreme Court could have more political importance than any other job in Washington. Liberal or conservative, Americans have a right to understand both how nominees will vote and their judicial views on a wide range of issues-rights that currently cannot be exercised under the current confirmation process.
The current confirmation process affords the members of the Senate Judiciary committee the ability to question nominees for the Supreme Court about their past judicial record and any other issue that seems relevant. Such a procedure seems logical and fair. Yet what is perfect in theory is often smeared when it hits the paper, and Senators are very good at smearing. Instead of using their allotted time to really grill the candidate and expose his vices and his virtues, some Senators use their time for transparent attempts at political posturing disguised as praise for their candidate, either denouncing Senators who hold opposing views or advancing their own.
During the confirmation hearings Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter became embroiled in a heated debate over which one of them had a better understanding of what Senator Specter had received in the mail, and although many Senators used charts to further the questioning process, just as many if not more used them to score political points. Although this may be frustrating to many people watching the hearings, Senators depend on political gamesmanship to get elected, and therefore will attempt to score political points whenever they can. Judicial nominees, however, as Alito has proven, are not required to be as rhetorically candid as their politically charged colleagues regarding their positions on key issues. So it is even more troubling when nominees do not clearly articulate their positions.
On many important issues Judge Alito gave vague and unclear answers which did nothing to clear him of the many ambiguities which he brought into the hearings. When questioned by numerous Senators regarding the discriminatory (if not racist) group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), Alito said he could not remember what his role in the organization was. By placing the group on his resume, Alito indicates that it added some value to his standing as an applicant for both admission to law school and for an upper-level job with the U.S. government. If CAP was important enough to help Alito get a job, then it is unlikely that he could suddenly forget the role he played in the organization, or why he placed it on his resume in the first place.
When pressed to answer questions on abortion, Alito was equally vague, stating that he would approach the question with an open mind, regarding Roe v Wade and other key abortion decisions with the principle of stare decisis in the forefront of his reasoning. Yet this statement means absolutely nothing except that Judge Alito may rule either to uphold or to overturn legal precedent.
Conservative or liberal, Americans have a right to know how a major judicial nominee feels about a woman's right to choose, minority rights, or presidential power-just to name a few of the issues currently inciting debate around the country and in the government. Alito's opinion that it was inappropriate for him to project how he might rule because of the influence his opinions could have over potential litigation does not hold water; he directly expressed his opinion on the issue of "one man, one vote," which currently pervades four cases in the court system according to Senator Diane Feinstein.
The political battles being waged over the confirmation of Judge Alito are as frivolous as they are naïve. Politicians should not be focusing on individual nominees such as Samuel Alito anymore, but rather on the very system which allows him to become a Supreme Court justice. Few other professions hire applicants who conceal their opinions or their intentions regarding the most important issues in their fields. Communication is the key to nearly every successful relationship and Congress, the White House and the American people need more of it.
Dykens can be contacted at
adykens08@amherst.edu