Reactions to the Alito Hearings

I’ve mentioned to friends before that I sometimes worry if I’m too partisan. Granted, I am a member of the Republican party, even an officer in a couple of different GOP organizations. But I would never want my partisan loyalties to supersede my loyalty to the nation, or to the truth. So I honestly sometimes ponder if I’m reacting to a particular event just because it involves “my guys” or “the other guys.”

Then again, maybe the fact that I’m still able to ask myself that question indicates that I’m still in the land of the rational. But honestly, I am also reassured by the fact that the party that I presently oppose is the party that has allowed an unrepentant – most of you know to what I refer – Al Sharpton to rise to the status of “presidential contender.” It doesn’t take a partisan Republican to be repulsed by the company that a given party keeps.

And it doesn’t take a partisan of any stripe to see nothing but sheer nastiness in the conduct of certain leading members of a national party in their handling of a constitutional duty/obligation involving people of a different world view.

After the debacle that was the Democrats’ attempt to derail Judge Samuel Alito’s ascension to the Supreme Court, it may be a while before I worry again if I’m being too partisan in how I react to political news in Washington. It was a classic example of what has become the standard operating procedure of the Democrats over the past few years – oppose a Republican nominee on the basis of the record, and if there is nothing in the record to oppose, then just destroy – or try to destroy – the nominee himself.

The fact that Judge Alito survived the hearings – and will most likely be confirmed soon – does not in any way absolve Committee Democrats of their guilt for their shameful behavior toward a man whose qualifications and temperament are beyond question. Their failure to achieve their diabolical objectives doesn’t change the fact of what their objective was, or the fact that they were willing to do anything they were able in order to try to achieve it.

I am about as disgusted with the Democrats as I have ever been. And this from a guy who, as already noted, honestly worries about being too partisan. It just seems right to me to let the reader know this up front before offering the following comments on the Alito hearings.

------------------

I suppose nothing can sum up what the minority party has sunk to in this regard better than the reaction of Martha Alito to the constant assault on her husband at the hearings. Many a wife can listen to legitimate criticism of her husband’s performance as a professional and recognize it as legitimate discourse. She may not like it, but generally won’t be reduced to tears by it.

But rest assured, ninety-five times out of a hundred, when a wife has been reduced to tears in a situation like this, it is because she knows her husband is being treated unfairly, and that the jabs are designed to hurt him. There is no noble intent that is too painful to bear, only viciousness recognized for what it is.

And make no mistake about it – the way the democrats treated this good man is the way they would treat any one of us if we were in the same position as Samuel Alito. They are the “rulers” – as opposed to “leaders” – and their position entitles them to crush whomever they will with no need for regret. If someone is hurt by what they do, so what? That person doesn’t live in their gated community anyway.

I see the kind of bullying that Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Charles Schumer engage in at times like this, and have to wonder if the founders envisioned this abusive behavior when they included the “advice and consent” provision on executive nominees. But then, I also wonder if they envisioned an electorate in certain quarters that would actually agree to let them act this way.

Speaking of this bullying, and the hurt it caused, isn’t it cute how Richard Durbin – one of the conspirators in the “destroy Alito’s character” operation – tried to sound sympathetic toward the judge, and his wife? Well, actually, no, it isn’t cute at all. The liberal Senator from Illinois commented that he knows how tough public office can be because of what his own family has gone through when he has faced public criticism.

If memory serves, the last time Mr. Durbin faced public criticism, it was because he compared American servicemen and women to the killing squads of Pol Pot, et al. There is little comparison between justly-deserved criticism over what one says as part of the public record, and simple mischaracterizations and false allegations designed to impugn a man’s character for political gain.

If I had his ear, I would challenge Senator Durbin to point to a single time when someone, in a nationally-televised forum, subjected him to the same kind of humiliating personal attacks to which Sam Alito was subjected – with no basis in anything he had actually said or done. I see Senator Durbin’s comments as a weak attempt at damage control. Like many others, he may recognize how much damage the Dems may have done to themselves in their behavior.

And, by way of transition, this is the Senator Durbin who flat-out told Judge Alito that he could not support a nominee who would not promise to uphold the right to abortion. This, of course, is really the only issue Democrats on the committee need to know about in order to decide how they’ll vote.

Any careful observer can see that any Supreme Court nominees would really need to do only one thing in order to meet with the approval of national democrats – vow allegiance to Roe v. Wade. As Kate O’Beirne has rightly pointed out, the left wants desperately to keep this issue in the judiciary and away from the democratic branches of government. I’ll leave it to the reader to surmise why.

The fact is that there’s not a prominent Democrat who can legitimately criticize anyone for being a “one-issue” voter. Abortion is, simply, the primary issue that gives the Democrat party its reason for existence. Thus all the questioning of Judge Alito on whether or not Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” and if he is willing to commit to never laying a hand on it while on the High Court.

Of course, the “settled law” discussion is but another misdirection on the part of the left, as if to say that “settled law” is somehow beyond the reach of anyone to alter or revoke. Isn’t it true that all “law” is “settled law” in that it is recognized to be the rule currently in effect? But do we not also recognize that all law, even that which is “settled” can be revisited and even overturned by the institution that created it? That’s certainly the case with statutory law made by Congress, why not with judicial law?

I’ve asked the question before: If Roe v Wade had been decided the other way, would abortion rights activists have been willing to say “oh well, it’s settled law” and give up their fight? I think not. But abortion opponents are supposed to do precisely that.

Interestingly enough, as time goes by, it becomes more apparent to me that the Dems’ allegiance to abortion is symptomatic of the problem that has made a once-great party one that is now fighting against history to survive ideologically – there is no commitment to truth. This problem is most clearly revealed in the left’s refusal to acknowledge – despite a growing mountain of evidence – that what is conceived in the womb is a human life, deserving of all the rights and protections that government is bound to secure for any other human life. A party that is committed to what they wish was the truth more than they are what is the truth is a party that is dooming itself to alienation from continuingly larger portions of the populace. Unless the populace itself loses it’s commitment to truth and reality – but that’s a discussion for another time.

This issue is, of course, the primary issue under consideration when Joe Biden says he is upset that Judge Alito won’t be drawn into a discussion about where he stands on the issues? Excuse me? As a judge, he is not supposed to be drawn into such a discussion in an official capacity. He should be discussing where he stands on the law. Discussion of the issues is for the political branches – the branches that answer directly to the people – to engage in. Just one of many statements that either demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the Senator himself – or herself – or of a willingness to misdirect, and count on the public’s ignorance.

And speaking of statements designed to misdirect, what about these constant complaints about Judge Alito coming down on the side of the corporation versus the “little guy?” Again, his job is to come down on the side of the law. If you want to talk about the judge’s decision on a given case where a corporation was pitted against a “little guy,” you need to look at where each of those parties stood in relation to the law.

Since I’ve started complaining about Senator Biden – which, I acknowledge, I do quite a bit – I note that the man who obviously considers himself the smartest man in America stated in an interview that Robert Bork was rejected because he was forthcoming with his views “on the issues” and, in the words of the Senator “the American people didn’t agree with his views.” I would love to see his documentation to back up that statement. Clever, though, how he tries sell the idea that the Senate Judiciary Committee is the barometer of how the American people feel about the issues.

Reminds me of Diane Feinstein saying she speaks for American women on matters of “reproductive rights.” Who exactly appointed her to that position? I know an awful lot of women who would be quick to point out to Ms. Feinstein that she does not speak for them.

But, oh, how it makes you sound more authoritative to claim such.

Of course, how are they to know whether or not they really do represent the views of the average American? The fact is that they don’t really care how the average American feels. They know how the average American should feel about an issue, so there’s no need to listen.

Just like there was no need to listen to Judge Alito that much. Maybe, like me, some of you saw a piece (sorry I can’t remember where, but I’ll find it if you need me to) that noted how long each Senator spoke during their thirty minutes each that they were given to “question” judge Alito. Long story short, between Schumer, Kennedy, and Biden, Alito actually was able to speak significantly less than ten minutes in each case.

Again, they represent a party that doesn’t listen, or feel the need to. They have become more committed to the party line and agenda than they have to what is true and factual – and right. And their behavior reflects it. The Alito hearings are only the latest example of this.

I have been hesitant to say much what I’m now saying in a public forum for some time. But the fact is that the national Democrat leadership has just become quite nasty and offensive in how it approaches politics and government. And the national leadership has finally become so rotten at the top that the nastiness is trickling down, even to the local levels.

I have been saying for some time that many Democrat activists at the local level – separated somewhat from the national leadership – are good, decent people who aren’t inclined to the type of misbehavior in which their national leaders engage. But the fact is, even in a peaceful little area like the one in which I live, the nastiness is making its way down.

Maybe it’s because new media have enabled the “local folk” to stay in contact with the leaders more easily – making it easier for the leadership’s behavior to “rub off” on them. Maybe it’s the frustration of continuing to see their party lose even in election years when all signs point to a long-awaited victory (due to their reliance on scandals to win for them, as opposed to ideas – but that’s the subject for another piece as well). Whatever the reason, even at the local level, it’s getting ugly. I could provide specific examples that both myself, and Republican associates have had direct involvement in, but won’t at this time. But if it does get to the point where even in a peaceful little town in Southern Tennessee supporters of the Democrats can no longer carry on civil discourse, one needs only look to their national leadership in Washington, and events like the recently-concluded hearings to see why they simply aren’t able to talk rationally. Their leadership has given them no rational ground on which to stand.