Dick Durbin on Sam Alito
Democratic Senator and Minority Whip Dick Durbin held a press conference today at Northwestern Law School to announce how he would vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. His speech was the standard Democratic line. Sandra Day O'Connor was mentioned approximately 58 times, and the old arguments about abortion, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, strip searching a 10-year-old girl, etc. were all brought up. In the end, because O'Connor is the swing vote on so many important issues, and Alito is so dangerous, he does not deserve to be on the Court. No big surprises here.
The end of the speech summed up for me the underlying difference between conservative and liberal visions for the Court. Durbin ended his speech by talking about "caring". He looked to see whether Judge Alito "had a heart". He concluded that Alito has no heart.
Translation: Judicial liberals want the Supreme Court to rule for the little guy and expand rights. Judicial conservatives want the judges to say what the law is, not what they think it should be. If the law says that 10-year-old girls should be strip searched in a situation, or that claims of employment discrimination are difficult to bring, then that's how the judge should rule. Judicial liberals think an unjust or unfair law should be expanded or changed by the judge. That's why they want judges to have "a heart". Judicial conservatives think an unfair law, if it is unfair, should be changed by the legislature. That's what legislatures are for.
Anyways, after the speech, he opened up the floor to questions. I rose my hand and got the first crack at it:
"Sen. Durbin, much of the Judiciary Committee hearing centered around Democratic efforts to get Judge Alito to declare a sort of unalterable commitment to precedent. All of this, of course, was directed at Roe v. Wade. But your side applauded the Court's decisions in, for example, Lawrence v. Texas (private homosexual sodomy a protected Constitutional right), which overruled an 18 year old precedent. It also applauded Roper v. Simmons (execution of minors is unconstitutional), which overruled a 17 year old precedent. In addition, your side pushes for expansive readings of the Commerce Clause, resting on New Deal Era decisions that were themselves overrulings of precedent. So my question is this-do you really care about precedent? If so, why didn't you condemn Lawrence & Roper, among many other decisions? If not, then why did you make such a big deal out of it at the hearings?"
His response was predictable. He said that some decisions should be overturned (like Plessy v. Ferguson) and others shouldn't (like Roe and Griswold). My point, though, was clear to most of the educated audience. Democrats like precedent when they like the decision, and don't like precedent when they don't like the decision. They really aren't as concerned about it as they pretended to be in the Judiciary Committee hearing.
He took another 7 or so questions, and predictably gave the Democratic Party talking points. The only other interesting note was that he clearly said a filibuster was NOT off the table. For him, it was a question of votes. He seemed prepared to fight this to the death. If 40 other Senators are willing to join him (which seems unlikely), he would indeed begin the death march to a filibuster.
I was lucky enough to be about 10 feet away from Sen. Durbin, which gave me an interesting perspective. I don't know how he focused with all the flashes in his face during his speech. I also stayed around afterwards to hear him conduct a mini Q & A with the press (where I was now literally about 5 feet away from him). One thought did cross my mind-how do you possibly stay humble as U.S. Senator in his position? You have to love the spotlight, love talking, and love giving one's opinion.
Some look at this whole process and decry the acrimony in Washington. I don't. While civility would be nice, our founders designed a system of competing ideas. Through checks and balances, they hoped to check the passions of any particular group or party. On my count, we have had only two times in American history where one party or set of ideas had a stranglehold on government-the Republican Party in the Reconstruction Era and the Democratic Party during and after the New Deal. Beyond this, there has pretty much been a partisan stalemate and a consistent fight for power. This is not that bad of a thing.
Without rubbing it in too much, I'd also like to note how extremely pleased I am with the results of this confirmation fight. When this is finished, liberals will have expended considerable political capital and untold millions to stop Alito's confirmation, and they will have failed. The Supreme Court is almost as important to me as the Presidency. And slowly but surely, the last bastion of liberal ideas is slipping out of their grab. They may be going down kicking and screaming, but I take immense satisfaction in seeing them go down.
The end of the speech summed up for me the underlying difference between conservative and liberal visions for the Court. Durbin ended his speech by talking about "caring". He looked to see whether Judge Alito "had a heart". He concluded that Alito has no heart.
Translation: Judicial liberals want the Supreme Court to rule for the little guy and expand rights. Judicial conservatives want the judges to say what the law is, not what they think it should be. If the law says that 10-year-old girls should be strip searched in a situation, or that claims of employment discrimination are difficult to bring, then that's how the judge should rule. Judicial liberals think an unjust or unfair law should be expanded or changed by the judge. That's why they want judges to have "a heart". Judicial conservatives think an unfair law, if it is unfair, should be changed by the legislature. That's what legislatures are for.
Anyways, after the speech, he opened up the floor to questions. I rose my hand and got the first crack at it:
"Sen. Durbin, much of the Judiciary Committee hearing centered around Democratic efforts to get Judge Alito to declare a sort of unalterable commitment to precedent. All of this, of course, was directed at Roe v. Wade. But your side applauded the Court's decisions in, for example, Lawrence v. Texas (private homosexual sodomy a protected Constitutional right), which overruled an 18 year old precedent. It also applauded Roper v. Simmons (execution of minors is unconstitutional), which overruled a 17 year old precedent. In addition, your side pushes for expansive readings of the Commerce Clause, resting on New Deal Era decisions that were themselves overrulings of precedent. So my question is this-do you really care about precedent? If so, why didn't you condemn Lawrence & Roper, among many other decisions? If not, then why did you make such a big deal out of it at the hearings?"
His response was predictable. He said that some decisions should be overturned (like Plessy v. Ferguson) and others shouldn't (like Roe and Griswold). My point, though, was clear to most of the educated audience. Democrats like precedent when they like the decision, and don't like precedent when they don't like the decision. They really aren't as concerned about it as they pretended to be in the Judiciary Committee hearing.
He took another 7 or so questions, and predictably gave the Democratic Party talking points. The only other interesting note was that he clearly said a filibuster was NOT off the table. For him, it was a question of votes. He seemed prepared to fight this to the death. If 40 other Senators are willing to join him (which seems unlikely), he would indeed begin the death march to a filibuster.
I was lucky enough to be about 10 feet away from Sen. Durbin, which gave me an interesting perspective. I don't know how he focused with all the flashes in his face during his speech. I also stayed around afterwards to hear him conduct a mini Q & A with the press (where I was now literally about 5 feet away from him). One thought did cross my mind-how do you possibly stay humble as U.S. Senator in his position? You have to love the spotlight, love talking, and love giving one's opinion.
Some look at this whole process and decry the acrimony in Washington. I don't. While civility would be nice, our founders designed a system of competing ideas. Through checks and balances, they hoped to check the passions of any particular group or party. On my count, we have had only two times in American history where one party or set of ideas had a stranglehold on government-the Republican Party in the Reconstruction Era and the Democratic Party during and after the New Deal. Beyond this, there has pretty much been a partisan stalemate and a consistent fight for power. This is not that bad of a thing.
Without rubbing it in too much, I'd also like to note how extremely pleased I am with the results of this confirmation fight. When this is finished, liberals will have expended considerable political capital and untold millions to stop Alito's confirmation, and they will have failed. The Supreme Court is almost as important to me as the Presidency. And slowly but surely, the last bastion of liberal ideas is slipping out of their grab. They may be going down kicking and screaming, but I take immense satisfaction in seeing them go down.
posted by Anonymous @ 5:30 PM
<< Home