The Editorial Pages Weigh In

"Bush never made any secret of his desire to put conservative jurists on the highest court, and he was elected to the presidency twice. One of the perks of the presidency, besides not having to sit through confirmation hearings, is shaping the Supreme Court. And one of the obligations of senators in the minority, after forcing a nominee to listen to them, is allowing the president's nominee an up-or-down vote."
     Los Angeles Times January 15 editorial.

"Yet he is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see. Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference -- the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president. And Judge Alito is superbly qualified.
     Washington Post January 15 editorial

"One motion picture holds the key to understanding the success (so far) of Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. I'm not talking about 'Advise and Consent' or 'The Seduction of Joe Tynan.' No, the answer lies in 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie.'

"For those without a three-year-old at home, let me explain the plot. Winnie-the-Pooh and friends discover signs of a heffalump in their part of Hundred Acre Wood. When Roo asks them what a heffalump is, they explain (in song) that it's an enormous monster with spikes and claws. They go off to capture the dreaded beast, but it's Roo who finds him -- and learns that he bears no resemblance to the description and is actually quite nice. After some plot twists, the others make the same discovery.

"Judge Alito is a heffalump. Some of the folks in the Hundred Member Chamber tried to make him out as a fiery menace, but his testimony deflated the image. ... [T]hey went after him personally and ended up looking as silly as Rabbit and Tigger.

"So if he wins confirmation, we should all refer to him by the heffalump's nickname. All hail Justice Lumpy."
     From http://polysigh.blogspot.com, January 15

Let me be very clear straight out of the box. The editorial pages of publications such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe wrote last weekend as if Attila the Hun testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, rather than Alito the Distinguished. Reading through their overheated, overripe prose, you'd never know that Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. is a jurist of impeccable mainstream conservative credentials.

To further clarify, the Los Angeles Times did not endorse the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito, instead choosing to pummel (pro-abortion) Committee Democrats who flummoxed whatever slim chance they had to derail the nomination. And there can be no two ways about it: The older Democrats on the Committee, in particular, made fools out of themselves.

Unable to engage him productively on the issues, Committee Democrats spent inordinate amounts of time on what the Times euphemistically called "distractions." The rest of us call it what it was: spiraling downward to take the low road. In "Confirm Judge Alito," the Post was both more forthright and more accurate.

Judge Alito's "colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him," the Post editorialized. If you watched the testimony, this conclusion was inescapable. Added the Post, "His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached." Indeed, it does.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about two Supreme Court cases, one already heard, one to be heard Tuesday. They are important, so please tune us in.

Talk to you then.

If you have comments, please send them to Dave Andrusko at dandrusko@nrlc.org