It's Official

"Bush won two terms as president vowing to put staunch conservatives on the Supreme Court, the nation's final legal arbiter."
      Reuters, January 31.

As you all know, hours ago the Senate confirmed Judge Samuel Alito by a vote of 58-42. The previous day, an attempted pro-abortion filibuster went down without a bubble. Alito was sworn in as the 110th justice of the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts a little after noon.

Beginning when Justice Alito was nominated back in October, anyone who has followed events knows it was in many ways not an edifying spectacle. Consider the dilemma faced by pro-abortionists and the routes they chose to travel.

Alito came highly recommended by just about everyone who has ever had contact with him. A 15-year veteran of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he is by all accounts judicious--a pretty good quality when you're appointing someone to the highest court in the land--and a man who takes the Constitution seriously--another important characteristic. So what do you do, if you want to stop his confirmation?

I've already written a lot about the sleaziness of the likes of Ted Kennedy. Fortunately, his ugly attacks boomeranged.

As the New York Times pointed out this morning, pro-abortion Democrats needed "new points of attack," beyond abortion, if they were going to defeat Judge Alito. Enter an old friend of Kennedy's, who specializes in character assassination.

His attempt to smear Alito was met with "polite skepticism from many of his colleagues." As a staff member for another Senate Democrat told the Times, "It became clear to us early on that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes, but we think the guy is a man of honor." This, of course, was no deterrent to either Kennedy or his equally injudicious pro-abortion colleague from Massachusetts, Sen. John Kerry (D).

Pro-abortion Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) launched a different line of attack. In his opening confirmation hearings remarks, Schumer insisted that Alito had a "triply high" burden he had to meet in order to be confirmed. The last two reasons Schumer offered were the usual jeremiahs--Alito was a favorite of the "extreme right wing" and his "opinions and statements on a number of critical constitutional questions seems quite extreme."

More interesting was Schumer's first reason that supposedly justified why Alito had a greater "burden" to surmount: "because you've been named to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the pivotal swing vote on a divided court." The point was further developed by Schumer and many other pro-abortion senators, but the crux of it was that the "ideological" balance on the Court should not--COULD not--be altered.

This fascinating conclusion is something to keep in mind, particularly if President Bush should be given further opportunities to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. Where in the world did this third of the three-legged "burden" come from?

Presidents from the 18th Century on have appointed justices they believe will reflect the President's view of the proper role of the High Court. As we all-too-painfully know, sometimes justices either fool the President, to begin with, or change, once they are on the Court. But it is the President's prerogative to appoint whom he chooses and that has often changed the philosophical balance on the Court.

Tomorrow I will at the printer's to place the final touches on the February issue of National Right to Life News. We will be dealing in depth with three Supreme Court cases, the Alito confirmation, the March for Life, and a host of other issues.

If you are not subscribing to NRL News, you are missing an invaluable educational tool. Call us today at 202-626-8828.

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