Alito

I'm a little late to the party on this one, and I think it's likely that Judge Alito will be confirmed, but I have to weigh in with my two cents.

First, what the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did, or tried to do, with Samuel Alito's years-old membership in a Princeton Alumni group was some of the most shameful, un-American grandstanding I have ever seen.

I don't fancy myself a constitutional scholar, but even a moment's research found the case of Healy v. James, where the U.S. Supreme Court said: "The Court has consistently disapproved governmental action imposing criminal sanctions or denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen's association with an unpopular organization." [Emphasis Added]

So when the Democrats tried to smear Alito because of what other members of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton had to say about affirmative action, they engaged in conduct that was clearly in violation of constitutional principles. Without some evidence linking Alito to the views they found abhorrent, their entire inquiry was nothing more than innuendo and guilt by association.

(Of course, Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden and the rest no doubt supported the plaintiffs in Healy. That's because they were claiming the right to associate as the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, one of the most notoriously disruptive anti-Vietnam war groups out there. )

Second, the whole show also makes you wonder, doesn't it, how a supposed civil-rights group like civilrights.org can issue a statement slamming Alito for not remembering his "membership in a group" like CAP. If they were really a civil-rights group, they would be aghast at the mere fact that Alito was even asked the question.

And how about that other civil-rights group, the ACLU? They oppose the nomination in part because of Alito's views on "reproductive rights" (read: non-reproductive rights) . But doesn't my right to vote trump the created right to privacy? It's possible to be an advocate for civil-rights, or even for a right of abortion, and still think Roe v. Wade is bad law.

Finally, and speaking of smearing Alito, there is this piece from the NYT. Earth to the Left: Being Pro-Life doesn't disqualify someone from sitting on the judiciary! I find the Times piece "troubling." (What is it about that word and its forms? Editorial writers the world over are so often "troubled.")

If anyone but us pointy heads ever paid attention, the Democrats would be in trouble over this one.