Alito Hearings

When Sam Alito was first nominated, I thought he would be a slam-dunk. He's eminently qualified as a judge, particularly when compared to Miers...who, although an extremely talented and intelligent lawyer, had a background entirely in behind-the-scenes advocacy, not interpretation.

I suppose the same argument could apply to Roberts...but that's a subject for another post.

I thought the biggest issue would be the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, in which Alito wanted to uphold certain restrictions on the right to an abortion. However, since his dissent in that case was consistent with the law at the time (although not the law as it stands now), I thought he would come through that dispute to be appointed.

Now, however, I'm not so sure. The major issue many people (and, not coincidentally, many Senators) have with Bush is the incremental increases in the power of the Executive branch he has instituted. It seems fairly clear (at least to me) that ensuring that these increases remained after his Presidency has ended was his primary motivation in his Supreme Court appointments. Certainly, traditional "conservative" values (read: abortion) played a role, but I think that was more ensuring support from the traditional conservative base than any real priority of Bush's.

Several reviews of Alito's decisions have shown that he has a history of upholding government (particularly executive) action. Given the recent controversy over wiretapping, I expect this history to be a huge issue in the confirmation hearings. There are already rumblings about a filibuster (which could be interesting).

The ideal result from a spectator's perspective? Senate filibusters. President says "I don't care. 'Advice and consent' in the Constitution doesn't mean you get to have a vote. Alito is on the Supreme Court." Senate sues. We have a new Marbury v. Madison.