The "Plot" Thickens?
Professor Sanford Levinson (who was a visiting prof and taught me "Legal Ethics" back in, I think, the fall of 1991) appears to suggest that behind the Alito nomination is a secret and nefarious agenda -- to find a candidate who would uphold the "supremacy" of the Executive branch. This theory is, apparently, based on some Alito statements about the importance of executive (as well as legislative) intent in interpreting legislation.
His accusation is at once too much and not enough. Of course the President is likely to favor judicial candidates who will understand the importance of upholding (within the Constitution, of course) the president's powers in fighting the war on terror . . . in fact, it' s been Hugh Hewitt's contention all along that the President's resolution to fight the war on terror vigorously prompted his choice of Harriett Miers -- given her intimate knowledge of the stakes in the war on terror and the president powers needed to fight it effectively. Where, then, is the shock in learning that his other nominee for the seat might likewise be sympathetic to executive claims -- again, within the limits of the Constitution?
And even if there were a pro-executive powers agenda underlying the President's Supreme Court picks, what's so disqualifying about a potential justice holding a robust view of executive power? So far, nothing I've seen even remotely suggests that Judge Alito's views are -- as the liberals love to put it -- "out of the mainstream."
Levinson winds up by hoping that Senator Specter will come out against the nomination, writing wistfully, "If he exhibits some backbone, the nomination is in big trouble." But he isn't too optimistic about that possibility, and rightly so.
I was one of the people who opposed efforts to bar Specter from Judiciary's top slot (more on my reasons here). But as I wrote at the time, Let's let him know that we are watching him carefully. And if he doesn't do the job right, let's remove him.
Surely Specter knows that any attempt to scuttle the Alito nomination would end up with many, many Republicans surrounding the castle with pitchforks and fire, demanding his head. He may be arrogant, he may be unpleasant, and his flirtation with "Scottish law" was repugnant. But is he stupid -- that stupid? Surely not.
So Levinson may be wrong to think he's uncovered some secret conspiracy -- but he's right in his skepticism about Specter's willingness to derail the nomination.
His accusation is at once too much and not enough. Of course the President is likely to favor judicial candidates who will understand the importance of upholding (within the Constitution, of course) the president's powers in fighting the war on terror . . . in fact, it' s been Hugh Hewitt's contention all along that the President's resolution to fight the war on terror vigorously prompted his choice of Harriett Miers -- given her intimate knowledge of the stakes in the war on terror and the president powers needed to fight it effectively. Where, then, is the shock in learning that his other nominee for the seat might likewise be sympathetic to executive claims -- again, within the limits of the Constitution?
And even if there were a pro-executive powers agenda underlying the President's Supreme Court picks, what's so disqualifying about a potential justice holding a robust view of executive power? So far, nothing I've seen even remotely suggests that Judge Alito's views are -- as the liberals love to put it -- "out of the mainstream."
Levinson winds up by hoping that Senator Specter will come out against the nomination, writing wistfully, "If he exhibits some backbone, the nomination is in big trouble." But he isn't too optimistic about that possibility, and rightly so.
I was one of the people who opposed efforts to bar Specter from Judiciary's top slot (more on my reasons here). But as I wrote at the time, Let's let him know that we are watching him carefully. And if he doesn't do the job right, let's remove him.
Surely Specter knows that any attempt to scuttle the Alito nomination would end up with many, many Republicans surrounding the castle with pitchforks and fire, demanding his head. He may be arrogant, he may be unpleasant, and his flirtation with "Scottish law" was repugnant. But is he stupid -- that stupid? Surely not.
So Levinson may be wrong to think he's uncovered some secret conspiracy -- but he's right in his skepticism about Specter's willingness to derail the nomination.
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:43 PM
1 Comments:
This is why folks like Carol , Hugh and many other topblogs are so important. I am just an everyday contractor working on your home, so to speak, yet I am very informed thanks to this multiplex of conservative effort. I am glad to be just small fry swimming in a greater stream.
My choice for SCOTUS was Luttig though Alito was an excellent pick and we should stand up for him. Thank you Carol for being an excellent source!
PS: I agree with Dan, Miers was a miscue, though I would say an honest one. It was to political a choice, not that she wasn't qualified. Personally I am glad she withdrew.
Post a Comment
<< Home