This past Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended Samuel Alito for nomination to the Supreme Court. Alito must now receive the acceptance of the full Senate in order to sit on the bench. The Senate will most likely hold its vote before the end of this week, perhaps today. Most anticipate the vote to go along party lines. In the Judiciary Committee vote, all eight Democrats voted against Alito and all 10 Republicans voted for him.
Much of the criticism surrounding Alito's ability to be a principled Supreme Court justice stems from his dedication to conservatism. Alito's detractors have had a field day by referencing a quote from 1985, in which Alito argued that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. The Democrats' entire case is based upon dubious, out-of-date quotes such as this one. Much more recently, as reported by CNN on Jan. 4, the nonpartisan American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Alito as "well-qualified" to fill the Associate justice position. I have more faith in the ABA than I do in Democratic senators, who are concerned more with placating liberal interest groups and gaining re-election than with correctly interpreting judicial precedent.
Democrats fear that Alito will slant the Court to the right and overturn certain cases, and nearly all of them worry that Alito will negate Roe v. Wade, specifically. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, recently declared, "Alito still believes that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, but does not want to tell the American people because he knows how unpopular that view is." Schumer's comment is an example of the irrational fear and ignorance that fuels the Democratic evaluation of Alito. First, Schumer is plainly wrong in arguing that Alito's supposed views are unpopular. Recent presidential elections clearly show that America is undergoing a conservative realignment. And a CBS News/New York Times Poll taken in December 2005 reported that 39 percent of people polled would like to see stricter limits on abortion, while 20 percent would like abortion to not be permitted at all, with only 38 percent reporting that they would like abortion to be "generally avail-able." And second, the popularity of Alito's views is a non-issue; as a jurist, he does not need to pacify voters to achieve reelection. He must neutrally interpret the rule of law to the best of his ability, as the ABA found he has done in the past.
If Democrats like Schumer are con-cerned about the court overturning fixed precedent, they should have paid attention to other recently overturned cases. Democrats should have been upset about the Supreme Court overturning Bowers v. Hardwick in 2003. It is obvious that the majority of Democrats are not interested in stare decisis, but rather, a politically liberal country. In 2003, the court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The decision essentially gave homosexuals more rights, as the Supreme Court agreed that consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. If precedent is so all-important, as Democrats argue with Roe v. Wade, then you should have heard outcries against the Court's ruling in Lawrence. But Democrats didn't utter a word. Obviously, Democrats care more about politics than having a sound judiciary.
Precedent has great value in our court system, but not when it is incorrectly decided. It is abundantly clear that Democrats would like to ignore and acknowledge precedent selectively to suit their politics, thereby disrespecting the notion of an independent judiciary. Samuel Alito surely wouldn't commit the Democrats' mistakes. He has shown in the past to be above political squabbling, honorably interpreting the law despite his politics. Shouldn't this be the type of Supreme Court justice America wants?
Micahel Ramos-Lynch '09 is radically moderate.
