The Supreme Court is about to move far to the right if President Bush's nominee, Samuel Alito, is confirmed to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's shoes.
'Scalito,' as those who compare Alito to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia call him, is further to the judicial right than Justice O'Connor, who has been the traditional swing vote on the Supreme Court over the last decade. His judicial philosophy does not reflect the attitudes of the American public, two-thirds of whom, when surveyed in a Washington Post poll, said the country was headed in the wrong direction. Given that his judicial philosophy is out of touch with American attitudes, Alito is unfit for the Supreme Court and must be filibustered.
Due to the culture of corruption which now surrounds the White House, Republican approval is increasingly dismal. A CBS poll has Bush's approval rating at 35 percent, while a Washington Post poll has support of Republican congressional candidates at just 37 percent. With these numbers, will the American public really support a nominee who has been compared to the extremely conservative Scalia?
The day after the announcement, UW-Madison law professor Ann Althouse denounced the juxtaposition of Scalia and Alito as 'facile' in a New York Times op-ed. Using a peripheral case, Althouse gave an example of how Alito and Scalia are different. The comparison itself, however, was facile because it was not based on any controversy at hand today. The issue Althouse cites, the standard of review for what constitutes a 'neutral' government action restricting religion in the workplace, does not provide an adequate comparison of judicial philosophy.
Althouse tries to make Alito seem not as far to the right as many have said in comparing Alito and Scalia. But, seeing how the far right went berserk over the nomination of Harriet Miers and ended up forcing her withdrawal, it is almost certain that Bush would not have nominated Alito unless he was deemed acceptable by his conservative Christian base.
In fact, this is exactly what happened. After winning the presidency and expanding their lead in Congress, the political right has become convinced that their conservative credo has ascended, but they will soon discover this is a myth. America voted for Bush out of fear of terrorism, not because they necessarily agreed with him on domestic issues. His approval ratings did not plummet because of Katrina, Miers or Libby; they were already well on their way down due to his disastrous Social Security campaign, which thankfully did not succeed.
'Scalito' needs to be filibustered or the Supreme Court will be pushed dangerously far to the right, and, as polls seem to indicate, this is not what the American people want. After the 2004 election, Tom DeLay claimed that the Republicans were on the brink of a 'permanent majority.' But with people becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the direction our country is going, only one conclusion can be drawn'that the myth of conservative ascendancy is just that, a myth.
Democrats should have no fear that Republicans will invoke the nuclear option'suspending Senate rule to make a filibuster impossible'this time around. Republicans cannot afford to use the nuclear option, given the evidence that it may not be long before Democrats reclaim the White House and Congress. Do Republicans really want Democrats controlling a government where only 51 votes are needed to pass legislation and confirm judges? No.
Democrats need to test Republicans and filibuster Alito.Althouse may be right in saying that Alito should not be compared to Scalia, but that does not change the fact that he is a pick that panders to Bush's right-wing base. A filibuster is necessary in order to block what the right-wing nuts wanted and got'a nut. Then we will see how confident they are in their 'permanent majority.'
