New York Times Urging A Filibuster of Alito
JANUARY 26, 2006
If any doubt remained with respect to the erosion of sanity occurring at the New York Times, it was erased with this morning’s meandering, nonsensical editorial on the Alito nomination. Entitled, “Senators in Need of a Spine,” the article criticized Senate Democrats for “rolling over and playing dead” during Judge Alito’s confirmation hearings and urged them to filibuster Alito’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“A filibuster is a radical tool,” the editorial staff allows. “But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.”
And just what does the editorial staff at the NYT find so frightening about a man who earned the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association and the near universal support of all of his colleagues past and present? In short, they contend, if confirmed, Alito will “ignore our system of checks and balances” and “ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.”
Judicial filibusters are repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that the Senate provide judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. And as for shifting the balance of power, when Senate Democrats resort to unconstitutional judicial filibusters, they hijack the judicial confirmation process and expand their own power at the expense of the executive branch. The President shall nominate. The Senate shall vote. The Constitution is clear.
So, in effect, the NYT is asking Senate Democrats to violate the Constitution in order to prevent Judge Alito from one day, perhaps, violating the Constitution. (Does this reasoning strike you as the least bit suspect?)
The NYT further makes the argument that Alito’s once-professed opposition to Roe v. Wade renders him too extreme for the judiciary. Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that the Roe decision is a classic and, to borrow the NYT’s term, “frightening” example of judicial activism. Judge Alito’s criticisms of Roe are consistent with those made by lawyers and judges across the political spectrum, including radical leftists such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe. The Roe decision is an indefensible judicial monstrosity. It’s time we all admit it.
Fortunately, the rest of America does not agree with the liberals at the NYT about Judge Alito. According to a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 54% support the nomination of Judge Alito to the high court with only 30% remaining in opposition. Approximately 62% reject the idea of a judicial filibuster. During his hearings, Judge Alito was grilled over a dissent he wrote supporting the idea that husbands should be notified if their child is about to be a victim of abortion. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, 72% of Americans agree with Judge Alito on this abortion-related issue.
So, who is it, exactly, that is out of the mainstream?
© 2010-2018 Judicial Watch, Inc. All Rights Reserved.