Skip to main content

Dodd, Kennedy, Lieberman and Alito

Of Connecticut’s two Democrat senators, U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd was first out of the gate in announcing he intended to vote against confirming Sam Alito as a Supreme Court justice. U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, under fire from liberals in his party for having cravenly supported President George Bush’s Iraq policy, played his cards close to the vest prior to a vote in the senate.

In detailing his reasons for voting against Alito, Dodd said the judge failed to show that he will be “independent, will respect the settled law of the land, and will be committed to the core principle of our law: equal justice for all.” Alito’s judicial philosophy, Dodd said, was “outside the mainstream" and "has caused him to support dramatic new powers for the government and fewer rights for ordinary citizens." Dodd feared that "the president would act with radical new powers - unchecked by either the Congress or the courts as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution," should Alito be seated on the court.

Respecting the “settled law of the land” is shorthand among Democrats for supporting and upholding Supreme Court decisions on abortion that, a little more than three decades ago, had radically changed the laws of the land. Had the principle of respect for settled law cited by Dodd been operative after the appointment to the court of justices who evidentially did not feel unnerved in upsetting long standing statutory apple carts, Roe v Wade could never have become the law of the land.

It was the U.S. Senate – certainly not the Supreme Court – that supported putative dramatic new powers for the Bush administration, which the president then deployed to make war in Iraq. Senators who have retrospectively regreted their votes augmenting presidential power are now fiercely backpedaling, with little success. The judgments that Alito might make as a Supreme Court Justice to redress what Dodd considers a possible imbalance of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches is a matter that might more aptly be handled by tea leaves readers than senators.

But Dodd at least did not go quite so far as U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy in his soothsaying.

Leaping over 15 years of carefully crafted judicial decisions, Kennedy reached back all the way to Alito’s college years for evidence that the judge who sat before him was bigoted towards minorities. After Kennedy asserted that Alito had not written “one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job during his years on the bench,” one commentator produced twelve decisions made by Alito that clearly demonstrated an energetic support of minorities.

Another commentator pointed out that Alito’s college indiscretions were no match for the Chappaquiddick Kid. At Harvard, the senator had paid another student to take an exam for him, and he was a card carrying member of the now notorious Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership. The prior discriminatory practices of the members of the Owl Club did not prevent the senator from renewing his membership to the club last September – though he recently quickly withdrew his membership after having been outted by conservatives -- nor did it restrain Kennedy’s righteous indignation.

The senator’s assault proved too much to bear for Alito’s wife, who presumably has a more intimate knowledge than Kennedy concerning her husband’s attitude towards women and retreated from the scene of the assault in tears.

It was partly the gaudy show put on by Judiciary Committee members that spurred Sen. Joe Biden to offer a sensible suggestion: Let’s do away with Judiciary Committee hearings, an embarrassment to everyone but those who are shameless, and allow debates from the senate floor, after which the senators may cast an up or down vote on prospective nominees for the Supreme Court.

Judiciary Committee hearings have now become political gladiatorial contests, replete with maulings by senatorial lions, hacked off limbs, and blood in the dust. The painful display of senatorial egotism typified by Kennedy recalls the pagan rituals described by Sir James George Frazier in The Golden Bough.

“As soon as the god was supposed to have entered the priest,” Frazier wrote, “the latter became violently agitated, and worked himself up to the highest pitch of apparent frenzy, the muscles of the limbs seemed convulsed, the body swelled, the countenance became terrific, the features distorted, and the eyes wild and strained.”

Dodd has not yet joined the priesthood of Democrat partisans, though he has on occasion bent the knee to the senator from Massachusetts. But no one should count Dodd out: The gaudy show on the floor of the senate has yet to unfold.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p