Shifting the Burden

by georgia10
Thu Jan 12, 2006 at 01:31:32 PM PDT

The media is universally declaring that Alito is headed towards confirmation. I've been bothered by the spin from reporters that Alito will be confirmed because the Democrats failed to challenge him properly at the hearing. The burden was never on Democrats to grill Alito until he cracked. Alito was coached for months, including by Lindsay Graham, a committee member. So this notion that the Democrats "failed" to put a kink in Alito's armor is ridiculous. There was no armor to begin with.

The burden, from the start, was on Alito to counter his record as a idealogue. Alito walked into that hearing room saddled with a record as one of the most pro-government Republican judges in the nation. He walked into that room with his objective memorialized in black and white: overturning Roe. He walked into that room already having established his contempt for our system of checks and balances.

The burden was on him to explain his record. And he didn't. Because there's no explaining away the fact that he believes the government can do whatever the hell it wants when it comes to stripping of our rights. To succeed in these hearings, Alito had to counter record, and he didn't.

Instead, we were subjected to a beige performance, a lackluster display which proved not that he is a sound and reasonable jurist, but that he's darn good at memorizing boilerplate answers. I was bored to tears watching the hearing, and I'm a law nerd.

And indeed, it should be those tears that matter, not the tears of Mrs. Alito that are replayed time and time again on televesion. What should matter is the fact that Alito flatlined. He gave absolutely no viable defense of his atrocious record, chosing instead to drone on and on in generic terms, probably hoping that his questioner would be asleep by the he the time he finished evading the question. That should be the news story. Alito's performance, not the Democrats. Alito failed to meet his burden of proven he is worthy of the highest court in this land.

At the time of Bork's nomination, I was more interested with jungle gyms than judicial nominess, but I gather he was not, as Alito claims, "one of the most outstanding nominees of this century." Alito's explanation of that statement? I was a political appointee. When confronted with his argument that Roe should be dismantled, he said he was writing as an advocate. And when it came to why he boasted about been a member of the radical group CAP, he said he was just a job applicant.

He repeatedly minimized his record, instead of embracing it. For Alito, all his disturbing statements can be chalked up to sucking up for a job, blowing kisses into the ears of those in power. He reminds me of the job interviewee who, when asked what their biggest fault is, says "I work too hard." So why should we believe anything he has said over the course of these hearings?

Three days of mind-numbing testimony and all I get is this: Alito is simply not credible. There is a impassable canyon between the old Alito--who was undoubtly an extreme conservative bent on restricting individual liberties--and this brand spankin' new Alito whose views were dipped in bleach and sterilized for public consumption. There is a uneasiness in his constantly shifting explanations and his inconsistent application of his "judicial philosophy." Alito had a chance to embrace his record; instead, he shrank from it. If Alito is indeed confirmed, the question becomes which Alito do we get on the Supreme Court?