Monday, November 7, 2005


I ate lunch today at Padow's which is quickly becoming my lunch joint of choice (mmm Turkey Pastrami). They had on Fox News and I watched for a while as I ate. One thing stuck out was an advertisement from a political interest group advocating a "fair up or down vote on Alito." I don't know anything about Alito except that conservatives are much happier about him than Miers. However that commercial worries me... I never saw commercials like that for Roberts, or Miers. Clearly some group is worried that Mr. Alito won't get a fair hearing (or won't get a hearing at all) and now I wonder if there's a reason.

Perhaps more generally, is vehement advocacy for polarizing candidates always a red-flag? This isn't just a conservative/liberal issue. The same thing would happen in reverse if it were the other way around (in fact if I had a better memory I'd recall if it happened with Ginsberg). Maybe it's good to have a bench of idealogues on both sides?

1 comment:

  1. "Fair" is such an interesting word, isn't it? It gives an air or objectivity, while serving any point of view you'd like.
    In this case, "fair up or down vote" is how the conservative majority is attempting to socially engineer the confirmation process out of committee and onto the floor of the senate where the republican majority can slam Alito through. But to WHOM would this be fair? To the republican majority, of course!
    What they're really afraid of is that the democratic half of our society might actually get a say in who is appointed to the Court. Fairness for those not in the majority seems a founding American value, and this attempt to change the rules is disingenuous of the republican leadership. Of course, their integrity is already rather tarnished, so that's no surprise.
    In the end, though, it's got nothing to do with fairness. It's all politics.