Two, Four, Six, Eight—Why Do They Negotiate?     1/17/2006
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel

Democrats renege on agreement and delay committee vote on Alito.

Let’s compute. You shouldn’t need a calculator unless you attended public school.

Republicans number 10 on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Democrats number eight. Even using PC math, 10 is two more than eight despite how you feel about it. Majority rules.

Republicans can’t seem to grasp it, and Democrats continue to ignore it. Note to leadership: Unilateral collegiality and compromise isn’t working in the Washington political universe.

After President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court last November, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the ranking minority member on the Committee, announced an agreement on the hearing schedule. (Sound of Office of Weights and Measures calculating the shelf-life.)

In exchange for having a break for Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year’s (oops, Winter Solstice), the hearing for Alito would begin January 9 and the Committee would vote on January 17. The full Senate debate on Alito would begin on January 18 and conclude on January 20 with a Senate vote the same day. There would be no “holdover” week. (Sound of incessant giggling.)

At the conclusion of the inquisition (oops, hearing) last Friday, Specter said he would conduct the panel’s vote today, January 17. You can kiss that puppy good-bye.

Specter and Leahy reached yet another agreement last night to wait until next Tuesday, January 25, to vote on Alito. (Sound of head banging on wall.) Once again the “majority” is snookered.

Leahy says the initial agreement isn’t binding because it “wasn’t in writing.” So much for the “gentleman” from Vermont. You can understand why Leahy and company prefer a “living” Constitution. I think it was Samuel Goldwyn who said an “oral contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”

Apparently what was needed at the hearing was a math whiz from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology instead of another legal-eagle from Yale or Harvard. Or, Specter should have removed his socks before cutting another deal with hucksters. (Picture cereal commercial with little kids testifying before Senate panel, asking, “Who are these guys?”)

They can hold over until they can find their backsides but with a two-vote majority, there’s no way Alito will not be favorably reported out of the Committee. Who but a psychotic thinks they need more time? The Munchkins in Oz had a better grasp of reality than this.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) announced Sunday that “she plans to vote against Alito” but added, "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. … This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”

She doesn’t need more time to decide Judge Alito’s qualifications, and it doesn’t make a hill of beans difference to her. If you’re looking for reasonable, try the Pillsbury Dough Boy. (Oops, Dough Person.)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) claims that Democrats on the committee are still going over written transcripts of the hearings and waiting for written answers to some more questions. “It’s premature to say anything till we fully assess the record,” Schumer told Fox News Sunday.

If Schumer made one thing clear at the conclusion of the hearing last week, it was that he won’t be voting for the judge. (Sound of feigned wheeze.) Of course, Schumer wasn’t being “premature,” not to be confused with immature.

Anybody who watched the hearing witnessed the stupefying speech marathons engaged in by Schumer, Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Joe Biden (D-Delaware), and knows what a farce it is for them to claim they need more answers from Alito. “Kennedy, Schumer and Biden lectured Alito three times longer than they gave him opportunity to respond,” according to Deborah Orin of The New York Post.

In a January 12 editorial titled “Shut up, already,” the Orlando Sentinel said, “If senators would stop hogging the mike, they could find out more about Alito.”

On Friday the 13th, the office of Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), Senate Majority Leader, issued the following statement in response to rumblings about delay:

Whenever the Judiciary Committee reports out the Alito nomination, the full Senate will begin work on the nominee the next business day. If Democrats delay final action past January 20th, he will cancel the recess for the week of January 23rd which he had previously scheduled with the knowledge of Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Until the Senate votes, up or down, on the Alito nomination, he will not act on any other legislative item.

So here we are. Dr. Frist is going to give them a dose of their own medicine. No recess. No votes. (Let’s hope the sound we hear is not more political posturing.)

Take action: You might want to call your senators and share your thoughts on the matter of Judge Alito and getting on with a fair up or down vote. You can get their phone numbersfrom our Web site and send them an e-mail as well.

The Republic you save may be your own.

For more on the Alito nomination, visit CWA’s court page.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Supreme Court Year in Review 2007-2008

Supreme Court Back in Session

Protect Children, Not Charlatans

Constitutional Blunder

Enormous Implications in Medellín Supreme Court Case

Alarming: The Dissent's Opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart

CWA President Wendy Wright Reacts to the Court’s PBA Decision

O'Connor Connects Court Critics to Cookie Caper

A Brief Look at the Arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart

A Brief Look at the Arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart