Let the Borking Begin

Townhall ^ | 11/14/5 | Horace Cooper

[Crackingham]

A brilliant appellate court judge, widely recognized for his legal scholarship, is nominated to fill the second vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. He is nominated by an anti-abortion Republican president, who pledged only to appoint conservative, “strict constructionist” judges, who would interpret—not legislate—from the bench.

Rather than admit that they oppose him on ideological or philosophical grounds, special interest groups and liberal Democrats instead choose the low road. Lamenting that they had allowed the President’s nominee for chief justice to sail through a confirmation with little controversy, this time they have decided to engage in a smear campaign.

First, they examined his judicial record to see which cases they could distort and misrepresent to the American public. They argued that if he were to join the Supreme Court, he would roll back the clock on minority and women’s rights. When that failed, they regrouped to attack his ethics by using an old allegation involving a conflict of interest.

Historian David McCullough reminds us: “A nation that forgets its past can function no better than an individual with amnesia.” However, the case to which McCullough refers takes us back to the year 1969. The brilliant judge was Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., and the president was Richard M. Nixon. Yet, McCullough’s admonition rings true today. Instead of abortion, the issue back then for senators and activists groups was civil rights. Led by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, a cadre of Senate Democrats worked hand-in-glove with special interest groups to organize the first “borking” of a Supreme Court nominee.

But any fair reading of Judge Haynsworth's record would have shown no evidence that he was an opponent of blacks or other minorities. His actual record involving civil rights litigation was fairly limited, involving fewer than a dozen cases and showing no discernible predispositions one way or another. But for his critics, these facts didn’t matter, as they embarked on a concerted effort to present him as an unrepentant segregationist.

But that charge alone proved insufficient to torpedo his nomination. His critics then pulled another arrow out of their quiver: a decades-old claim that Haynsworth had ruled in a case involving the Vend-A-Matic Company, a company in which he held 3% of its shares. Even though a thorough examination demonstrated there wasn’t any ethical impropriety involved whatsoever in the case—in fact the matter had been extensively investigated and resolved well before he would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court—his opponents made the charge gain traction by reviving it over and over again.

Later, Senator Bayh's chief of staff Bob Keefe confessed, "To maintain the fantasy that they were unworthy for reasons other than their judicial philosophy, we had to develop other rationales. In the case of Haynsworth, we found that he had a rather loose view of the appearance of conflict of interest."

Tragically their techniques worked. The United States Senate rejected Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr.’s nomination to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 55 to 45.

Today, the year is 2005, and some Democrats and hardliners on the left think the American people are raging amnesiacs that won’t notice the same playbook being used again. This time, the target is Samuel Alito, the brilliant appellate court judge nominated this week by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

And once again, rather than admit that they oppose him solely based on his “judicial philosophy,” his critics have attempted to distort his judicial record. And apparently, having failed at mischaracterizing his views as extreme on issues involving religion and abortion, they have decided to play the ethics card.

Today’s charge is conflict of interest based on a case back in 2002. In that case, a losing plaintiff complained after a three judge panel (which included Judge Alito) issued a unanimous opinio favoring the Vanguard Group Inc. The claim was that Judge Alito should not have participated in the decision, since he owned shares of the firm's mutual funds. At the time, Judge Alito said he believed he had done nothing improper. In fact, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court even advises that judges not be required to disqualify themselves from cases involving their mutual-fund management companies.

[goldstategop]

Liberals are so ethical when it suits them. They'll use judicial corruption to keep a conservative judge off the bench when the real reason is they opppse his ideology. What they seek to do is give RINOs a more plausible reason to vote against him.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

Interestingly, Horace Cooper is the same man who wrote "Harriet Miers is Conservative Enough"

[Agrarian]

The battle that was discussed in this article was, I'm pretty sure, the one that resulted in Nixon choosing a "stealth" or "compromise" candidate, on the recommendation of Warren Burger.

That candidate -- Blackmun, was overwhelmingly approved, and of course went on to author the decision in Roe v. Wade, and to spend the rest of his career defending and bolstering that piece of raw judicial activism.

[CFC__VRWC]

The WSJ's masthead editorial today was devoted to how the Dims are trying to exploit the Vanguard issue. Apparently, Arlen Specter is helping them play their game by demanding that Alito give a "full public disclosure" on this. From what I've read, the "ethics problem" associated with this is very thin gruel, but that's never stopped the Dims or the MSM before. the obvious poly here - present Alito as part of the phony "culture of corruption" that Dean and Pelosi and the rest of them have been raving about.

Make no mistake about it - the Borking of Alito has officially begun. The NYT has already come out with a couple of Alito hit pieces, and they're gushing about this grand coalition of far left groups (Alliance for Justice, PFAW, NAACP, ad nauseum) that's mobiliozing to flood the airwaves with smear ads. I'm expecting a very heavy barrage of anti-Alito stories this week, as the left tries to pile on before Thanksgiving comes and the public goes into holiday mode, and as they try to take advantage of the President being in Asia this week and thus (supposedly) not being as able to respond to the attacks on his nominee.