hearings start tomorrow

I just thought I'd post a few commentaries regarding the confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito, which begin tomorrow. Yes, I have a bias that I am perfectly willing to admit. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, I probably won't like you anymore.

Judging Samuel Alito

Court Nominee puts Democrats in a Bind

How Alito would shift high court

Key question for Alito

Okay, here are a couple more. I don't really care about the whole abortion issue. Everybody gets all up in arms about that, and I don't really think it's gonna be a thing. Yeah, they'll probably be dealing with it, but seriously, the whole question of overturning Roe is a little bit overblown. They're not gonna overturn a monumental decision that easily. I don't think Roberts would do it, and even if Alito would, I still don't think they'd have the votes. Although it is a bit outdated, having been written before Rehnquist's seat opened, this article might give you some insight if you're more interested.

In terms of religion, Alito seems to be moderately safe on Free Exercise, but has a bit of a troubling record on the Establishment Clause. See here for an analysis and more background.

And finally, on the opposite side, I have my concerns regarding presidential powers. Alito seems to have some serious and unhealthy tendencies towards empowering the executive branch. The arguments are made here, or at least the suspicions are laid out, which are certainly enough to get me concerned.

Alito foes consider presidential powers

Alito and presidential power

Alito and the war on terror

Personally, I think it's about time for Congress to stand up and stop letting the president push them around.

One thing's for sure; nobody's gonna pin Sam Alito with the label "soft on crime." Unchecked police powers are just as dangerous to civil liberties as unchecked executive power. This article puts the following quotation from Slate in perspective.

NYPD detective Lucas Miller:
There is a conundrum that a policeman faces when asked about politics. The left recognizes the complexity of society and the social forces that swirl around the police, and yet the right supports us when we approach the line between good and overzealous policing. Samuel Alito has repeatedly demonstrated in his arguments and decisions that he trusts the police. He sees a cop's motivation as just and his transgressions forgivable. But what makes the policeman a sympathetic figure in America, unlike some of his federal counterparts or his colleagues in other countries, is his dual identity as government agent and as citizen. He resides in the area he polices; he must live in the world he makes. As much as I am tempted to embrace someone who so clearly appreciates what I do and who would seemingly let me do it with total discretion, I cannot get around a foreboding should agents of the executive branch, as the police are, be given the latitude that Alito is willing to give. There is a moment when you are chasing a suspect, and because you are carrying 15 pounds of equipment or because he is half your age, he begins to get away from you, and you think how satisfying it would be to let a bullet finish the chase for you. Few cops would argue that it is the right thing to do—Alito would and has.

I would ask Judge Alito:

In the United States, we draw a pretty clear line between the way we police those inside and those outside the county. As international terrorism has become more of a threat, our domestic agencies have been forced to look beyond our borders and our intelligence agencies have begun to look within. There are longstanding policies in place separating agencies we think of as domestic—the FBI, the local police, and even the national guard—from those agencies that pursue our enemies abroad—the CIA, the NSA, the Marines. Do you think that this is a worthy distinction? Does it hamper our ability to protect ourselves? How much would the dissolution of that distinction in turn dissolve liberties that you believe we should hold dearly?

Good question.