With the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Samuel A. Alito
Jr. pushed to Jan. 9, the public is left to ponder the relationship
between political opinion and judicial action, especially when
abortion is concerned.
Since Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall gave
the Supreme Court the power to declare congressional actions
unconstitutional, worrying about the political bias of judges has
become a pastime among pundits.
This trend is most noticeable in more recent judicial
appointments, namely the nomination of Robert Bork, Ronald
Reagan’s 1987 Supreme Court pick, who was rejected for his
arch-conservative views.
While the political beliefs of a justice should not be the only
factor in a confirmation hearing, they should still play an
important role. After all, any political bias will influence any
judge’s rulings.
The other aspect senators must consider in a confirmation
hearing is judicial experience and skill. And in Alito’s
case, this aspect is covered.
In his 15 years on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia, Alito voted on over 3,500 rulings. It’s no
wonder Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said Alito was a “good,
solid pick by the president.”
Since his judicial qualifications aren’t nearly as dismal
as the lately relieved Harriet Miers, all that’s left for the
Senate to debate are his political beliefs.
It’s ironic that in a court system based on impartiality,
we find ourselves choosing judges based on how partial they are to
a certain political ideology.
We have to care, because it is impossible to completely separate
a person’s judicial rulings from their political bias. And
that’s okay, because a judge can have an ideological bent and
still rule fairly.
This applies to the issue of abortion, which seems to be the
pivotal factor in deciding Supreme Court justices.
Abortion rights and anti-abortion advocates are already gearing
up for a battle over what they are certain will either protect a
women’s right to choose abortion or the lives of unborn
children.
Alito has already ruled on four cases involving abortion. While
he upheld abortion in three of his rulings, in 1991 he wrote the
dissenting opinion, in which he favored a more restrictive view on
abortion.
Many conservatives are hopeful this ruling is evidence that he
will overturn Roe v. Wade. Judie Brown, president of anti-abortion
organization American Life League, gives her support to Alito.
Brown said in a Nov. 1 press release, “All I have read about
Judge Alito thus far shows he is a decent man and an experienced,
even-handed jurist whom senators should support.” This is a
statement I wholeheartedly support.
However, abortion rights advocates are worried that he will
surreptitiously attack Roe v. Wade.
“Alito’s confirmation could shift the Court in a
direction that threatens to eviscerate the core protections for
women’s freedom guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, or overturn the
landmark decision altogether,” said Nancy Keenan, president
of NARAL Pro-Choice America in a press release. These statements
merely illustrate how important the American public considers
opinion in a judge’s nomination.
Though on the conservative side, Alito seems to be more
competent enough to join this nation’s highest court.
Whatever their political beliefs, senators should remember that
ideology should not be the only focus.
In the judicial system, it’s not only about beliefs, but
about experience as well. Of course, we will have to wait until
January to find out the fate of this new judge.
Send all comments, love letters, proposals and found money
to Crandall at jcrandall@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.