Justice Samuel AlitoJustice Samuel Alito assumed his seat on the Supreme Court last week. Finally. From nomination to swearing-in, his confirmation process took 92 days—an unusually long period for any Supreme Court nominee.

Partisans in D.C. are either horrified or overjoyed, depending on their political persuasion. But what about those Americans who don’t live and breathe "Inside the Beltway" news? What do they think? The Alito confirmation process has taught us quite a bit about the qualities that these Americans most value in a Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps more importantly, we have learned what factors the average American doesn’t particularly care about.

Do So-called Stealth Nominees Gain More Support? Let’s face it. President Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, had a bit of the "stealth" quality to him. His judicial experience was short, as was his paper trail. Nevertheless, Roberts sailed through his hearings, and the Bush administration apparently concluded that stealth nominees are the best recipe for avoiding partisan showdowns in the Senate. Bush promptly took this philosophy to an extreme and nominated one of the most "unknown" candidates he could find: Harriet Miers. Her stealth nomination imploded, as her lack of a record created doubts about her qualifications. On the other hand, Alito was confirmed despite a lengthy paper trail. Indeed, instead of creating problems for his nomination, his record seems to have given most mainstream Americans confidence in Alito. His credentials and his ability to issue impartial and fair rulings were on display for all to see.

Does Mainstream America Applaud "Diversity" in Judicial Selection? Mainstream America is not concerned about diversity, but neither does it view diversity as the primary criterion that should drive judicial picks. When push comes to shove, most Americans seem much more concerned about quality, intelligence, and judicial philosophy. The Alito nomination (particularly when viewed in combination with the Roberts nomination) demonstrates that most Americans will support any nominee, regardless of race or ethnicity, if he is perceived to be an honest and well-qualified jurist. In 2005, Bush nominated two white men in a row, despite earlier hints that he would pick a minority candidate. Nevertheless, most Americans recognized the President’s nominees as strong candidates—arguably among the brightest legal minds of their generation. Nothing more was needed. By and large, mainstream America seems satisfied with the President’s choices.

But Shouldn’t Bush Pick a Woman if Another Vacancy Arises? Most Americans would likely claim a desire to see a woman picked, if asked as a theoretical matter. But, again, when faced with actual nominees, questions of gender seem to pale in comparison to qualifications. Let’s call the Roberts, Miers, and Alito confirmations Exhibits "A" through "C" on this point. Qualifications, not gender, determined the general level of satisfaction with each of these three candidates. Moreover, those who Alito certainly did not do so because of his gender. Of those Senate Democrats who voted against Alito, does anyone seriously believe that they would have voted a well-qualified conservative female jurist, such as Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit?

Are Pro-Life Judges Automatically Disqualified From the Bench? Supreme Court nominees historically avoid talking about abortion whenever possible; however, Alito lacked this luxury enjoyed by many of his predecessors. To the contrary, his personal views on abortion were already on the record and became the subject of much questioning. Moreover, he has issued rulings in several court cases dealing with the subject. Yet mainstream Americans didn’t seem too bothered by his personal conservative stance. Why? Most people seem comfortable that Alito’s personal views on abortion won’t become a proxy for his deliberations in these cases. Alito has demonstrated his ability to be impartial. Such evidence was sufficient for most Americans.

Perhaps the most striking feature that came to light during the Alito confirmation is the huge disconnect between mainstream America and those inside the Beltway. Most Americans have pretty simple criteria for judges: Judges should be intelligent, qualified, and impartial. They should not substitute their views for the views of legislators. Any other issue is extraneous.

Not so for those in D.C.

Inside the Beltway, the Supreme Court has become the ultimate partisan fighting ground. Left-wing special interest groups, in particular, have become accustomed to making law through court rulings, and they are loathe to let go of this power. Other politicians see the judiciary as a way to make a political statement. They evaluate a candidate’s gender, race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation before they consider the candidate’s qualifications. They criticize those who fail to do the same.

Politicians claim not to have a Roe v. Wade litmus test. But, of course, they do.

Ultimately, this state of affairs demonstrates the importance of presidential and senatorial elections. Voters must be diligent in electing officials who understand and will support judicial characteristics that most Americans care about: Honesty, impartiality, intelligence, credentials, and a philosophy that encourages judicial restraint rather than judicial lawmaking.

Voters absolutely must hold their officials to account. If they fail do to so, the politicization of the judiciary that started in D.C. could easily become an overwhelming and destructive force. If it hasn’t already.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment