Confirming Samuel Alito

Article excerpt

Byline: THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Charles Hurt reports that "Sen. John Kerry dashed home from the Swiss Alps yesterday to man the barricades of a futile filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.," an effort supported by Minority Leader Harry Reid even though he is quoted as saying, "Everyone knows there is not enough votes to support" it. Mr. Kerry's view is that "this is a fight worth making" ("Democrats concede Judge Alito victory," Page 1, Saturday).

One is hard put not to be struck by the cynicism of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Reid. Yet there is another side to their misguided behavior. Call it the culture of corruption of the Democratic Party.

The Democrats have linked the illegal activities of ex-Rep. Randy Cunningham to just about everything they can in their attempt to paint the Republican Party as corrupt. Cunningham crossed the line in influence peddling and has been punished accordingly. As repugnant as his actions were, they do not compare to those of Democratic senators who would filibuster Judge Alito's nomination to satisfy activist liberal lobbies.

Attempting to thwart a vote on Judge Alito's nomination abrogates the constitutional requirement that after the president submits a judicial nominee to the Senate, the Senate must advise and consent. In other words, vote the nominee up or down. The Constitution does not provide for a judicial filibuster or any other means for the Senate to prevent a vote.

The filibuster pandering to liberal lobbies by liberal Democrats in the Senate is unconstitutional, contrary to each senator's oath to support the Constitution and suggests a culture of corruption within the Democratic Party.

Judge Alito is entitled to an up-or-down vote. The Constitution requires it.

ROBERT HARGEST

Alexandria

*

Liberal Democrats have charged that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice because he would set back the progress the courts have made in the past 50 years - Sen. John Kerry even called the expected confirmation an ideological "coup." Let's look at the courts' progress from a traditionalist American standpoint. …