Here comes the judge

Supreme Court nominee Alito has been grilled this week by senators questioning his past associations, writings, and decisions. It is time to revisit how they approached another Supreme court nominee.

Let us image for a moment that a Supreme Court nominee had advocated, this week, for the following through writings and speaking engagements: (A). A constitutional right to prostitution and polygamy. (B). Attacked the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. (C). Proposed abolishing Mother's Day and Father's Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent's Day. (D). Called for an end to singe-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. (E). Wrote, "use the Supreme Court to enact `social change....without taking giant strides...the court, through constitutional adjudication, can reinforce or signal a green light for social change." (F). Also wrote, "boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding of the Constitution is sometimes necessary." (G). Advocate universal court-ordered work place affirmative action quotas, even if no discrimination is found.

Surely no Senator would support Alito if he had such views. And surely no president, no matter how outrageous, would nominate such a candidate.

Unfortunately, the hypothetical nominee I have just described is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.

In conclusion, it is hard to imagine any senator attacking Alito's respectable record with a straight face, while confirming an extremist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.