Arlen Specter--the Republican In Name Only-- has decided to reread the confirmation testimony by Justices Alito and Roberts because--gosh darn it!--they're not acting like liberals!
"There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it," Specter said, singling out Roberts.
Other than grandstanding, what is the value of this exercise? To cast dispersions on the judiciary? Congress can't fire Supreme Court justices just because they don't like the way they rule.
The fact is, Justices Alito and Roberts answered the grilling from the Senate Judiciary Committee in the way necessary both to tell the truth and to win confirmation. That means they didn't Bork themselves.
Roberts said there would be instances that called for a reconsideration of prior decisions. But, he added, "I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness."
Alito called stare decisis "a very important doctrine," although it was not an "inexorable command."
"I agree that, in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis," Alito said. "And the presumption is that the court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent."
Yes, special consideration means the prior cases were ridiculous efforts to make crap up and serve it up as judicial opinions.
The problem for liberals is that they aren't used to any judicial activism (which is what they call reading the Constitution) that doesn't move farther to the left. And let's face it: they aren't used to Supreme Court decisions that don't reaffirm every moonbat idea in existence. So, when the Court says that Congress has the Constitutional authority to ban certain late term abortion procedures, the nutbags on the Left go ballistic. And when the Court determines that discriminating because of race is still racial discrimination, liberals have a sort of cognitive dissonance going. Racial discrimination bad! But discriminating so some kids get to go to better schools than others is good! Or something like that.
I wonder, while Specter's pouring over confirmation testimony looking for inconsistencies, could he go back and look at the testimony of, say, Justice Souter? Or maybe Sandra Day O'Connor? Or maybe Harry Blackmun?
I mean, if justices are supposed to decide cases exactly as they were expected during confirmation hearings, then surely those justices deserve the same treatment, right?
UPDATE: The nutroots display an interesting notion about what the interview process is about.
It has long been my view that the Senate should ask specific questions of the views of SCOTUS nominees. They should be able to ask "do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?" If the nominee chooses not to answer a question like that, then Senators should vote no on that nominee, or table the nomination until he/she does answer the questions.
Just replace the case Roe v. Wade with Plessy v. Ferguson and see the reaction from the Left.