AnalPhilosopher

“[I]t is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little,
and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.” —John Locke, 1689

“[P]hilosophy can no more show a man what he should attach importance to
than geometry can show a man where he should stand.” —Peter Winch, 1968

Justice Alito

President Bush has nominated federal appellate judge Samuel Alito Jr to the Supreme Court. See here. Alito was not on my list of preferred nominees; nor did I predict that he'd be chosen. But I'm pleased with the choice and will support the nomination. To me, the only question is qualification. Both Harriet Miers and Samuel Alito are qualified—by education, temperament, and experience—for the position. Why there is even discussion of anything else, such as the nominee's "positions" on this or that issue, is puzzling. For the last time: We elect presidents, who, constitutionally, stock the federal bench. Presidents are entitled to judges who share their judicial philosophy. (By "judicial philosophy," I don't mean liberal or conservative but how one interprets the Constitution—strictly or not so strictly.) If you don't like President Bush's choices, get someone elected!

Addendum: Ordinarily, I don't turn on the television until late in the evening, if at all. I don't turn on the computer until early afternoon, after I've done my daily reading, walked the girls, run, and showered. But today was special. I fired up the plasma television and turned to the Fox News Channel for news of the nomination. There on the screen was Bob Beckel, foaming at the mouth (literally), railing against Judge Alito. This is what's coming, folks. Leftists will misrepresent Judge Alito's rulings, distort his views and values, question his character, and try to make him out to be a fascist. (That's Brian Leiter's word for anyone to his right, which is everyone.) When the American people compare Judge Alito to what's being said about him, they will conclude that leftists are nuts. It's going to be a great show.

Addendum 2: Many leftists do not believe in the rule of law. They're result-oriented. They think judging is the making of moral judgments in accordance with one's personal values. It's not. A judge is an umpire. Umpires are not supposed to take sides (i.e., they're to be impartial). Nor are they to be concerned with, or even to think about, how the game comes out. Admittedly, some legal rules are vague and must be interpreted. There are also cases in which rules conflict, which requires that some higher-order rule be invoked to resolve the dispute. But none of this implies that the judge's personal values should come into play. Leftists care about results, not process. They believe that law is just politics in disguise. If you read Brian Leiter's blog, you'll see that he doesn't believe in the rule of law. He says that a judge's values inevitably dictate his or her decisions. That's like saying that an umpire who grew up a Red Sox fan couldn't possibly be impartial while umpiring a Red Sox game, and therefore shouldn't even try to be impartial! Don't buy it. Leiter wants judges to legislate leftist values, and he opposes any judge who won't (or is not likely to) do that. President Bush and most conservatives want judges who will enforce the Constitution's values.

Addendum 3: Michelle Malkin is keeping her readers updated. See here.

Addendum 4: Law professor Hugh Hewitt is polling his readers about the nomination of Judge Alito. See here.

Addendum 5: The ironically named People for the American Way is, as expected, on the attack. See here. I laughed when I read that Judge Alito is "out of the mainstream." Only someone who is out of the mainstream could say such a thing, much less believe it.

Addendum 6: Am I wrong to hope for a filibuster by Democrats? I'm confident that if Democrats filibuster, the Gang of 14 (Republicans McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, and Chafee; Democrats Lieberman, Byrd, Nelson, Landrieu, Inouye, Pryor, and Salazar) will keep their pledge to invoke cloture—for surely there are no "extraordinary circumstances" in this case. If anyone breaches the agreement, the deal is off and Republicans can change the rules to allow a mere majority to end debate (i.e., exercise the "nuclear option"). Democrats need to be given their comeuppance on the matter of judicial nominations. They need to be soundly and ignominiously defeated.

Account:
Password:
Remember info?