Feingold votes No on Alito

[pstans]

Thanks to Schwompa from Tennesseans for Feingold for giving me permission to post this.
http://tennesseansforfeingold.blogspot.com/2006/01/russ-feingold-votes-no-on-alito.html

Feingold votes No on Alito

Russ Feingold voted against Judge Alito today in the Judiciary committee. This is the first Supreme Court nominee for which Feingold has cast a nay vote. Known for deferring to the executive on controversial nominees of the President--his yes vote for Ashcroft comes to mind--he felt that Alito would defer to the executive at the expense of civil liberties (http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=39833):

In times of constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court can tell the executive it has gone too far, and require it to obey the law. Yet Judge Alito's record and testimony strongly suggest that he would do what he has done for much of his 15 years on the bench: defer to the executive branch in case after case at the expense of individual rights.

Although he has not decided cases dealing with the Bill of Rights in wartime, he has a very long record on the bench of ruling in favor of the government and against individuals in a variety of contexts. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is an important distinction between Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Our new Chief Justice had a very limited judicial record before his nomination. Judge Alito has an extensive record. There is no better evidence of what kind of Justice he will be on the Supreme Court than his record as a Court of Appeals judge. He told us that himself.

A whole series of analyses by law professors and news organizations has shown that Judge Alito is very deferential toward the government, and one detailed analysis by the Washington Post concluded that he is more deferential than his Third Circuit colleagues and even than Republican-appointed appeals judges nationwide. This vividly demonstrates the concern I have about this nomination. Judge Alito is not simply a conservative judge appointed by a conservative President. His record is that of a jurist with a clear inclination to rule in favor of the government and against individual rights.

He also cited Alito's responses to his questions on the death penalty:

I was particularly troubled by his refusal to say that an individual who went through a procedurally perfect trial, but was later proven innocent, had a constitutional right not to be executed. The Constitution states that no one in this country will be deprived of life without due process of law. It is hard to even imagine how any process that would allow the execution of someone who is known to be innocent could satisfy that requirement of our Bill of Rights. I pressed Judge Alito on this topic but rather than answering the question directly or acknowledging how horrific the idea of executing an innocent person is, or even pointing to the House v. Bell case currently pending in the Supreme Court on a related issue, Judge Alito mechanically laid out the procedures a person would have to follow in state and federal court to raise an innocence claim, and the procedural barriers the person would have to surmount.

Judge Alito's record and response suggest that he analyzes death penalty appeals as a series of procedural hurdles that inmates must overcome, rather than as a critical backstop to prevent grave miscarriages of justice. The Supreme Court plays a very unique role in death penalty cases, and Judge Alito left me with no assurance that he would be able to review these cases without a weight on the scale in favor of the government.

Additonally, The Nation has a decent article on Feingold's opposition to Alito and his record on approving presidential appointees (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060124/cm_thenation/152420)

Simply put, if Alito is unacceptable to Feingold, then he should be unacceptable to a good many other senators -- including moderate Republicans with whom Feingold has worked closely on campaign finance reform and a host of other issues over the years, such as Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee.

Why give this special status to Feingold? Because, since his arrival in the Senate in 1993, he has distinguished himself by his consistent if often controversial approach to presidential nominations.

The senator from Wisconsin has a record of supporting disputed Republican picks for top posts -- including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts -- because of his belief that presidents should be afforded broad leeway when it comes to making appointments. A progressive who is perhaps best known for casting the sole Senate vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, Feingold has long argued that Democrats must support the qualified conservative nominees of Republican presidents if they expect Republicans to support the qualified liberal nominees of Democratic presidents.

Feingold's standard has often infuriated liberal interest groups, along with many of his fellow Democrats, who have argued that he has given too much slack to right-wing Republicans who will never repay the favor. Why, the common question goes, does a progressive Democrat give conservative Republicans a blank check?

The Nation is right in its assertions. If a Democrat who is known for voting for Bush's nominees votes against one, moderate republicans should take notice.

[Surya Gayatri]

1. Feingold's usually moderate stance

has been conveniently ignored by the CORP MEDIA (and the REEPS of course). He's been lumped in with all of those other "dangerously left-leaning libruls". This distortion should be pin-pointed again & again. SG

[Jeffersons Ghost]

2. I guess that sums it all up

When a man of conscience votes against a nominee it proves that the freak is not legally or morally qualified for the job.

[pstans]

3. Exactly

Feingold votes on principle. You might not always agree with him (like him voting for Ashcroft), but this vote shows that Alito does not hold the right judicial temperment. Moderate Republicans should listen up and reconsider their votes.