Our President nominated a new judge to take a seat on the Supreme Court – highest court in our land. The nomination of Judge Alito met with immediate, polarizing cries: “Too radical!” “Terrific nominee!” The media proclaimed: “Political fight expected!” Is this what our founding fathers foresaw when they established the method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court?
Will character count when it comes to confirming or rejecting this nominee? Will our lawmakers earnestly seek, in the privacy of their own chambers, away from the clamor of the partisan bickering, to look at the nominee’s character and determine whether or not he has the moral excellence to serve in such a position?
Will each Senator individually and humbly seek to follow the constitutional mandate to “advise and consent” regarding this nomination? President George Washington firmly believed that the role of the Senate was to advise the President after the nomination had been made by the President. Were President Washington to walk to Capitol Hill today and take a seat for the upcoming, “enlightened” hearings of our current Senate, I believe he would be appalled at their subordination of the “advise” portion of their power to the “consent” portion.
Character counts so much in the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito, but will politicians even think about character? Apparently not. The nomination was hardly announced when Democrats served notice they will fight it!
They did not say, with measured, beard-stroking caution and calm, “Well then, let us take a good, long look into the character of this man. If he is of excellent, strong character, we have nothing to fear. He will do what is right for our country. We each will sit down in a place of solitude, away from our fellow-lawmakers. We will cancel all other appointments for a few days, and spend time away from the media and the special interest groups. We must be sure that we can properly advise our president on this important matter. This is a time for very serious, quiet reflection.”
They did not say, “Let us place before us a list of character traits, and subject this nominee’s life and work to each trait. We will prepare spreadsheets showing his strength or weakness in each point. We will begin with integrity. Is this judge single-minded or double-minded? We will move to honesty. Does this man attempt to deceive people in any way, for even a moment? Is he trustworthy? Is he truthful? Does he have the courage of his convictions, or will he be swayed by the fickle political scene?”
Character counts in confirmation hearings of a judge, and it is a travesty, a mockery of our country’s Constitution for lawmakers to pretend to “advise and consent” regarding the nomination without a willingness to look FIRST at the judge’s character.
Perhaps they are afraid to let the American people think about character in matters related to government. Perhaps too many of the lawmakers themselves are so lacking in moral fiber that they fear being discovered. Whatever the reason, although character counts so strongly in a judge holding such power in our land, it looks as though we will have, instead, a partisan fight based on anything but character.
That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?