From a 1991 Reader’s Digest: “A hypocrite can be defined as someone who complains that there is too much sex and violence on his VCR.”
Thanks to Senator Leahy we now have a new definition as hypocrisy reigned on the Senate floor yesterday. A staffer explains:
Senator Leahy on the floor last night objected to the fact that the three women who received confirmation votes yesterday had had to wait five months from nomination to confirmation. He says there “is no excuse, no reason for these months of delay,” especially when votes on the nominees are likely to be unanimous. He also explained that a Senators job is to “vote up or vote down. We’re not elected to vote maybe.”
Senator Leahy, again, appears to have forgotten his role in obstructing countless Bush nominations, filibustering several of them, and delaying others, including those who later received unanimous support. He even voted to filibuster a judge, Richard Griffin, who was confirmed to the Sixth Circuit by a vote of 95-0 – three years after his original nomination.
Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats also blocked the nomination of Susan Bieke Neilson for four years. She, too, was ultimately confirmed unanimously (97-0). Unfortunately, she succumbed to a rare blood disorder just two months after assuming her seat on the Sixth Circuit.
Senator Leahy (D-Vt.) also said it is the GOP that wants a “litmus test” for judges. And from everyone’s favorite hypocrite
On the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Specter spoke critically of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, suggesting that they have failed to live up to statements they made at their confirmation hearings. Specifically, he said that by their votes in the Citizens United case, they violated their pledge to respect precedent under the principle of stare decisis. As Senator Specter must know, if for no other reason than because both men made it very clear, respect for precedent and the principles of stare decisis does not mean an automatic reaffirmation of precedent. Particularly in matters of constitutional law, Roberts and Alito were emphatic that the Court cannot, must not, refuse to strike down unconstitutional legislation.
Indeed, in Specter’s opening exchange with then-Judge Roberts, the future Chief explained in detail the factors he would apply when considering whether to let a precedent stand. It was not merely whether overturning precedent would “jolt” the legal system, as Specter implied this afternoon. Rather, Roberts expressly noted cases where he believed the Court was correct to reverse precedent — sometimes in ways that created quite a sharp “jolt” to the prevailing order of the day. Roberts stated: “Obviously, Brown v. Board of Education is a leading example, overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, the West Coast Hotel case overruling the Lochner-era decisions.”
Throughout his testimony, Roberts was emphatic that the Court often had a duty to strike down unconstitutional legislation. In response to a question by Senator Hatch, he stated: “The obligation to say what the law is, including determining that particular legislation is unconstitutional, is, as Chief Justice Marshall said, emphatically the duty and province of the judicial branch…. it’s not judicial activism when the court does that. They may be right or they’re wrong. And if they’re wrong, they’re wrong, but it’s not activism.” Judicial activism, the Chief Justice explained, occurs when a court substitutes its policy preferences for that of the legislature.
Judge Alito, also in response to Chairman Specter’s opening questions, said that while stare decisis “is a very important doctrine … It’s not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents.” He testified further, in response to questioning by Senator Feinstein: “I don’t think anybody would want a rule in the area of constitutional law that pointed and said that a constitutional decision once handed down can never be overruled.” Senator Schumer directly asked Justice Alito if a constitutional argument could trump stare decisis. He responded in no uncertain terms: “It certainly can. And I think that’s a good thing, because otherwise Plessy v. Ferguson would still be on the books.”
