[NOTE: I have several posts on Alito, and all of them may be viewed on one page by going to my judiciary subdomain. ]
I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks by Scott Lemieux on Sunday (in part, reiterating an earlier post of his); emphasis is mine:
First of all, Bush nominated Alito as opposed to many other well-qualified candidates because he is an exceptionally reactionary judge, and the Senate can take this into account just as much as the President can.
[...]
a brief comment about “Borking.” One odd thing is that Bork’s failed nomination to the Supreme Court has become the definition of a bad nomination process, when in fact it was a case where the process worked as it should work.
[...]
the Bork nomination involved a substantive discussion of judicial philosophy without diversionary “character” questions [of the sort seen in the Thomas confirmation process]. He was appointed [i.e. nomnated] for political reasons, of course, and rejected for political reasons, and in both cases the reaction was perfectly appropriate. [...] The system worked as it should.
Scott closes by noting that “borking” was possible because Bork stated his views clearly before the Judiciary Committee. Will Alito be so candid? Will the Senators allow him to get away without a candid discussion?
The hearings start this week. Let us bork.
