Commentary from Vince Carocci

ALITO HEARINGS POSE SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS

January 2006

By VINCENT P. CAROCCI

If they were paying attention (and they should have been), Pennsylvanians could not have helped but notice the Keystone State connections to the recently concluded Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of federal appellate judge Samuel Alito to a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

Two of the links were so transparent as to be self-evident. The third was much more subtle and indirect; it could, however, pose serious implications for the important electoral decision Commonwealth voters will make come November.

The first, obviously, was the critical role Pennsylvania’s senior U.S. Senator Arlen Specter played as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in steering the hearings through four-days of highly partisan interrogation to an orderly, if not timely, conclusion. His stern reprimand of senior Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts—“I’m not concerned about your threats to have votes again and again and again…I’m not going to have you run this committee”--will go down as one of the two most memorable Kodak moments of the proceedings. (The other, of course, was the picture of Mrs. Alito fighting back her tears after the brutal Democratic assault on her husband’s character and integrity.)

The second link was the dissenting opinion Judge Alito rendered some 15 years ago as a member of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a constitutional challenge of the 1989 Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.

The law, fostered by the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, imposed a number of restrictions on abortions in the Commonwealth, including a provision that a woman notify her husband of any planned termination of her pregnancy. Alito filed a minority opinion holding that statutory requirement did not constitute an undue burden on the woman. He was grilled extensively on his dissent by the minority Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, who maintained it was certified evidence of his anti-abortion position and closed mind on the subject…a contention the judge skillfully declined to affirm.

In retrospect, the four-day marathon told us certainly as much and probably more about the members of the United States Senate as it did about Judge Alito. The most edgy but on-point review of the proceedings came from Philadelphia Daily News columnist, Stu Bykofsky, in a Jan. 16 column, entitled: “What’s the Smell? The Alito Hearings.”

“The week-long process,” Bykofsky wrote, “was a shameful charade of political lies, innuendoes and smears, buttressed by misinformation and misdirection…” He called the Democrats “badgering,” in their not so-veiled attacks on Alito, suggesting tongue in cheek (Bykofsky’s not the senators’) that they believed the judge “tortures cats and would jail minorities, outlaw unions, prohibit abortion, permit the President to attack Canada and wiretap conversations between my mother and her hair colorist…” Being an equal opportunity critic, he called the Republicans “obsequious” in their attempts to portray Alito as “Mother Theresa in black garb…the greatest thing to come out of America since the Ford Mustang, (that) he’s never lied, he crochets sweaters for the poor, he has served in The Military (ours) and he actually knows a black person.”

Most revealing were the statistics Bykofsky cited from a blogger who measured the number of words spoken by the Senators in positing their questions versus the number of words spoken by the nominee in response to them.

The list of “Bloviators” (again, Bykofsky’s characterization) was headed by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) who used 3,673 words to query the judge, while Alito needed only 1,013 to respond—a 78/22 per cent ratio. Going down the list of the top five in this category were Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), 75/25; Michael DeWine (R-OH), 72-28; the aforementioned Sen. Kennedy, 69-31; and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), 65-35.

“Since senators are used to having their fannies kissed, no one dares tell them they are pompous, gaseous, preening windbags,” Bykofsky wrote. He quotes Specter as saying, “Nobody can tell a senator what questions to ask,” and he concludes, “Someone needs to.” Agreed.

Which brings us to the final Pennsylvania connection in the Alito hearings: The effect the proceedings might have on the contest for the United States Senate this November between Republican incumbent Rick Santorum and the likely Democratic nominee, State Treasurer Robert P. Casey, son of the governor.

The hearings confirmed, if confirmation were needed, that a highly partisan-charged atmosphere continues to exist between national Democrats and national Republicans in Washington. The proceedings also reaffirmed the standing of Democrats like Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, and Biden--not to mention Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and the mouth of all mouths, Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean--as the most vocal voices and visible faces of the party in the nation’s political affairs.

Truman/Casey Democrats in Pennsylvania like me must ask ourselves whether these are the people we want speaking for us in Washington. We also must wonder where a voice like the mostly moderate Casey would fit in the nation’s capitol, and whether he truly would be heard or have any influence in this clique of left-leaning ideologues. Remember, this is the party with fundamentally the same leadership approach that shunned Casey’s father in his request to address the Democratic Presidential Convention in 1992 on the subject of abortion. This also is the party that, essentially, has delegated moderate Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, it’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, to virtual oblivion in its Senate and political councils. This is the reality that Pennsylvania Democrats must ponder this year. In the end, it may not be conclusive or decisive for all of us in our decision-making. But it certainly gives each of us reason to pause before we cast our ballots.

# # # # #