Kos has an interesting take on the nomination of Samuel Alito entitled, The showdown finally arrives. To date, I have read snippets on a couple of blogs and heard one interview on NPR about Alito, so at the moment, I am simply assuming the truth of Kos’s assertions that Alito is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing discrimination based on race and/or disabilities, opposes the FMLA, and has a permissive view of strip searches not constituting Constitutional violations.
The interesting part of his post is the theory that conservative opposition, particularly social conservative opposition, to Miers wasn’t because she was a question mark, but rather because they are tired of hiding and obfuscating their conservative views. In their view, the election of Bush to a second term and expanding majorities in the House and Senate are proof that there is broad, majority support for their views. Skulking, therefore, should not be necessary. So, they want Alito as a public champion of the ideals they hold dear.
The wingers hated Harriet Miers. It wasn’t that she was a walking question mark, but that they were being muzzled. They didn’t want any more stealth candidates that masked the conservative agenda. After winning the presidency and expanding their leads in both the Senate and the House, they were convinced of an ascendant conservative dogma. It was time for a coming out party, and both Roberts and Miers denied them that celebration.
Rove knew that the myth of conservative ascendancy was just that — a myth. An America that voted for Republicans out of fear of terrorists has little appetite for domestic conservative dogma. Bush’s numbers didn’t start coming down because of Iraq or Miers or Katrina. They came down during Bush’s “Let’s Destroy Social Security” road show. Fact is, conservatives are most effective when they mask their true intentions (“healthy forrest initiative”, not the “let’s cut down trees initiative”).
But the Right refused to accept Bush’s winks and nods on Miers. They didn’t just want a conservative jurist. They wanted a showcase of conservatism they could shove down the throats of the likes of us liberals and the rest of America. They wanted one of those obnoxious touchdown dances.
Now we have a true-blood conservative on tap, and this now sets up the showdown of ideas that I think we’ve all craved.
Should be interesting. I’m hoping to find sources that avoid minimizing or maximizing questionable parts of his jurisprudence. The debate could be good — it won’t be, but it could be — if it avoids people on the left screaming, “He wants to bring back slavery!” or people on the right disingenously asserting, “oh, there is no way we could ever be able to speculate on how he would decide anything. How dare you ask us to try.”
Leave a Reply