"Scalito"
The Honorable Samuel Alito sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee today and answered questions. He is called "Scalito" by some because he seems to embrace the jurisprudence of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. My guess is that most observers expected "friendly" questions from Republican Senators, and "hostile" questions from Democratic Senators.
But it's more complicated than that. Senators are highly intelligent, articulate, motivated people. When they make statements (or in this case, ask questions) they intend to send very clear messages to friend and foe alike. Their utterances are recorded, parsed, relayed, and ultimately show up again twenty years later to determine someone's political destiny.
I don't think there's anything Judge Alito could say that would make Ted Kennedy vote for his confirmation. So why does the Senator from Massachusetts bother to ask questions? Well, it's his job. But beyond that, his questions, his tone of voice, his commentary that he inserts before asking the actual question ... these all send messages to constituents and lobbying groups. They need to know that the Senator will continue to look after them as he has been doing for so many years. And the opposition needs to know that he is a force, an opponent not easily cast aside.
Similarly, I don't think there's anything Judge Alito could say that would make Lindsey Graham vote against his confirmation. But Senator Graham used the cross-examination method of questioning. He asked leading questions, and actually seemed somewhat hostile toward Scalito. He even interrupted him, and said in a rather severe tone "I disagree" as Scalito attempted to answer a question. He asked a few questions like "Are you aware of any case where U.S. forces were required to release enemy combatants before a conflict ended?" and "Do you agree that our nation has been continuously engaged in armed conflict with terrorists since 9/11?"
The leading questions gave me pause. Especially the one about whether "enemy combatants have rights under our constitution". I honestly don't know what an "enemy combatant" is (or what body has the authority to define the term). I think it's a combatant acting without the express authorization of a nation/state. I think then they'd have to say "military personnel" or "soldier" and we'd get all wrapped up with the Geneva Convention and whether or not torture is allowed. But last I heard, they were debating over the definition of "torture" as well. The NGOs seem to think it's one thing, and governments who practice it seem to think it's something else ... far, far worse than anything they do.
But back to Senator Graham's line of questioning. Maybe I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist, but typically cross-examination is used for a hostile witness. The leading questions are used to get that person to say exactly what you want them to say. I think Senator Graham asked particular questions, and phrased them in a such a way as to give the impression that holding persons for indefinite periods of time without charging them is okay, because we are in "a state of war" and the Constitution does not protect "enemy combatants". And his severe tone with Judge Alito was proof that he wasn't going easy on him. We are to accept the questions at face value.
Sorry ... I can't. Just like I can't accept the notion that there's nothing wrong with Michael Jackson. The people who listen intently to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questions, and accept them at face value, are the same sort of folks that let their kids go to slumber parties at Neverland. Either they have lost their minds, or they are highly, highly, unethical.
I just hope Scalito remembers to be just after he's confirmed. And don't give me any yick-yack like "it's not about doing justice, it's about properly interpreting the Constitution". Don't gimme that sullbhit!! The Constitution is only valuable inasmuch as it allows justice to be served. Freedom of Speech, Separation of Church and State, Separation of Powers ... they all mean nothing without the underlying concept of justice.
Good night, and good luck.
But it's more complicated than that. Senators are highly intelligent, articulate, motivated people. When they make statements (or in this case, ask questions) they intend to send very clear messages to friend and foe alike. Their utterances are recorded, parsed, relayed, and ultimately show up again twenty years later to determine someone's political destiny.
I don't think there's anything Judge Alito could say that would make Ted Kennedy vote for his confirmation. So why does the Senator from Massachusetts bother to ask questions? Well, it's his job. But beyond that, his questions, his tone of voice, his commentary that he inserts before asking the actual question ... these all send messages to constituents and lobbying groups. They need to know that the Senator will continue to look after them as he has been doing for so many years. And the opposition needs to know that he is a force, an opponent not easily cast aside.
Similarly, I don't think there's anything Judge Alito could say that would make Lindsey Graham vote against his confirmation. But Senator Graham used the cross-examination method of questioning. He asked leading questions, and actually seemed somewhat hostile toward Scalito. He even interrupted him, and said in a rather severe tone "I disagree" as Scalito attempted to answer a question. He asked a few questions like "Are you aware of any case where U.S. forces were required to release enemy combatants before a conflict ended?" and "Do you agree that our nation has been continuously engaged in armed conflict with terrorists since 9/11?"
The leading questions gave me pause. Especially the one about whether "enemy combatants have rights under our constitution". I honestly don't know what an "enemy combatant" is (or what body has the authority to define the term). I think it's a combatant acting without the express authorization of a nation/state. I think then they'd have to say "military personnel" or "soldier" and we'd get all wrapped up with the Geneva Convention and whether or not torture is allowed. But last I heard, they were debating over the definition of "torture" as well. The NGOs seem to think it's one thing, and governments who practice it seem to think it's something else ... far, far worse than anything they do.
But back to Senator Graham's line of questioning. Maybe I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist, but typically cross-examination is used for a hostile witness. The leading questions are used to get that person to say exactly what you want them to say. I think Senator Graham asked particular questions, and phrased them in a such a way as to give the impression that holding persons for indefinite periods of time without charging them is okay, because we are in "a state of war" and the Constitution does not protect "enemy combatants". And his severe tone with Judge Alito was proof that he wasn't going easy on him. We are to accept the questions at face value.
Sorry ... I can't. Just like I can't accept the notion that there's nothing wrong with Michael Jackson. The people who listen intently to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questions, and accept them at face value, are the same sort of folks that let their kids go to slumber parties at Neverland. Either they have lost their minds, or they are highly, highly, unethical.
I just hope Scalito remembers to be just after he's confirmed. And don't give me any yick-yack like "it's not about doing justice, it's about properly interpreting the Constitution". Don't gimme that sullbhit!! The Constitution is only valuable inasmuch as it allows justice to be served. Freedom of Speech, Separation of Church and State, Separation of Powers ... they all mean nothing without the underlying concept of justice.
Good night, and good luck.
posted by Wordsmyth at
5:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home