The Scriptorium

It looks like the Democrats may end up filibustering Alito over his personal beliefs and their political agenda, rather than considering his judicial philosophy as they should. Alito is considered by the vast majority of Senators from both parties to be more than qualified for the job, so the opposition can only be basing their objection to Alito on one thing – his personal and/or religious views. The oversight duties of the Senate were not included in our constitution so that the minority party could prevent Christians or Conservatives from becoming judges on the Supreme Court.

Just as with Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation, Alito’s belief in judicial restraint and his constructionist views on interpreting the constitution SHOULD eliminate any concerns these Senator’s might have as to how Alito will rule in cases that come before the Supreme Court. But, Democrats don’t want our justices to rule based on the framer’s intent as expressed in the constitutional debates. They want justices who believe the Constitution is a living document that changes with the culture and can be rewritten by judges who legislate from the bench, base decisions on International Law, and ignore the will of the people. They want judges who will make rulings like the 1960′s ruling on reapportionment, because they can only win elections if large liberal population centers are able to tip the scale in their favor and force their choices on rural America and smaller cities. We’ve experienced this frustrating situation in Washington State. King County, encompassing the very liberal city of Seattle, dictates what laws will be passed for the entire state. This is why land use laws always succeed in being passed despite the large rural areas in Washington. Seattle liberals don’t care if legislation is passed that allows the government to prohibit farmers, ranchers, and rural home owners from using 60% of their own land. As long as it doesn’t affect them, they’ll force their environmental agenda on the rest of us.

The “Constitutional option” will have to be used eventually. If not now, then when the “Gang of 14″ are replaced with real Conservatives willing to follow through on their campaign promises.

The chance of a filibuster to halt the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito rose on news he once opposed 1960s Supreme Court rulings on reapportionment based on the principle of equal voting rights, a top Democrat on the Senate judiciary panel said on Sunday.

Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, told Fox News Sunday that a decision by Democrats to filibuster would depend largely on Alito’s answers during judiciary committee questioning scheduled for January.

In a 1985 application to be a deputy assistant attorney general disclosed last week, Alito wrote that he disagreed with reapportionment decisions by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the early 1960s.

Prior to the Warren court’s decisions, some state legislators were elected on a geographical basis, giving thinly populated rural areas more political heft than urban centers.

“If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision — that is, the idea of Baker vs. Carr, one man, one vote — then clearly, clearly, you’ll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. We don’t know that. We have to hear it,” Biden said. “That would include a filibuster if need be.”

Asked if this increased the chances of a filibuster, Biden said: “Well, I think based upon that job application where he said he strongly held these views, yes.”