Last week's Senate confirmation hearings on Judge Samuel Alito's fitness for the U.S. Supreme Court put me in mind of an observation by Cardinal Richelieu, the 17th Century French prime minister: "If you will give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Maybe the Senate Democrats were not out to hang Judge Alito, but the lengths to which they were willing to go to scuttle the nomination of an eminent jurist -- one who had received the highest rating of the American Bar Association -- were both desperate and despicable.
Worse for them, the mudslinging backfired. After excoriating Alito for a distant and remote association with a group of Princeton alumni who opposed affirmative action, it came to light that Senator Ted Kennedy was himself still a member of a Harvard alumni group that had been kicked off campus for refusing to admit women.
Latest word is that Sen. Kennedy is resigning from the group as fast as he can, but the stench of hypocrisy will linger long in the committee room from which Judge Alito's wife fled in tears over the surrilous attacks on her husband.
Why are these confirmation hearings so bitter, so personal, and so petty? The likeliest explanation is because so much is at stake. Barring impeachment, Judge Alito could sit on the nation's highest court for ten, twenty, even thirty years, upholding a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. Confronted with a liberal activist nominee, Republicans would probably descend to the same slimy tactics.
I wonder, would these hearings be more civilized if there were a retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, or if they were to serve for a single, fixed term? Is there any good reason in this day and age why justices should serve for life? Partisanship breeds corruption, but life tenure can be just as corrupting in its own way, since it smacks of the divine right of kings. Given the security of a specific term of office, our justices would be just as independent as with life tenure, and they might be a little more humble.
In the early years of the Republic, service in any branch of the national government was seen as a duty and an honor -- not as a career. I for one am sick of professionals in government. I would like see some amateurs go to Washington and shake things up.
Comments (2)
Interesting idea, Hal. I can think of only one possible downside: Without lifelong tenure, we'd have the likely specter of a more frequent, more frantic grab for these bench seats, and a court rushing to make a difference before this or that justice leaves the bench, and Presidents even more pressured by their parties to find judges who will deliver desired results.
And--perhaps worst of all--more horrible hearings like the ones we've just had.
I guess that's a bunch of downsides. But still, I do like your idea and wonder why it isn't floated more often.
Posted by David Murray | January 18, 2006 6:45 PM
Posted on January 18, 2006 18:45
David -- Woodrow Wilson once said that every form of government has the defects of its own virtues. So, yes, there is always a downside. But if there were some limit on justices' tenure in office, they might be less inclined to view themselves as philosopher kings.
Posted by Hal Gordon | January 20, 2006 2:39 PM
Posted on January 20, 2006 14:39