Through the hourglass

TUSCOLA, Ill. - Between my various travels of late (and I am on the road even now), some academic responsibilities and life at The Badger Herald, I have neglected to weigh in on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court thus far. And, in a sense, I still think it a touch premature – other than a quick and notable recitation of the judge's stance on a duo of Planned Parenthood cases, not much has come out about the jurist at this point.

A week into John Roberts' nomination, America knew a great deal more about the eventual Chief Justice than it does about Mr. Alito at this point. And with senate hearings not scheduled to begin until January, such is not a serious concern – we still have the holiday season to meet the judge.

But I also have to wonder: why are we waiting until January? Sandra Day O'Connor wants to retire – she wants to go home. Can't the senate respect that and put a little urgency into this whole process?

I realize a background check takes some time, but even conservative estimates say that 30 days should do the trick. Judge Alito seems to be available at any time. And, at last check, the Senate hasn't been up to much as of late, other than having its liberal members bad mouth the Bush administration in the press.

I can't imagine our founders envisioned a three months process when they provided for “advice and consent.” In fact, history shows us that with time, the process has only grown longer. A judge was once confirmed on the very day of his nomination based on his good reputation alone.

But a quick process wouldn't give Senators Schumar, Clinton, Feinstein and Boxer much face time, now would it? And, knowing that group, they would filibuster as a means of that much-needed national attention if Mr. Alito were put to a vote in a timely fashion.

So we get to wait until January. After Thanksgiving. After Christmas. After 2005 has passed.

You have to wonder: did Ms. O'Connor really think it would take the better part of a year to fill her spot on the bench?