Senators lecture, Alito listens

The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court are finally winding a close, and such is a good thing considering that the integrity of the United States Senate may not be able to withstand another day of petty egotistical soliloquy.

To be sure, there have been plenty of embarrassing highlights thus far, and such is the topic of a column I will publish in the Tuesday edition of The Badger Herald. But for now some general thoughts on the commentary of others.

There is a marvelous piece in today's Washington Post by Howard Kurtz on the whole sorry affair, headlined “Senate Smackdown.” In the article, he astutely notes:

Well, it's finally happened. The Judiciary hearing is now totally about the senators. Not content with the poor reviews of the first two days, they ratcheted things up yesterday. Minutes after [a controversial] exchange, Ken Melhman used a blast e-mail to accuse Kennedy of a "smear."

Even a news analysis in yesterday's New York Times had to include this humiliating moment for Teddy “Bridging the Gap” Kennedy:

But at other times, [Mr. Alito] silenced Democrats by the directness of his responses. Asked by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts about an endorsement of "the supremacy of the elected branches of government" in the 1985 job application, Judge Alito simply disavowed it.

"It's an inapt phrase," he said, "and I certainly didn't mean that literally at the time, and I wouldn't say that today. The branches of government are equal."

Mr. Kennedy followed up. "So you've changed your mind?" he asked.

"No, I haven't changed my mind, senator," Judge Alito responded. "But the phrasing there is very misleading and incorrect."

The same news analysis is quick to note how the various senators have had trouble keeping intellectual pace with Mr. Alito:

To a large extent, Judge Alito's success at skating though a good deal of the day reflected the quality of the questioning. The senators frequently did not follow up on their own queries, and Mr. Biden in particular devoted most of his 30 minutes to talking, leaving little time for the nominee to speak.

Ann Althouse, the queen of legal bloggers, makes a good point:

Roberts's performance has become a myth of perfection, so it made sense to assume Alito would ape it, and the Democrats may very well have thought that the Roberts technique would seem less elegant in a New Jersey accent, and they'd get the advantage in a way they failed to do last September when they encountered the ultra-polished Roberts. But Alito found a different path, daring to behave in the Bork mode and actually debate about law.

She even takes a fun pot shot at Senate Democrats:

So they were planning to run out their time insisting that he answer and lecturing him about why he must answer, and then -- damn! -- he answered. What's Plan B?

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times leads an article by quoting Senator Charles Grassley as saying:

We've gone over the same ground many times ... The horse is dead. Quit beating it.

The same analytical piece wisely notes:

Since Alito first sat down in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, it has become clear that the process is as much about the senators and their own agendas as it is about the nominee. Several lawmakers have spent more time delivering their own stemwinders than they have asking questions of Alito. Nary a mind appears to have been changed.

But the highlight of the whole ordeal thus far far was clearly this moment, nicely explained by Mr. Kurtz:

[Y]ou could hear the anchors perk up when Teddy K. demanded a vote on a subpoena of some records relating to the noxious Princeton club to which Alito once belonged, and Arlen S. said he was the chairman and he would call a vote or not call a vote as he darn well pleased. This was followed by Dick Durbin punching back against Tom Coburn for mentioning that the Illinois Democrat was once against abortion.