FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Alito Simply Refuses to Answer Fundamental Questions

Up until 12:30 p.m. Wednesday, I watched much, though not all, of the Alito hearings, especially because I was to (and did) appear on a program discussing them on Tuesday evening. One has many impressions of both the Senators and Alito, in both cases some impressions being very favorable, some being very unfavorable, and some in the middle. To discuss all of them would take extensive time and space. One lacks the time, at least currently.

But there is one point that should be made immediately, in the (no doubt forlorn) hope that it could conceivably have some impact, especially because there are elements of the news media too that have recognized it. The point is that, for the most part — not entirely, not always, but most of the time — Alito will not answer fundamental questions. He tells you what principles are involved in a matter and what questions would (he says) have to be asked, and he keeps saying he would have to see the facts and the arguments, blah, blah, blah. But he will not answer the fundamental questions, he refuses to answer them, even though those questions are of vital current and future importance and even though he often does give the impression of seeking to flee from his past views without actually coming out and saying he now rejects them.

Most crucially, he will not say whether he will vote to overrule Roe, or whether the President’s constitutional power as commander-in-chief allows him to engage in domestic eavesdropping. These fundamental issues and others are, in consequence, utterly up for grabs in regard to Samuel Alito, notwithstanding that, as said, he seeks to give the impression that he is fleeing from prior views. People who care about these and other issues from the liberal side should vote against Alito because, based on his past comments, there certainly is a possibility, isn’t there, that he will vote to overturn Roe and in favor of unchecked presidential power?

Alito seeks to give the impression that he will support abortion rights and that the rule of law constrains the President, but he won’t say it, and he won’t say it even though his statement could not be legally binding on him if, in a later case, somebody comes up with persuasive points to the contrary. If he won’t say it, as he in fact won’t, then he is more likely not to support abortion and not to check the President in later cases.

Of course, Alito and the Republicans and others claim that he cannot speak on issues that could come before him. That is the current conventional wisdom, stemming, I gather, from the Scalia (I think) and Ginsberg hearings. Like most conventional wisdom, it is hogwash. Appended below is the portion of a prior blog which discusses why this position is hogwashian.

If Democratic Senators and one or two Republican Senators whom I can think of are truly serious about crucial matters like abortion and overbroad presidential power, they should vote against Alito in committee and should filibuster his nomination on the floor if he continues, as he has until now, to refuse to answer deeply fundamental questions and instead continues his windbagging filibuster against answering them.

What’s more, if there are media in this country, including important ones, that have a sincere view about these matters from what I call the liberal standpoint, they should write and speak about this.*

LAWRENCE R. VELVEL is the Dean of Massachusetts School of Law. He can be reached at velvel@mslaw.edu.

*This essay represents the personal views of LAWRENCE R. VELVEL.

 

More articles by:

Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, is the author of Thine Alabaster Cities Gleam and An Enemy of the People. He can be reached at: Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
November 13, 2019
Vijay Prashad
After Evo, the Lithium Question Looms Large in Bolivia
Charles Pierson
How Not to End a Forever War
Kenneth Surin
“We’ll See You on the Barricades”: Bojo Johnson’s Poundshop Churchill Imitation
Nick Alexandrov
Murder Like It’s 1495: U.S.-Backed Counterinsurgency in the Philippines
George Ochenski
Montana’s Radioactive Waste Legacy
Brian Terrell
A Doubtful Proposition: a Reflection on the Trial of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7
Nick Pemberton
Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech
James Bovard
The “Officer Friendly” Police Fantasy
Dean Baker
The Logic of Medical Co-Payments
Jeff Mackler
Chicago Teachers Divided Over Strike Settlement
Binoy Kampmark
The ISC Report: Russian Connections in Albion?
Norman Solomon
Biden and Bloomberg Want Uncle Sam to Defer to Uncle Scrooge
Jesse Jackson
Risking Lives in Endless Wars is Morally Wrong and a Strategic Failure
Manuel García, Jr.
Criminalated Warmongers
November 12, 2019
Nino Pagliccia
Bolivia and Venezuela: Two Countries, But Same Hybrid War
Patrick Cockburn
How Iran-Backed Forces Are Taking Over Iraq
Jonathan Cook
Israel is Silencing the Last Voices Trying to Stop Abuses Against Palestinians
Jim Kavanagh
Trump’s Syrian See-Saw: From Pullout to Pillage
Susan Babbitt
Fidel, Three Years Later
Dean Baker
A Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security is What America Needs
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Trump’s Crime Against Humanity
Victor Grossman
The Wall and General Pyrrhus
Yoko Liriano
De Facto Martial Law in the Philippines
Ana Paula Vargas – Vijay Prashad
Lula is Free: Can Socialism Be Restored?
Thomas Knapp
Explainer: No, House Democrats Aren’t Violating Trump’s Rights
Wim Laven
Serve With Honor, Honor Those Who Serve; or Support Trump?
Colin Todhunter
Agrarian Crisis and Malnutrition: GM Agriculture Is Not the Answer
Binoy Kampmark
Walls in the Head: “Ostalgia” and the Berlin Wall Three Decades Later
Akio Tanaka
Response to Pete Dolack Articles on WBAI and Pacifica
Nyla Ali Khan
Bigotry and Ideology in India and Kashmir: the Legacy of the Babri Masjid Mosque
Yves Engler
Canada Backs Coup Against Bolivia’s President
November 11, 2019
Aaron Goings, Brian Barnes, and Roger Snider
Class War Violence: Centralia 1919
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
“Other Than Honorable?” Veterans With “Bad Paper” Seek Long Overdue Benefits
Peter Linebaugh
The Worm in the Apple
Joseph Natoli
In the Looming Shadow of Civil War
Robert Fisk
How the Syrian Democratic Forces Were Suddenly Transformed into “Kurdish Forces”
Patrick Cockburn
David Cameron and the Decline of British Leadership
Naomi Oreskes
The Greatest Scam in History: How the Energy Companies Took Us All
Fred Gardner
Most Iraq and Afghanistan Vets now Regret the Mission
Howard Lisnoff
The Dubious Case of Washing Machines and Student Performance
Nino Pagliccia
The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Mammon: Amazon and the Seattle Council Elections
Kim C. Domenico
To Overthrow Radical Evil, Part II: A Grandmother’s Proposal
Marc Levy
Veterans’ Day: Four Poems
Weekend Edition
November 08, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
The Real Constitutional Crisis: The Constitution
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail