Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed by the judiciary committee today, along a party-line vote

But committee Democrats said they had no intention of voting for the 3rd Circuit Court judge, whom they described repeatedly as beholden to presidential power and against abortion rights.

“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “He is a longstanding advocate for expanding executive power, even at the expense of core individual liberties. In contrast to Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Alito’s record and testimony clearly reveal a willingness to grant the president a far greater role than is currently recognized by the Supreme Court.”

Huh. At least presidential power is actually in the Constitution. Of course, Senator Kennedy believes in that “living document” tripe, so the actual text is largely irrelevant. At least that saves you from having to read it every now and again. Unfortunately, though, Kennedy is not alone. That same view seems to have infected the other Democrats on the judicial committee as well.

The Democratic politicization of Alito’s confirmation is unfortunate. Not only is it bad politics (the Dems stepped on their tail repeatedly on this one), but it makes for bad precedent. In blissfully ignorant fashion, they have twisted the words and positions of an individual overly qualified for the SCOTUS for short-term political gain. Alito demonstrated nothing in the hearings to justify Kennedy’s remarks. Further, the minority party in this country declaring that Judge Alito is “out of the mainstream” is ludicrous. Oh wait

“I, for one, really believe that there comes a time that you just have to stand up especially when you truly believe that the majority of people in America believe what you do,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., referring to public opinion supporting abortion rights.

Yeah, that’s why there’s 45 of you guys out of 100. The American public has determined in their public policy preferences that is not the case. Elections sure are pesky things

“I wish we could have somebody who would have the support of all Americans,” Leahy said of the court nominee. “There are many, many, many people in this country who would have had 90 to 100 votes in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans would have joined eagerly to support them.”

That is perhaps the dumbest and most irrelevant thing any Democrat has said during the entire Alito proceedings. To have so ardently pretended to defend the Constitution throughout Alito’s hearings, the senator from Vermont is happy to toss it aside for the sake of political expediency. There is no precedent or textual requirement that “advice and consent” demands, requires, or otherwise prefers more than a mere majority. There is no public policy argument that you would get better judges with more votes (actually it is probably the opposite). The only argument by the committee Democrats here grounded in fact is this - we are a bunch of whiny senators who have happily sacrificed our constitutional credibility in a failed attempt to attack a sitting president and the Republican Party. Demanding majority treatment while in the minority is an indicator of gross immaturity. The sad part is that they expected the public to fall for their tactics. I am so terribly sorry that Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, etc. are unhappy with belonging to the lesser party. The burden is on the minority party to understand that they in fact are in the minority. It’s simple math, really. To act otherwise is insulting.