Mr. President! Free Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean!

Mr. President! Free Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean! Please join fellow GOPUSA activists in petitioning President Bush for a full pardon for Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos.

Other Columns by Horace Cooper
Horace Cooper Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 3

Today, it's 2005 and some Democrats and hardliners on the left think the American people are raging amnesiacs who won't notice the same playbook being used again. This time their target is Samuel Alito, the brilliant federal appeals court judge nominated by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

And once again, rather than admit that they oppose him solely based on his "judicial philosophy" his critics have attempted to distort his judicial record. And apparently having failed at mischaracterizing his views as extreme on issues involving religion and abortion they have decided to play the ethics card.

Today's charge is conflict of interest based on a case Judge Alito participated in back in 2002. In that case, a losing plaintiff complained after a three judge panel (which included Judge Alito) unanimously issued an opinion favoring the Vanguard Group Inc. The claim was that Judge Alito should not have participated in the decision since he owned shares of the firm's mutual funds. At the time, Judge Alito said he believed he had done nothing improper and in fact the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court even advises that judges aren't required to disqualify themselves from cases involving their mutual-fund management companies.

But after a rehearing petition was filed the case was reheard by a new three judge panel. And guess what? The new panel unanimously issued an opinion which was almost word for word a repeat of Judge Alito's original ruling. Now this should have demonstrated to all but the most close-minded that the complaint was unwarranted. Yet now, in the wake of his nomination to the Supreme Court a whisper campaign has started suggesting that this issue should be reexamined.

History is unlikely to repeat itself. Unlike thirty years ago, a smear campaign against a Supreme Court nominee based on falsehoods and misrepresentations won't work today. Information can't be strategically disseminated to collaborators at three news networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and a few major papers and still be considered comprehensive like it could then. Today news is distributed 24/7 by cable networks like Fox Cable News and MSNBC. Combined with the research skills of bloggers and the ubiquity of talk radio, falsehoods can be easily responded to and dismissed.

Notwithstanding the antiseptic benefits of the Internet and multiple resources for news and information, distortions can still affect the Supreme Court confirmation process. Why? Primarily due to one key failing: the quest to make ideology the sole talisman of fitness to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Rather than temperament, legal skill or character -- increasingly judicial philosophy alone is what critics and opponents of the nominees to the court are pursuing.

In addition to turning a vacancy on the court into the equivalent of a national political campaign -- something the framers would never have expected -- it has promoted the selection of so called "beyond reproach" stealth nominees to such a constricted and stilted degree members of the Supreme Court have become less and less representative of America at large. Is it any wonder then that these individuals yield to the temptation to rule over us rather than between us?

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3