The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

As the Washington Post puts it:

Alito calmly gazed at the Senator, waiting for a question.

That is the short version of Senator Sam Brownback’s questioning of Alito this morning. The longer version involves Brownback equating Roe v. Wade to Plessy v. Ferguson and asking some softball questions about religious freedom. Again, the Post reports:

Brownback told Alito that justices should not always vote to uphold prior court decisions just because they are so-called “super-duper precedents.” Sometimes, he said, the court gets it wrong, as it did in upholding the separate but equal doctrine in the Plessy case.

This questioning was Brownback carefully playing the role of arch-conservative running for President.  He was careful not to push Alito too hard on the issue of abortion, but his line a questioing must have made some republican leaders uncomfortable.  He came dangerously close to the same line of questioning as some Democrats who hope to expose Alito  as an extremist.

Although we must always remember, in Brownback land extremism is normal (and we have always been at war with Oceana).

According to CSPAN, Senators Brownback, Durbin and Coburn were bumped to tomorrow in spite of Specter’s assertion that everyone would get the chance to question today. Brownback should be on tomorrow morning.

The questioning today is in order of seniority, alternating between parties. Thus, Senator Sam Brownback will be at the end of the line to speak.

Will Brownback pontificate on abortion like yesterday? Will Alito even get to speak during Brownback’s “questions”?

Tune in soon for answers…

During Senator Sam Brownback’s statements today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he focused on his extremist belief that abortion is not a constitutional right and that the government should have the ability to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies. His opening statement was mush more like a campaign speach at the National Right to Life convention than a statement to the committee about Alito.

Brownback is letting his Presidential ambitions get in the way of properly examining a nominee to the supreme court. My favorite part of his statement is:

Some interest groups and even some members of this Committee have argued that Judge Alito must be more closely scrutinized, or even opposed, if his testimony suggests that he would change the ideological balance on the Supreme Court. This notion misunderstands the role of judges, and creates a double standard suspiciously convenient to those in opposition.

Seats on the bench are not reserved for causes or interests – they are given to those who will uphold the rule of law, so long as a nominee is well-qualified to interpret and apply the law.

That was not the tune he was singing when Miers was nominated to the court. Brownback then questioned her conservative merits and agreed with some religious leaders who argued her record was troubling. He had a litmus test then and he certainly does now. Do not be fooled. The fact that Brownback is supporting Alito means that he has received assurances on the way he will vote regarding social issues. Alito is a extreme conservative who ignores conflict of interest rules. He does not belong on the Supreme Court.

From the Washington Post:

“The judicial branch preserves its legitimacy by refraining” to make political decisions in its rulings, said Brownback, who used his statement to defend Alito’s record and make his own points on abortion.

“You can claim whatever you want to on pro-life and pro-choice, but the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution,” he said. “This is a proper issue to consider.”

More on his opening statement later tonight.

Having nixed the Miers nomination, Senator Sam Brownback now has the Supreme Court nominee he wants. Samuel Alito appears to be the sort of right wing lemming that will attempt to advance the conservative agenda for the next 30 years. Obviously a Brownback dream. You would think the good Senator could come up with his own talking points for his news show appearances. Apparently not.

BROWNBACK: …Things do change, and positions change. He’s advocating for a position in a conservative administration at that time — in an administration. Now he’s going on the Supreme Court of the United States if approved by the United States Senate.

And these are different jobs altogether, and they have different parameters with them all together. And he’s not going to answer questions about how he’s going to rule on a Roe-type case, and he shouldn’t.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But let me stop you there. That wasn’t a matter of personal opinion. He was expressing his belief, his constitutional interpretation. Why should someone who is going to sit on the Supreme Court not have to answer what his interpretation of the Constitution is? I mean, that was a very straight statement.

BROWNBACK: Well, because these are very active cases that will be in front of him. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she’s general counsel for the ACLU at one point in time. And does she go back to her positions she took then to say, This is how I will decide a case on the Supreme Court ? That’s just not the way the system works, nor is it, because then you’ve got people on the bench that have predecided the case. And that’s not where you get fair justice on the facts and the law, both involved in each of these cases.

We should determine about judicial philosophy and issues of judicial restraint and views toward the overall look of the Constitution, which I think are fully appropriate. And we need to look at the 15 years of written opinions he’s got out there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I’m a little surprised that you’re so comfortable with this, because you expressed some discomfort during the John Roberts hearings that he wasn’t being more forthcoming about his interpretation of the right to privacy and whether Roe could stand.
And it doesn’t worry you at all that he’s not willing to stand by a position that I’m sure you agree with?

There’s (more…)

It seems some republicans are getting a little worried about the Alito nomination. Worried enough to complain to The Hill about the lack of support from republican members of the judiciary committee which includes Senator Sam Brownback.

Republican senators are doing little to defend Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as their Democratic counterparts and allied liberal groups co-operate to build political momentum against his confirmation, say GOP and conservative strategists working on his nomination.

“[They] better get in gear,” the strategist said, naming Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), all members of the Judiciary Committee.

“Partly, our side doesn’t think [the Alito nomination] is going to get big until after the first of the year,” the Republican strategist said.

Which is fine and dandy with me. I would rather things get heated after the holidays, rather than peak too soon and then be considered old news when the hearings actually occur.

I’m sure Brownback will turn on the afterburners and make some incendiary comments after the new year. I imagine he is hoping for a nice, contentious confirmation hearing. Just the thing to get his name back in the news and help bolster his radical credentials.

In a discussion today with conservative bloggers, Senator Sam Brownback claimed that Senate Republicans are prepared to use the nuclear options should the Democrats mount a filibuster of Samuel Alito.

On Alito and filibusters: If Democrats go the route of filibustering Sam Alito, we’re going to go the route of changing the rule.

In case you missed the earlier posts on how Brownback is a complete hypocrite on this issue I reference you to “Filibuster Bluster” to refresh your memory.

Iowa conservatives are warning GOP presidential hopefuls (including Senator Sam Brownback) to support the Alito nomination or face caucus consequences in 2008. From the Sioux City Journal:

“Please know that we have communicated with our constituents regarding this nomination and will continue to keep our statewide members informed of your stance on this important nomination”

“In your constitutional role of advising and consenting on the nomination, the undersigned organizations expect you to diligently review the nomination, conduct fair and respectful hearings and swiftly vote,” the letter said. “It is our hope that through this process you too will recognize Judge Alito’s impeccable qualifications and vote to confirm.”

One of the signatories of this letter was the Iowa Family Policy Center. Their President, Chuck Hurley, is a college and law school friend of Brownback. What does Hurley, a prominent and influential Iowa conservative, have to say about his classmate?

“I am 100 percent behind him personally, in terms of a presidential bid,” Hurley said. “My friendship and my confidence in Sam as a leader is what’s driving me personally. Professionally, I think he’d do a great job on our issues.”