Senate Should Vote on Alito and Confirm His Nomination

A small majority of readers think Judge Samuel Alito should be confirmed and most think the entire Senate should vote on the nomination.

Anyone who reads the news is well aware of the contentious Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the US Supreme Court.

We asked readers in the last few days: "Should Judge Alito be confirmed as a new justice for the Supreme Court?"

54% of readers who responded to the survey say he should be confirmed by the Senate. 37% say he should not be and 8% are undecided.

On the question: "Should the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court be entitled to a vote by the entire Senate?", the percentage of readers who responded "yes" jumped to 70%. 21% indicated he should not be entitled to a vote by the Senate and 9% are undecided.

Readers had a variety of comments and observations. The underlying political ideology of those commenting is often apparent and some who responded appear to be striving to consider a broader national interest. Most readers thought Judge Alito should be confirmed and should be entitled to a vote by the entire Senate.

There were more comments from readers in support of confirming Judge Alito and supporting a full Senate vote on his nomination. These comments are listed first.

A physical scientist from the Department of Health and Human Services writes: Samuel Alito, based upon his experience, is more qualified than anyone who has been nominated for a very long time.

A former OPM employee from Atlanta commented: "Judge Alito deserves a hearing and a thorough vetting by the Senate, but there is nothing in the Constitution that entitles any nominee to a vote by the Full Senate. The same Republicans who claim that a full Senate vote is required did not believe so when President Clinton sent nominees up for confirmation." An employee from the Veterans Health Administration in North Carolina had this to say about the committee hearings: "Judge Alito is eminently qualified and should be confirmed quickly. Some (D)emocrats on the Judiciary Panel have conducted themselves horribly. Senators Kennedy and Schumer in particular are an embarrassment to the Senate."

A retired federal employee from Manassas, VA had this to say about the nomination: "Majority rules. When President Bush was elected, one of the givens was that he would appoint conservative leaning judges. Absent some substantive, non-partisan, ‘for cause’ reason for the nomination to be rejected, it should be approved."

An IT manager from DoD who works overseas commented: "Judge Alito absolutely deserves an up/down vote and the if the democrats attempt another filibuster then it just goes to show that they are hindering our judicial process yet again and trying to turn the blame around to the Republicans just as they did throught the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ Clinton White House."

An equipment specialist from the Army at Ft. McPherson observed: "He has been certified as "well qualified" by the American Bar Association and has more judicial experience than anyone on the Supreme Court today."

An employee of the Food Safety and Inspection Service in New York City compared the current situation to when President Clinton was in office: "If Ruth Bader Ginsburg can be appointed and confirmed then any Conservative should be appointed and confirmed as well without all of the political rhetoric."

A classification specialist from NASA in Huntsville, AL had this to say: "The thinking of the majority of the Democrats is simply outside the patronage of the people of Heartland America. Simply look at the results of the states in the last Presidental election. A swing to the middle by the Democrats and approval of this man would do nothing but enhance their standing with people who make our great nation function."

A labor relations specialist from the Department of Homeland Security in Dallas commented: "Examine the nominee. Debate his qualifications. Then vote. That is the proper Democratic process. Using arbitrary internal rules to engage in a filibuster of the Judicial Nominee is an abuse of the process and improperly delays the more important goal of filling the vacancy on the court."

Readers with a different point of view also cited political or social reasons for their opposition to Judge Alito.

This reader from DFAS in Colorado wrote: "I don’t feel that Judge Alito should be confirmed to be a Supreme Court Judge because of his views on women in general and abortion specifically. His record shows that he views women as possessions of their husbands or their fathers, if they are unmarried. We don’t need someone like that on the Supreme Court."

A technical expert from the Social Security Administration apparently would not like anyone nominated by President Bush: "I don’t think anyone proposed by George Bush should be confirmed. I think George is a liar, a criminal, and a sociopath."

A human resources assistant from the USDA in California says: "Alito’s nomination is just another effort by the (P)resident and the religious right to control women’s reproductive rights."

A business manager from the Forest Service in Mammoth Lake, CA did not like the outcome of the last election: "Our government is supposed to be, ‘by the people, for the people’. With a Republican House, Senate and President; I no longer feel like my wants or needs are being represented. There are issues waiting before the Supreme Court that Samuel Alito has already ruled on in the lower level courts. There is definitely a conflict of interest here. I don’t want Alito on the Supreme Court because I don’t agree with his opinions, but the strongest objection that I have is because he is a conservative Republican."

And a "civil servant" from NASA has this prediction: "Judge Alito should be subjected to the tough questioning that is part of the confirmation process. But he will be confirmed, albeit with more "no" votes than Chief Justice Roberts received at his vote."