The Question’s Mark

By Cory L. Shreckengost

With the judiciary hearings and Judge Samuel Alito’s impending confirmation as the 110th Supreme Court Justice now underway, Ted Kennedy expressed a sentiment held by many Senate Democrats when he said in his opening statement that he is “gravely concerned.” At the same time, Senate Republicans are lining up to sing Alito’s praises. This is just the latest political battle in a partisan war whose eternal flame consumes Capitol Hill.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee files into the Hart Senate Office Building this week, you can be sure that some Democrats will arrive with a quiver full of poisonous questions and their sights set on killing Alito’s nomination. But the Democrats aren’t the only ones armed with projectiles. Republicans, too, will be donning a quiver full of arrows, albeit Cupid’s variety, hoping to ensure that all who are within range will fall in love with President Bush’s nominee.

Even as they take dead aim at their mark, there will be senators who maintain that they are undecided as to which way they will vote; but their words eventually betray them. Under the guise of being open-minded, senators will feign an “impartial” line of questioning as they offer up their long-winded platitudes or pseudo-compliments. Yet the way in which they preface their questions to Alito is clearly meant to engender a biased reaction from the lay listener.

Whether their initial remarks regarding the nominee are comprised of ominous threats or celestial accolades, each one of the senators constructs a well-planned oratory with the all-important sound bite in mind.

Knowing full well that the media—being the verbal connoisseurs that they are—will latch on to the most eloquent inquiries and pass little snippets on to their audience via truncated quotes or beguiling buzz words, the members of the judiciary committee employ rhetorical flourishes as they proceed through their scripted notes.

Following introductory comments, some disapproving senators will release drawn weapons as they assail the mark with pejorative questions. Candid straight shooters launch their arrows toward Alito like a laser beam as they pursue a direct line of inquiry. More aggressive senators will unleash a barrage of rapid-fire questions at the nominee without giving him the time to respond. Still, others will choose the circuitous approach, where they break out the longbow and discharge a high, arching shot that grazes the horizon before beginning its graceful descent and hitting the mark with a thunderous whack.

To be quite honest, many of the senators couldn’t care less about Alito’s answers to their tedious inquiries. They want the listener to make up his or her mind about Alito—i.e., come around to their way of thinking—well before they finish their remarks or allow the nominee to respond. In fact, they want you to marvel at their shooting prowess, or the skillful way in which they turn a phrase, as if their adroit question presciently captures the essence of the mark’s reply.

It seems as though a few senators have surmised that they can predetermine the inner workings of Alito’s mind better than he—as evidenced by the disgruntled skepticism that adorns their faces when he replies. If this is the case, why bother letting the man speak? Why not allow the senators to monopolize the proceedings by excluding Alito entirely and simply debating each other?

Sadly, this is sometimes the case, as the media passes their virtual reality on to the masses. Most Americans are not able to watch the confirmation hearings in their entirety. Instead, they depend on the news media to provide a quick summation and analysis, which often comes via those wonderful sound bites—sound bites provided, not by Alito himself, but by the senators during their well rehearsed interrogation.

In a sense, Alito is a pawn caught in a political tug-of-war between two competing ideologies; each vying to shift public opinion in their favor. By now, most of the senators have made up their minds concerning the confirmation vote. They could alter their decision if some miraculous sign were to descend from the heavens, or if a skeleton were to fall from Alito’s closet, but neither scenario is likely. Given the fact that most of the relevant information has already been disclosed, the senators’ attempts to persuade the media and the general public will revolve around a rhetorical war of words.

Perhaps the truth is a bit too prosaic, or perhaps a few senators sense that the truth is not on their side. Whatever the reason, the Senate’s solemn duty of giving advice and consent to the President’s nominee for the highest court in the land has turned into a cyclical struggle over semantics. Each side is raining down a hail of arrows, and for the time being, Judge Samuel Alito is the mark stuck in the crossfire.

Cory Shreckengost is a policy analyst and research associate with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His research has been featured in several best-selling books and by various think tanks, with his compositions appearing in publications nationwide.