Brilliant Evasions

When were you ever hired for a job based on how brilliantly you evaded questions on sensitive issues? It would seem that the brilliance of the evasion is the primary criterion for a job in Republican Washington and it would seem that prospective Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is well-versed in the art.

When it's to his advantage, he answers the questions, always blandly, always using the ultimate legal caution in couching his answers. When it's to his advantage, he evades. Of course, our Republican bretheren admire this: His record indicates what he will do to shred our civil rights by favoring the large organization, be it government or corporations. They admire the smooth evasion of any question dealing with our civil rights - almost. Alito was more than ready to answer one-man-one-vote questions while evading anything to do with abortion. The man told his mother he'll do anything in his power to stop abortion, for God's sake. You think he'd vote to support Roe v. Wade?

This is an arch-conservative, make no mistake. We can pray for but not expect another Souter, a conservative who, after realizing he no longer has to be reelected, grew a conscience and became a liberal. It most likely isn't going to happen. This man will, through his position, systematically work to destroy civil liberties and to annoint the President King. But you can't tell that from his answers. To be truthful, you can tell more about Samuel Alito from his evasions - answers he does not want to give - than from the questions he's willing to answer.

If I could be granted one wish, it's that the Senate, both sides, would grow a set of cojones and demand answers from the appointees put before them. If I were Senator, I'd tell any appointee, my side or not, point-blank: My vote depends on your answers. The brilliance of your evasions will not impress me, only your answers matter. But I don't think there's a set on the Judiciary Committee big enough to make this statement before a man who's come to them seeking a job.

No where else in the world would someone be hired based on the brilliance of their evasions. Should we hire someone as the ultimate arbiter of our Constitution for as long as he wants to hold the job based on his ability to evade questions or his unwillingness to take the firm stance we know from their record they hold? I'd send him packing. I'd rather honestly disagree with a person's position than have it hidden from me by brilliant evasions.