Samuel Alito

I haven't bloviated about Samuel Alito, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, because I find myself somewhat indifferent to the whole thing. But with Alito's Senate confirmation hearings getting underway today, I suppose that it's time to crawl out from under my rock.

My reticence stems from three things:

* As a student of presidential history, I respect the right of George Bush to nominate whomever he believes most fully represents his and the country's best interests. (This is not to be confused with respecting George Bush himself.)

That view was stretched to the breaking point with the aborted nomination of Alito's predecessor, Harriet Miers, who was such a lightweight that even the Republican Party's far right wing could not stomach her.

* Unlike Miers, Alito is qualified.

That does not mean that his views on women's reproductive rights, gay rights, states rights, presidential and congressional powers and protecting the environment are in synch with mine. It's probably safe to say that with the exception of states rights, they're not, and I'm not even sure about that.

* In my experience, the court makes the man -- or woman.

I suspect that Alito will follow in the footsteps of deceased Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and departing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to name but two of the many justices whose views were moderated over their long service on the court. (The weight of the Constitution and the court's long history will do that to ya.) Two other current justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both judicial horses's asses of the first water, make a mockery of this moderating notion, but I'm willing to give Alito a chance.

So should Senate Democrats.

Yes, there's a lot to stake. After all, Alito's appointment is for life and he's only 55. Yes, Alito needs to be held accountable for what he has said and written in the past so we can judge him on what he may do in the future. But a bloody confirmation fight -- let alone a filibuster -- is in no one's best interests.