Senate's swirling winds
IN THE BEGINNING, ineffective windiness whipped around Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.
On Wednesday, Democrats tried upgrading to Katrina-force gusts. They barely ruffled Alito's comb-over.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts led the charge, pressing Alito about his decision to list membership in a conservative college group on a 1985 job application. The group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, resisted the admission of women and minorities. Alito repeated his earlier explanation: that he cannot recall joining or why he did.
The exchange led to a shouting match between Kennedy and Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Alito looked uncertain. After a break, another Democrat, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, made him look disingenuous. Biden provided the explanation that makes the most sense -- Alito was trying to buff up conservative credentials for a job in the Reagan administration.
Until then, the senatorial huffing and puffing caused only collateral damage.
Attention wanders from the plethora of dark suits and white shirts convened like grim, barking penguins to other matters; the loyal wife forced to listen to her spouse dissect the Commerce Clause; the impact of a New Jersey accent; and most notably, the whipping taken by Princeton. Miscellaneous phrases and buzzwords also dominate: ''unitary executive," a theory prescribing increased strength to the White House; or ''Vanguard," referring to a case that Judge Alito heard about the mutual fund firm, despite a pledge that he would recuse himself from any case involving an institution in which he had financial dealings.
Alito entered the hearing process with the burden of following John Roberts. The previous nominee dazzled the Senate Judiciary Committee during his successful quest to become chief justice. Alito is not as crisp or intimidating. And for the most part, his average-guy demeanor helps him. Alito sounds conversational and knowledgeable as he discusses cases he ruled upon. He also appears human, from the occasional quaver in his Garden State-accented voice to the balding circle of scalp visible when the camera shoots from behind.
His interrogators often sound arrogant and sanctimonious. That doesn't mean questions from Democrats about abortion or the limits on executive power are meritless. But, particularly on Tuesday, they were posed so poorly and loquaciously that Alito won, or at least, never lost a round.
There are other, tangential losers, such as Princeton -- and not only on the matter involving the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University. Alito disparaged the university he attended in the late 1960s and early 1970s, telling senators: ''I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly, and I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community."
And what about the requisite adoring wife, peeking over her husband's shoulder as he stands at the brink of the biggest job of his life? Why is that old-fashioned picture of spousal devotion considered such an important element of the nominee's presentation? The risk of wife-as-prop was demonstrated yesterday. Mrs. Alito broke down in tears and left the hearing when the going got rough. It tells nothing about Alito's judicial philosophy.
As for senators, predictable partisan politicking dominates. Must it be so lacking in creativity and humor? This should be the Republicans' shining moment, but they let sickening sycophancy tarnish it. The Democrats, with their packaged outrage and long-winded questioning of Alito, look like sore losers before they lose.
Pageantry has its value, but pomposity is a turn-off. Why not eliminate the first day of opening statements from senators and begin by introducing the nominee? Let the candidate have a brief, unmolested moment in the sun; then go directly to questioning. The senators should be disciplined enough to keep it short and specific. The goal should be to elicit longer, more revealing responses from the nominee.
''The courts stand, against any winds that blow, as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered or because they are nonconforming victims of prejudice and public excitement," proclaimed Senator Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin, quoting Justice Hugo Black to Alito at the start of the hearing.
The wind from senators is meaningless if, at the end, we have no better idea which winds Alito will stand against as a Supreme Court justice.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com. 
