The Al Franken show

I’ve been quite skeptical about Al Franken’s arrival in the U.S. Senate, concerned about the way he entered the race and about some of the positions he had taken early in his candidacy. I also was concerned that he would not be taken seriously.

His opening statement at Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, already has gone a long way toward alleviating some of my concerns.

Here is the relevant passage:

First, I believe the position of Congress with respect to the Courts and the Executive is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believed that the Framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.

I am wary of judicial activism and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to Congress and not make policy by itself.

Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years – and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.

I agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse that we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians talk about what kind of judge they want in the Supreme Court. But it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. Because during the Rhenquist Court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined.

Second, I am concerned that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong:

• It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age, gender, or color.
• It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.
• It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from securities fraud.
• It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet.
• It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote.
• It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.

Yet from what I see, on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the
past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend
themselves.

As far as opening statements go, Sen. Franken’s shows he plans to be serious, that his chief concern will be the people — as opposed to the money interests — and that places him in stark contrast with most of his colleagues.

This sense of responsibility to the constitution has been evident in his questioning, as well, and stands in stark contrast to the race-based rhetoric of a GOP that seems still to be fighting the culture wars of the early Bush administration.