Want a job where you don't hafta remember nuttin' or answer the simplest question without "study"? Have you considered the U.S. Supreme Court?

I've been keeping up with the Alito confirmation hearings largely via Rachel Maddow's excellent "Cliff's Notes" digests every morning on Air America Radio. And about the only things I learned from the nominee's own words were:

(1) that he's not a bigot (unfortunately, in the annals of bigotry, there are remarkably few self-declared practitioners, and there are also practicing bigots beyond count who sincerely don't know that they are); and

(2) that if it comes down to "Justice" Sam's vote, Roe v. Wade is toast.

Actually, (2) comes not from Judge Sam's words, but from the words he steadfastly refused to speak. He was given about a zillion opportunities to follow the lead of now-Chief Justice Roberts in his confirmation hearings and declare Roe "settled law," and he found about a zillion ways of refusing to do so—without being honest enough to say what I have to assume he believes, something like: "In terms of what I understand by the phrase 'settled law,' no, I do not believe Roe v. Wade falls under that heading."

It may well be, as Senator Biden has been suggesting exasperatedly, that the whole Supreme Court nomination-and-confirmation process is now fatally flawed, giving us nominees who who will never discuss any of their beliefs. I suspect, though, that Judge Sam's performance will turn out to have been even worse than that basically nonexistent standard: that in fact we'll find out that almost everything he said at his hearings was a lie.

Senator Kennedy has already come close to saying that Alito lied to him in his 1990 confirmation hearings, when he was first put on the federal bench and claimed that he would be able to set aside the pro-government bias suggested by his previous employment.

Now I'm fairly sure that the judge is lying his head off every time he says he doesn't remember something (which seems to cover almost everything in his life that might be inconvenient for him, including all sorts of things that are a matter of public record), or that he would have to "study" an issue before telling us what he thinks about it, or that he can't comment on an issue because it may come before the Supreme Court. The latter is obviously a lie, because on issues he presumably judged to be less dangerous, he felt perfectly free to comment—even where they're at issue in cases not only likely but actually scheduled to come before thc Court.

Now, as to the memory problem, I guess maybe a Supreme Court justice doesn't actually have to be able to remember stuff. He can always read up on the relevant laws and court rulings, especially if he's so fond of studying. Presumably he'll have clerks to help direct him to the stuff he really ought to read.

This assumes, though, that we still believe there are issues about which Judge Sam hasn't already made up his mind. Based on his performance at the hearings, I think this is just another fib he likes to tell. The picture I have is of a man who has made up his mind about every single thing in the universe, and then when he has to justify a belief—like when he has to write a judicial opinion—he "studies" the legal history to find backup for it.

I understand and sympathize with the bind confronting judicial nominees who face confirmation hearings. My guess is that the next Supreme Court nominee appointed by a Democratic president will all too gladly hide behind the same say-nothing double talk that the chief justice used so successfully.

But the precedent of our soon-to-be newest Supreme Court justice is more alarming. He's about to be rewarded, not just for the worst case of amnesia this side of a daytime soap opera, but for outright lying.