One More Senator Minus A Brain

The Left is gearing up for the slander that’s about to befall Pres. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts. Yesterday, the "esteemed" Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was approached and asked a question by a reporter. Now, if someone can find an answer within what she said, please let me know. Frankly, I took a pair of Excedrin after hearing the answer, rubbed my eyes, then banged my head on a wall. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what she really said. Her answer seemed like a rambling search for an answer worthy of reporting.

Reporter: Senator, you said that gender is not the primary concern, but is it a step back in some way that we have, you know, just another white guy being nominated in this important position?

BB: I assume those are your words, which I don't ascribe to. What I would say is, it's definitely a setback when the president has an opportunity to appoint...to make a, shall we say, ground-breaking appointment, you know, of a woman, of a minority. It's always a setback when he decides that there's no one that fills the bill. And so...but to me, the bottom line is, you know, your rights, the rights of your families, the rights of my grandson, and future citizens. That's the key thing here. But there's no question in terms of role models. And I have to...I could tell you right here now, that being a woman in the Senate, and we are now up to fourteen, when I go out, and especially in the years when I was one of four or six or whatever the number, I can't remember exactly, the young girls that would come around to me, who would just say, you know, I want to do what you do. And I'm sure as reporters in the early days, when there were fewer, I'm sure you had the same if you went to speak at a school, a high school. The girls would be so interested. How do you do it in a man's world, you know? And look around you here. It's very different today, which is terrific. So when we have a chance, as elected leaders, to, you know, to pick a chief of staff as a woman, or a minority, this is something that's a good thing to do. You pick the best. You always pick the best. But my view is there's the best out there. So yeah. I would have to say, for sure, I'm disappointed in that. But I don't want to say that's dispositive of how I feel about this nomination, because there's a lot more important things. I mean, had the president chose a woman who didn't respect the rights of women, that wouldn't have...it would have been good from a role model perspective, when you see the picture, and little girls in the community and the country know that it's possible for me. But in terms of the rights of the people, that's the key here, more than anything else.

Groundbreaking appointment? Did Sen. Boxer forget that Sandra Day O’Connor—a woman, and a minority—was honored to be that groundbreaking appointment back during the Reagan administration? And where is this idea that "no one fits the bill?" It seems to me that Judge Roberts fit the president’s bill for a nominee, otherwise he wouldn’t have offered the job to him. And why is she suddenly worrying about our rights? The Constitution guarantees our rights, and this woman has supported the confirmation of justices like Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. All three of these people have shown themselves to be hostile towards our rights when they decide cases.

I love the reminiscing that Babs shows there about the times when there weren’t a lot of women in the Senate, and little girls used to come up to her, but that’s completely irrelevant to the question asked. The reporter didn’t ask her "Hey Babs, what was it like when you first entered the Senate, in terms of ‘gender equality’?" He asked her if the nomination of Roberts was a step back in terms of gender equality. But here’s the thing that neither seem to pick up on. O’Connor’s seat was just that. It was a seat. There is nothing written on that vacant seat that states "this seat reserved for a woman or other minority." Indeed, that seat has an inherent message that it’s reserved for qualified people only. That’s what this is about. Is Judge Roberts qualified to serve on the Supreme Court? Will he uphold the Constitution?

And those should be the only two questions asked. Nothing on Roe, Kelo, Stenberg, Casey, etc. There should be no such questions posed to him about any case that has been argued, or one that may be pending. There are four important cases that will likely end up on the Court’s docket in the upcoming session starting in October. There’s a case regarding parental notification for abortion, physician-assisted suicide, due process rights for enemy combatants (which he may have to recuse himself of). And federal funding to universities that ban military recruiters on campus. He should not, under any circumstances, be asked about any of these possible cases. Ginsburg refused to answer questions regarding potential or past cases, and Roberts shouldn’t be compelled to give like answers.

The gender, race, color, creed, religion, or even sexual identity should have ZERO to do with the choice of a nominee to serve their nation. See, I live in the same sort of world that our Founding Fathers did, in terms of their beliefs for a "blind" society. This society is supposed to be color-blind. I don’t discriminate based on race. I discriminate based on whether you’re qualified for a job. But Babs seems to think that should be the first thing we look at. Qualifications come second. Great, while we’re admiring the nominee, we overlook whether or not the person understands the law? Please.

So, the key point to her is our rights? Where was that respect for our rights when it came to the McCain/Feingold bill, which curtailed our rights to free speech—political speech, as it was inherently stipulated under the First Amendment. Where was the respect for our rights when she was in favor of the Brady Assault Weapons Ban? That violated our second amendment rights, especially with the inclusion of registering firearms. And need we be reminded that those on the Left that are gearing up the fight against Roberts are caterwauling about Roe v. Wade. That decision was an absolute travesty of jurisprudence, as it literally has no basis within the text of the Constitution, nor in it’s spirit or traditions. It was a decision based solely on a personal preference, and is rooted nowhere within the law. It may be settled, as things stand now, but it will be overturned some day.

The point is that Boxer has nothing to offer. She is kerfuffled over the nomination, and she’s trying to remember where she left that pea-sized thing called a brain so she can shriek on the floor of the Senate when the time is right. She is like many on the Left that are digging and digging, and can’t seem to find a damn thing on him. The Left and the MSM are now taking swipes at his wife, as the LA Times did this morning when they pointed out his wife had worked with a pro-life group. They offer up a supposition that Roberts might be his own man, but then again, he may his wife’s views. Well, I’m glad the LA Times have given Roberts permission to think on his own, but I fail to see the relevancy of their piece. Roberts’ wife isn’t the nominee. He is.

In short, the Left is going to attack him. They’re going to pull out every dirty trick from their playbook against him. But the desperation they’re showing right now is clear that they don’t have a leg to stand on. Today, the Gang of 14 met, and they emerged from chambers with assurances that they can find nothing they know about Roberts that would warrant a filibuster. That means no "extraordinary circumstances." That also means the Left just got cut off at the knees. If the Left attempts to mount a filibuster, it could get ugly. Especially if the Seditious Seven stand behind Frist, and urge the use of the Constitutional Option. At that point, he would have the votes.

So, I urge the Left—senators, NOW, NARAL, PFAW, CAP, ACLU—to just back off because you’re not going to be able to stop them. Go back to your talking points, and prepare for the next fight because this one is over before it even gets going.

Publius II