Ignore The Irrelevant Ideologues: THEY Have No Merit
Confirmation Whoppers put up a post today regarding the foolishness of two, veteran Democrat leaders in the Senate. Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, both from Massachusetts, announced on Wednesday that they would openly oppose the confirmation of Judge Roberts as the new Chief Justice. Yawn. We knew this was coming. The extreme Left side of the Democrats are under incredible pressure from their special interest moguls to oppose Judge Roberts.
What is surprising is that it is the Boston Globe that highlights this move, and calls not only these two, but the rest of the Democrats, on the carpet for such foolish behavior.
HOW SHOULD Senate Democrats respond to the example Ted Kennedy and John Kerry set Wednesday in declaring their opposition to John Roberts in a one-two political punch?
By disregarding it.
Why? Well, first let's review the bidding. When Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement, Democrats warned President Bush not to nominate a conservative ideologue to replace her on the Supreme Court.
Bush responded by putting up a well-qualified jurist with widely recognized legal skills, someone the Senate unanimously confirmed to the US Court of Appeals in 2003. To rework Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s line about FDR, John Roberts has both a first-class intellect and a first-rate temper.
Judge Roberts is not just a well-qualified jurist, but he is one that used Sen. Biden as a target in a game of "pin the tail on the liberal." Sen. Biden suffered the worst verbal beating ever handed to him in his life from Judge Roberts. He wasted no time in tying Sen. Biden in common-sense logic that the hapless senator could not have followed with a road map. Why? Simply put, Judge Roberts is better—intellectually—than Sen. Biden. It was proven in the simple fact that Judge Roberts used no notes during his hearings.
Then, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, the president effectively lowered the ideological stakes by renominating Roberts for the chief justice's job, which means his confirmation would hardly change the court's makeup.
This was something the special interests seized on immediately. Because he was replacing the Chief, Judge Roberts supposedly became an extremist. I did not know that one became extreme simply by the post they were appointed to, but these people believed it. However, the party had to be dragged—kicking and screaming—to even think of embracing such an idea. It was evident from the word go that the Democrats did not really want to engage in such petty partisanship. Partially due to the focus on them during the committee hearings, but also because they knew they had nothing on Judge Roberts.
Roberts, as expected, played the Sphinx on many issues during his confirmation hearings. Still, he not only called Roe v. Wade ''settled as a precedent" and thus entitled to respect; he suggested that the subsequent decisions upholding Roe have precedental value as well. What's more, he said he sees an established right of privacy in the Constitution. That's further than some successful past nominees have gone.
This case has elicited such passion and scrutiny regarding Judge Roberts that it is positively amazing the vitriol thrown about by those elected on the port-side of the spectrum, and those special interests that seem to doing most of the caterwauling. Judge Roberts, like any good judge, recognizes the precedent set in Roe. Even Thomas and I recognize it. However, that does not mean we cannot work to undo it. Judge Roberts cannot.
That is something that the starboard-side pundits seem to forget. People like Ms. Coulter may want him to denounce Roe in the hearings, however doing so means that a plaintiff coming before the high court would assume that Judge Roberts’ mind is already made up, and call for him to recuse himself. Judges, when dealing with cases, prefer to be much like the Sphinx; he will rule accordingly, but your argument will persuade him to see things your way. He may not agree, and as an arbiter and interpreter of the law, he may be bound to rule against you.
Now, with all that as prologue, the party's liberal interest groups are urging Democrats to oppose Roberts in order to send a message to Bush not to make his next nominee to the court a conservative ideologue.
Ah, that political pretzel logic.
It is not just political pretzel logic. It is simpleton liberal logic. People like Sen. Reid and Sen. Specter have already stated they want O’Connor’s vacancy filled with an O’Connor clone. The answer to that is an emphatic "not no, but hell no." O’Connor was a disaster for the court. As Thomas appropriately pointed out earlier today, O’Connor was supposed to have been the first step in regaining control of an out-of-control judiciary. She was not the catalyst that she should have been. The possibility that scares the hell out of the port-siders is that the next nominee could be that catalyst.
It's true that confirmation hearings are a guessing game and senators are often left to weigh broad statements and small clues rather than specific answers. But it is unrealistic for Democrats to expect that a Republican president would nominate a potential justice who would satisfy all their concerns; if he did so, his own conservative base would revolt.
Kennedy, a liberal icon, clearly feels burned in past efforts to cooperate with Bush and is prone to fear the worst. In 1990, for example, he fretted that ''literally millions of our fellow citizens" would be denied their rights if mild-mannered David Souter was confirmed. (Granted, that foreboding sometimes serves him well; witness Iraq.)
I do not pardon the Globe for the swipe at our war efforts. This is a piece regarding two idiotic senators, not about the war. In the future, I suggest the Globe stick to what is relevant, and leave the war commentary for the subject-appropriate column.
However, they are correct in the fact that the hearings are a guessing game. You can only make a decision based on what you have in hand, and how the person answers. But I must agree with the Globe. There is no way a president is going to go against his base—to go against his word—in naming a nominee that is against the very principles the base clings to. There would be a revolt in the worst possible way.
In his Wednesday speech, Leahy said that though the popular move for a Democrat was to oppose Roberts, he thinks that Roberts is not a conservative ideologue but rather the sort of cautious, principled, precedent-respecting conservative who merits support.
The evidence suggests he's right. And with Roberts replacing the arguably more conservative Rehnquist, this is not the real donnybrook over changing the court; thus it simply doesn't make sense to wage an intense battle over a qualified nominee who is within acceptable ideological bounds.
Further, the idea that running up a strong tally against Roberts will encourage the president to send up a more moderate nominee for the next seat -- or help in the fight if Bush's next nominee is an archconservative -- is the most fanciful kind of thinking.
This logic makes no sense, and I cannot understand how the Democrats and their minions missed this. Yes, the president has nominated a decent amount of moderates to the federal bench; an effort, no doubt, to ensure the majority of his nominees would pass muster. However, he has placed many a conservative to the bench that are equal to people like Justices Scalia and Thomas. The president has, when it comes to a fight, dug in, and fought back. He encouraged Sen. Frist to invoke the Constitutional Option to break the illegal filibuster being run by the Democrats. This man is not afraid to fight when it is necessary.
If Democrats wage war over a qualified, measured conservative like him, it's just as likely to strengthen Republican resolve for a knock-down-drag-out for the kind of ultraconservative the right really want. Further, if Democrats raise a hyperbolic ruckus over Roberts, how can they expect the public to take them seriously when it really matters?
No, Democrats need to dismiss the clamor of the activists and recognize the obvious: Despite their fears, on this one, George W. Bush met them halfway.
Now they need to respond in kind.
I like that last little bit. Not only is it an admonishment of the party, but the criticism is warranted. The president has extended his hand numerous times to the Democrats only to have them snap at him later. They have shown how openly hostile they can be. None of the president’s nominees should be mistreated by the judiciary committee. Either they are qualified, or they are not; this is not some stupid game to be played. The GOP offered little resistance to Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer when they came up for their hearings. Did they ask tough questions? Of course they did. But they recognized the president’s right to nominate well-qualified jurists to the Supreme Court.
It is time that the Democrat party recognize that right, too, and quit acting like the spoiled children they portray all the time.
The Bunny ;)
Confirmation Whoppers put up a post today regarding the foolishness of two, veteran Democrat leaders in the Senate. Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, both from Massachusetts, announced on Wednesday that they would openly oppose the confirmation of Judge Roberts as the new Chief Justice. Yawn. We knew this was coming. The extreme Left side of the Democrats are under incredible pressure from their special interest moguls to oppose Judge Roberts.
What is surprising is that it is the Boston Globe that highlights this move, and calls not only these two, but the rest of the Democrats, on the carpet for such foolish behavior.
HOW SHOULD Senate Democrats respond to the example Ted Kennedy and John Kerry set Wednesday in declaring their opposition to John Roberts in a one-two political punch?
By disregarding it.
Why? Well, first let's review the bidding. When Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement, Democrats warned President Bush not to nominate a conservative ideologue to replace her on the Supreme Court.
Bush responded by putting up a well-qualified jurist with widely recognized legal skills, someone the Senate unanimously confirmed to the US Court of Appeals in 2003. To rework Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s line about FDR, John Roberts has both a first-class intellect and a first-rate temper.
Judge Roberts is not just a well-qualified jurist, but he is one that used Sen. Biden as a target in a game of "pin the tail on the liberal." Sen. Biden suffered the worst verbal beating ever handed to him in his life from Judge Roberts. He wasted no time in tying Sen. Biden in common-sense logic that the hapless senator could not have followed with a road map. Why? Simply put, Judge Roberts is better—intellectually—than Sen. Biden. It was proven in the simple fact that Judge Roberts used no notes during his hearings.
Then, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, the president effectively lowered the ideological stakes by renominating Roberts for the chief justice's job, which means his confirmation would hardly change the court's makeup.
This was something the special interests seized on immediately. Because he was replacing the Chief, Judge Roberts supposedly became an extremist. I did not know that one became extreme simply by the post they were appointed to, but these people believed it. However, the party had to be dragged—kicking and screaming—to even think of embracing such an idea. It was evident from the word go that the Democrats did not really want to engage in such petty partisanship. Partially due to the focus on them during the committee hearings, but also because they knew they had nothing on Judge Roberts.
Roberts, as expected, played the Sphinx on many issues during his confirmation hearings. Still, he not only called Roe v. Wade ''settled as a precedent" and thus entitled to respect; he suggested that the subsequent decisions upholding Roe have precedental value as well. What's more, he said he sees an established right of privacy in the Constitution. That's further than some successful past nominees have gone.
This case has elicited such passion and scrutiny regarding Judge Roberts that it is positively amazing the vitriol thrown about by those elected on the port-side of the spectrum, and those special interests that seem to doing most of the caterwauling. Judge Roberts, like any good judge, recognizes the precedent set in Roe. Even Thomas and I recognize it. However, that does not mean we cannot work to undo it. Judge Roberts cannot.
That is something that the starboard-side pundits seem to forget. People like Ms. Coulter may want him to denounce Roe in the hearings, however doing so means that a plaintiff coming before the high court would assume that Judge Roberts’ mind is already made up, and call for him to recuse himself. Judges, when dealing with cases, prefer to be much like the Sphinx; he will rule accordingly, but your argument will persuade him to see things your way. He may not agree, and as an arbiter and interpreter of the law, he may be bound to rule against you.
Now, with all that as prologue, the party's liberal interest groups are urging Democrats to oppose Roberts in order to send a message to Bush not to make his next nominee to the court a conservative ideologue.
Ah, that political pretzel logic.
It is not just political pretzel logic. It is simpleton liberal logic. People like Sen. Reid and Sen. Specter have already stated they want O’Connor’s vacancy filled with an O’Connor clone. The answer to that is an emphatic "not no, but hell no." O’Connor was a disaster for the court. As Thomas appropriately pointed out earlier today, O’Connor was supposed to have been the first step in regaining control of an out-of-control judiciary. She was not the catalyst that she should have been. The possibility that scares the hell out of the port-siders is that the next nominee could be that catalyst.
It's true that confirmation hearings are a guessing game and senators are often left to weigh broad statements and small clues rather than specific answers. But it is unrealistic for Democrats to expect that a Republican president would nominate a potential justice who would satisfy all their concerns; if he did so, his own conservative base would revolt.
Kennedy, a liberal icon, clearly feels burned in past efforts to cooperate with Bush and is prone to fear the worst. In 1990, for example, he fretted that ''literally millions of our fellow citizens" would be denied their rights if mild-mannered David Souter was confirmed. (Granted, that foreboding sometimes serves him well; witness Iraq.)
I do not pardon the Globe for the swipe at our war efforts. This is a piece regarding two idiotic senators, not about the war. In the future, I suggest the Globe stick to what is relevant, and leave the war commentary for the subject-appropriate column.
However, they are correct in the fact that the hearings are a guessing game. You can only make a decision based on what you have in hand, and how the person answers. But I must agree with the Globe. There is no way a president is going to go against his base—to go against his word—in naming a nominee that is against the very principles the base clings to. There would be a revolt in the worst possible way.
In his Wednesday speech, Leahy said that though the popular move for a Democrat was to oppose Roberts, he thinks that Roberts is not a conservative ideologue but rather the sort of cautious, principled, precedent-respecting conservative who merits support.
The evidence suggests he's right. And with Roberts replacing the arguably more conservative Rehnquist, this is not the real donnybrook over changing the court; thus it simply doesn't make sense to wage an intense battle over a qualified nominee who is within acceptable ideological bounds.
Further, the idea that running up a strong tally against Roberts will encourage the president to send up a more moderate nominee for the next seat -- or help in the fight if Bush's next nominee is an archconservative -- is the most fanciful kind of thinking.
This logic makes no sense, and I cannot understand how the Democrats and their minions missed this. Yes, the president has nominated a decent amount of moderates to the federal bench; an effort, no doubt, to ensure the majority of his nominees would pass muster. However, he has placed many a conservative to the bench that are equal to people like Justices Scalia and Thomas. The president has, when it comes to a fight, dug in, and fought back. He encouraged Sen. Frist to invoke the Constitutional Option to break the illegal filibuster being run by the Democrats. This man is not afraid to fight when it is necessary.
If Democrats wage war over a qualified, measured conservative like him, it's just as likely to strengthen Republican resolve for a knock-down-drag-out for the kind of ultraconservative the right really want. Further, if Democrats raise a hyperbolic ruckus over Roberts, how can they expect the public to take them seriously when it really matters?
No, Democrats need to dismiss the clamor of the activists and recognize the obvious: Despite their fears, on this one, George W. Bush met them halfway.
Now they need to respond in kind.
I like that last little bit. Not only is it an admonishment of the party, but the criticism is warranted. The president has extended his hand numerous times to the Democrats only to have them snap at him later. They have shown how openly hostile they can be. None of the president’s nominees should be mistreated by the judiciary committee. Either they are qualified, or they are not; this is not some stupid game to be played. The GOP offered little resistance to Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer when they came up for their hearings. Did they ask tough questions? Of course they did. But they recognized the president’s right to nominate well-qualified jurists to the Supreme Court.
It is time that the Democrat party recognize that right, too, and quit acting like the spoiled children they portray all the time.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home