The Waiting Is The Hardest Part
I’m not much of a Tom Petty fan, but that pearl of wisdom from his was dead-on. Thus we begin the hardest part of the Roberts hearings. That, of course, is the waiting. I’d pay cash money to be a fly on the wall in that committee’s closed chambers. I’m sure that the Party of Clouseau will be whining about not having enough information, or that the White House hasn’t released the solicitor general papers, or that he hasn’t been totally forthcoming. Blah. Blah. Blah. What else would we expect?
But I ventured to the MSM today, not because I like them, but because I wanted to see what they were reporting on the Roberts hearings. I also wanted to see what the Party of Clouseau had been saying. It’s quite telling. It paints a picture that we, at the Asylum, have been saying since the beginning of this process.
The Party of Clouseau can’t stop him. They have nothing on him. And even their slander can’t stick. They’ve lost this fight. They lost it the moment the hearings started. The thugs on the committee dragged out their notes, tapped their pencils, and tried to paint a picture of a man that was stupid. He wanted to roll back everything their party had achieved over the last forty or so years. Abortion would be gone! Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters again! Women would be barefoot and pregnant in the home! We would live in a Catholic-driven theocracy!
Calm down, have some dip.
Roberts is anything but an ideologue. He will not institute a rule of judicial fiat. He isn’t going to roll back the clock on anything. As a matter of fact, he told the Massachusetts swim coach that he believed in affirmative action, but not in reverse discrimination quotas, which was the line of the Reagan White House. It is still a belief of Roberts today. Can anyone in the class tell me why? Anyone? Bueller?
Affirmative action, to a point, was necessary. Too many old racist hatreds existed at the time, and it’s understandable the steps that were taken. We were trying to integrate, into this nation, citizens that had been treated as second-class their entire lives. We wanted them on equal footing with the rest of the nation. However, something happened on the way to happiness, and some nuts went a little buck-wild. Quotas came into the mix, and unqualified people were being given jobs based solely on their race.
In a way, this same question came before the high court in 2003. The case was Grutter v. Bollinger—the infamous Michigan Law School case. In the case, the school admitted they used race as a factor in assessing applicants. A white applicant with high test scores was denied admission, and claimed that the school’s practice was a form of reverse discrimination. The high court ruled 5-4 that it wasn’t, and accepted the argument the school made that it was simply "achieving diversity among the student body." In a sense this is much like quota system as the school was willing to grant a twenty-point bonus on admissions tests to minority students based solely on their race.
But, for the Party of Clouseau, they’re done. They’re finished. Two of the staunchest Democrats on the committee—Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Chuck Schumer—seem to have had a change of heart. They’re not sure how they’ll vote. Below, they are cited in the LA Times.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York, among those considered most likely to vote against confirming Roberts, said they had not made up their minds, as Roberts completed his testimony after two and a half days before the panel declaring that ideologues do not belong on the Supreme Court.
Schumer, who has conducted some of the most contentious questioning, said that he had been wrestling with how to vote, as have others on the panel."I, for one, have woken up in the middle of the night thinking about it, being unsure how to vote," he said.Reflecting the importance of the vote, he went beyond the characterization of Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) that Roberts' reluctance to reveal his thoughts on key judicial issues the court is likely to face forced the senators to approach the vote as a gambler "rolling the dice."
"This isn't just rolling the dice. It's betting the whole house," Schumer said.Feinstein, similarly raising questions growing out of Roberts' lack of specificity in his testimony, asked: "What kind of justice would you be, John Roberts?"
Below is a citation from the New York Times, and it’s Sen. Feinstein at her befuddled best.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California told the nominee. Senator Feinstein voted for Judge Roberts two years ago, when he was confirmed to the appeals court. But given the nominee's youth (he is 50) and the likelihood that he could be chief justice for decades, "my vote means more now," the senator said.
And the next bit comes from the Boston Globe, and has both Sen. Schumer and Sen. Feinstein, but it includes the stake through the heart of the Clouseau party.
Committee Democrats have yet to commit to vote for Roberts, but they know they cannot stop him and President Bush will soon follow with yet another nomination to the court.
"It's going to take some time of real careful thinking about what to do" on the vote, Schumer said after the hearing.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," said Feinstein, who said his testimony showed "this very cautious, very precise man, young, obviously with staying power. ... I'm convinced you will be there, God willing, for 40 years. And that even concerns me more because it means that my vote means more."
Feinstein voted to confirm Roberts for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Schumer voted against him.
Roberts cleared one of his last hurdles when committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and top Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that an FBI background check had found nothing that would disqualify. The American Bar Association also confirmed its "well-qualified" rating.
Committee Democrats have yet to commit to vote for Roberts, but they know they cannot stop him and President Bush will soon follow with yet another nomination to the court.
That has got to really stick in their craw. They can’t stop him. They have no way of stopping him. I know the nutty moonbats on the port side of the blogosphere are pushing for the Party of Clouseau to fall back on their obstructionist tactics when Roberts passes out of committee to the floor of the Senate, however, the party knows that they’d be slicing their own political throats.
They can’t filibuster him because if they do, the Gang of 14 is going to step up, and agree that Roberts isn’t an extremist, nor is he an "extraordinary circumstance." I have heard Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham, Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Collins, and Sen. DeWine that have come out and said that based on what they’ve seen in the hearings, and what they’ve read, that Judge Roberts isn’t a worry, and there should be no filibuster that comes from him. Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman have also stated that if that occurs, they’ll side with Sen. Frist to pull the trigger on the Constitutional Option.
But Terry Neal, of the WaPo, has presented the flip side of the coin. The Party of Clouseau may not have the stomach for this fight anymore, but their crazy cronies are seething, and biting at the bit to be heard.
In Washington, a coalition of groups, will hold a rally at 1 p.m behind the Hart Office Building at 1 p.m. on Thursday.
The participating groups include: Feminist Majority, National Organization for Women, National Council of Jewish Women, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, MoveOn.org, Rainbow PUSH/Coalition, People for the American Way, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Abortion Federation, Human Rights Campaign, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Council of Women's Organizations, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Association of Social Workers, Parents, Friends, & Family of Lesbians and Gays, ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Legal Momentum.
A veritable who’s who of the extreme Left of the Party of Clouseau, and they’re ticked that the Democrats on the committee aren’t going after Roberts with guns blazing. They’re being too lackadaisical for these people’s tastes. They’re screaming to high heaven their slogans; four of which I posted above. The slogans aren’t working. The talking points are failing miserably. And Sen. Biden has become the butt of jokes everywhere with his unhinged, and at times, uncomprehending tirades.
And I’d bet the Democrats are pretty ticked at the president because he outfoxed them in nominating Roberts, and then really stuck it to them by elevating him upon the death of William Rehnquist. So, I hope whomever the president has in mind for the next seat is equally qualified, and equally untouchable. They’ll need to be because the Party of Clouseau might just throw a nationally-seen temper-tantrum when the next nominee steps up. Not because they’ll be extreme, but because they lost this fight, and they lost it fair and square.
Publius II
I’m not much of a Tom Petty fan, but that pearl of wisdom from his was dead-on. Thus we begin the hardest part of the Roberts hearings. That, of course, is the waiting. I’d pay cash money to be a fly on the wall in that committee’s closed chambers. I’m sure that the Party of Clouseau will be whining about not having enough information, or that the White House hasn’t released the solicitor general papers, or that he hasn’t been totally forthcoming. Blah. Blah. Blah. What else would we expect?
But I ventured to the MSM today, not because I like them, but because I wanted to see what they were reporting on the Roberts hearings. I also wanted to see what the Party of Clouseau had been saying. It’s quite telling. It paints a picture that we, at the Asylum, have been saying since the beginning of this process.
The Party of Clouseau can’t stop him. They have nothing on him. And even their slander can’t stick. They’ve lost this fight. They lost it the moment the hearings started. The thugs on the committee dragged out their notes, tapped their pencils, and tried to paint a picture of a man that was stupid. He wanted to roll back everything their party had achieved over the last forty or so years. Abortion would be gone! Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters again! Women would be barefoot and pregnant in the home! We would live in a Catholic-driven theocracy!
Calm down, have some dip.
Roberts is anything but an ideologue. He will not institute a rule of judicial fiat. He isn’t going to roll back the clock on anything. As a matter of fact, he told the Massachusetts swim coach that he believed in affirmative action, but not in reverse discrimination quotas, which was the line of the Reagan White House. It is still a belief of Roberts today. Can anyone in the class tell me why? Anyone? Bueller?
Affirmative action, to a point, was necessary. Too many old racist hatreds existed at the time, and it’s understandable the steps that were taken. We were trying to integrate, into this nation, citizens that had been treated as second-class their entire lives. We wanted them on equal footing with the rest of the nation. However, something happened on the way to happiness, and some nuts went a little buck-wild. Quotas came into the mix, and unqualified people were being given jobs based solely on their race.
In a way, this same question came before the high court in 2003. The case was Grutter v. Bollinger—the infamous Michigan Law School case. In the case, the school admitted they used race as a factor in assessing applicants. A white applicant with high test scores was denied admission, and claimed that the school’s practice was a form of reverse discrimination. The high court ruled 5-4 that it wasn’t, and accepted the argument the school made that it was simply "achieving diversity among the student body." In a sense this is much like quota system as the school was willing to grant a twenty-point bonus on admissions tests to minority students based solely on their race.
But, for the Party of Clouseau, they’re done. They’re finished. Two of the staunchest Democrats on the committee—Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Chuck Schumer—seem to have had a change of heart. They’re not sure how they’ll vote. Below, they are cited in the LA Times.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York, among those considered most likely to vote against confirming Roberts, said they had not made up their minds, as Roberts completed his testimony after two and a half days before the panel declaring that ideologues do not belong on the Supreme Court.
Schumer, who has conducted some of the most contentious questioning, said that he had been wrestling with how to vote, as have others on the panel."I, for one, have woken up in the middle of the night thinking about it, being unsure how to vote," he said.Reflecting the importance of the vote, he went beyond the characterization of Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) that Roberts' reluctance to reveal his thoughts on key judicial issues the court is likely to face forced the senators to approach the vote as a gambler "rolling the dice."
"This isn't just rolling the dice. It's betting the whole house," Schumer said.Feinstein, similarly raising questions growing out of Roberts' lack of specificity in his testimony, asked: "What kind of justice would you be, John Roberts?"
Below is a citation from the New York Times, and it’s Sen. Feinstein at her befuddled best.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California told the nominee. Senator Feinstein voted for Judge Roberts two years ago, when he was confirmed to the appeals court. But given the nominee's youth (he is 50) and the likelihood that he could be chief justice for decades, "my vote means more now," the senator said.
And the next bit comes from the Boston Globe, and has both Sen. Schumer and Sen. Feinstein, but it includes the stake through the heart of the Clouseau party.
Committee Democrats have yet to commit to vote for Roberts, but they know they cannot stop him and President Bush will soon follow with yet another nomination to the court.
"It's going to take some time of real careful thinking about what to do" on the vote, Schumer said after the hearing.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," said Feinstein, who said his testimony showed "this very cautious, very precise man, young, obviously with staying power. ... I'm convinced you will be there, God willing, for 40 years. And that even concerns me more because it means that my vote means more."
Feinstein voted to confirm Roberts for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Schumer voted against him.
Roberts cleared one of his last hurdles when committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and top Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that an FBI background check had found nothing that would disqualify. The American Bar Association also confirmed its "well-qualified" rating.
Committee Democrats have yet to commit to vote for Roberts, but they know they cannot stop him and President Bush will soon follow with yet another nomination to the court.
That has got to really stick in their craw. They can’t stop him. They have no way of stopping him. I know the nutty moonbats on the port side of the blogosphere are pushing for the Party of Clouseau to fall back on their obstructionist tactics when Roberts passes out of committee to the floor of the Senate, however, the party knows that they’d be slicing their own political throats.
They can’t filibuster him because if they do, the Gang of 14 is going to step up, and agree that Roberts isn’t an extremist, nor is he an "extraordinary circumstance." I have heard Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham, Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Collins, and Sen. DeWine that have come out and said that based on what they’ve seen in the hearings, and what they’ve read, that Judge Roberts isn’t a worry, and there should be no filibuster that comes from him. Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman have also stated that if that occurs, they’ll side with Sen. Frist to pull the trigger on the Constitutional Option.
But Terry Neal, of the WaPo, has presented the flip side of the coin. The Party of Clouseau may not have the stomach for this fight anymore, but their crazy cronies are seething, and biting at the bit to be heard.
In Washington, a coalition of groups, will hold a rally at 1 p.m behind the Hart Office Building at 1 p.m. on Thursday.
The participating groups include: Feminist Majority, National Organization for Women, National Council of Jewish Women, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, MoveOn.org, Rainbow PUSH/Coalition, People for the American Way, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Abortion Federation, Human Rights Campaign, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Council of Women's Organizations, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Association of Social Workers, Parents, Friends, & Family of Lesbians and Gays, ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Legal Momentum.
A veritable who’s who of the extreme Left of the Party of Clouseau, and they’re ticked that the Democrats on the committee aren’t going after Roberts with guns blazing. They’re being too lackadaisical for these people’s tastes. They’re screaming to high heaven their slogans; four of which I posted above. The slogans aren’t working. The talking points are failing miserably. And Sen. Biden has become the butt of jokes everywhere with his unhinged, and at times, uncomprehending tirades.
And I’d bet the Democrats are pretty ticked at the president because he outfoxed them in nominating Roberts, and then really stuck it to them by elevating him upon the death of William Rehnquist. So, I hope whomever the president has in mind for the next seat is equally qualified, and equally untouchable. They’ll need to be because the Party of Clouseau might just throw a nationally-seen temper-tantrum when the next nominee steps up. Not because they’ll be extreme, but because they lost this fight, and they lost it fair and square.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home