Cry Havoc, And Let Slip the Dogs Of War...
This was always one of my favorite lines from Shakespeare, and it is so fitting today. The Left has emerged from it's drunken stupor over the Lewis Libby indictments, sharpened their knives, and are throwing as many of them at Judge Samuel Alito as they can. The problem is, like every poos marksman, they keep missing the target. Sen. Reid was the first to launch into a petulant diatribe when he whined yeasterday that Alito "wasn't on my list." Well, I am sorry Senator, but you are not the president, and it falls to him to choose qualified nominees. And there is spin within the media on that subject, too.
“With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate — something they denied Miers. ”
Ms. Miers was denied nothing. This is a flat-out lie by the media. Had she entered the hearings then she would have been entitled to her vote, after the formal hearings. She resigned amidst two subjects. The first, and what I feel was most prominent, was the questions from the base regarding her judicial philosophy. The second was over papers the White House stated they would not release for the senators conducting the hearings.
Sen. Schumer had to lower himself to bring Rosa Parks distinguished memory into the Alito fight when he questioned if Alito would "roll back" civil rights. Reid added stupidity to his orignal comments when he stated the following today:
For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.
Notice how Reid would prefer a historic move rather than choosing the right person for the job. I am positive that he was hoping for someone like Al Gonzales, which is a shame that Sen. Reid thinks so little of the Constitution. Sen. Schumer made a note that Judge Alito is "no O'Connor." Well, duh! Thank God the president did not fall back on those two precedents. That being a moderate in that seat, and a woman. O'Connor did get that seat from a man, so I do not want to hear NOW whining that he did not replace a woman with a woman. It is not about gender. It is not about ethnicity. A choice for the Supreme Court is all about being qualified to handle the job. Miers did not have these qualifications. Alito does, and fifteen years experience on the appellate court.
And in typical, disgusting fashion, CBS reared it's ugly head during the press conference this morning. Excerpt courtesy of Drudge.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9i.htm
John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”
Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”
Sloppy seconds, Mr. Roberts? You have to lower yourself to using English slang to describe what you and your network believe Judge Alito is? I would wager that Mr. Roberts only wishes he could be as successful as Judge Alito. And now, I point to the small story on Time.com. This is interesting because the Left is starting to grasp at this story, and is making a futile attempt to rewrite this man's history. The lie in question? That Alito may not be as much like Justice Scalia as we keep stating.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1124387,00.html
The conservative bent of judge Sam Alito, who President Bush nominated this morning to the U.S. Supreme Court, has prompted facile comparisons to Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most stridently conservative member of the court. But clerks and associates say the comparison, often made with the derisive nickname of "Scalito," does a disservice to the man. "I think he really looks at the facts of the case; he'd be very realistic," says former clerk Katherine K. Huang. "He doesn't have his head in the clouds. He's not going to be carried away by some legal doctrine or some arcane grammatical rule." Huang is refering to a little-known Social Security case in 2002 which may be instructive when it comes to comparing Alito to Scalia.
In that case, Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision.
Alito's passion didn't move the Supreme Court, however, which overturned his decision in 2003. In a pointed rejection of Alito's opinion—accusing him of "disregarding" basic grammatical rules for interpreting the law—the Supreme Court fell back on the narrow and technical reading and denied Thomas her Social Security benefits. The author of this stinging rebuke to Alito? Justice Antonin Scalia.
One case. ONE lousy case, and the Left is hoping to shift our glee to anger when they spin this. Had they wanted to do that, maybe they should have kept their criticism quiet, and led with this first. They did not, which reveals their hand, and their hand is full of straws. Judge Alito has a solid track record. He is a conservative judge on a decidedly liberal court, and has always made decisions based on how he views the Constitution. 99% of the time, this man votes in favor of the Constitution. He despises judicial activism.
"Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide [cases] aren't too descriptive.... Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."
The man expects judges to act appropriately while on the bench. That means no legislating from the bench. No making up laws, rules, or regulations as you go. No righting past wrongs because you feel it's right and just. No, no, no. You rule on the law, and unless there is a precedent in play, the Constitution is the highest arbiter of that law.
What scares the Hell out of the Left the most is they already know they are fighting a losing battle. I expect to see stories in the MSM similar to that of what was run shortly after Roberts was nominated. Granted, his son did not get up and dance, but the family is probably "way too conservative" for the WaPo. I will not be surprised to see a scathing column that his daughter's skirt was not short enough, that his wife's smile looks pasted, and he son looks like a teenage "Beaver Cleaver." The family looks fine. You can see a photo of them here:
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/081373.asp (And yes, I notice the place where Clinton's hand is. LOL.)
I am hoping that this nomination will have little character assassination in it, unlike the Roberts nomination. Remember when the MSM made a hullabaloo over his wife's work with a pro-life group, then questioned whether or not he was taking his "marching orders" from his wife on that issue? As if Roberts would. The man's track record was solid, as is Alito's. I do not want to see any sliming, but I know we will. However, his qualifications and his resume can annihilate any criticisms coming from the Left. As yet, there are no complaints coming from our side of the aisle, and there had better not be. Alito is a solid pick. (Yes, we all had our favorites, but there is plenty of time for them to be appointed. As Thomas pointed out on the Wide Awake Cafe this morning, Ginsburg and Stevens are not going to live forever.)
For those that are unsure of Alito, or are unconvinced this man is solid, then take a look at the link below. This was put up by Patrick Ruffini, who is a noted blogger, and an outstanding political strategist for the GOP. This post outlines the man's life and career. If this does not persuade people this man is right for the court, then you have a problem that we cannot help you with.
http://confirmationwhoppers.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-theyre-saying-about-judge-alito.html
In conclusion, Mark Levin--noted NRO columnist, talk show host, bestselling author, noted lawyer and Constitutional expert--posted this on Bench Memos this morning.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/081303.asp
Sam Alito has spent his entire professional career defending the Constitution. The president and Alito deserve our strong support. It is clear the media this morning are urging Democrats to fight this nomination, not that they need that much encouragement. We are already hearing the usual superficial analyses about how Judge Alito will vote on specific issues, and so forth. We must be prepared to explain and defend our judicial philosophy, and contrast it with the left's lawlessness.
I have known Judge Alito for two decades. We served together in the Meese Justice Department, where he worked in the Solicitor General's Office and was considered the sharpest of Charles Fried's assistants. He is every bit as smart and personable as Chief Justice John Roberts. He is an expert on constitutional law. And he obviously has a longer judicial record, so his judicial philosophy is well-known. Judge Alito is soft-spoken. He is his own man (efforts in the media this morning to paint him as "Scalia-lite" or "Scalito" are intended to fire-up the leftwing base). If he is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified.
Here, here, "Dr." Levin. You hit the nail on the head, and removed all ambiguity in the debate in one, fell swoop.
The Bunny ;)
This was always one of my favorite lines from Shakespeare, and it is so fitting today. The Left has emerged from it's drunken stupor over the Lewis Libby indictments, sharpened their knives, and are throwing as many of them at Judge Samuel Alito as they can. The problem is, like every poos marksman, they keep missing the target. Sen. Reid was the first to launch into a petulant diatribe when he whined yeasterday that Alito "wasn't on my list." Well, I am sorry Senator, but you are not the president, and it falls to him to choose qualified nominees. And there is spin within the media on that subject, too.
“With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate — something they denied Miers. ”
Ms. Miers was denied nothing. This is a flat-out lie by the media. Had she entered the hearings then she would have been entitled to her vote, after the formal hearings. She resigned amidst two subjects. The first, and what I feel was most prominent, was the questions from the base regarding her judicial philosophy. The second was over papers the White House stated they would not release for the senators conducting the hearings.
Sen. Schumer had to lower himself to bring Rosa Parks distinguished memory into the Alito fight when he questioned if Alito would "roll back" civil rights. Reid added stupidity to his orignal comments when he stated the following today:
For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.
Notice how Reid would prefer a historic move rather than choosing the right person for the job. I am positive that he was hoping for someone like Al Gonzales, which is a shame that Sen. Reid thinks so little of the Constitution. Sen. Schumer made a note that Judge Alito is "no O'Connor." Well, duh! Thank God the president did not fall back on those two precedents. That being a moderate in that seat, and a woman. O'Connor did get that seat from a man, so I do not want to hear NOW whining that he did not replace a woman with a woman. It is not about gender. It is not about ethnicity. A choice for the Supreme Court is all about being qualified to handle the job. Miers did not have these qualifications. Alito does, and fifteen years experience on the appellate court.
And in typical, disgusting fashion, CBS reared it's ugly head during the press conference this morning. Excerpt courtesy of Drudge.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9i.htm
John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”
Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”
Sloppy seconds, Mr. Roberts? You have to lower yourself to using English slang to describe what you and your network believe Judge Alito is? I would wager that Mr. Roberts only wishes he could be as successful as Judge Alito. And now, I point to the small story on Time.com. This is interesting because the Left is starting to grasp at this story, and is making a futile attempt to rewrite this man's history. The lie in question? That Alito may not be as much like Justice Scalia as we keep stating.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1124387,00.html
The conservative bent of judge Sam Alito, who President Bush nominated this morning to the U.S. Supreme Court, has prompted facile comparisons to Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most stridently conservative member of the court. But clerks and associates say the comparison, often made with the derisive nickname of "Scalito," does a disservice to the man. "I think he really looks at the facts of the case; he'd be very realistic," says former clerk Katherine K. Huang. "He doesn't have his head in the clouds. He's not going to be carried away by some legal doctrine or some arcane grammatical rule." Huang is refering to a little-known Social Security case in 2002 which may be instructive when it comes to comparing Alito to Scalia.
In that case, Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision.
Alito's passion didn't move the Supreme Court, however, which overturned his decision in 2003. In a pointed rejection of Alito's opinion—accusing him of "disregarding" basic grammatical rules for interpreting the law—the Supreme Court fell back on the narrow and technical reading and denied Thomas her Social Security benefits. The author of this stinging rebuke to Alito? Justice Antonin Scalia.
One case. ONE lousy case, and the Left is hoping to shift our glee to anger when they spin this. Had they wanted to do that, maybe they should have kept their criticism quiet, and led with this first. They did not, which reveals their hand, and their hand is full of straws. Judge Alito has a solid track record. He is a conservative judge on a decidedly liberal court, and has always made decisions based on how he views the Constitution. 99% of the time, this man votes in favor of the Constitution. He despises judicial activism.
"Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide [cases] aren't too descriptive.... Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."
The man expects judges to act appropriately while on the bench. That means no legislating from the bench. No making up laws, rules, or regulations as you go. No righting past wrongs because you feel it's right and just. No, no, no. You rule on the law, and unless there is a precedent in play, the Constitution is the highest arbiter of that law.
What scares the Hell out of the Left the most is they already know they are fighting a losing battle. I expect to see stories in the MSM similar to that of what was run shortly after Roberts was nominated. Granted, his son did not get up and dance, but the family is probably "way too conservative" for the WaPo. I will not be surprised to see a scathing column that his daughter's skirt was not short enough, that his wife's smile looks pasted, and he son looks like a teenage "Beaver Cleaver." The family looks fine. You can see a photo of them here:
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/081373.asp (And yes, I notice the place where Clinton's hand is. LOL.)
I am hoping that this nomination will have little character assassination in it, unlike the Roberts nomination. Remember when the MSM made a hullabaloo over his wife's work with a pro-life group, then questioned whether or not he was taking his "marching orders" from his wife on that issue? As if Roberts would. The man's track record was solid, as is Alito's. I do not want to see any sliming, but I know we will. However, his qualifications and his resume can annihilate any criticisms coming from the Left. As yet, there are no complaints coming from our side of the aisle, and there had better not be. Alito is a solid pick. (Yes, we all had our favorites, but there is plenty of time for them to be appointed. As Thomas pointed out on the Wide Awake Cafe this morning, Ginsburg and Stevens are not going to live forever.)
For those that are unsure of Alito, or are unconvinced this man is solid, then take a look at the link below. This was put up by Patrick Ruffini, who is a noted blogger, and an outstanding political strategist for the GOP. This post outlines the man's life and career. If this does not persuade people this man is right for the court, then you have a problem that we cannot help you with.
http://confirmationwhoppers.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-theyre-saying-about-judge-alito.html
In conclusion, Mark Levin--noted NRO columnist, talk show host, bestselling author, noted lawyer and Constitutional expert--posted this on Bench Memos this morning.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/081303.asp
Sam Alito has spent his entire professional career defending the Constitution. The president and Alito deserve our strong support. It is clear the media this morning are urging Democrats to fight this nomination, not that they need that much encouragement. We are already hearing the usual superficial analyses about how Judge Alito will vote on specific issues, and so forth. We must be prepared to explain and defend our judicial philosophy, and contrast it with the left's lawlessness.
I have known Judge Alito for two decades. We served together in the Meese Justice Department, where he worked in the Solicitor General's Office and was considered the sharpest of Charles Fried's assistants. He is every bit as smart and personable as Chief Justice John Roberts. He is an expert on constitutional law. And he obviously has a longer judicial record, so his judicial philosophy is well-known. Judge Alito is soft-spoken. He is his own man (efforts in the media this morning to paint him as "Scalia-lite" or "Scalito" are intended to fire-up the leftwing base). If he is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified.
Here, here, "Dr." Levin. You hit the nail on the head, and removed all ambiguity in the debate in one, fell swoop.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:45 AM
1 Comments:
Do you think its possible that they had their senate "secret" meeting because they wanted certain docs from Miers, which they cannot have now. Maybe this was an attempt to attain them? You guys are right on!
Post a Comment
<< Home