My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.


When Everyone Says "You're Drunk . . ."

You should sit down . . .

Senator Kennedy.

I rarely find much in the WaPo editorials that I agree with. But the way the ed. board excoriates Dems over John Roberts is a thing of beauty--and should be used by every GOP talking head for the next time around.

. . .Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold took guts.

The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice. Of the current members of the court, only Justice Clarence Thomas had substantial opposition. The other seven, including Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia, received among them only one no vote in committee; six of them, in other words, received unanimous committee endorsement. The seven received, again among all of them, only 21 negative votes on the floor. In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging -- something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject.

This begs the question: where was the WaPo during the filibuster-fest of the last three years?

Also, if this is how the mouthpieces are talking, I would expect--perhaps demand--that the President appoint a similarly superbly qualified, DEMONSTRABLY CONSERVATIVE, judge for the remaining opening on the Court. If the President can find another judge who is as overwhelmingly qualified (read: Michael Luttig) for the post, he should appoint that person forthwith. Let the American public see a Democratic party unwilling to recognize and reward outstanding achievement--and perhaps even try to stop the Senate from doing its duty through a filibuster. Let the American public see the out-of-control partisanship that has become the hallmark of the 21st century Democratic Party. Then let's see what happens--AGAIN--at the ballot box.

By the way, was there any more ridiculous moment during Judge Roberts' hearings last week than when Chuck Schumer accused him of being unable to understand "normal" people because his whole life has been a testiment to overachievement? Yep, there's the message we want our children to hear: don't work too hard today because someday you might be compassion-challenged against the slackers who you're making look bad. In fact, why don't you go sit in the corner and consider how bad you're making the other kids feel because you're doing what you're supposed to and making them look bad.

I'm willing to bet that that's not really the message Schumer was trying to convey; he's a little too smart to say something that stupid. But it is indicative of the whole underlying philosophy of the Left, so you have to wonder what got into him. Perhaps a scandal-induced Freudian slip?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?